Over the last few weeks there have been a lot of interesting discussions in varied threads about DM style and how folks run games. I am --NOT-- trying to advocate that one method is "better" than another as I am firmly of the opinion that you should do what works best for your players and your game -- have fun! I would like this thread to be a place where we can consolidate some ideas and more succinctly discuss pros and cons and where I am wrong :)
It seems like there are two major styles:
1) plot based (aka rails) - The DM has created a story and the players follow along. They participate in epic adventures and encounters and may have the illusion of choice, but are really following the plot the DM laid out. A lot of the old AD&D modules were like this, they assumed the players would just continue through after starting at the beginning. Ie: there's a great big scary cave ahead, "ok let's go in it".
2) sandbox (open world) -- The DM creates a region/world, and applies some pressure (ie dragons attacking villages, giants storming the coastline, one city attacking another), but then the players choose how they want to interact with the world and what aspects they are interested in. They can discard the "main quest" for a time, but will feel it's pressure due to other interactions with the world. Ie: there's a great big scary cave ahead, "eh we don't really need to be here, let's do something else." (later a small group of undead filter from the cave to attack a nearby town).
When new DMs ask "how do I create adventures", the responses often fall into one of the two above camps. I think a lot of us start in group 1, where we want a lot of control over how things are going and what the players encounter. We setup encounter after encounter, scene after scene, and can create a great story, but the players are limited in the choices they make that influence the game world. I think some then move towards camp 2, where we then just create some NPCs and ideas, apply pressure and let things develop in a more free-form way. This requires more improvisation, but the players are always doing what they choose to do and have real choices (perhaps at times too many and the players may feel like they have lost "direction").
It's not a surprise that this same mechanism exists among authors where some are "character based" (ie create characters and see what happens) and others are "plot based" (ie 30% into the story the heroes need a reversal or introduce the main villain).
Obviously there is a bit of a hybrid approach as well, since when a group gets into a "dungeon" it then probably follows a rails-like encounter progression.
What do ya'll think? is that a reasonable (if grossly abbreviated) summary? Are there other choices?
Thanks in advance for the discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
However - I would argue that "plot based" doesn't actually exist, except in the most draconian of games, or in an actual physical dungeon. DMs think it exists. Some DMs - especially newer ones - want it to exist. We want it to exist because under that approach we know how things will unfold, we can prepare for everything ahead of time. We're "in control" and we don't have to deal with the panic of "oh god, they're doing something I didn't expect, and for which I didn't prepare material!". And ... then the Player kill their contact NPC; or burn down the Tavern; or insult the King; or ... Players go off the rails. How many threads have you seen, in how many forums, complaining about just that? Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox.
I would also caution that there are some real dangers of the "sandbox" plot getting lost and aimless, if the Players are the only drivers of events in the world. I think you captured that nicely in the aside "later a small group of undead filter from the cave to attack a nearby town". Events need to be driven by the DM to keep the tension and focus up. The "bad guys" need to keep the pressure on, to keep the Players focused on the adventure conflict. Under "sandbox", the bad guys don't have set actions - they're fluid and adaptive to the changing circumstances that the Players are creating, but they are still active in the world. They have wants, they have goals - and if the Party isn't going to challenge them, they'll steamroll their way towards them.
And I think it's totally legitimate and useful to set up pre-scripted events that will happen at a certain time, or if certain "trigger conditions" are met. 13 days in, a storm will hit the coastline, and flood the village of Verdain. If the Party wipes out The Cult of the Dragon in Lucana, then the med-tier "bad guy leader" will intervene and attempt to do such-and-such which is powerful enough it's likely to deal the Party a set-back. I think you make reference to this kind of plot mechanism as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I feel like it boils down to who has influence over any particular narrative circumstance and whether the participants are satisfied with their relative agency in the moment.
If the players aren't satisfied, then there's a good chance they feel like they're being railroadeded; if they do feel satisfied--like they have made meaningful choices--then they probably feel like they're masters of their own destiny in the sandbox.
As a DM, whether I'm deliberately railroading or offering up a legitimate character choice, I always strive to maintain the illusion of agency. So long as my players feel like the are choosing a path and--more importantly--are enjoying themselves in the game, then I've achieved my mission.
I guess it's kind of like both sandboxing and railroading are tools in the DM toolbox, and it's up to us to use them wisely.
Rail: pro, You(DM) can be better prepared for each game. Con, If you don't sell the illusion of chaice well enough then players will feel like what they do dosen't matter.
Sandbox: Pro, Every choice the players make affects the world. They truly make the game their own Con, With out any real direction the players might get lost and not know what to do next. (Some people can't handle having the world at their feet)
Personally I prefer to do sandbox. As a DM it keeps you on your toes. As a player you can do whatever you want and you wont break the game.
But isn’t there a happy medium, so-to-speak? The party has one overarching task, say, thwart the Cult of the Dragon from amassing a horde of treasure for Tiamat. But how they go about that can be by choice. The DM should have some important plot-driving encounters and some random ones for the party. There could be opportunities for side quests along the way, which could provide for a sand-box feel. Guess maybe it depends on if the party knows that they’re playing a module, versus jumping into a sand-box environment.
But isn’t there a happy medium, so-to-speak? The party has one overarching task, say, thwart the Cult of the Dragon from amassing a horde of treasure for Tiamat. But how they go about that can be by choice. The DM should have some important plot-driving encounters and some random ones for the party. There could be opportunities for side quests along the way, which could provide for a sand-box feel. Guess maybe it depends on if the party knows that they’re playing a module, versus jumping into a sand-box environment.
I think that's what I'm trying to accomplish with my "sandbox, but with DM pressure".
Initially, the Party is given a conflict.
Somewhere, someone wants something, and they have a plan to get it. Either their goal, or the means that they are employing to reach it, causes the Party to want to oppose their actions for some reason. Or the Party is being given a big old incentive from outside to stop the Bad Guys ( even if they wouldn't normally care much ). Now the Party, and the "bad guys" are in conflict.
So, let's create a really detailed profile for the Bad Guys. We need to know: what is their motivation, what is the goal that comes about because of that motivation, what resources do they have, what knowledge/beliefs do they have ( even if some of it is wrong ). We then can sketch out some tactics that the Bad Guys will use, and the conditions under which they'll employ them. Some of those tactics are techniques they'll employ everyday. Some tactics they'll employ when the opposition gets tough. Some tactics are used only in an Emergency ( and let's figure out what suitable emergencies are to cause them to use those tactics ). Some are "forbidden tactics" - things that they won't do; ever.
So we know what the conflict is about, we who the Bad Guys are, and we can figure out pretty much how they'll behave. We can also see possible ways the story could unfold. We don't know it will, because ... Players. But if we look at the possible ways the story might unfold, we can see re-occurring points of conflict in each possible story line, we can see locations that are likely to be relevant to the story. We can see NPCs that are likely to be impacted by the story unfolding, or might get dragged into it. These NPCs, Encounters, and Locations which are likely to be used, we can actually sketch these out ahead of time - because prepared material is likely to be more polished and detailed than improvised.
We can also figure out some Reactions ahead of time, based on likely events in the story: If the Party convinces the King to back the expedition to the Northern Forest, then the thieves guild will hire the Black Rangers to try and ambush them en route. We don't know the Party will do this, or even try, but we know how the thieves guild will respond if that happens.
We can add "trigger events" as well - things that people outside the conflict will do, if certain conditions are met: If the Party burns down the Tavern to destroy the Alchemist's workshop, then the local guard will issue a warrant for their arrest.
We can add timed events - we know that in 4 days a forest fire will start in The Eastern Marches, and on day 8 it will threaten the town.
Then, we play out the plot in "real time". The Players do something; the situation changes; the bad guys evaluate the new situation, and based on what they know/think, and the types of people they are, they plan their next move; the DM has to decide if they fail, succeed, or run into conflict with the Players over their move. If they run into the Players, it's an Encounter. The Bad Guys and the Players are now in a "mini-conflict". That could be a battle. That could be both of them trying to convince a neutral 3rd party to enter the conflict on their side. That could be a race across the desert to the Lost Temple of Ur to retrieve the idol of Mk'gFn That could be anything where both sides are trying to do/get something, and only one side can succeed. If we're lucky and/or good, we guessed right, and this Encounter is one we predicted, and prepared ahead of time. Hooray! But if not, we can just improvise and wing it. One side or the other will succeed. Then the bad guys go back to plan their next move. Rinse, repeat, and continue until one side or the other has won the main conflict, or everyone has quit the conflict, or the situation has changed so the initial conflict has ceased to be relevant ( and we probably have a new and different conflict in its place ).
This allows us to prepare some material ahead of time, and we might even get to use it - so we have the benefits of both an adaptive plot structure, and ( if we're lucky ) the polish of some prepared material.
We can keep the Party from getting lost and de-focused, by having the Bad Guys keep the pressure on. If we've designed the conflict right, then the Party is either reallynot going to like the results of the Bad Guy's plan - or they are being well incentivized to stop the bad guys by some other means ( hired, blackmailed, etc. ). So if the Party decides to sit around and do nothing, the Bad Guys will keep working toward their goal, and "bad things(tm)" will happen, or the "good things(tm)" the Party really wants won't happen.
Everything is fluid - there is no pre-set plot - but we have means to keep the Party focused on the adventure and motivated to keep working at it, we have a good solid idea on how to run all the power blocs involved in the conflict, and we have the possibility of using some prepared and polished up material that we've prepared ahead of time.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Even a sandbox needs some kind of goal. You just don't focre it on them. If hey want to bypass the city being raided let them. They can hear about the countless lost lives they could have saved a few days later. My current campaign has an overall villain causing havoc. If they want to spend a month ignoring him then they will just have to deal with the world going to shit around them. A game on rails would find a way to force them to go deal with my encounter. A sandbox dosen't care.
I feel that I mix it up. I have been a DM for a long time and the players will always go of the rails sooner or later and it often tends to be sooner. I always like to have a main goal in mind. I just let the players make their way and I weave everything together as they progress. I still have to make sure I come up with some content for each session and is usually ends up being enough content for 2 or ever more sessions. I save all of this information even if the players never use it or act it out or whatever. I can use this information later in the game in one way or another. Often times I think about what they did or did not do during a game session and work out the next session or future ideas that can be added later. There can be repercussions/events created from some of the not used content for example. You really need to railroad the players to your end goal but you can make it feel as if they have near total freedom. There are times where you can force a games direction but make it fun as well. Just be creative. Another thing I like to do is listen to the players as they act out within your game world. Get an understanding of what they think is happening as a group. This can spark some really good ideas for a DM. Even your campaign/adventure ending can change based on what they do or whom they help or not help. Just an example.
If they want to spend a month ignoring him then they will just have to deal with the world going to shit around them.
Yup. In a sandbox game, DMs definitely need to apply some "pressure" with some kind of over-arching menace. The players are then free to disregard it or determine their own path to addressing the issue -- whatever it is though does impact the game world. I also like putting a lot of lines in the water though, to see which ones the players enjoy nibbling on more and then try to drop some information in those lines so that the players have some hidden knowledge/deeper knowledge as the origin or motivations of what is causing the "pressure".
My dungeons tend to be a lot more railsy, although in most cases the party has ways to escape or leave before "completing" the dungeon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
You really need to railroad the players to your end goal but you can make it feel as if they have near total freedom. There are times where you can force a games direction but make it fun as well. Just be creative.
I couldn't disagree more - but that's OK - my game isn't your game and vice versa, so me saying I disagree means I wouldn't ever do that, but I'm nottrying to say "Your fun is wrong!" ( for you & your table ).
Since I'm a simulationist, I feel that a creative DM doesn't need to railroad the Players, or give them the Illusion of free will. If you're willing to totally give up control of the Story, and admit that its ultimate end, or even it's ultimate story focus ( I thought this campaign was going to be about the rise of Ancient Dragons in the campaign world, but somehow the Party is now involved with the life-and-death struggle of the Lizard Peoples' religious war on an entirely different continent, while the Civilization that they came from is burning under the Great Flight of Dragons ... ), is something you allow the Players to create, so long as the initial events that you set in motion unfold in a logical and plausible manner, in the context of the campaign world you built.
That doesn't mean I won't kick in events, developments, and NPCs to try and keep the initial conflict and story themes alive - but ultimately, the Players are free to ignore it all and go concentrate of something they want to do instead, so long as they're willing to accept the consequences of their (in)actions ( that burning Civilization ).
A well built initial conflict, tuned to the Players' and their Characters' likes and interests runs a low chance of being abandoned, but it's never impossible.
I view our Campaign as the story of the Players' Characters, set in the world and situations that I set up - not the story of my Situations, and how they're solved by the Characters.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You really need to railroad the players to your end goal but you can make it feel as if they have near total freedom. There are times where you can force a games direction but make it fun as well. Just be creative.
I couldn't disagree more - but that's OK - my game isn't your game and vice versa, so me saying I disagree means I wouldn't ever do that, but I'm nottrying to say "Your fun is wrong!" ( for you & your table ).
Since I'm a simulationist, I feel that a creative DM doesn't need to railroad the Players, or give them the Illusion of free will. If you're willing to totally give up control of the Story, and admit that its ultimate end, or even it's ultimate story focus ( I thought this campaign was going to be about the rise of Ancient Dragons in the campaign world, but somehow the Party is now involved with the life-and-death struggle of the Lizard Peoples' religious war on an entirely different continent, while the Civilization that they came from is burning under the Great Flight of Dragons ... ), is something you allow the Players to create, so long as the initial events that you set in motion unfold in a logical and plausible manner, in the context of the campaign world you built.
That doesn't mean I won't kick in events, developments, and NPCs to try and keep the initial conflict and story themes alive - but ultimately, the Players are free to ignore it all and go concentrate of something they want to do instead, so long as they're willing to accept the consequences of their (in)actions ( that burning Civilization ).
A well built initial conflict, tuned to the Players' and their Characters' likes and interests runs a low chance of being abandoned, but it's never impossible.
I view our Campaign as the story of the Players' Characters, set in the world and situations that I set up - not the story of my Situations, and how they're solved by the Characters.
I think you somewhat misunderstood. There is no illusion of free will because the players still do as they want. But I see how you would take it an still railroading. Sure if they stray to far from what I had intended for a campaign/adventure ending then I would just set it aside and come with something else. I will make changes before every session as needed to accommodate the players and their actions. I still think ifs fun to have that ultimate goal and try to work it in with the players actions in one way or another. Having something grow and fester when the players work towards other goals brings in some nice WTF moments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Over the last few weeks there have been a lot of interesting discussions in varied threads about DM style and how folks run games. I am --NOT-- trying to advocate that one method is "better" than another as I am firmly of the opinion that you should do what works best for your players and your game -- have fun! I would like this thread to be a place where we can consolidate some ideas and more succinctly discuss pros and cons and where I am wrong :)
It seems like there are two major styles:
1) plot based (aka rails) - The DM has created a story and the players follow along. They participate in epic adventures and encounters and may have the illusion of choice, but are really following the plot the DM laid out. A lot of the old AD&D modules were like this, they assumed the players would just continue through after starting at the beginning. Ie: there's a great big scary cave ahead, "ok let's go in it".
2) sandbox (open world) -- The DM creates a region/world, and applies some pressure (ie dragons attacking villages, giants storming the coastline, one city attacking another), but then the players choose how they want to interact with the world and what aspects they are interested in. They can discard the "main quest" for a time, but will feel it's pressure due to other interactions with the world. Ie: there's a great big scary cave ahead, "eh we don't really need to be here, let's do something else." (later a small group of undead filter from the cave to attack a nearby town).
When new DMs ask "how do I create adventures", the responses often fall into one of the two above camps. I think a lot of us start in group 1, where we want a lot of control over how things are going and what the players encounter. We setup encounter after encounter, scene after scene, and can create a great story, but the players are limited in the choices they make that influence the game world. I think some then move towards camp 2, where we then just create some NPCs and ideas, apply pressure and let things develop in a more free-form way. This requires more improvisation, but the players are always doing what they choose to do and have real choices (perhaps at times too many and the players may feel like they have lost "direction").
It's not a surprise that this same mechanism exists among authors where some are "character based" (ie create characters and see what happens) and others are "plot based" (ie 30% into the story the heroes need a reversal or introduce the main villain).
Obviously there is a bit of a hybrid approach as well, since when a group gets into a "dungeon" it then probably follows a rails-like encounter progression.
What do ya'll think? is that a reasonable (if grossly abbreviated) summary? Are there other choices?
Thanks in advance for the discussion.
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I think that's not a bad initial summation.
However - I would argue that "plot based" doesn't actually exist, except in the most draconian of games, or in an actual physical dungeon. DMs think it exists. Some DMs - especially newer ones - want it to exist. We want it to exist because under that approach we know how things will unfold, we can prepare for everything ahead of time. We're "in control" and we don't have to deal with the panic of "oh god, they're doing something I didn't expect, and for which I didn't prepare material!". And ... then the Player kill their contact NPC; or burn down the Tavern; or insult the King; or ... Players go off the rails. How many threads have you seen, in how many forums, complaining about just that? Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox.
I would also caution that there are some real dangers of the "sandbox" plot getting lost and aimless, if the Players are the only drivers of events in the world. I think you captured that nicely in the aside "later a small group of undead filter from the cave to attack a nearby town". Events need to be driven by the DM to keep the tension and focus up. The "bad guys" need to keep the pressure on, to keep the Players focused on the adventure conflict. Under "sandbox", the bad guys don't have set actions - they're fluid and adaptive to the changing circumstances that the Players are creating, but they are still active in the world. They have wants, they have goals - and if the Party isn't going to challenge them, they'll steamroll their way towards them.
And I think it's totally legitimate and useful to set up pre-scripted events that will happen at a certain time, or if certain "trigger conditions" are met. 13 days in, a storm will hit the coastline, and flood the village of Verdain. If the Party wipes out The Cult of the Dragon in Lucana, then the med-tier "bad guy leader" will intervene and attempt to do such-and-such which is powerful enough it's likely to deal the Party a set-back. I think you make reference to this kind of plot mechanism as well.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've always seen it as a debate about language.
I feel like it boils down to who has influence over any particular narrative circumstance and whether the participants are satisfied with their relative agency in the moment.
If the players aren't satisfied, then there's a good chance they feel like they're being railroadeded; if they do feel satisfied--like they have made meaningful choices--then they probably feel like they're masters of their own destiny in the sandbox.
As a DM, whether I'm deliberately railroading or offering up a legitimate character choice, I always strive to maintain the illusion of agency. So long as my players feel like the are choosing a path and--more importantly--are enjoying themselves in the game, then I've achieved my mission.
I guess it's kind of like both sandboxing and railroading are tools in the DM toolbox, and it's up to us to use them wisely.
Pro/con list
Rail: pro, You(DM) can be better prepared for each game. Con, If you don't sell the illusion of chaice well enough then players will feel like what they do dosen't matter.
Sandbox: Pro, Every choice the players make affects the world. They truly make the game their own Con, With out any real direction the players might get lost and not know what to do next. (Some people can't handle having the world at their feet)
Personally I prefer to do sandbox. As a DM it keeps you on your toes. As a player you can do whatever you want and you wont break the game.
But isn’t there a happy medium, so-to-speak? The party has one overarching task, say, thwart the Cult of the Dragon from amassing a horde of treasure for Tiamat. But how they go about that can be by choice. The DM should have some important plot-driving encounters and some random ones for the party. There could be opportunities for side quests along the way, which could provide for a sand-box feel. Guess maybe it depends on if the party knows that they’re playing a module, versus jumping into a sand-box environment.
I think that's what I'm trying to accomplish with my "sandbox, but with DM pressure".
Initially, the Party is given a conflict.
Somewhere, someone wants something, and they have a plan to get it. Either their goal, or the means that they are employing to reach it, causes the Party to want to oppose their actions for some reason. Or the Party is being given a big old incentive from outside to stop the Bad Guys ( even if they wouldn't normally care much ). Now the Party, and the "bad guys" are in conflict.
So, let's create a really detailed profile for the Bad Guys. We need to know: what is their motivation, what is the goal that comes about because of that motivation, what resources do they have, what knowledge/beliefs do they have ( even if some of it is wrong ). We then can sketch out some tactics that the Bad Guys will use, and the conditions under which they'll employ them. Some of those tactics are techniques they'll employ everyday. Some tactics they'll employ when the opposition gets tough. Some tactics are used only in an Emergency ( and let's figure out what suitable emergencies are to cause them to use those tactics ). Some are "forbidden tactics" - things that they won't do; ever.
So we know what the conflict is about, we who the Bad Guys are, and we can figure out pretty much how they'll behave. We can also see possible ways the story could unfold. We don't know it will, because ... Players. But if we look at the possible ways the story might unfold, we can see re-occurring points of conflict in each possible story line, we can see locations that are likely to be relevant to the story. We can see NPCs that are likely to be impacted by the story unfolding, or might get dragged into it. These NPCs, Encounters, and Locations which are likely to be used, we can actually sketch these out ahead of time - because prepared material is likely to be more polished and detailed than improvised.
We can also figure out some Reactions ahead of time, based on likely events in the story: If the Party convinces the King to back the expedition to the Northern Forest, then the thieves guild will hire the Black Rangers to try and ambush them en route. We don't know the Party will do this, or even try, but we know how the thieves guild will respond if that happens.
We can add "trigger events" as well - things that people outside the conflict will do, if certain conditions are met: If the Party burns down the Tavern to destroy the Alchemist's workshop, then the local guard will issue a warrant for their arrest.
We can add timed events - we know that in 4 days a forest fire will start in The Eastern Marches, and on day 8 it will threaten the town.
Then, we play out the plot in "real time". The Players do something; the situation changes; the bad guys evaluate the new situation, and based on what they know/think, and the types of people they are, they plan their next move; the DM has to decide if they fail, succeed, or run into conflict with the Players over their move. If they run into the Players, it's an Encounter. The Bad Guys and the Players are now in a "mini-conflict". That could be a battle. That could be both of them trying to convince a neutral 3rd party to enter the conflict on their side. That could be a race across the desert to the Lost Temple of Ur to retrieve the idol of Mk'gFn That could be anything where both sides are trying to do/get something, and only one side can succeed. If we're lucky and/or good, we guessed right, and this Encounter is one we predicted, and prepared ahead of time. Hooray! But if not, we can just improvise and wing it. One side or the other will succeed. Then the bad guys go back to plan their next move. Rinse, repeat, and continue until one side or the other has won the main conflict, or everyone has quit the conflict, or the situation has changed so the initial conflict has ceased to be relevant ( and we probably have a new and different conflict in its place ).
This allows us to prepare some material ahead of time, and we might even get to use it - so we have the benefits of both an adaptive plot structure, and ( if we're lucky ) the polish of some prepared material.
We can keep the Party from getting lost and de-focused, by having the Bad Guys keep the pressure on. If we've designed the conflict right, then the Party is either really not going to like the results of the Bad Guy's plan - or they are being well incentivized to stop the bad guys by some other means ( hired, blackmailed, etc. ). So if the Party decides to sit around and do nothing, the Bad Guys will keep working toward their goal, and "bad things(tm)" will happen, or the "good things(tm)" the Party really wants won't happen.
Everything is fluid - there is no pre-set plot - but we have means to keep the Party focused on the adventure and motivated to keep working at it, we have a good solid idea on how to run all the power blocs involved in the conflict, and we have the possibility of using some prepared and polished up material that we've prepared ahead of time.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Even a sandbox needs some kind of goal. You just don't focre it on them. If hey want to bypass the city being raided let them. They can hear about the countless lost lives they could have saved a few days later. My current campaign has an overall villain causing havoc. If they want to spend a month ignoring him then they will just have to deal with the world going to shit around them. A game on rails would find a way to force them to go deal with my encounter. A sandbox dosen't care.
I feel that I mix it up. I have been a DM for a long time and the players will always go of the rails sooner or later and it often tends to be sooner. I always like to have a main goal in mind. I just let the players make their way and I weave everything together as they progress. I still have to make sure I come up with some content for each session and is usually ends up being enough content for 2 or ever more sessions. I save all of this information even if the players never use it or act it out or whatever. I can use this information later in the game in one way or another. Often times I think about what they did or did not do during a game session and work out the next session or future ideas that can be added later. There can be repercussions/events created from some of the not used content for example. You really need to railroad the players to your end goal but you can make it feel as if they have near total freedom. There are times where you can force a games direction but make it fun as well. Just be creative. Another thing I like to do is listen to the players as they act out within your game world. Get an understanding of what they think is happening as a group. This can spark some really good ideas for a DM. Even your campaign/adventure ending can change based on what they do or whom they help or not help. Just an example.
Fun stuff.
Yup. In a sandbox game, DMs definitely need to apply some "pressure" with some kind of over-arching menace. The players are then free to disregard it or determine their own path to addressing the issue -- whatever it is though does impact the game world. I also like putting a lot of lines in the water though, to see which ones the players enjoy nibbling on more and then try to drop some information in those lines so that the players have some hidden knowledge/deeper knowledge as the origin or motivations of what is causing the "pressure".
My dungeons tend to be a lot more railsy, although in most cases the party has ways to escape or leave before "completing" the dungeon.
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I couldn't disagree more - but that's OK - my game isn't your game and vice versa, so me saying I disagree means I wouldn't ever do that, but I'm not trying to say "Your fun is wrong!" ( for you & your table ).
Since I'm a simulationist, I feel that a creative DM doesn't need to railroad the Players, or give them the Illusion of free will. If you're willing to totally give up control of the Story, and admit that its ultimate end, or even it's ultimate story focus ( I thought this campaign was going to be about the rise of Ancient Dragons in the campaign world, but somehow the Party is now involved with the life-and-death struggle of the Lizard Peoples' religious war on an entirely different continent, while the Civilization that they came from is burning under the Great Flight of Dragons ... ), is something you allow the Players to create, so long as the initial events that you set in motion unfold in a logical and plausible manner, in the context of the campaign world you built.
That doesn't mean I won't kick in events, developments, and NPCs to try and keep the initial conflict and story themes alive - but ultimately, the Players are free to ignore it all and go concentrate of something they want to do instead, so long as they're willing to accept the consequences of their (in)actions ( that burning Civilization ).
A well built initial conflict, tuned to the Players' and their Characters' likes and interests runs a low chance of being abandoned, but it's never impossible.
I view our Campaign as the story of the Players' Characters, set in the world and situations that I set up - not the story of my Situations, and how they're solved by the Characters.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think you somewhat misunderstood. There is no illusion of free will because the players still do as they want. But I see how you would take it an still railroading. Sure if they stray to far from what I had intended for a campaign/adventure ending then I would just set it aside and come with something else. I will make changes before every session as needed to accommodate the players and their actions. I still think ifs fun to have that ultimate goal and try to work it in with the players actions in one way or another. Having something grow and fester when the players work towards other goals brings in some nice WTF moments.