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).

As long as I am informed going in, then I am fine with any type. Though I will push back on certain things even in railroad campaigns like unagreed upon character deaths to drive plot.

I like a mix of both.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

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.

 No, it's not

A railroad campaign is a campaign that features, or heavily relies on, railroading

Railroading is the act of the DM presenting a selection of options (or a completely open world) to the players, but then punishing them for not taking the one the DM wants. For example

The DM says to the players "You start in a tavern, what do you do?" The players discuss a little bit, and then decide they're going to leave the tavern to explore. The DM responds "You can't do that, you haven't paid your bill. You need to speak to the barkeep". The players are confused because they didn't know they'd even ordered anything, or if they had, they didn't pay immediately. They go to the bar and try to ask about how much they owe, but the barkeep refuses to actually acknowledge that, seeming to only want to talk about some bandits out of town. It gets to the point that the barkeep says "if you deal with those bandits, I'll called your tab settled!" The players are once again confused because they have gold and the tab can't be that much, but the DM won't tell them how much they owe. They decide to dump 20 gold on the bar, which reasonable should be more than enough, and just leave. The barkeep suddenly attacks them, somehow a match for the whole party, screaming that if they don't settle the tab by investigating the bandits, he'll kill them and it'll be legal because they stole. The party fights and subdues the barkeep even though he suddenly is able to caster counterspell and action surge? They go to leave and the entire town guard shows up to stop them. The head of the guard says they're going to be executed for theft and assault (and the entire guard carry +3 anti-magic swords and wear +3 armor and +3 shields) unless the party—you guessed it—investigate the bandits. The players finally acquiesce and ask where these bandits are, to which they're told the bandits camp in a valley a few miles away by the road. The party heads to the edge of town, but decide rather than to take the road into the valley,  they'll hike through the forest to get the high ground and scout out the bandits. The DM suddenly asks for survival checks with a DC of 30 to navigate the forest, and most of the party unsurprisingly fails, resulting in them all getting a level of exhaustion. They want to sleep the level off, but the town guard says they can't do that, no reason given. So they try a different route around the valley and the DM says that a storm is coming in and it's impossible to navigate. Now the only way is through the valley path. The players decide to move stealthily and send the ranger ahead to scout. They are immediately attacked in an ambush and captured, no saves or anything....

This is what railroading can look like—the DM providing the appearance of open choices but blocking the players from making any choice other than the "approved" path which is

1. Speak to the barkeep
2. Accept the quest to deal with the bandits
3. Get ambushed and captured

Now, here's what that same scenario would look like as a linear campaign

The DM begins setting the scene "You all managed to accumulate some unpleasant debt in various ways and that has landed you in hot water. Falling foul of the law, you were each offered two choices—the noose or service to the community, and you wisely chose the latter. Venturing into the valley, you were ambushed by bandits who were clearly better equipped than you were led to believe. That's where we open, the four of you tied up against some crates in a bandit camp while their leader rifles through your gear. However, your bonds aren't as tight as they should be, the light is low, and the bandits attention is divided."

Railroading is to a linear campaign what a DMPC is to an NPC, or what cheating is to fudging. It's a tool used poorly and to the detriment of the campaign. It's not "a value-laden term for linear storytelling in games"

As Davyd demonstrates above, railroading is some form of removing all player agency. The two types I've personally seen are the 'you can only follow the story path and in a particular order without deviation' as shown above and the other is 'you must do this thing and if you don't the goalposts will keep moving until you do'. The first is a form of forcing the story along a specific path no matter what. The second is usually the result of the DM thinking, "I've created this awesome thing that I'm unwilling to give up or skip over." I'm sure there are other types, but those are the two I've seen in actual play.

Quote from Davyd >>

 No, it's not

A railroad campaign is a campaign that features, or heavily relies on, railroading

Railroading is the act of the DM presenting a selection of options (or a completely open world) to the players, but then punishing them for not taking the one the DM wants. 

The person you're "correcting" had it right. A railroad campaign is a campaign that's on tracks that you can't leave. You're describing specific ways the DM can put the campaign on tracks, but the only requirement for a railroad is the PCs lacking a meaningful way of influencing the course of the campaign.

Quote from BigHeartedGuy >>

As Davyd demonstrates above, railroading is some form of removing all player agency. The two types I've personally seen are the 'you can only follow the story path and in a particular order without deviation' as shown above and the other is 'you must do this thing and if you don't the goalposts will keep moving until you do'. The first is a form of forcing the story along a specific path no matter what. The second is usually the result of the DM thinking, "I've created this awesome thing that I'm unwilling to give up or skip over." I'm sure there are other types, but those are the two I've seen in actual play.

 Important caveat, the former only becomes railroading if the DM doesn't inform the players that's how the campaign will be run and they thus don't consent to that. If that's not the case, then it's just a linear campaign. For example, if I say to my players "We're going to play Tomb of Annihilation so the expectation is y'all follow the hooks and narrative accordingly and if that doesn't appeal you can check out a different game", that's not railroading

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from BigHeartedGuy >>

As Davyd demonstrates above, railroading is some form of removing all player agency. The two types I've personally seen are the 'you can only follow the story path and in a particular order without deviation' as shown above and the other is 'you must do this thing and if you don't the goalposts will keep moving until you do'. The first is a form of forcing the story along a specific path no matter what. The second is usually the result of the DM thinking, "I've created this awesome thing that I'm unwilling to give up or skip over." I'm sure there are other types, but those are the two I've seen in actual play.

 Important caveat, the former only becomes railroading if the DM doesn't inform the players that's how the campaign will be run and they thus don't consent to that. If that's not the case, then it's just a linear campaign. For example, if I say to my players "We're going to play Tomb of Annihilation so the expectation is y'all follow the hooks and narrative accordingly and if that doesn't appeal you can check out a different game", that's not railroading

Even in that scenario the players still have choices: trying to sneak past monsters, retreating from combat, trying to bargain with a sentient creature or monster, etc. If they can't deviate from: you can't sneak around the bridge, the troll won't speak to you, you can't outrun the troll because of X... you must fight the troll. If it happens once or twice it's probably not an issue, but if it happens with any regularity it becomes a railroading situation regardless of what the DM has or hasn't told them.

DMing that one player or party sees as linear is easily going to be called railroading by another. Even the most sandboxy DM will get accused of railroading if they say no to a player who wants to do something wildly out of bounds.

Also, Davyd, I feel obligated to point out that your explanation of railroading is filled with value-based judgements on why you find it problematic. "It's not a value-laden term, and here's all the bad things associated with that term" lacks consistency as an argument.

There are a handful of words that get reduced to purely negative connotations and become thought-terminating cliches, and railroading is very close to that point if it isn't there already. Depending on the story you're telling, some railroading is good! Putting a brief horror one-shot game on rails works really well because it ratchets up the stress and pressure. Spooky village - pretty good setup for a horror game. Spooky village where the mists full of ravenous monsters are closing in and the party is being hounded by an unceasing determinator akin to the Nemesis from Resident Evil 3? Now we're cooking. As I said before, when done well with the right genre and story, the party not only won't mind but they won't even notice they're on rails.

An obstinate DM is a problem, sure, but when it gets to the hyperbolic example you provided, the problem is actually a lot bigger than just the story being on rails.

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

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.

 No, it's not

A railroad campaign is a campaign that features, or heavily relies on, railroading

Railroading is the act of the DM presenting a selection of options (or a completely open world) to the players, but then punishing them for not taking the one the DM wants. For example

The DM says to the players "You start in a tavern, what do you do?" The players discuss a little bit, and then decide they're going to leave the tavern to explore. The DM responds "You can't do that, you haven't paid your bill. You need to speak to the barkeep". The players are confused because they didn't know they'd even ordered anything, or if they had, they didn't pay immediately. They go to the bar and try to ask about how much they owe, but the barkeep refuses to actually acknowledge that, seeming to only want to talk about some bandits out of town. It gets to the point that the barkeep says "if you deal with those bandits, I'll called your tab settled!" The players are once again confused because they have gold and the tab can't be that much, but the DM won't tell them how much they owe. They decide to dump 20 gold on the bar, which reasonable should be more than enough, and just leave. The barkeep suddenly attacks them, somehow a match for the whole party, screaming that if they don't settle the tab by investigating the bandits, he'll kill them and it'll be legal because they stole. The party fights and subdues the barkeep even though he suddenly is able to caster counterspell and action surge? They go to leave and the entire town guard shows up to stop them. The head of the guard says they're going to be executed for theft and assault (and the entire guard carry +3 anti-magic swords and wear +3 armor and +3 shields) unless the party—you guessed it—investigate the bandits. The players finally acquiesce and ask where these bandits are, to which they're told the bandits camp in a valley a few miles away by the road. The party heads to the edge of town, but decide rather than to take the road into the valley,  they'll hike through the forest to get the high ground and scout out the bandits. The DM suddenly asks for survival checks with a DC of 30 to navigate the forest, and most of the party unsurprisingly fails, resulting in them all getting a level of exhaustion. They want to sleep the level off, but the town guard says they can't do that, no reason given. So they try a different route around the valley and the DM says that a storm is coming in and it's impossible to navigate. Now the only way is through the valley path. The players decide to move stealthily and send the ranger ahead to scout. They are immediately attacked in an ambush and captured, no saves or anything....

 

This is what railroading can look like—the DM providing the appearance of open choices but blocking the players from making any choice other than the "approved" path which is

1. Speak to the barkeep
2. Accept the quest to deal with the bandits
3. Get ambushed and captured

Now, here's what that same scenario would look like as a linear campaign

The DM begins setting the scene "You all managed to accumulate some unpleasant debt in various ways and that has landed you in hot water. Falling foul of the law, you were each offered two choices—the noose or service to the community, and you wisely chose the latter. Venturing into the valley, you were ambushed by bandits who were clearly better equipped than you were led to believe. That's where we open, the four of you tied up against some crates in a bandit camp while their leader rifles through your gear. However, your bonds aren't as tight as they should be, the light is low, and the bandits attention is divided."

 

Railroading is to a linear campaign what a DMPC is to an NPC, or what cheating is to fudging. It's a tool used poorly and to the detriment of the campaign. It's not "a value-laden term for linear storytelling in games"

That makes more sense, because I have never heard the word "railroading" to mean anything else. 

Some players think they are 100% free in a roleplaying game, but I don't think that's actually true. Not even in the most sandboxy campaign ever created. There will always be limits to what players can do. 

Excluding extreme cases like those mentioned above, I think most players who accuse a DM of railroading the adventure are just toxic, since the decisions they wanna make don't benefit the party. I've seen players trying to make decisions aimed at disturbing the DM, just because they think it'd be funny to destroy the plot he/she has created. 

 Yes, you are free to go straight away to Castle Ravenloft to fight Strahd as soon as you arrive to Barovia, but that will end up in a TPK and I don't think that would be fun for the rest of the party in any way.