Quote from: LordVreeg;379686I get pretty detailed.  Especially within the adventure, but I have factions and guilds and a few settlements that are very detailed...and it is still 100% sandbox.  The players are still free to chooose their interaction speed and amount, so I am thinking that the amount of detail has little to do with railroading, it it the amount of choices left to the players.  
In other words, the amount of detail has nothing to do with railroading; the stype of detail has everything to do with it.

I can do minimal prep, but if I write a one line note that the head of The Church of the Hosting will blame a plague of undead on 'x' church no matter what evidence, that one line has more railroading in it than a complete expose of the whole Church of the Hosting.

Agreed. Sandbox and Situational styles have in common that they are not well suited for railroading. Also, like everything, there is a whole spectrum of GMing sub-styles in between - it's not an either-or proposition. Actually, a player in a well run Situational or Sandbox campaign would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Each should present a very similar 'face' to the player.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379689Agreed. Sandbox and Situational styles have in common that they are not well suited for railroading. Also, like everything, there is a whole spectrum of GMing sub-styles in between - it's not an either-or proposition. Actually, a player in a well run Situational or Sandbox campaign would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Each should present a very similar 'face' to the player.

-clash

Agreed. It's all in the nuances, shades of grey, excluded middle, however you want to call it.

Quote from: VreegI can do minimal prep, but if I write a one line note that the head of The Church of the Hosting will blame a plague of undead on 'x' church no matter what evidence, that one line has more railroading in it than a complete expose of the whole Church of the Hosting.

Nailed it, Bro.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply some sort of correlation between the amount of detail prepped and the "railroadiness" of the resulting game. Railroading comes from the nature of the information provided, not its related depth.

Quote from: Benoist;379690Agreed. It's all in the nuances, shades of grey, excluded middle, however you want to call it.


Nailed it, Bro.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply some sort of correlation between the amount of detail prepped and the "railroadiness" of the resulting game. Railroading comes from the nature of the information provided, not its related depth.

Actually I had a moment of revelation on this forum a while back that changed my opinion on this a little.

Since I was about 12 I have always ad libbed 70-90% of the game. but I saw a post on here which was that ad-libbed games just tend to be a railroad as the GM will ad lib stuff no matter what you do the ad libbing process ends you in the same place.

Of course since I am incredibly lazy it didn't stop me ad-libbing but I think about it a lot more now and at a decision point I determine the outcome of all options in my head before the PCs decide what to do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;379696Since I was about 12 I have always ad libbed 70-90% of the game. but I saw a post on here which was that ad-libbed games just tend to be a railroad as the GM will ad lib stuff no matter what you do the ad libbing process ends you in the same place.

Huh? That's crazy moon logic, jibbajabba! I have no more idea than my players where it's going to go! One of the attractions of Situational GMing is you get to share the discovery with your players. I have no clue where anything is going! That sounds like another strain of Don't-trust-your-GM-itis. There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

-clash

Quote from: jibbajibba;379696Actually I had a moment of revelation on this forum a while back that changed my opinion on this a little.

Since I was about 12 I have always ad libbed 70-90% of the game. but I saw a post on here which was that ad-libbed games just tend to be a railroad as the GM will ad lib stuff no matter what you do the ad libbing process ends you in the same place.

Of course since I am incredibly lazy it didn't stop me ad-libbing but I think about it a lot more now and at a decision point I determine the outcome of all options in my head before the PCs decide what to do.

There are GM's who have already decided where the PCs are going.  I actually believe that having not enough predone often means that most GMs will be, consiously or subconsiously, predisposed to move the clients to whatever is most comforatable for them.

And there are some rare GMs who know this tendency and can counteract it.  But it is certainly something to be aware of.

Quote from: flyingmice;379702Huh? That's crazy moon logic, jibbajabba! I have no more idea than my players where it's going to go! One of the attractions of Situational GMing is you get to share the discovery with your players. I have no clue where anything is going! That sounds like another strain of Don't-trust-your-GM-itis. There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

Clash, see LV's post, above. Also, I'm not sure I entirely understand how it helps to formulate your role as opposing the PCs rather than the players. Obviously, opposing the players is a recipe for failure. But when the players have their PCs do something clever, sometimes the players' reward is to see it succeed without opposition.

A lot of problems can be avoided through GM skill and knowing your players, to be sure. But the sandbox approach is different. Take the example of the players who come up with an infiltration plan. The skillful situational GM might decide that the plan is foolproof, the players themselves obviously expect to succeed, and it would therefore be a railroad to force a fight. Consequently the GM jumps ahead to the fallout of the infiltration, trying to see what sorts of complications might occur beyond the horizon of the players' immediate expectations. But many GMs will fall into a standard pattern, e.g., assume that a "twist" is always fun, therefore there will always be something to cock up the infiltration and lead to some action right then and there.

With a sandbox approach, where things are detailed beforehand, or even in JJ's method where he thinks of various consequences before knowing which option the PCs' will choose, there's a much stronger guarantee that the GM won't subconsciously or consciously subvert the impact of player decisions.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379728A lot of problems can be avoided through GM skill and knowing your players, to be sure. But the sandbox approach is different. Take the example of the players who come up with an infiltration plan. The skillful situational GM might decide that the plan is foolproof, the players themselves obviously expect to succeed, and it would therefore be a railroad to force a fight. Consequently the GM jumps ahead to the fallout of the infiltration, trying to see what sorts of complications might occur beyond the horizon of the players' immediate expectations. But many GMs will fall into a standard pattern, e.g., assume that a "twist" is always fun, therefore there will always be something to cock up the infiltration and lead to some action right then and there.

I saw LV's post. I don't dispute that there are such GMs. It's called being a bad GM, no matter what style you are using.

A skillful Situational GM might decide the plan looked solid, and roll a die against an abstract quality of success number to see if there are any complications. This GM might also roll a die to see what shenanigans might occur if any do, and et cetera down the line. Randomness is your friend.

You are implying that because it is not mapped out in advance, that there is the possibility of the GM fudging something to conciously or unconciously get a result he wants. I submit there is the possibility of the sandbox GM ignoring what he has developed or moving it to where the PCs are. Neither will happen if the GM is rigorous about applying the principles behind the style. In other words, it's the old can't-trust-the-GM in new clothing.

If the GM is sandboxing, he would not move that encounter so the PCs will trip across it. If the GM is going situational, he will let the dice rule where patterns may develop. It's a matter of being rigorous when using that style. Either you trust the GM to adhere to that style or you don't. Many years ago, I used to run a sandbox campaign. I know how it works. I also know how Situational GMing works. There is no system that is proof against a GM ignoring the system, thus the many attempts to hedge in or eliminate the GM because there is no trust.

-clash

I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of '5'.  I honestly don't care for pure sandbox play, and I don't think it really exists anyway.  You can let the players wander the countryside, I suppose, but don't you need some dungeons or something scattered around for them to stumble across?  I suppose you can whip up a dozen dungeons or something ahead of time and insert them into random encounter tables for a nearly pure hexcrawl, but that would seem to reduce the DM even more to the role of CPU.  Barely more than a database frontend, displaying results for random table entry generation.

For myself, I find it somewhat difficult to keep at least a thread of a story from going through successive adventures, but I usually write loosely enough that the MacGuffin can show up more or less anywhere, and point to the next one in a general enough way that the players can pursue it at any time.  If they are 3/4 of the way through an adventure, and decide they are more interested in getting some treasure, I guess the end boss didn't really have the MacGuffin; it was just an unfounded rumour after all.

Of course, I am also lazy enough to let whatever crazy, half-concocted conspiracy theories they make up from the paucity of information be true when it suits my purposes, too.  

Quote from: flyingmice;379702There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

-clash

:hmm:
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, and excuse me if I just completely misunderstand, but I come from a squarely Gygaxian tradition in this, in that I consider myself to be an opponent, as well as an ally at times, of the players, in a wargame sense of the term. Quoting a relevant blog:

Quote from: Robert J. KuntzFacet One, Disarming the Opponent: One must remember that EGG's grounding was in table-top and miniature wargames. Imagine a gathering of us nere-do-wells in his basement, squared off against each other on separate sides of a 6 x 10 sand table. Now imagine the interchanges as we, the generals of one side of the table, quipped with the other side's commanders. Provocation? Most definitely! It may well have been the same thing that the Scots and Edwardian Englishmen could have traded squared off as they were, awaiting the outcome of an upcoming battle. A summoning of courage? Most certainly! The superior force responds on all levels of emotional output, and this was no different in our games, whether staged or instinctual, or where-ever such "harmless" chiding bore from. As the battle wore on, as the field changed hands, and as the final victory was in view, the other side crushed and in rout, well, you can imagine that we didn't just sit there wringing our hands and noting it in a perfunctory manner. And although some were calmer in their expressions, EGG was most expressive in victory (especially if it had been a very hard-fought battle hinging on last minute shifts and on the fly changes), so it is not to say that he didn't sound like a Confederate soldier on occasion, perhaps imagining himself pursuing the blue-bellies amidst howls and hoots after the Union's rout at the First Battle of Bull Run!

Now transfer this particular part of his mindset into the D&D game with him as DM. His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand...

The whole thing is worth a read.

When I asked Rob to clarify his thought on this, and how that would relate to people accusing EGG of abusive DMing, here's what he answered:

Quote from: Robert J. KuntzThe actual thought that someone might summarize my commentary as suggesting that either EGG or myself were abusive DMing actually made me laugh real hard, thanks!

This is where the true division lies between what people perceive through rules and by implementing them on different levels and at different times.

The condensed version is stated:

"His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."

This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.

So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table

You can be an opponent to the players without being unfair, or adversarial (which seems to be what you guys are talking about, what I'd call "bad DMing", plain and simple).

So, how do you think that relates to what you were just saying, here? Still trying to wrap my mind around it. Thanks.

Well, Clash, I haven't read the side thread that's sprung up, but the problem here is that "Situational GMing" isn't well-defined, at least in my mind. If this is more appropriately addressed in the follow-on thread, let me know and I'll take it there, but for now allow me to respond here.

I'm agnostic on whether the GM who always introduces a "twist", or otherwise deliberately complicates matters, or steers them into a certain type of situation, is a "bad GM". I generally dislike that style. But I've seen it advocated in various forms (e.g., "the rule of cool") so instead of just shunting it off into "bad GMing" I'd rather identify it as matching some taste. For a concrete example, see this post and the follow on. The poster in question describes how his GM generated an off-the-cuff encounter based on pure judgment. If we can avoid being side-tracked by semantic nit-picking over the meaning of "random encounter", what lies behind the example is that some people think it's cool to improvise encounters in that way--no dice to determine if the encounter occurs, or what the encounter consists of.

QuoteA skillful Situational GM might decide the plan looked solid, and roll a die against an abstract quality of success number to see if there are any complications. This GM might also roll a die to see what shenanigans might occur if any do, and et cetera down the line. Randomness is your friend.

On this I agree completely. However I wasn't aware that Situational GM by definition prefers dice over pure judgment, in situations where there might be some doubt about the outcome. A sandbox GM who ignores what he's developed or moves it (from a previously-noted location) to where the PCs are is necessarily deviating from sandbox principles. He or she is consciously fudging. I don't know what a Situational GM's procedures are in cases where there's no prep and some reasonable doubt about "what happens next".

QuoteIf the GM is sandboxing, he would not move that encounter so the PCs will trip across it. If the GM is going situational, he will let the dice rule where patterns may develop. It's a matter of being rigorous when using that style. Either you trust the GM to adhere to that style or you don't. Many years ago, I used to run a sandbox campaign. I know how it works. I also know how Situational GMing works. There is no system that is proof against a GM ignoring the system, thus the many attempts to hedge in or eliminate the GM because there is no trust.

The part in bold is the part I wasn't aware of.

Besides, isn't this all about JJ's post?

He's saying that "just deciding" after hearing the PCs' course of action can lead to a tendency to channelize the course of play.

You are saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of rolling dice.

I am saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of having some idea of what the prior situation is.

You're not disagreeing with JJ. And as far as using "prior situation" vs. "stochastic determination", they're twins in a way. Certainly the absolute of pure sandbox isn't practically possible, meaning that some amount of off-the-cuff determination is always needed. At that point it's a question of how the decision is made.

Quote from: flyingmice;379702Huh? That's crazy moon logic, jibbajabba! I have no more idea than my players where it's going to go! One of the attractions of Situational GMing is you get to share the discovery with your players. I have no clue where anything is going! That sounds like another strain of Don't-trust-your-GM-itis. There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

-clash

I thought the exactly the same, I wouldn't even have thought there was a plan if I hadn't read that post that suggested it.
It's just you kind of realise that maybe you tend to move in a direction sub-consciously. Now I never used a dice based option I considered it based on probability and 'story' which does make me more suspectible to railroading perhaps.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379791Besides, isn't this all about JJ's post?

He's saying that "just deciding" after hearing the PCs' course of action can lead to a tendency to channelize the course of play.

You are saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of rolling dice.

I am saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of having some idea of what the prior situation is.

You're not disagreeing with JJ. And as far as using "prior situation" vs. "stochastic determination", they're twins in a way. Certainly the absolute of pure sandbox isn't practically possible, meaning that some amount of off-the-cuff determination is always needed. At that point it's a question of how the decision is made.

I am not sure I would regard this as railroading though. Since you aren't really encouraging the players to go in any particular direction. Railroading to me, is when I know I have to go a particular direction because the gm wants me to. The other big difference with situational stuff is the GM has to adapt to player actions. So While you may have a crime boss who wants to take over the north side of town, how the players' deal with that is totally up to them. They could ignore it completely, they could ally with the crime boss, they could gather up a coalition of street gangs and take the north side for themselves. If the players have so much freedom, how can that be railroading?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379791Besides, isn't this all about JJ's post?

Well, I wasn't sure if what I was quoting really was relevant to this line of discussion. I was wondering what was meant by the expression of "opposing the players instead of the PCs". I don't see the difference between the two right away, unless it means being an opponent, adversary in the game, as opposed to just being adversarial/a douche out of the game, in which case, I agree totally.

Hence my question/tangent.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379791He's saying that "just deciding" after hearing the PCs' course of action can lead to a tendency to channelize the course of play.

You are saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of rolling dice.

I am saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of having some idea of what the prior situation is.

You're not disagreeing with JJ. And as far as using "prior situation" vs. "stochastic determination", they're twins in a way. Certainly the absolute of pure sandbox isn't practically possible, meaning that some amount of off-the-cuff determination is always needed. At that point it's a question of how the decision is made.

I'm not advocating total randomness. I agree with JJ, actually, in that channeling the game play can in effect evolve into a railroad -it's a very real threat to the game's integrity. I think I agree with you too in the sense that decisions must be made with the setting in mind. The prep that goes into the sandbox is destined to inform the DM's judgment calls as to the way NPCs, factions, particular situations will react to the PCs' input. Otherwise, with complete randomness, you'd just have a bunch of hexes and tables of wandering monsters. I mean, nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to have a setting with more consistency right off the bat, without hurting the opportunities of choices for the PCs in the process.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;379795I am not sure I would regard this as railroading though. Since you aren't really encouraging the players to go in any particular direction. Railroading to me, is when I know I have to go a particular direction because the gm wants me to. The other big difference with situational stuff is the GM has to adapt to player actions. So While you may have a crime boss who wants to take over the north side of town, how the players' deal with that is totally up to them. They could ignore it completely, they could ally with the crime boss, they could gather up a coalition of street gangs and take the north side for themselves. If the players have so much freedom, how can that be railroading?

See I would say that Railroading is where the players' decisions make no difference. They go left or right and they still end up in a hall full of Giant lizard statues which come to life if you attempt to prize any of the gems out of the walls. Or the Crime boss will round up the PCs and bring them for a chat at his Italian restaurant.

Now I don't do sandbox games for 2 reasons
i - I am lazy. A real sandbox is so mauch work. a city with 10,000 people? My mum used to DM like that, an index card for each building with a map, NPCs etc etc. Try that for New York in 1929....
ii - Story, I don't mean a preset tale but I do mean some sort of story 4 hours of exploring places with no action or 'content' doesn't work. There has to be something. Now the railroady thing I have been guilty of is putting story related content in the players way. So now I really think about thing and try to drive everything from NPC motives.

If I get to a point where it looks like something I planned out in my head when I was thinking about the adventure, say a shoot out in an Itialian restaurant, is likely to happen then I stop and think hold on are you railroading this or is this a result of their actions.
Relying on PCs that "want to adventure" as Clash suggests can also be a bit of a risk because maybe you favour paths that lead you to familiar places.