I was talking with some gaming friends the other day and the railroad was discussed. Later that day I was reading some threads on the RPGGeek forums and found a current discussion regarding railroading in your game. Since this topic seems to keep coming up, I decided to write down my thoughts once again, and maybe offer a framework that gives the readers a better picture of how to define these terms.
–
From the GM Point of View
I try not to do the “bad” sort of railroading in my games. I make this statement knowing full well that where the line is drawn that pulls something into the “bad” category is like beauty – completely within the eye of the beholder.
In other words – I do not like the pre-destiny type railroading that sometimes happens… this is when the end has already been defined by the GM and the players are just along for the ride, having no real ability to affect the outcome. (this is, of course, excepting a game like Paranoia 25th Anniversary where everyone knows their clones are going to die several times per session, and all go in with that expectation).
I do, however, often give hints and provide enough clues for the players to get on track for a major quest of some sort. There are often side quests on which the players go and then, eventually, they need to be put on the rails to get back on track with the main quest. In that case the rails are actually preferred, rather than having them bumble around and try and figure out what to do next, not exactly remembering all the clues and having only imperfect notes to go by.
The key to giving the players a sense of the sandbox rather than rails is to allow the player’s (and PC’s) choices to affect the game. Their actions should have consequences and the outcome is not preordained but is instead determined by the choices made. Given that, there is also an understanding in my games that
- There are certain encounters that have to happen
- There are certain people that have to be met
- There are facts that have to be uncovered
- There are artifacts that have to be found
in order to finish the main quest. And so I feel they can deal with a few bits of railroady-ness in cases where they need the next clue to go further.
–
From the Player Point of View
As a player I like both railroads and sandboxes. It simply depends on what type of campaign it is and what the other players want. I would rather play a railroaded game in which everyone is having fun than a sandbox in which most players are bored and confused; in that context the railroad doesn’t sound so bad. The fact is, though, that this is not the way the choice is presented at the beginning of a campaign so it isn’t a simple easy decision.
One of the problems is that we are using the two terms as though they are diametrically opposed to one another when really they are two extremes along a continuum. There is also an inherent derogatory connotation associated with the word railroad which shouldn’t necessarily be the case. A directionless sandbox with no clues can be just as bad as a pre-determined railroad game, so putting a derogatory connotation on one and not the other is unfair.
–
Good and Bad Attributes of Each Style
I have pointed out that there is a sense of good vs bad railroading. For me, a railroaded game can fall into the bad category if the players really have no meaningful choices and the end of the story is already predetermined. Given that thought, good railroading would allow the players to have limited choices and the end of the story is determined by which choices they make. The mix of how many choices and how important they are is the heart of the campaign.
I also think that a pure sandbox game with infinite choices and no limits or direction provided would potentially be a boring game. This would fall into the bad sandbox category for me.
As I sat here typing this, I decided to jot down some attributes and make a chart showing categorization of the good and bad attributes of Railroad and Sandbox styles. Each axis represents a continuum and the text in the boxes represents the extreme utilization of that style:
I’ve run games in every quadrant of the above chart. The amount of fun had in any given case is dependent on the likes and dislikes of the players and on the expectations set before the start of the campaign.
–
What’s Expectations Got To Do With It?
In short – EVERTHING! The main question here really is about expectations, not whether or not a sandbox is better than a railroad. It is important in any group that the GM set the expectations before the game starts. The players then get to join in the conversation and explain what they want the game to be like (i.e. tell the GM their expectations).
In my experience, it is when there is a break down in this communication about expectations from both sides that there are complaints about railroading. Granted, of course, that the purported expectations are also honest…
I’ve had players say that they wanted a low railroad, heavy-sandbox game and then they complained when I didn’t tell them what to do next or force them into the next phase. I said that the sandbox nature of the adventure meant that they needed to pick up on clues and actively search for quests and items. This was a problem of expectations… they thought sandbox meant it would be small, delve like sessions with specific ends all unconnected to a main railroad-driven storyline, meanwhile I meant sandbox as a game where I supply ample clues and choices and they actively seek out more information about the things that interested the PCs. Their active investigation would inevitably lead them on quests, and then if they got tired of one area they could go to a different place.
I’ve also had games where the players asked for a railroady, GM driven game and then they complained when they couldn’t go somewhere else before they finished a quest.
Neither of these is the fault of the players or GM alone, but rather is a result of missing communication/incompatible definitions/misunderstood expectations. In both cases, once the concerns were vented, the campaign was shifted to one that suited everyone’s expectations more closely and everyone was happy.
As a player, sometimes it is a matter of recognizing that the game being run isn’t what you want and having to say: “Everyone has different expectations than I do, so I think I don’t fit this campaign group very well. I am going to bow out and play a different game for now.”
As a GM, sometimes it is a matter of realizing that everyone isn’t having as much fun as you thought they would and having to say: “This doesn’t seem as interesting or fun for everyone as I thought, so maybe we should shift the campaign into a style that we will all enjoy; or possibly just start a new campaign.”
These are hard things to come to terms with and it is hard to leave a game if you are good friends with everyone in your group. No one wants to hear that someone else isn’t having fun, especially the GM who potentially puts hours of work into a campaign every week. Just remember that this is a game and it is meant to be fun and fulfilling for all.
If you want to play the game that will be the most fun for the most people, the easiest way to accomplish this is to set expectations before the campaign starts and then try and accommodate the expectations of everyone a bit so that everyone gets a part of what they want. This is true whether you prefer a sandbox or a railroad.
–
Until next time, I wish you good gaming!
Nice article, Sam. I’ve long believed many of the same things, especially that Scripted vs. Sandbox is a continuum, not an absolute, and setting expectations along that spectrum is important to the health of the game.
Thanks Dave – That’s a huge compliment coming from you!
Unfortunately many of the ‘controversies’ in RPGs occur simply because of unclear definitions or expectations. The good news is that good communication can (and does) solve many of these issues. For whatever reason, though, the Sandbox/Railroad issue persists. Oh well, what can you do? Hopefully writing this article is helpful to someone struggling with where to place their preferences and how to express their expectations.
expectations.
This is the word that holds a lot for every player and GM. If you ask your Players “what do you expect from the game”? What are you likely to get back from them.? ” Its up to you man we do not mind”.
Then when it does go off track, the players will not tell you as it is so hard to, straight out upset the GM. THe GM then continues with the same mistakes.
Anyway. Railroading.
All games are Railroading in some form. You set a task it has to be done. No matter what way it gets done (sandboxing) It becomes a rail road. you just took a different route to get to the same end point..
Let me try and give a small example.
You have to get a clue from davek, the Tiefling trader. (GM note) he is found in the market most weekends. Yet the players do not pick up on this and so do not go to the market. They should really miss that clue. But hey as a GM why can they not meet him going to the market or leaving a market town or even at home. Still the end result is the same but a different route to get there.
I hope i make sense. Thanks
Great article Sam.
I never really thought of it the way you’ve mapped it out, but this is how I’m running my campaign. Basically, there are things going on in the greater world beyond the adventures my players are currently involved in. However, each action that they take has a butterfly effect on the world. Sometimes they simply change the course of destiny in their home town, and sometimes they alter the plans of major antagonists. I have an overarching story, but it is constantly evolving based on the things that the group does every session.
This is the best way to run, I think. The players’ choices should matter, while at the same time, you have to have somewhat of a plan or you just have a disjointed mess.
@AlioTheFool – Thanks! I agree – particularly with this statement of yours: “I have an overarching story, but it is constantly evolving based on the things that the group does every session.” I try to run the game world like that as well, and because I run two or three groups in the same world at a time, sometimes what one group does changes the situation for another group. This is not always transparent enough for the players in one party to recognize it as such, but what they DO notice is that the world is a living thing, not a stagnant stage.
@symatt If you ask your players about their expectations and their response is “It’s up to you man we do not mind” then there is a breakdown in communication. This is exactly the problem I was describing. What you can try to do is prod a little bit more by asking the question differently.
Instead of the open ended “What are your expectations?” ask specific questions, like these:
“Do you want a heroic cinematic story, or a girtty hard-won story”
“Do you want an intrigue laced game or a straightforward monster hack?”
“Do you want most of the game to take place in the city or the wilderness?”
“Do you want to have lots of small quests while moving towards the completion of the big quest, or do you want to only do one big quest at a time?”
“Do you want lots of puzzles and traps or just combat and basic PC/NPC interaction?”
Not that these are all mutually exclusive, but asking the question in a more specific manner gets their minds working and prompts them to explain what they want/need/prefer in a better way than “It’s up to you man.” And of course this is by no means an exhaustive list of what you can ask your players in order to get a more definitive idea of their expectations.
Since this isn’t something that most people are used to being asked to describe, many players are unsure if there is a “right” answer and so they decline to say anything, covering it with “It’s up to you.” In my experience, when I ask the players what their expectations are about the game, they are shocked or, at the very least, surprised by the question. It’s not that they don’t have expectations, its that we don’t discuss it very much and therefore people tend to assume that everyone has the same definition of railroad, sandbox, role-playing, fun, and game. What I invariably find out is that people don’t have the same definitions for those words, so it is better to get it all out in the open at the beginning. If you have to ask probing questions to do so, then go for it!
Also, @symatt, thank you – I think you have inspired me to write another post. This time it will be about how to find out what the expectations of your players actually are. I already have the skeleton of it sketched out. Stay tuned and it will be posted tomorrow!
I get that. Its such a simple means of getting a point across. But also a game will change from week to week depending the mood of your players and/or GM. this week johnny was investigating everything. but the week before he just wanted to kill everything.
If they want and expect investigation and your initial asking was just that. It could still change as you go. Expectations will change and change by a wide margin.
I do fail at asking what my players want. I give them something of everything.
Drama, horror, investigation, murder and killing sprees. more besides. Trying to cover every base, can be hard but i get a chance to hit everyones likes.
All the online discussion of how awesome the sandbox is drives me nuts, because I can all too easily imagine all the indecision you talk about.
I run a railroad game, in part because what’s fun for me as a DM is coming up with a story and then getting the players there. I knew from level 1 what the final battle would be, and that allowed me to make many of the adventures on the way there follow a theme. I then filled in a B plot for some variety, and then some occasional side quests to shine a plot on a specific PC or to flesh out the world.
My players also have jumped the tracks. There’s one adventure they should have done four levels ago, but they went the other way — and I let them, and when they get back to it, it will be different. Sometimes they simply refuse to let the NPCs tell them what to do.
I have a character concept I’m dying to play (this week), and his motivations and goals come from my concept of him. (That’s the opposite of how I treat my own players, introducing them to their dead parents and mapping out a way to avenge them.) If I were running a game for myself, I’d have a big railroad with several stops on the way arranged for him to get what he wanted.
I think the solution to running a good railroad game is to follow the advice in the DMG — give the players at least the illusion of choice.
And as a DM, it’s hard enough preparing for all the different places the PCs might go, the different ways they might approach a threat — kill, avoid, try to talk out of, join — without the idea that the PCs might just up and go somewhere else.
@symatt – Exactly. That is part of what my next post will be about – that you can’t just ask what the expectations are at the beginning and then assume they will stay the same. If you run a campaign of any substantial length at all, it will evolve, and so will the expectations of the players.
@James Yes, your point is well taken. Part of the reason I wanted to write this post today is that the Sandbox seems to be the new hotness and the railroad seems to be derided too much.
I think there are benefits to having a little bit of both in my games. I also think it is important for a group to play with as much railroading or as much sandboxing as they want to have to make the game fun for them. The caveat is that the GM has to have enough time and energy to prep the type of game that everyone wants to play, and if he/she doesn’t, then the balance between rails/sand may have to shifted a little bit. Hopefully it will be not be shifted so much that it leaves the realm of expectation for the players.
Sounds like you have a good handle on your group and that you have lots of fun! Keep it up!
Great post. My players want me to open up the world sandbox style and I find it pretty scary. This was a really good post. Thanks.
Yes, yes and.. yes. A really good overview the “good” old problem of railroad vs. sandbox (which in fact isn’t so much a “vs” as many people tend to believe). I like most that you discuss this topic without ranting on anything, which is seldom to find.
I guess the basic thing for any kind of campaign is respecting your players and respecting their decisions. Some people like making less decisions, some people like influencing almost anything in the campaign world. But nobody likes to be pushed around by the GMs likes and dislikes or to stumble through a world and feeling like the GM has no motivation to set up some action. Give your players something to chew on and accept whatever decisions they make.
A really great way of looking at things like this in my opinion is to break down a lot of the video games that have been so wildly popular over the last decade and a half or so. Baldur’s Gate I & II, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire (my personal favorite), Fable (the original), Dragon Age, Fallout 3…
All of these games have central, over-arching storyline that the PC or PCs will eventually follow. There is an endpoint that they will eventually reach. There are multiple sub-points along that road that the PCs need to get to in a particular order in order to get to the final fight. HOWEVER, there are also about a billion mini-quests of various sizes and depths that occur throughout all of these games; some are tangental to the main storyline and can affect the outcome immensely; others have no effect on the main story other than the PCs getting more XP from it. They are, in my mind, the model for a “Railroad Through The Sandbox” campaign, and that is how I’ve always run my games all the way back to 2nd Ed when I started playing– I just didn’t have names for what I was doing.
I’ve tried running a more “pure” game on both ends of the continuum, and it’s just not as much fun for me nor my players. I like the overarching thematic storylines, but i also like the PCs being able to go off and do other things if they like.
The folks who get so riled up about the “vs” part of this debate are, to me, like the folks who got so riled up in the Edition Wars. It’s a game; if you and your group are having fun, that’s the whole point. If you’re not, figure out why and fix it. There’s enough game to go around for all of us.
I’m biased. I like DM Sam’s post because I agree with pretty much everything.
I’m a big believer in levelling expectations pre-game and agreeing on a play style. A group that’s not on the same page will frequently encounter conflicts in play style. It’s been said but I’ll repeat: expectations should be constantly discussed. This helps people adjust the game to changing preferences and circumstances. Talking on the meta level should also help clarify preferences within other continuums like powergaming vs characterization, combat vs plot and a host of others.
On a parallel track, I was kind of suprised to learn the sandbox is in fashion. I remember how people criticized it as lacking in narrative elements. I guess things come back in style even in rpgs.
I’ll be eagerly anticipating the next installment on this topic.
A fine post. The observation that sandbox and railroad are ends on a continuum is one that should be obvious, but has been buried under years of internet vitriol.
Ironic that many people (often sandbox partisans) overlook the fact that the earliest and most iconic adventures–dungeons–are exceptionally railroady. A set of impermiable walls defines a specific course (or limited set of courses) open to the players.