IMHO, I think it is the difference is between expecting to be entertained and taking a hand in what happens.Originally Posted by kk7
Games like Dungeon World / Apocalypse World try to draw the player into self steering by the game design.
The GM is the arbitrator and describer not the Director.
I try to run my games that way, just using the older rule set.
=
Last edited by Greentongue; 08-26-2017 at 04:38 PM.
I agree with your comment. These days, with the internet, I often see posts and blogs with people discussing railroads and sandboxes (often with great emotion), but it took me a while to catch on to what they were even talking about. Having begun gaming in the 70s, we just sat down and played. The game master created the setting, told you what sort of characters were available in his game, divulged any house rules, and wrote up exciting places for you to adventure in. There was no 'analysis' of play styles. Certainly, players were free to express preferences, and game masters were free to work with them, or they could go play with somebody else if they were that bored (assuming that was an option). But generally, we wanted to play, and were playing with friends, so there was little drama. Really, do poker players go through all that drama? Chess players?I don't get it.
As to just how much time the game master might devote to writing up those exciting places for you to adventure in, well maybe that's the key in determining which modern label applies, railroad or sandbox. Many games consisted of a town, and a "dungeon." Take it or leave it. If I write up a city, a town, a bit of surrounding wilderness, a dungeon and a few lairs, then hopefully there's enough variety to satisfy anyone.
But I've said this before. If I say to my players, "How about an underwater adventure?" and they say "Wow, cool, let's do it!" And I then spend weeks writing it up, and when I drop the clue leading to it, they answer with something like, "Oh forget it, let's go search the mountains for fire giants instead," then we're gonna see some drama...
This is excellent. Your games sound like a blast!
I'm with Chirine, where can I sign up?
Shemek
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
Maybe I don't really, fully understand the differences between the two styles, and I may be misusing the terminology. When I speak about "sandboxes" I am referring to a type of game where the decision as to where and how to adventure is made solely by the players. My job as DM is to come up with a series of encounters and perhaps ultimately some type of dungeon. But at the end of the day the group will drive the outcome, not the DM. Whereas, when I talk about "railroads" I am referring to a series of events and encounters, carefully orchestrated by the DM, and really unavoidable for the most part, put in place so that the party can get to the "dungeon," and perform some type of heroic action(s), in order to accomplish some "preordained" event. They really have no final agency, and only a limited type of autonomy. Is this what is generally understood to be the case by gamers when one talks about "sandbox" and "railroad" games?I agree with your comment. These days, with the internet, I often see posts and blogs with people discussing railroads and sandboxes (often with great emotion), but it took me a while to catch on to what they were even talking about. Having begun gaming in the 70s, we just sat down and played. The game master created the setting, told you what sort of characters were available in his game, divulged any house rules, and wrote up exciting places for you to adventure in. There was no 'analysis' of play styles. Certainly, players were free to express preferences, and game masters were free to work with them, or they could go play with somebody else if they were that bored (assuming that was an option). But generally, we wanted to play, and were playing with friends, so there was little drama. Really, do poker players go through all that drama? Chess players?
As to just how much time the game master might devote to writing up those exciting places for you to adventure in, well maybe that's the key in determining which modern label applies, railroad or sandbox. Many games consisted of a town, and a "dungeon." Take it or leave it. If I write up a city, a town, a bit of surrounding wilderness, a dungeon and a few lairs, then hopefully there's enough variety to satisfy anyone.
But I've said this before. If I say to my players, "How about an underwater adventure?" and they say "Wow, cool, let's do it!" And I then spend weeks writing it up, and when I drop the clue leading to it, they answer with something like, "Oh forget it, let's go search the mountains for fire giants instead," then we're gonna see some drama...
Shemek
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
I think so too. We're exploring Tekumel which is all I'm interested in these days when it comes to RPGs.Which is a Good Thing, if you asked me!
Shemek.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
I would certainly be on board for this. Would it be feasible to perhaps have a monthly post on the Workbench?
Of course it will be unofficial Tekumel, mustn't upset any muckety-mucks.
Shemek
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
IMO, what you're describing are two unrealistic extremes at either end of a continuum. I doubt either extreme play style existed in any kind of statistically-significant way "back in the day," and I think the Dragonlance series of modules, meant to play through a set story, were the first major example of what is today termed "railroad." And that was a specific product with a specific goal: play along with the novels.
As the decades went on, specific games were written up that were, in fact, player-driven. That type of game attracts a very specific type of player, and honestly I don't really think it even sits in the same category of game as D&D, Runequest, Traveller or Star Wars. Our rpg games were conceived of with a game master who creates and runs adventures in his world. Players have a very different role, in that they are reacting to what he describes, and his interpretations of their actions. They may develop a personality for their characters with specific character-growth goals (become the King's Magician, take over control of the Temple of Odin, establish a colony on the moon), and upon arriving in a town they may say "I'm shopping for a Japanese katana, and looking for a date with a barmaid," but when the game master blots out the sun and a horde of undead attack the town, one expects the player's character to react according to his stated nature (or "alignment"). The game master sets the scene, the players improvise their dialogue. Now roll the dice.
We have literally thousands of adventure modules, still being happily written and played to this day, no complaints heard. That is not player-driven. Each one describes a setting, npcs, and usually, a plot or goal for the players to achieve. When there is no provided objective (such as save the princess, end the threat to the town, or kill the lich), the product is usually marketed as a "setting" rather than an "adventure module." Although there is a subset of players who appear to like the term "sandbox" instead. C'est la vie.
I'll reiterate what I said when reacting to Chirine. The topic never really came up, because it wasn't an issue. We just played. The internet, like our 24/7 news, has changed people's perception. But I managed to go through forty years of role-playing without ever actually gaming with anyone who had an issue about wanting a player to dictate the course of a game. Ever. And I've played with lots of people, in lots of different groups, in lots of different cities, at conventions, game stores and private homes. I've even played a decent amount of time online in recent years. So while there may be gamers who are passionate about this particular topic, they're not in any way a part of my life. And I don't care what games they play, it's none of my business. I just play rpgs.
Ok, I get it now. Funny enough, I was actually thinking of Dragonlance when writing what I felt was a definition for "railroad." Perhaps I should just stick to the way I have been doing it all these years, and not re-invent the wheel.
Thanks for the clarification.
Shemek.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
Yes, ok; I think that this is what I'm about in my games - the players choose their adventures, and I'm their resource base...
Me too; my excursions to Barsoom, Greyhawk, and Blackmoor are part of this. And the little side trips to Ancient Egypt, well, that's for Phil...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks