The linear adventure vs sandbox debate

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >> 

I had already clarified what I intended in my first post and he had already read my clarification when he answered, that's why I think his post was pointless.

I found your edited Disclaimer to be helpful - which in turn made his post prompting it helpful, at least for me. 

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Do you believe players should know something about the lore of the setting to be able to be part of a sandbox adventure?

I tend to think a sandbox is kind of difficult if your players don't know anything about the world they are in.

It's definitely beneficial to provide at least basic background information on the setting before the campaign starts - see "Session Zero" in the DMG for some guidance on that, particularly the "Setting the Stage" subsection. But remember that a lot of the details can be inserted during the game too - your players may not know all of the key common knowledge historical events of the setting, but their characters should, so feel free to provide those snippets as they become relevant. And this is especially true for those characters that either have specialized knowledge of those events (e.g. via History proficiency) or who have a relation to those events; e.g. familial, or even directly (for long-lived species).

Yeah, most of my campaigns/one shots happen in the Forgotten Realms, so I tend to tell the players tiny bits of Faerûn's lore, and then I develop the lore of the campaign/one shot throughout the sessions. 

It is also true that, as another user has pointed out, players tend to forget the lore, so I avoid giving them a history lesson of Faerûn in session 0. Hahahaha

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

I prefer a mix of both, where there is an overall arching narrative or Big Plot, but then there are plenty of smaller side plots along the way. I especially like when those side plots are specific to a party member's "tragic backstory". 

My example for this would be Critical Role Campaign 1. There were 3 basic Big Plot arcs they went through (Whitestone, Chroma Conclave, Whispered One). Within those Big Plot arcs were personal stories for each of the party members. Some of them tied fairly directly to the Big Plot (Grog's herd and Pike's family with the Chroma Conclave, Percy with Whitestone), however others were far more separate (Keyleth and the Aramenté, Vex and Vax and the city of Syngorn). 

I try to do a similar things in my campaign. There's almost always a larger, overarching plot with varying degrees of "this needs to be addressed now/soon", and then PC focused storylines, mixed in with some of your classic totally-optional side quests. 

 This is the kind of game I aim for, both because I find it easiest to create a narrative if I can just take knives from the players back story but also because I’m one of the many who watched Critical Role before ever playing so that just feels right to me. It does require a bigger buy in from players though, if they don’t write a backstory full of hooks then I’m stuck for foundations to build on but depending on the setting (I’m currently in love with Eberron) I can also flesh out back stories from just a sentence or two so long as the player doesn’t mind 

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >> 

Do you believe players should know something about the lore of the setting to be able to be part of a sandbox adventure?

I tend to think a sandbox is kind of difficult to perform if your players don't know anything about the world they are in.

 I don't run a sandbox game, but I think lore is a bit less important for them to know, unless it becomes important to the story. This is, of course, player-dependent. Some players absolutely will want to soak up all the lore they can about a setting, while others are more of a "I'll learn what I need to when I need to" type. 

I give my players a "player packet" before session zero to review so they can start forming ideas on who they want their character to be. It's very short, but it includes a bit of background about the location where the adventure is starting, prominent deities, etc. It also includes an overview of safety tools and a survey regarding off-limit and "careful" topics, as well as what they want to see most in the game (combat, exploration, puzzles, etc).

In general, though, the lore pops up when it is needed. If there's absolutely no reason for the players to know that there is a draconic cult that operates in the area, then there might be some vague mentions of it, but nothing more. Players will always remember lore better, I find, when they learn it in the process of playing and how the lore intersects with their story and character. 

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

Players will always remember lore better, I find, when they learn it in the process of playing and how the lore intersects with their story and character. 

I absolutely agree with you.

Quote from Davyd >>

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that it's unintentional, but your choice of language somewhat poisons the well when it comes to the survey. The opposite of a sandbox campaign isn't a "railroad", it's a linear campaign. What you're effectively asking is "Would you rather have your steak perfectly cooked all the way through or basically raw and bloody?" when asking "medium vs well done".

Why have this:

Disclaimer: With railroading I mean a more linear campaign.

And not just say linear in the survey?

 

 

what exactly is a railroad campaign?

Quote from SaintLothar >>

Quote from Davyd >>

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that it's unintentional, but your choice of language somewhat poisons the well when it comes to the survey. The opposite of a sandbox campaign isn't a "railroad", it's a linear campaign. What you're effectively asking is "Would you rather have your steak perfectly cooked all the way through or basically raw and bloody?" when asking "medium vs well done".

Why have this:

Disclaimer: With railroading I mean a more linear campaign.

And not just say linear in the survey?

 

 

what exactly is a railroad campaign?

It's a value-laden term for linear storytelling in games. It refers to a story that follows a set path and doesn't veer off, like a train on the tracks.

Linear and open-world both have their merits. Genre and setting have a lot to do with what works with regards to leaning one way or the other. I find linear works really well with horror and with fast-pace action stories. If you're doing those well the players won't even notice let alone mind the story being on rails. Grand, sweeping, epic campaigns tend to work better as open world because those stories tend to flourish in a world that feels full and alive and gives players plenty to explore. Keep in mind it's genuinely hard to go all the way linear or all the way open world, and mixing in the other end when it's leaning heavily one way can really improve the play experience. 

Quote from SaintLothar >>

what exactly is a railroad campaign?

Generally speaking railroading means that the game is on tracks that you cannot leave, whereas a linear campaign might just have an obvious path but you do have some meaningful choices to make and the ability to go on side treks if you want to. 

That said, it also gets invoked by certain players when they've been told either for the first or umpteenth time that no, they can't work a plot to assassinate/overthrow the king/archmage/shopkeep into the adventure.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

That said, it also gets invoked by certain players when they've been told either for the first or umpteenth time that no, they can't work a plot to assassinate/overthrow the king/archmage/shopkeep into the adventure.

 Sure, plenty of people call any restrictions on what the characters can do railroading, but I was going with the pure definition (which very few games actually match; almost all campaigns have some player choice, it's just a question of to what degree the players can influence the direction of the plot).