Lord of the Rings is a linear plot -- there's a situation that needs to be dealt with and the characters focus on resolving it along a series of situations until it's resolved.

Conan is a sandbox -- lots of little, mostly local, situations that the main character can handle however he wants with very little in the way of long-term consequences (even if Conan lets the bad guy live, he can always trek to the next city-state and it's mostly cool).

Railroading, which can occur in either setup is where the GM forces the players to do things in one-specific-way, usually by disallowing player input or neutralizing player decisions through fiat.

----------------------------------------------------

The state-of-the-art in serial fiction, these days, is to mix the two (I think X-files codified this most clearly): have some over-arching plot that provides satisfying things like reoccurring antagonists, rising action, and complex, deep plot structures, but includes less connected situations that allow for a high degree of freedom.

I think a mix of the two is about perfect -- it requires that the over-arching situation not be so intense that it requires constant engagement... but that's usually okay in the earlier parts of the game when the situation is still building.

I don't see the two modes as being exclusive.

Cheers,
-E.

I prefer a sandbox, but I don't mind occasional linear elements within the sandbox framework.

I'ld rather spend my time cleaning by garage or something than play a linear story rpg session. It makes my skin crawl to sit there and listen to some guy walk me through his precious story, scooting me here and there and throwing all the fights so the 'right' thing happens. It doesn't even feel like a game to me. Actually, it doesn't even feel like I'M doing anything at all; the player becomes a kind of observer or sock puppet. I understand that when you read a book or watch a movie you are following a story someone else laid out for you, and it works. But I think that dynamic is antithetical to rpg gaming.

Quote from: -E.;828099The state-of-the-art in serial fiction, these days, is to mix the two (I think X-files codified this most clearly): have some over-arching plot that provides satisfying things like reoccurring antagonists, rising action, and complex, deep plot structures, but includes less connected situations that allow for a high degree of freedom.

I don't see that as requiring an over-arching plot.  An evolving setting[1] should be sufficient to provide those types of satisfaction.  Even the "complex, deep plot structures" are likely to be seen in an evolving setting, regardless of whether they were placed there intentionally or not, due to the human mind's tendency to latch on to any patterns it can find.

[1] as opposed to the settings of older TV series, where everything was reset to status quo at the end of each episode

Quote from: nDervish;828134[1] as opposed to the settings of older TV series, where everything was reset to status quo at the end of each episode

Not always each episode, occasionally there was a two-parter.

I think Kyle Aaron and Justin Alexander nailed it.

A sandbox is, or should be in my book, littered with adventure hooks. Once PCs bit the hook, you reel them in and things tend to look linear as the consequences of their choices narrows down subsequent decisions, a bit like the quantum mechanics phenomenon of "waveform collapse". Once they choose to go down a particular rabbit hole, they might not stop until they've hit the bottom.

On the other hand, a sandbox campaign evolves and matures, players interact with multiple agents and may become "tangled" with multiple actors within the fictional world, which may lead to adventures branching off as PCs become the agents of interaction between actors that would otherwise remain separated — e.g. the King of Generica requests their help to repel a humanoid horde and they call in past favors with the usually isolationist Dwarves of Mountainistan and Elves of Hippiewood and end up forging an alliance that might not happen otherwise, with lasting impact on the game world. Or they might strike a pact with a Demon Lord and gate in an army of fiends, fending off the invaders at a horrific price. Or they might just rally their retainers and ride off on their own, to die a glorious death in the battlefield.

Which is why, as Kyle said, sandbox set-up only really pay off the GM's work with longer-running games.

Quote from: nDervish;828134I don't see that as requiring an over-arching plot.  An evolving setting[1] should be sufficient to provide those types of satisfaction.  Even the "complex, deep plot structures" are likely to be seen in an evolving setting, regardless of whether they were placed there intentionally or not, due to the human mind's tendency to latch on to any patterns it can find.

[1] as opposed to the settings of older TV series, where everything was reset to status quo at the end of each episode

Plot is one of those words that means very different things to different people.

I don't think using it necessarily implies that anything is pre-scripted or that it's generated by anything except elements in the setting advancing independently from the PC's actions and then interacting with the PC's in an organic way.

Or to put it another way, I can make a case that a LoTR-type game is really just a sandbox with a particularly hooky plot-hook:

Lord of the Rings is just a sandbox where the PC's wandered randomly into a plot hook (The One Ring), and then decided to spend the rest of the campaign destroying the ring rather than ... whatever else they might have decided to do.

That's technically true. If Frodo had decided to stay home (cuz that's what his guy would do) or if Gandalf had decided that he'd rather have done something else rather than forming the Fellowship, then... sandbox. There's no reason to assume a hypothetical GM running LoTR as a scenario would force anyone to do anything, right?

The reason I think it's a good example of a linear-style game is that the GM ought to be aware that by putting a clear-and-present setting-level danger into the setting, he's creating a situation that is, frankly, very difficult to ignore.

So even if he never railroads anyone, the game is likely to be significantly shaped by his "evolving setting" (to use your term).

No one wants a railroad, so if you take that off the table, you either collapse all non-rail-road play-styles into "sandbox" or you recognize that some games have a really active, hard-to-ignore, requires-immediate-attention driver and some... don't. The ones without a major, active bad-guy (or other compelling, immediate objective) are going to be more sand-boxy.

Both, IMO, are fun play styles, but from a GM perspective they are different.

The guy who says he'd rather crawl through broken glass than play in someone's story is either saying he objects to being railroaded (which means he's in a population of approximately everyone), or that he really doesn't want the GM to put in a bad-guy like Sauron that is a serious-enough-threat that it's likely to compel a PC reaction.

If he means he wants to be powerful enough, relative to the other world actors, that he's never compelled to react (and thus endure someone's "story"), then that's important information to know.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Matt;827819I thought a sandbox was a world where stuff keeps happening whether or not the PCs pursue it. For instance, they leave Qwertown to go adventuring and come back six months later to discover it's been sacked by goblins; the PCs ignore the to goblin problem to follow the treasure map to Mount Chaos and come back a month later to find things have gotten overrun by goblins; and so on. Stuff just keeps evolving. What's that called then?

A sandbox with world in motion.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;828144A sandbox with world in motion.

"The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of setting design. The players need to feel like things are happening and will happen with or without them. They need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but that these events have weight of their own. Event-chains need velocity, not just speed.
Cause and effect from an event-chain cements the feeling of setting-weight and the march of time to the players. It's not enough to have an election in a town, the effect of that election must be there when the players return to that town.  It is not enough that a band of trolls and giants is spotted, what devastation due they cause and what actions do the locals take, and from there what wreckage and ruin?"

Quote from: estar;827867The key difference between a sandbox with city-guard and a linear railroad with city guards is that sandbox referee won't get bent out of shape if the player decide to desert. Instead the campaign will not be the one where the characters are deserters from the city guard. The railroad referee gets bent out of shape as now all his plots, plans, and preparations are thrown out the window.

True. That's why I like sandboxes better. I think it's actually easier and less work. And having the NPC's react to the players actions feels way more organic than the contrived nature of a scene-by-scene approach. I only don't like random event tables, because they are too  ... random. I just use some plot hooks and some "stuff happening" as we speak.

Btw, this was all as a GM. I like to think about all the things happening in a setting and about how the world will react to the players. Keeps it interesting for me. As a player I don't mind linear stories. I like having a goal to reach. Actually I think I prefer that as a player. I like it better in video games for sure. It all depends on the story, I guess. It has to be good enough to keep everyone interested in how it will end.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110722122149/http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic3.html

QuoteAt the end of the game, my friend held the sword which could destroy Strahd. As his companions fell upon the vampire, my friend found that he couldn't kill the monster. He saw all the sadness and tragedy which the mans life had once been. Ultimately his companions in the game were forced to finish the job.
After the game, we spoke. "He deserved to die better than that," my friend said.
"Yes," I replied, "But that is how it is with people who fall from greatness. He chose his end when he first chose to kill his brother. How could it be any different?"

I don't want to point and jeer at Hickman for "getting it wrong", but I do want to point out how much I disagree with his appraisal of that event in his game. The player made a choice, and it's not the place for the GM to tell him how to feel about his choice. In fact, I think that's the point, and that moment where a player's character refrained from slaying a "villian" is a superb moment of role playing that didn't involve any mechanics to encourage. It came about from the design of the scenario itself.

That quote really crystalized in my head what rpg choices can be, even if I think Hickman didn't handle the post-game discussion well.

Quote from: -E.;828141...The ones without a major, active bad-guy (or other compelling, immediate objective) are going to be more sand-boxy.

...a bad-guy like Sauron that is a serious-enough-threat that it's likely to compel a PC reaction.

I don't really disagree with you, but I definitely think that sandbox settings can include major, active bad guys (mine usually do - there's at least two big, active ones in my Wilderlands 5e game), even at Sauron level. If they're not directly going after the PCs, the PCs always have the choice to ignore them, though their activities will have repercussions felt across much of the setting.

In LoTR, the Free Peoples of Gondor & (to some extent) Rohan might have felt railroaded by the GM's plot, but up in Arnor they were sandboxing along just fine.

Quote from: S'mon;828153I don't really disagree with you, but I definitely think that sandbox settings can include major, active bad guys (mine usually do - there's at least two big, active ones in my Wilderlands 5e game), even at Sauron level. If they're not directly going after the PCs, the PCs always have the choice to ignore them, though their activities will have repercussions felt across much of the setting.

In LoTR, the Free Peoples of Gondor & (to some extent) Rohan might have felt railroaded by the GM's plot, but up in Arnor they were sandboxing along just fine.

We're in agreement; if you literally can't ignore something, it's a railroad, and no one's saying that's a good idea. In a fun, functional linear-plot game, you can still decide to take off to Arnor if you really don't feel like screwing around with the Ring.

But if anything that's not a railroad is a sandbox, then terms like linear-plot are just another term for a game where the GM is ramming his fan-fic down your throat.

I think it's more interesting and useful to use sandbox v. linear-plot to distinguish between two types of fun, non-railroad games.

As an example, I'm running a superheroes game right now. Most basic super-hero plots are linear: Captain Bad-Guy is doing something and while the PC's could stay home, or head off to Guam or whatever, it's incredibly likely that they'll try to stop him.

That's hardly a railroad, but it's not a sandbox, either.

On the other hand, if I give the PC's a map of the city and color code it by which gang is running each neighborhood, and let them decide which one to go after, it's more sand-boxy...

Neither model is superior; both work well together. But as someone designing both types of encounters, I think it's useful and important to distinguish between the two of them.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: S'mon;828153I don't really disagree with you, but I definitely think that sandbox settings can include major, active bad guys (mine usually do - there's at least two big, active ones in my Wilderlands 5e game), even at Sauron level. If they're not directly going after the PCs, the PCs always have the choice to ignore them, though their activities will have repercussions felt across much of the setting.

In LoTR, the Free Peoples of Gondor & (to some extent) Rohan might have felt railroaded by the GM's plot, but up in Arnor they were sandboxing along just fine.

If Sauron is the PC, it's a better sandbox.

Quote from: -E.;828163I think it's more interesting and useful to use sandbox v. linear-plot to distinguish between two types of fun, non-railroad games.

As an example, I'm running a superheroes game right now. Most basic super-hero plots are linear: Captain Bad-Guy is doing something and while the PC's could stay home, or head off to Guam or whatever, it's incredibly likely that they'll try to stop him.

That's hardly a railroad, but it's not a sandbox, either.

On the other hand, if I give the PC's a map of the city and color code it by which gang is running each neighborhood, and let them decide which one to go after, it's more sand-boxy...

Neither model is superior; both work well together. But as someone designing both types of encounters, I think it's useful and important to distinguish between the two of them.

Cheers,
-E.

Well said and a good example.