Which kind do you run? Which kind is better?

I feel like a linear game kind of defeats the point. Or at least make it a sandbox with multiple linear adventures as options.

I don't run either, but nowadays I prefer a  game that leans towards sandbox.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;827693I don't run either, but nowadays I prefer a  game that leans towards sandbox.

How can it be neither.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827694How can it be neither.

What I meant is that I don't GM. Those are my preferences as a player.

As a player I prefer to have the freedom to go after whatever things I choose to.  Not a fan of linear games.

I primarily run sandboxes. "Better" depends on who you have at your table.

Do you have players who are interested in exploring the game world and are on the lookout for adventure opportunities or do you have a bunch of casuals who really don't care what adventure is presented to them, they just wanna roll dice and kill stuff?

Sandbox involves a bit more up front prep work but its worth it if you have players that enjoy and appreciate it.

Linear adventures are just fine if have one of those groups that has to be beaten over the head with the plot hammer to get them to do anything.

They both have advantages.

A linear game can be more "designed", with more elaborate set pieces.

A more open game can allow players to actually make changes to the world, and have the future of the world rest on their decisions.

I vastly prefer more sandboxy games, both as a player and a GM, but that's because I prize agency in games more than set pieces.

The one thing I would argue is that if you're going to railroad, be honest about it.

I run a sandbox-ish and introduce "bangs!" (yes I know it's a Edwardsism, but it IS a good description of what I do...). I have events that unfold based on timelines. The PCs can get involved or stay out of it but the events happen and can affect the world (and the PCs). I try to involve the PCs as often as possible but they have the ultimate choice.

Plots unfold based on PC actions and choices. The world is reactive. It's designed to be a place where the PCs are front and center. I toss stuff in (that makes sense based on several factors; PC choices, events, history, culture and potential NPC choices/behaviors).

There usually are several "big plots" brewing. Sometimes I have a big plot nearing the "completion" of some nefarious thing. Sometimes the events are fallout from a recently or distantly completed plot. I view these completed plots more as events though.

If things are stagnating, I might introduce a new NPC, or have news arrive of trouble. I might have an old friend come looking for a PC. A big storm might come up, forcing PCs into a confined space to weather it. All the while dealing with strangers stuck with them. I like to keep it moving, only slowing down when the PCs really push to do mundane things like shop or carouse.

I like to make up random encounter tables for areas I feel they apply to; like a wilderness trek. Those encounter tables always involve more than just simple creature encounters.

Would prefer sandbox, but we tend to get sorta questy. However, every group can and does deviate from anything I plan, so, I have hooks and such ready, but I'll adjust to what they do. I'm setting aside time to make a TRUE hexcrawl for this summer.

To borrow a term from the MMO world there is also the Theme Park, which is a mythical middle ground between structured story and emergent play. Theme park games give you setting and things that are happening. Players chose how and when they want to address them.

One way to address this is to have floating plot hooks, things the PCs can latch onto depending and then fill in the blanks as you go. Another is the idea of Fronts, to steal the term, which are things happening in the world that the GM escalates whenever the action dies down to much.

Recently, I have been developing a demo for Metahumans Rising that attempts to use these ideas. While there is a solid start and climax there are a number of events in the middle that may or may not happen depending on what the players chose to do. These actions directly impact the climax in turn.

I'm currently running 4 campaigns(! - no doubt I will be burning out & cutting back heavily in a few months). The 5e D&D and Classic D&D ones are sandbox by design, the Pathfinder one is a linear AP though I try not to railroad, the 4e D&D one is in-between: it tends to 'mission of the week' but I did recently make the players come up with what they wanted to do, and the past 4 sessions have been based off that.
The sandbox games are currently the most fun, but are also the most recent (11 sessions online of 5e, 2 tabletop of Classic). As a general rule though, I definitely think maximising player choice is the way to maximise GM enjoyment.

File me under sandbox, though technically it is Situational Gaming - think sandbox with "bangs" (I called them "situations" long before Mr. Edwards came up with "bangs") and independently acting NPCs with goals, resources, and personalities rather than stat blocks - like the "theme park" idea kind of...

Loose Timeline linear is great when you have limited time, such as campaign will last 4-6 months real time playing once per week. As a dad of two toddlers, this has been better. Did this with CoC, 3.0 modern alien crashland on Appalachian trail, a one off D&D.

Now am running sandbox with enticing starting points for 5e. Timeline is still loosely important.

Quote from: trechriron;827711I run a sandbox-ish and introduce "bangs!" (yes I know it's a Edwardsism, but it IS a good description of what I do...).

I prefer the term "plot grenade."

Quote from: robiswrong;827740I prefer the term "plot grenade."

Oooooh. I like that.