Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Segev]

This ended up being a bit more... heartfelt than I first intended.

*offers a box to store the vulnerable heart in*

It's velvet-lined for comfort, and has a smooth varnish to make the sliding lid move easily while staying secure.

[Milo v3]

I could have sworn that someone had found out that they were one and the same. Maybe I am remembering wrong, though.

At one stage he posted "his own unique Houserules" and it was literally word for word identical to what Jedipotter posted with "his own unique Houserules".

[JNAProductions]

Allow me to present some examples. Playground, I'll let you judge how good/bad they are, and feel free to offer advice to improve the examples.

Spoiler: Bad Linear Adventure

Show

The players start behind the orcish enemy lines, with valuable information. They then escape, and go to the city of Rubi. In Rubi, they fend off the oncoming invasion, but General Hazzlor dies. Then, they set off to gather the five pieces of the artifact Orc Slayer, starting with the hilt, then the crossguard, then the bottom blade, middle blade, and lastly the tip. They then go to reforge at Mount Vyll. The players then meet the orcish armies on the badlands,
with the armies of civilization behind them, and successfully rout the army.

Spoiler: This Is Bad Becuase...

Show

Because the players don't matter. Win or lose, the same things happen, and there's no plan for deviations, even in the end.

Spoiler: Good Linear Adventure

Show

The players start behind the orcish enemy lines, with valuable information-namely, that the city of Rubi is going to be attacked, despite being behind the lines of civilization. If they escape on their own, they get a month of prep time to prepare Rubi. If they fail, they are captured, and a rescue comes about three weeks later, leaving them with only a week of prep time. In Rubi, depending on how well they do, General Hazzlor may die. Regardless, the sages of Rubi find in that time the locations of three of the pieces of Orc Slayer-the hilt, crossguard, and the bottom portion of the blade. The players can then go get them in any order, and as they get them, the locations of the last two pieces are revealed.
They have about three months to get the pieces before Mount Vyll loses its power, so however many they have is what they have to deal with when it comes time to reforge.

Then, the final battle-the two armies meet on the badlands. If General Hazzlor is alive, the army is in generally good standing, but if he was killed, they're in worse shape. For each piece of Orc Slayer that was found, the artifact is more powerful,
but the leader of the orcs, the Demon Kinfer, is not affected by Orc Slayer's power. So, one player gets to wield Orc Slayer and, well, slay orcs by the boatload, while the other players engage Kinfer and hold him off from the wielder of Orc Slayer for as long as possible (and possibly kill him, though that is unlikely). If at least X orcs are killed (Y orcs if Hazzlor is alive) then it is considered a major victory, the orcs are routed, Kinfer's power is gone and he is banished, and civilization lives in peace. If only a lesser amount are defeated, it's a minor victory. The orcs are pushed back, but Kinfer is still present and can regain power. The peace is very limited. If only a small amount of orcs are killed, it's a minor defeat. The orcs break into civilization, and have a better staging ground for when they next attack, as well as lots of innocents dying. If tiny amount of orcs are killed, it's a major defeat, and civilization is lost for a thousand years.

Spoiler: This Is Good Because...

Show

The players' actions and skills matter. How well they handle different threats affects the ending, and each step has an impact. There's still a clear chain of events that will happen, but the players matter.

Spoiler: A Non-Linear Adventure

Show

There is an orcish invasion coming to civilized lands, and it's up to you to stop them.

Obviously prep would include a lot more details than this, but that's the gist of it.

Spoiler: This Is A Non-Linear Adventure Because...

Show

Because there's no set path, but there IS a set goal. No matter what they do, the end goal is clear-stop the orcs. But how they do it (poison the orc encampments, sabotage their supply lines,
fight them mano-a-mano, go for the leader, rally civilization) is up to them.

Spoiler: A Sandbox Game

Show

To the east, there are orcs who are invading. This is one of many things going on, and the players can interact with it or not as they please.

Obviously prep would include a lot more details than this, but that's the gist of one part of it.

Spoiler: This Is A Sandbox Because

Show

The players can do what they want, AND there is no goal set for them. They get to decide what they want to do-and a good DM will never say "You can't go that way, that's not part of the adventure,"
since there's stuff that way and they can mess around with it. (Now, it's perfectly fine for a DM to say "Hey, I haven't prepped anything specific in that direction that far, so we might have to break here so I can make the world a little,"
but since this is a sandbox game, the players should have freedom to go where they will, character's abilities permitting.)

[1337 b4k4]

What? How do you get ''following an hourly schedule that you planned out'' and ''day doing what you want'' to lead to the same result at the end of the day?

Seriously? I didn't think I had to spell this out, but ok lets do this.

Alice is a Type A person, she schedules everything down to the minute. She wakes up one morning, looks at her schedule and sees that the first thing she has for the day is cleaning up the debris in her yard from the storm yesterday. She does that for a few hours when her 11AM alarm goes off. It's time to go read a chapter from the book she's been reading. She reads for an hour and then heads to her lunch appointment with her friend. They have lunch and she returns home. Next on her list is to clean the house. At 6 PM, she answers the door because she's scheduled dinner with her boyfriend. At 8PM she sits down to watch the latest episode of Reality TV which she never misses, and at 9PM she heads to bed.

Bob is a Type B person, he just kind of likes going with the flow. He wakes up one morning and looks out his window to see that a storm the night before left a lot of debris in the yard. He decides he should clean that up now before it gets too hot. An hour or so later, he's finished and sits down with a book for a bit. Around the time he finishes a chapter, his friend calls him up to see if he wants to grab a bite to eat at that new mexican restaurant in town. He agrees and they meet up. A few hours into this meetup, his girlfriend calls. She's getting off work early today and wants to know if he wants to get together for dinner tonight. He agrees and hurries home to clean up the mess, because he's a bachelor who doesn't keep anything clean except when he's got company. They have dinner and she heads home after a while, he gets in bed and turns on the TV flipping around the channels until something catches his eye. After an hour or so, that heavy dinner really hits him hard and he conks out about 9PM

At the end of the day, Alice and Bob both did the following:
* Cleaned the yard
* Read a chapter in their book
* Had lunch with a friend
* Cleaned their house
* Had dinner with their significant other
* Watched TV
* Went to bed a 9PM

Alice however, had everything planned out before hand and followed a schedule she had set. Bob just did things that came to him as things to do.

And this is a bad example as BOTH people are spending the ''day doing what they want''.

That's why it's a perfect example, because there's nothing wrong with a game being linear or a game being sandbox. They're different approaches to playing a game, but as long as it's what people want to do, then it doesn't matter.

[Cluedrew]

*offers a box to store the vulnerable heart in*

Thank-you. I didn't really set out to write that. I was just going to make a comment about my guess at his motivation and then I felt I should explain how I arrived at that and then... well guess the ending just felt natural at that point.

Allow me to present some examples. Playground, I'll let you judge how good/bad they are, and feel free to offer advice to improve the examples.

The sword pieces would probably be in the notes of the sandbox, along with a neutral fraction and maybe possible allies within the orc army as well. Sandboxes have more options usually.

Also what sort of "non-linear" adventure are you going for. More than one type of game is "non-linear", even if we exclude sandboxes. For me the obvious third would be player-driven, but that doesn't seem to be what it is.

[JNAProductions]

The sword pieces would probably be in the notes of the sandbox, along with a neutral fraction and maybe possible allies within the orc army as well. Sandboxes have more options usually.

Also what sort of "non-linear" adventure are you going for. More than one type of game is "non-linear", even if we exclude sandboxes. For me the obvious third would be player-driven, but that doesn't seem to be what it is.

Obviously, yeah. I didn't want to write out all the sandbox/campaign notes, because that would take WAY TOO MUCH effort for this thread.

And I guess my distinction would be as follows:

A bad linear adventure renders the players irrelevant. The outcomes are pre-ordained, and what they do has basically no impact.

A good linear adventure has a set path, with plenty of stops along the way that are pre-ordained, but what the players do and how well they do it still matters.

A non-linear adventure has a set goal and a tighter focus than a sandbox campaign, but lots of freedom in achieving that goal.

A sandbox game is complete freedom.

[Darth Ultron]

And D&D can be played with a GM, a setting, player character etc and NOT be linear. So what are you trying to say?

When I am a DM, I make what you call "adventures". Yet, my games are not linear games. Can you get your head to figure out how this works?

No, but I'd guess your just using words differently. I'd guess that your using ''adventure'' to just be ''whatever you do'', much the same way many people say a ''story'' is just ''whatever they do''.

However, for a linear adventure, if the players decide (and are allowed to) take actions that do not bring them to, say, encounter A1, A2 and A3, then the adventure has no answer how to bring them to the ending B. So the linear adventure would fail.

A non-linear adventure DO NOT have a specific ending (be it B, C, D or whatever) in mind. Therefore, it's an open question where the players will end up in the end.

See, here you are using ''adventure'' to mean ''doing anything''.

Like:

Normal TRPG Adventure: has a beginning, middle and end with a goal that MUST be done to end the adventure. For example, the Adventure is ''Slay the Dragon of Fire Peak'', and it only ends when the player characters slay the dragon of fire peak.

''Your'' ''Adventure''-random stuff happens for a time and at some time you will say it's the end, randomly.

D&D can be played where "there is a dragon, your mission is to kill it". D&D can also be played where "there is a dragon" is simply a fact, and deciding what to do about that fact (ignore it, kill it, sneak in and loot it, ally with it, ask it to review the book you've been working on, etc) is up to the characters.

Um, right, like I have always said: The Players can take hours and hours just ''hanging around'', but eventually most(but not all) players will pick something to do. So, yes, the DM says ''there is a dragon'', the players then pick something to do, and then the adventure starts.

The question is, is building a shed the goal, or is the goal whatever the characters set for themselves?

It's a goal?

I mean, most published modules are linear / branching path. However, there is one that people keep mentioning - Keep on the Borlands, maybe? - where the module has a number of elements, and what the players react to, who they ally with, etc, is seemingly up to them to determine. Or perhaps I'm giving that module too much credit, having never seen or played it.

One of my favorites. Most of the module is just a dungeon crawl, but the ''setting'' around it is full of elements, plot threads and ''things to react to''.

So I guess part of the reason I have more patience for Darth Ultron than others* is when he starts going on, I see the me that after a disastrous game decided to blame the players (or even the structure of the medium) instead of deciding to try and improve.

I'm not a ''blame the players'' type. As DM I make the game what it is, though too I only game with good players for any real length of time.

Allow me to present some examples. Playground, I'll let you judge how good/bad they are, and feel free to offer advice to improve the examples.

Well, nice to have examples to work off of....but your examples seem a bit off.

Both the Non-Linear Adventure and the Sandbox Game examples are, as I have always said: The Pre-game introduction before the adventure.


*Pre-Game Introduction: The characters are hanging out in the city of Rubi not doing anything of real consequence like shopping, getting their hair done and socializing. Then, the DM says, To the East the orcs are invading. Then lets the players pick whatever response they want to have to that event.

Ok, so, both the Non-Linear Adventure and the Sandbox Game are utterly meaningless, they are just the introduction to the Adventure.

So this just leaves the Good Linear Adventure and Bad Linear Adventure, but as ALL Adventures MUST be linear, we can just drop that meaningless word too. So we are left with Good and Bad Adventures. Though, here too, we are not really talking about the ''adventure'' per say, we are really talking about the ''game play'', or even more specifically how the DM runs the game. So we can just say Good Game and Bad Game to cover that.

So, your example of a Bad Game just kinda says ''stuff happens'', but does not have much detail. But I think your trying to describe the game with a Bad or Casual DM(or lazy, jerk, or monster DM) that forces the players to mostly do one thing and have no real choices.

The Good Game Example, is the Normal Game.

Seriously? I didn't think I had to spell this out, but ok lets do this.

What? Your just describing two people doing the same things, just a bit different.

Try:

*Alice plans to wake up early and clean the yard, so the night before she makes out her plan and makes sure she goes to sleep early and gets a good rest. Then she wakes up early and does the yard work. As she has a plan and is prepared, she gets done in a good time and sits down to read her book. then she gets ready for her pre planned lunch date. Comes home cleans the house, has her dinner date and watches her TV show.

*Bob has no plan, ever. He spends the night out drinking with his pals, goes to bed late and wakes up just before noon the next day. Bob stumbles over to the window and looks at the mess of his yard and sort of half thinks he should clean it up. But Bob just says 'eh' and goes over to his book and looks at the cover. then Bob's pal calls and is all like ''let go out'', so Bob does and heads off to eat(and mostly drink). Later that night Bob is still hanging out with his pals, when his girl friend calls, and Bob makes up a lie that he will come see her soon. Hours later, Bob shows up..a mess, drunk and all full of endless excuses. They have a somewhat quick meal, then she kicks Bob out, and he stumbles home to pass out on the sofa.

So, note the huge difference?

[JNAProductions]

Try:

*Alice plans to wake up early and clean the yard, so the night before she makes out her plan and makes sure she goes to sleep early and gets a good rest. Then she wakes up early and does the yard work. As she has a plan and is prepared, she gets done in a good time and sits down to read her book. then she gets ready for her pre planned lunch date. Comes home cleans the house, has her dinner date and watches her TV show.

*Bob has no plan, ever. He spends the night out drinking with his pals, goes to bed late and wakes up just before noon the next day. Bob stumbles over to the window and looks at the mess of his yard and sort of half thinks he should clean it up. But Bob just says 'eh' and goes over to his book and looks at the cover. then Bob's pal calls and is all like ''let go out'', so Bob does and heads off to eat(and mostly drink). Later that night Bob is still hanging out with his pals, when his girl friend calls, and Bob makes up a lie that he will come see her soon. Hours later, Bob shows up..a mess, drunk and all full of endless excuses. They have a somewhat quick meal, then she kicks Bob out, and he stumbles home to pass out on the sofa.

So, note the huge difference?

Alice is a Type A person, she schedules everything down to the minute. She wakes up one morning, looks at her schedule and sees that the first thing she has for the day is cleaning up the debris in her yard from the storm yesterday. She does that for a few hours when her 11AM alarm goes off. It's time to go read a chapter from the book she's been reading. She reads for an hour and then heads to her lunch appointment with her friend. They have lunch and she returns home. Next on her list is to clean the house. At 6 PM, she answers the door because she's scheduled dinner with her boyfriend. At 8PM she sits down to watch the latest episode of Reality TV which she never misses, and at 9PM she heads to bed.

Bob is a Type B person, he just kind of likes going with the flow. He wakes up one morning and looks out his window to see that a storm the night before left a lot of debris in the yard. He decides he should clean that up now before it gets too hot. An hour or so later, he's finished and sits down with a book for a bit. Around the time he finishes a chapter, his friend calls him up to see if he wants to grab a bite to eat at that new mexican restaurant in town. He agrees and they meet up. A few hours into this meetup, his girlfriend calls. She's getting off work early today and wants to know if he wants to get together for dinner tonight. He agrees and hurries home to clean up the mess, because he's a bachelor who doesn't keep anything clean except when he's got company. They have dinner and she heads home after a while, he gets in bed and turns on the TV flipping around the channels until something catches his eye. After an hour or so, that heavy dinner really hits him hard and he conks out about 9PM

At the end of the day, Alice and Bob both did the following:
* Cleaned the yard
* Read a chapter in their book
* Had lunch with a friend
* Cleaned their house
* Had dinner with their significant other
* Watched TV
* Went to bed a 9PM

Alice however, had everything planned out before hand and followed a schedule she had set. Bob just did things that came to him as things to do.

Yes. You completely changed it.

Edit: The point is, people can do the same things for different reasons. One man donates to charity for a tax exemption, the other does it because it's a good thing to do.

Likewise, you can be a responsible person without planning everything to a t.

[Darth Ultron]

Yes. You completely changed it.

As I have said, dozens of times, a person can take many, many paths to a goal. But you need to have a goal that you want to do, and pick a path to take you to that goal. You have the goal of going to Wal Mart to buy some food. You can take any of a dozen routes to Wall Mart. That is a Normal Game in TRPG terms.

Others are saying ''no plan, no path'' and just do ''random stuff''....and yet still, somehow, get to the goal. And that is not how it works.

[Lorsa]

No, but I'd guess your just using words differently. I'd guess that your using ''adventure'' to just be ''whatever you do'', much the same way many people say a ''story'' is just ''whatever they do''.

I made a recent D&D 5E adventure which is about overthrowing an evil tyrant sorcerer who was once part of an order of "knights" that were protecting the land. He killed the others about 20 years ago and instead set himself up to be the ruler. Well, that is the "main" adventure, then there are small side-quests and minor adventures along the way. Still, very much an adventure

See, here you are using ''adventure'' to mean ''doing anything''.

Like:

Normal TRPG Adventure: has a beginning, middle and end with a goal that MUST be done to end the adventure. For example, the Adventure is ''Slay the Dragon of Fire Peak'', and it only ends when the player characters slay the dragon of fire peak.

''Your'' ''Adventure''-random stuff happens for a time and at some time you will say it's the end, randomly.

And a linear adventure would be "Slay the Dragon of the Fire Peak by first acquiring a map from the Shady Old Rogue at the Local Tavern, and then sneaking into the lair and fighting the dragon next to its Treasure Hoard".

A non-linear adventure is "Slay the Dragon of the Fire Peak".

See how those two are different?

I didn't say anything about C and D not being an end to the adventure. They could certainly be. It's just not the same type of ending as B. In a linear adventure, there's exactly one way to end the adventure. In a branching linear adventure, there might be five ways. In a non-linear adventure, nobody knows how many ways that could end the adventure and noone is keeping track of it.

Adventures still end, even in a non-linear one. The Dragon still dies. It might not die in its lair though, or by solely the hands of the PCs or whatever else was part of the "linear adventure plan".

And just because I want to be extra clear, here are some suggestions to the ending of "Slay the Dragon of the Fire Peak":

Ending A: PCs fight the dragon in its lair next to its treasure hoard.
Ending B: PCs fight the dragon on the slope of the mountain outside its lair.
Ending C: PCs organize a milita from the local villages and fights the dragon alongside 200 archers at the field outside of the village.

Or, well...

Ending D: The PCs convince another adventure group to go and try to kill the dragon, sneaks after them and attacks the dragon right after its killed the other group of adventurers as to get an easier fight.

A linear adventure has planned for Ending A. A branching linear adventure might plan for Ending A & B. A non-linear adventure would allow for C,D and whatever E,F,G,H... etc might be (the countless other ways one could kill the dragon in).

Um, right, like I have always said: The Players can take hours and hours just ''hanging around'', but eventually most(but not all) players will pick something to do. So, yes, the DM says ''there is a dragon'', the players then pick something to do, and then the adventure starts.

We are still talking about the structure of the adventure, not about "introduction" or whatever. Although I can see why it may seem so for you.

Well, nice to have examples to work off of....but your examples seem a bit off.

Both the Non-Linear Adventure and the Sandbox Game examples are, as I have always said: The Pre-game introduction before the adventure.

So you really can't see the difference in approach?

[Lorsa]

As I have said, dozens of times, a person can take many, many paths to a goal. But you need to have a goal that you want to do, and pick a path to take you to that goal. You have the goal of going to Wal Mart to buy some food. You can take any of a dozen routes to Wall Mart. That is a Normal Game in TRPG terms.

And a linear adventure is one where the DM is choosing the path to the goal. See how simple that is?

[jindra34]

I have but one thing to add DU: Roleplaying GAME =/= Adventure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And a linear adventure is one where the DM is choosing the path to the goal. See how simple that is?

Just expanding/being more systematic:

	Path chosen by	Goal chosen by
Linear	DM	DM
Branched linear	Party, from fixed choices	DM
Nonlinear	Party (the path is not fixed)	DM (the goal is fixed)
Party-led quasi-linear*	DM (usually in small increments)	Party (can change at any time)
Full Sandbox	Party (in an reacting world)	Party (may have quest seeds, maybe not)

Are there options that I missed? All of these can be fun, given the right group.

I tend to default to Party-led quasi-linear (my term, there's probably a better one)--they give me a goal, and I figure out how what the minimum requirements to meet that goal are. It's linear, but in short arcs rather than whole campaigns. Another way of saying that is that I set the macro path (if you want that item, it's there), but I let them figure out the minute-to-minute micro path.

[Darth Ultron]

I made a recent D&D 5E adventure which is about overthrowing an evil tyrant sorcerer who was once part of an order of "knights" that were protecting the land. He killed the others about 20 years ago and instead set himself up to be the ruler. Well, that is the "main" adventure, then there are small side-quests and minor adventures along the way. Still, very much an adventure

Based on that vague description that does sound like a typical adventure. Now my point is in a normal game, once the players say ''we will go on this adventure'' they can not do random things on a whim and in anyway advance the adventure..Unless the DM is doing the Improv Ogre and always making the adventure whatever the players do(though note this is not a normal game.)

You can have side quests and such, that is more about style, but you still have the Main Adventure.

And a linear adventure would be "Slay the Dragon of the Fire Peak by first acquiring a map from the Shady Old Rogue at the Local Tavern, and then sneaking into the lair and fighting the dragon next to its Treasure Hoard".

A non-linear adventure is "Slay the Dragon of the Fire Peak".

See how those two are different?

They are not as your moving things around.

The first one is a Jerk Monster DM, the one that everyone agrees is wrong. Again, I'd ask anyone to point to any published adventure that has words something like ''As DM you must force the players to make their characters do this one and only thing. Period" So DM just make up a set of events and force your players to do it and watch them do what you want.

Your example also covers video games, as I said, as they can only program so much into any game.

BUT any well written Adventure, without a Bad or Casual DM, will always lets the players ''pick'' what they want to do in the adventure.

Adventures still end, even in a non-linear one. The Dragon still dies. It might not die in its lair though, or by solely the hands of the PCs or whatever else was part of the "linear adventure plan".

A linear adventure has planned for Ending A. A branching linear adventure might plan for Ending A & B. A non-linear adventure would allow for C,D and whatever E,F,G,H... etc might be (the countless other ways one could kill the dragon in).".

My question, again, is why do you take this stance? I guess you have only seen badly written Adventures and/or always played with Bad and Casual DMs, but still can you point tons of published adventure that says something like this? So to be clear I'm looking for "no matter what the characters must do X, in exactly Y way and they are forbidden form doing anything else. Yes, there are some really, really, really badly written adventures....but it is safe to say most are full of ''what ifs', like they say ''if the characters do this or that'' or ''if this happens or not", as they fully acknowledge that lots of things ''might'' happen during the adventure and there is no One Way.

And a linear adventure is one where the DM is choosing the path to the goal. See how simple that is?

So, your saying linear = Railroad. Again. All bad things are Railroads, sigh.

In any case your wrong: The DM makes the paths, but the players choose the path....it's kind of like a corporative game(one where they players are not super hard core anti-DM jerks and are playing the game against the DM)

[Lorsa]

Just expanding/being more systematic:

	Path chosen by	Goal chosen by
Linear	DM	DM
Branched linear	Party, from fixed choices	DM
Nonlinear	Party (the path is not fixed)	DM (the goal is fixed)
Party-led quasi-linear*	DM (usually in small increments)	Party (can change at any time)
Full Sandbox	Party (in an reacting world)	Party (may have quest seeds, maybe not)

Are there options that I missed? All of these can be fun, given the right group.

I tend to default to Party-led quasi-linear (my term, there's probably a better one)--they give me a goal, and I figure out how what the minimum requirements to meet that goal are. It's linear, but in short arcs rather than whole campaigns. Another way of saying that is that I set the macro path (if you want that item, it's there), but I let them figure out the minute-to-minute micro path.

I was considering writing a very similar list actually. It explains things quite well. I would probably have put in "Party, from fixed DM created choices" into Branching Linear, but that's a minor editorial issue.

I have one group where I tend to move between non-linear and your "party-led quasi-linear" games, because that's what they like best. Then I have another group where I can do more of a full sandbox.

It's important to note that different players do like different games. Which can sometimes clash with how I like to run games. For example, I don't like to run linear adventures, but I have come across players that prefer it, so we don't work very well together.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was considering writing a very similar list actually. It explains things quite well. I would probably have put in "Party, from fixed DM created choices" into Branching Linear, but that's a minor editorial issue.

That was what I intended.

I have one group where I tend to move between non-linear and your "party-led quasi-linear" games, because that's what they like best. Then I have another group where I can do more of a full sandbox.

Same. I have two groups that due to other constraints need much more linear (really branched linear, with some flexibility) games, while others are more free-form.

It's important to note that different players do like different games. Which can sometimes clash with how I like to run games. For example, I don't like to run linear adventures, but I have come across players that prefer it, so we don't work very well together.

That's very true. There's no right or wrong, only appropriate for that group or not. Sometimes I like playing JRPGs that are totally linear. In fact, the player really gets to make no important choices--not even of character. Other times I like more open sandboxes. I tend to settle somewhere around non-linear/branching linear (can do things in various orders, but have to do X, Y, and Z) for my CRPGs. Other people are different. And that's just fine.

[Darth Ultron]

I was considering writing a very similar list actually. It explains things quite well. I would probably have put in "Party, from fixed DM created choices" into Branching Linear, but that's a minor editorial issue.

Wait, I don't get this list at all.

Why are the Players not Always choosing the goal and path?

This is what separates a TRPG from other games and epically video games. Like I said in post one.

Unless you have a Bad or Casual DM who is a Jerk, why would the DM pick a goal and path for the players and then force them to do this.

And note, I don't count the ''follower'' type players who explicitly ask the DM for a goal and path to follow, because after all it's still the players asking for that.

[Lorsa]

Based on that vague description that does sound like a typical adventure. Now my point is in a normal game, once the players say ''we will go on this adventure'' they can not do random things on a whim and in anyway advance the adventure..Unless the DM is doing the Improv Ogre and always making the adventure whatever the players do(though note this is not a normal game.)

You can have side quests and such, that is more about style, but you still have the Main Adventure.

Obviously the players can not do any random thing and advance the adventure. They have to do specific things that will move them closer to the goal. I don't think this has ever been the dispute?

They are not as your moving things around.

The first one is a Jerk Monster DM, the one that everyone agrees is wrong. Again, I'd ask anyone to point to any published adventure that has words something like ''As DM you must force the players to make their characters do this one and only thing. Period" So DM just make up a set of events and force your players to do it and watch them do what you want.

Your example also covers video games, as I said, as they can only program so much into any game.

BUT any well written Adventure, without a Bad or Casual DM, will always lets the players ''pick'' what they want to do in the adventure.

Oh but it is and I have never been moving things around.

In fact, YOU are the one that claims the first one is a jerk monster DM. Creating a linear adventure, where the DM decides the path, in itself not a jerk move. Some players actually prefer this style for various reasons (for example, it guarantees them that as long as they follow the DM's arrows, they can't fail).

A well written, NON-linear adventure will let the players pick what they want to do in the adventure. Or rather, how well written it is doesn't matter in this case. It matters if it's linear or non-linear (with branching linear in-between).

My question, again, is why do you take this stance? I guess you have only seen badly written Adventures and/or always played with Bad and Casual DMs, but still can you point tons of published adventure that says something like this? So to be clear I'm looking for "no matter what the characters must do X, in exactly Y way and they are forbidden form doing anything else. Yes, there are some really, really, really badly written adventures....but it is safe to say most are full of ''what ifs', like they say ''if the characters do this or that'' or ''if this happens or not", as they fully acknowledge that lots of things ''might'' happen during the adventure and there is no One Way.

I haven't red tons of published adventures, I'll grant you that. I usually run my own as it's more fun (for me). I have recently read "Hoard of the Dragon Queen", and that one was actually very linear and it said "the players must do X" (for example, go to Baldur's Gate and go undercover in a Caravan).

It still has some "what-ifs", but the main adventure is extremely li

So, your saying linear = Railroad. Again. All bad things are Railroads, sigh.

Railroads are not bad things in themselves. And yeah, linear = railroad. However, linear does not equal (!=) railroading. Railroading is something else and is NOT "making a linear adventure" or "putting down the rails". Railroading is forcing the players to follow the linear adventure even when they don't want to.

Basically, railroading IS a jerk move, but making a linear adventure (a.k.a. a railroad), is NOT. Some players LIKE linear railroad style adventures!

In any case your wrong: The DM makes the paths, but the players choose the path....it's kind of like a corporative game(one where they players are not super hard core anti-DM jerks and are playing the game against the DM)

I would say that the DM makes or creates the world whereas the players choose the actions of their characters.

[Lorsa]

Wait, I don't get this list at all.

Why are the Players not Always choosing the goal and path?

This is what separates a TRPG from other games and epically video games. Like I said in post one.

Unless you have a Bad or Casual DM who is a Jerk, why would the DM pick a goal and path for the players and then force them to do this.

And note, I don't count the ''follower'' type players who explicitly ask the DM for a goal and path to follow, because after all it's still the players asking for that.

The are several reasons for players not always choosing the goal and path.

One is that the players are not interesting in choosing the goal and the path. Maybe they have a hard time to figure out motivations for themselves? Perhaps they don't like the idea of failure or easily suffer from decision paralysis? Maybe they just want to turn their brains off, experiencing a decent story while fighting monsters?

I mean, this is why we come up with these words and this list, so we can separate different games from each other in order to help people get what they want.

So some players might approach the DM and say "can you give us a nice linear adventure to play through?" and the DM says "yup, sure can!" whereas another group might approach the DM and say "can you give us a big rich world full of plot hooks which we can explore and play around in" and the DM says "yup, sure can!".

There sometimes is an unfortunate time when the DM creates a linear adventure without the players asking for it, and then refuses to let them diverge from it. This is what we call railroading, and I think both you and I agree that this is a jerk DM bad move.

I mean, some DMs ARE jerks. Not all, but some. Indeed, some players are ALSO jerks. Basically, some people are jerks. And we don't like jerks.

The reason I have encountered more jerk DMs than jerk players, is because it's harder for me to find DMs than players, so I have to live with whatever I can find. I am selective in regards to my players, so I avoid jerks. If I want a game however, it can be more difficult, as there are fewer DMs out there. So it's harder to avoid the jerks.

On account of what you've said in this thread, I'd assume you usually makes what PhoenixPyre refers to as "Party-led quasi-linear" adventures?

[Quertus]

And a linear adventure is one where the DM is choosing the path to the goal. See how simple that is?

Well put.

Wait, I don't get this list at all.

Why are the Players not Always choosing the goal and path? Unless you have a Bad or Casual DM who is a Jerk, why would the DM pick a goal and path for the players and then force them to do this.

Pick a module. Say, the infamous Tomb of Horrors. The goal is pretty darn well layed out for you. Many GMs get a bit miffed, or have no ability to cope if the players decide that, instead of looting the tomb, they're gonna, say, slaughter the people living on top the tomb and add them to their undead army, then camp out, waiting to rob adventurers who seek the tomb. Because that's not the goal of the adventure.

The word "linear" had meaning because it describes how the adventure is designed and played. If you can only understand "linear" (and "railroad") as a simple label for what you call "bad jerk GM", well, there's more to it than that, but I'll call it progress.

As I have said, dozens of times, a person can take many, many paths to a goal. But you need to have a goal that you want to do, and pick a path to take you to that goal. You have the goal of going to Wal Mart to buy some food. You can take any of a dozen routes to Wall Mart. That is a Normal Game in TRPG terms.

Others are saying ''no plan, no path'' and just do ''random stuff''....and yet still, somehow, get to the goal. And that is not how it works.

Oh, the teens in my life disagree.

"I'm hungry."
"What do you want?"
"I don't know."

So, we drive around, and, eventually, wind up at Wal-Mart. Or McDonald's. Or even going back home and eating a bowl of cereal.

Worse is when it's "I'm bored". One needn't start with a specific goal to do something. Adventure is out there.

And note, I don't count the ''follower'' type players who explicitly ask the DM for a goal and path to follow, because after all it's still the players asking for that.

By the time one removes all the stuff you don't count, there's only a very small percentage of games left.

Some GMs, that's the only style they are capable of. Others, they have no concept that any other style could possibly exist, or possibly be fun. To them, this is a "normal game", and anything else is just random... hey, wait a minute!

[Cluedrew]

I'm not a ''blame the players'' type. As DM I make the game what it is, though too I only game with good players for any real length of time.

Under my extrapolated model, this would be a "blame the medium" argument.

And if by "good players" you mean that they get out of the way and let the GM do their thing, you are really missing out. One person will never be able to do as much as 3-5 or more people who can actually work together and all be making meaningful contributions.

[Corneel]

Just expanding/being more systematic:

	Path chosen by	Goal chosen by
Linear	DM	DM
Branched linear	Party, from fixed choices	DM
Nonlinear	Party (the path is not fixed)	DM (the goal is fixed)
Party-led quasi-linear*	DM (usually in small increments)	Party (can change at any time)
Full Sandbox	Party (in an reacting world)	Party (may have quest seeds, maybe not)

Are there options that I missed? All of these can be fun, given the right group.

I tend to default to Party-led quasi-linear (my term, there's probably a better one)--they give me a goal, and I figure out how what the minimum requirements to meet that goal are. It's linear, but in short arcs rather than whole campaigns. Another way of saying that is that I set the macro path (if you want that item, it's there), but I let them figure out the minute-to-minute micro path.

I'd add Multilinear with multiple goals set by the DM, each with multiple paths leading to them (and opportunity of switching goals during play).

[strangebloke]

As I have said, dozens of times, a person can take many, many paths to a goal. But you need to have a goal that you want to do, and pick a path to take you to that goal. You have the goal of going to Wal Mart to buy some food. You can take any of a dozen routes to Wall Mart. That is a Normal Game in TRPG terms.

Others are saying ''no plan, no path'' and just do ''random stuff''....and yet still, somehow, get to the goal. And that is not how it works.

Many paths to a goal, I get that. But how far-away is that goal?

1. in a very linear game, the DM might establish hundreds of short term goals. "Look, a door that we must go through. We can walk sideways, backwards... but we're going through the door." This is fine, but a lot of players get pretty sick of this kind of micromanagement.
2. In the kinds of games I run, goals are pretty distant: "Stop the efforts of the Ragged Queen in this city." There have dozens of leads to follow and dozens of potential strategies.
3. In a very non-linear game, the problem can be very open-ended. I've see a game with the goal "Get 1 million gp" and the players at that table are free to do literally anything to get to that point. The DM filled the world with monsters, dungeons, warfare, and just lets the players decide ho they wanna make money.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Many paths to a goal, I get that. But how far-away is that goal?

1. in a very linear game, the DM might establish hundreds of short term goals. "Look, a door that we must go through. We can walk sideways, backwards... but we're going through the door." This is fine, but a lot of players get pretty sick of this kind of micromanagement.
2. In the kinds of games I run, goals are pretty distant: "Stop the efforts of the Ragged Queen in this city." There have dozens of leads to follow and dozens of potential strategies.
3. In a very non-linear game, the problem can be very open-ended. I've see a game with the goal "Get 1 million gp" and the players at that table are free to do literally anything to get to that point. The DM filled the world with monsters, dungeons, warfare, and just lets the players decide ho they wanna make money.

As I see it, there are macro goals and micro goals.

Macro goals are like your "Stop the efforts of the Ragged Queen." They take place across multiple sessions and define the shape of the whole arc/sub-campaign (at least). Micro goals are the short-term "this is what needs to happen to stop her" goals. These usually (for me) set the shape of a session (or two) each. These are more abstract than the actual methods used to accomplish those goals--they're more like checkpoints. For me, the "path" is the actual implementation details--we're going to achieve micro goal 1 by X, micro goal 2 by Y, plus any on-the-fly refinements. Sometimes how they accomplish (or fail to accomplish) a given micro goal changes what other steps are necessary.

As the density of micro goals increases, the flexibility decreases. If the DM sets lots of micro goals (and they're all mandatory and ordered, checklist-style), you get a traditional railroad/JRPG. In my experience, there's a lot of back and forth negotiation both among the party and between the party and the DM on micro goals--what set is necessary, what do we want, how will doing it this way change what we have to do later, etc. This often happens on the fly, which requires improvisation from the DM.

As an example, take one of my more linear games.

Macro goal: stop a mad druid from misusing an ancient magical research station to create abominations. Sub-goal: destroy the research station.

Micro goal 1: Find the station. Accomplished. There were multiple possibilities here.
Micro goal 2: Gain access. Accomplished (chose from one of a few possibilities).
Micro goal 3: Figure out what's going on.
Micro goal 4: Take down the big boss.
Micro goal 5: destroy the station or render it unuseable.

Goals 3-5 are In progress/failed/????

Instead of gathering information and taking down the big boss (and then breaking the then undefended station), they decided to start breaking things. Now I have to decide what that changes from here on out. I know there's going to be alarms and responses, but the way they did it means that they, themselves, have not been identified. It could have been just a malfunction for all the boss knows.

[Quertus]

I'd add Multilinear with multiple goals set by the DM, each with multiple paths leading to them (and opportunity of switching goals during play).

There is value in this. Personally, I prefer games where, say, Quertus has the goals of collecting the components necessary for creating several items (player driven, GM isn't even aware it's a goal), research the location of and collect the seven shards of the McGuffin (some form of linear quest), safeguard and train his next apprentice Wizard (???), work on his books (player driven), fight off the Slaad invasion (), negotiate with several factions (), plus whatever other individual goals the rest of the party has, and all of these are happening at once, in whatever order the players choose to deal with each individual piece of them.

Maybe, one session, Quertus has his apprentice reading books for clues as to the location of the McGuffin while he deals with the Slaad portal (and collects pieces of the portal to use as components for his item). Then, next session, he takes his apprentice with him to the northern pass to hunt for the third shard of the McGuffin (and collects freshly fallen snow to use as a component for his item). Then next session, they deal with the Slaad who are drinking all the wine at the vineyard (and collects drunken Slaad blood to use as a component). Then next session (or, just as likely, during downtime between sessions), he sends his apprentice off with copies of his latest book while he... no, he heads off with copies of his latest book while he sends his apprentice off to talk to the religious zealots. Then next session, Quertus assures the religious zealots that the Slaad that burst out of his apprentice was not put there intentionally to attack them, adds a detailed drawing of his apprentice exploding to his book about extraplanar creatures, and goes off to find a new apprentice.

This kind of "lots of pots, deal with whichever you want" is generally my preferred style of game. And I prefer those pots to be a mix of GM- and player-driven.

[Segev]

What? Your just describing two people doing the same things, just a bit different.

No, he's describing two people who did the same things over the course of the day. One planned it out to the half-hour. One had no plan, but happened to do the same things as he improvised his day's schedule.

That is literally the point. You keep insisting that Bob could not have had the day he is described as having, because he didn't plan it out half-hour by half-hour and rigidly follow his schedule.

Try:

*Alice plans to wake up early and clean the yard, so the night before she makes out her plan and makes sure she goes to sleep early and gets a good rest. Then she wakes up early and does the yard work. As she has a plan and is prepared, she gets done in a good time and sits down to read her book. then she gets ready for her pre planned lunch date. Comes home cleans the house, has her dinner date and watches her TV show.

*Bob has no plan, ever. He spends the night out drinking with his pals, goes to bed late and wakes up just before noon the next day. Bob stumbles over to the window and looks at the mess of his yard and sort of half thinks he should clean it up. But Bob just says 'eh' and goes over to his book and looks at the cover. then Bob's pal calls and is all like ''let go out'', so Bob does and heads off to eat(and mostly drink). Later that night Bob is still hanging out with his pals, when his girl friend calls, and Bob makes up a lie that he will come see her soon. Hours later, Bob shows up..a mess, drunk and all full of endless excuses. They have a somewhat quick meal, then she kicks Bob out, and he stumbles home to pass out on the sofa.

So, note the huge difference?

Of course there's a huge difference. You completely changed the scenarios. Which goes to show that you acknowledge you can't argue the point made. You're out and out telling Quertus that he didn't make a "correct" example because it proves his point and disproves yours, and trying to tell him to use this other example you made up so you can claim that you've won the argument.

Darth Ultron, you really need to actually learn to debate, rather than trying to stamp your feet and yell at everybody that they have to use your arguments for their positions so that you can defeat them.



Now, if you want to claim that your example is a better one than Quertus's, you'll have to explain WHY we should assume Bob is a drunken slob who oversleeps every day. What about the differences Quertus outlined (Alice plans nigh obsessively; Bob improvises his schedule) means Bob has to be a lazy, time-wasting drunkard who can't go to bed at a reasonable time nor get up early and be productive?

Quertus did a good job of outlining motivations and cues that got Bob going on each task. None were unreasonable for a day's events.

You'll need to knock those down to demonstrate that Bob could not have done those things Quertus's narrative laid out before you can justify changing it to your scenario as the only alternative.

[Quertus]

No, he's describing two people who did the same things over the course of the day. One planned it out to the half-hour. One had no plan, but happened to do the same things as he improvised his day's schedule.

That is literally the point. You keep insisting that Bob could not have had the day he is described as having, because he didn't plan it out half-hour by half-hour and rigidly follow his schedule.

Of course there's a huge difference. You completely changed the scenarios. Which goes to show that you acknowledge you can't argue the point made. You're out and out telling Quertus that he didn't make a "correct" example because it proves his point and disproves yours, and trying to tell him to use this other example you made up so you can claim that you've won the argument.

Darth Ultron, you really need to actually learn to debate, rather than trying to stamp your feet and yell at everybody that they have to use your arguments for their positions so that you can defeat them.



Now, if you want to claim that your example is a better one than Quertus's, you'll have to explain WHY we should assume Bob is a drunken slob who oversleeps every day. What about the differences Quertus outlined (Alice plans nigh obsessively; Bob improvises his schedule) means Bob has to be a lazy, time-wasting drunkard who can't go to bed at a reasonable time nor get up early and be productive?

Quertus did a good job of outlining motivations and cues that got Bob going on each task. None were unreasonable for a day's events.

You'll need to knock those down to demonstrate that Bob could not have done those things Quertus's narrative laid out before you can justify changing it to your scenario as the only alternative.

I know I'm getting senile, but I don't think I'm the original author of this example...

[Kitten Champion]

It's like the difference between jazz and classical music.

With classical, the shape of the music will ultimately conform to the notes on the sheet. You can reinterpret elements purposefully, and what instruments you use as well as the individual skill of your musician(s) will change one recital from the next but the listener should be able to recognize the work if they know it. Even if you compose your own neo-classical score, the fundamentals here don't change. Order and precision are what's relevant, and the better mechanical skill you have to follow the sheet before you the better the musician you are.

With jazz you can improvise and muck about with all sorts of sounds arranged in innumerable ways. No sheet is necessary, and the individual nature of the musician will stand out even further, but you need the same skills play the instruments as those doing the classical works. Jazz is still music, the sounds produced still have to be arranged into what the listener comprehends as such and the instruments you have available to you are limited as well. Thus jazz gives you freedom of expression but within the confines of established musical conventions, so there's something to define jazz from auditory chaos.

[Cluedrew]

No, he's describing two people who did the same things over the course of the day. One planned it out to the half-hour. One had no plan, but happened to do the same things as he improvised his day's schedule.

Um... That is "just describing two people doing the same things, just a bit different." So what Darth Ultron said here is correct, in fact it proves the point. There isn't a significance difference. I guess he got a bit confused because he thought there would have to be, but in the end there isn't.

Unless something happens that isn't part of Alice's plan. Which is where she will either have to try and follow it even though it is no longer appropriate (railroading) or she will have to make things up like Bob does normally (improvisation).

[1337 b4k4]

Um... That is "just describing two people doing the same things, just a bit different." So what Darth Ultron said here is correct, in fact it proves the point. There isn't a significance difference. I guess he got a bit confused because he thought there would have to be, but in the end there isn't.

Unless something happens that isn't part of Alice's plan. Which is where she will either have to try and follow it even though it is no longer appropriate (railroading) or she will have to make things up like Bob does normally (improvisation).

The difference is in the approach and that's the point. DU seems to think that it's impossible to have a "normal game" without linear play; if you don't engage in linear play, you're just doing random things that are unproductive and useless. My point was that linear vs sandbox isn't a description of the outcome, it's a description of the approach. A sandbox game is a normal game, just like a linear game is a normal game. But they're played differently, even if the end result is the same.