I think one needs to remember a few things:
Railroading works.
I guess this odd view on sandboxes comes from "railroad" GM's and Players, that feels left behind by a current focus on sandboxes, and feels bad from others looking down on railroading in general.

Summary:
There is bad railroading, like walking through a corridor of interesting doors that one may not open, or even examine.
There is also bad sandboxing, where virtually nothing happens.

As pointed out by several before me: A good game depends on either a fitting approach for a certain kind of group, or on a flexible enough GM/DM/Storyteller/Whatever.

I think its fair to reduce this term to "sandbox done badly", but this is still useful, because the fact is that the reason a lot of people are afraid of sandboxes is because they often ARE done badly.

So being able to explain what's the wrong way to do it, and have a term for that, can help in explaining how to do it right.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;596669So being able to explain what's the wrong way to do it, and have a term for that, can help in explaining how to do it right.

Which is why I like litterbox.

But 'reverse railroading' is just gibberish. I can railroad players in a sandbox as readily as I can in a linear adventure - there is no 'opposite' or 'reverse' of railroading other than not-railroading.

I like "litterbox." It's pretty good and basically means what it says RE: "the sandbox."

Meh, I think any style can be done badly and/or taken to an extreme.

On the positive side the idea of reverse railroading is a cure for the times when the players are like "We'll just wait for the next clue to be dropped in our laps." after the GM has given them enough clues.

On the negative side the GM might have failed to provide enough clues for the players to know where to go,the players literally don't  know what to do next so each side sits there waiting for the other to make a move.

All too often I think people want something clearly defined as "good" or "bad" when in reality there are a lot of shades of grey and qualifications as to most issues.

Railroading is usually bad but if you're running something like a movie where some things are scheduled to happen at certain times (Spectre will detonate the bomb at X o'clock, the players ojly purpose is to stop them.) it can be useful.

This reverse railroading can be good in some cases, bad in others. At best it gives the players a chance to think up some things the GM may not have.

I don't think "litterbox" as a term actually describes anything.  It doesn't immediately imagine anything other than "a sandbox full of shit". It certainly doesn't express a "sandbox where nothing happens".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;596692I like "litterbox." It's pretty good and basically means what it says RE: "the sandbox."

Exactly.  Standard sandbox, but the owner is a lazy good-for-nothing, so now it has clumps of shit all over it.

I've delt with the group that is waiting for direction. I usually sove this problem with a shipwreck or a fuckover. Which leads to "We need to find a way back to civilization and we're completely lost," or "We need to find that fucker and get REVENGE!"

Anyway i usually start the characters off with a short something to do. By the time it's done they usually have their own ideas.

Quote from: Gib;597186I've delt with the group that is waiting for direction. I usually sove this problem with a shipwreck or a fuckover. Which leads to "We need to find a way back to civilization and we're completely lost," or "We need to find that fucker and get REVENGE!"

Anyway i usually start the characters off with a short something to do. By the time it's done they usually have their own ideas.

Was it Raymond Chandler who suggested having men with guns kick down the door and start shooting when the plot stalls?

What's good writing advice isn't always good GMing advice, but in this particular instance, I think it works for both. I've used it every now and then in investigative games.

Some of this can happen because a GM puts one vital clue in a place that has to be found, but, for whatever reason the PCs don't find it. Maybe they failed a spot hidden roll or the clue simply was not as clear as the GM thought it was, his riddle had another perfectly good interpretation, etc.

Quote from: red lantern;597263Some of this can happen because a GM puts one vital clue in a place that has to be found, but, for whatever reason the PCs don't find it. Maybe they failed a spot hidden roll or the clue simply was not as clear as the GM thought it was, his riddle had another perfectly good interpretation, etc.

I've seen GMs who weren't flexible at all about this and got incredibly frustrated when players just couldn't figure it out. A good GM will ask himself if maybe his descriptions weren't all that clear or if the players aren't finding the game interesting enough to pay attention. I've had a few, though, who always blamed the players for being too stupid or too disengaged.

Quote from: Laurel;597265I've seen GMs who weren't flexible at all about this and got incredibly frustrated when players just couldn't figure it out. A good GM will ask himself if maybe his descriptions weren't all that clear or if the players aren't finding the game interesting enough to pay attention. I've had a few, though, who always blamed the players for being too stupid or too disengaged.

Some GMs have the "Frank Gorshin syndrome". I.E. they create these oh so clever and convoluted riddles that people are supposed to get without realizing maybe most people haven't seen the same episodes of the same shows they have or read the same books or interpreted things the same way.

The sandbox is all about choice, and choices need consequences.  It's imperative that the game master advance the actions in the larger sandbox in order for the setting to have integrity; it's the concept of opportunity costs - what do you lose by picking something else?  Example: the party hears about two potential plot hooks in town, taking care of some bandit raiders or looting a recently discovered ruin.  If they choose the ruins, perhaps the bandit problem gets worse; if they go track the bandits, perhaps other adventurers find the ruins first.  Either way, the road not taken doesn't 'go into stasis' like some Schrodinger's cat.

I don't know that I like the term litter box for this static sandbox, there's got to be something better than that...

A technique I highly recommend is to have a good campaign calendar, extending out into the future, in which the DM can map various events that have the potential to happen if the PC's don't take action.  1E Oriental Adventures has some great charts on generating domain-level events in advance, as does the BECMI companion set (might be in the Rules Cyclopedia, too).  That way the setting isn't a closed box waiting to see if the cat is alive or not.

Even on the micro-level, this is a good technique for your site-based adventures - making changes to the environment in between player incursions to create that appearance the inhabitants are reacting to the player incursions.

Quote from: red lantern;597263Some of this can happen because a GM puts one vital clue in a place that has to be found, but, for whatever reason the PCs don't find it. Maybe they failed a spot hidden roll or the clue simply was not as clear as the GM thought it was, his riddle had another perfectly good interpretation, etc.

Epic fail gming!

1) Fails to realize his single clue/riddle might make no sense at all to the players.

2) Fails to realize adventures should not depend on a single clue that it is possible to miss or not figure out.

3) Fails to adjust when the game screeches to a halt.

4) Profit!

Quote from: RPGPundit;597123"sandbox where nothing happens".

Sandless Box.

Like a sandbox, but empty