Quote from: RPGPundit;479840I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"?  You make it sound like it was really a random fluke that RPG settings went one way and not the other, but could the reason really have been that more people overall felt they got more out of the former than the latter?

RPGPundit

At the time (1977-1982), there were additional external factors at work that dramatically changed the course of RPG marketing and development. Many people didn't get the chance, early on, to compare the different styles. Recently over on Hill Cantons there was an interview with Rob Kuntz posted regarding that. I'm linking this here for reference:

http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-borders-or-limits-conversation-with.html

Rob had this to say about 0D&D:

"The original game as envisioned saw the province of personalized creation on all levels as the only dominant purpose of the game as first play-tested, written, and promoted in commercial form."

After 1980 I wasn't seeing the third party publisher materials like Judges Guild products at my FLGS. They had been cut out of the distribution chain, so the only way to order was direct via mail order. You had to know about them first, to order from them. At the conventions, after the release of 1eAD&D, the older games were no longer supported. In fact, in 1980 and 1981 I couldn't even register my OD&D game at Ghengis Con, and instead was told to run an AD&D game instead. This was the effect of the RPGA working with TSR and the convention organizers.

What do you suppose my chances would have been of getting a Wilderlands style sandbox adventure into the pre-reg book, when I couldn't even get my homebrew 0D&D game in?  

It definitely wasn't a random fluke.

Quote from: S'mon;479485Edit: Many people would consider Moldvay/Mentzer Basic D&D style "You've just entered this week's dungeon" as a form of sandbox play, albeit the sandbox is on the small side, being just a one-week dungeon.

To speak frankly: They'd be wrong.

The scenario might be non-linear, but without scenario selection you don't have a sandbox.

More generally, the entire genesis of the term "sandbox" was, in fact, to specifically differentiate a particular style of play from the "this is your scenario for the week" style of play. It seems perverse to try to make the term apply to the very style of play it was trying to explain an alternative to.

QuoteIf only that were the extreme opposite Justin, the world would be a much happier place!

As I mentioned in my OP, the terms "railroad" and "sandbox" should not be treated as antonyms. Treating them as such tends to distort the historic and useful meaning of both terms.

Let me see if I can unpack that statement a bit:

Railroading, in the purest sense of the term, is something that happens at the gaming table: The GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.

In practice, of course, the term has bled over into scenario prep. We talk about "railroaded adventures" all the time, by which we generally mean linear scenarios which are designed around the assumption that the PCs will make specific choices at specific points in order to reach the next part of the adventure. If the PCs don't make those choices, then the GM has to railroad them in order to continue using the scenario as it was designed.

By contrast, non-linear scenarios don't assume that the PCs will make specific choices.

So if you're looking for antonyms, those are the useful opposites:

(1) GMs negating player choices vs. players being free to make any choice.
(2) Scenarios assuming specific PC choices/actions vs. scenarios that don't.

(These are both scales with wide areas of gray between the extremes.)

IME, this is what most people mean by railroad/linear vs. non-linear play/design.

Meanwhile, off to one side, we have the term "sandbox". The most useful definition for sandbox I've heard is something along the lines of, "Allowing players to choose the scenario." IOW, you get sandbox play when the entire world is designed as a situation, allowing the players to decide what their next adventure will be.

And here's where we run into the problem with treating "sandbox" as the opposite of "railroad". Because the opposite of a "sandbox" is a campaign in which the players don't have control over scenario selection: The opposite of sandbox is the prototypical campaign in which the GM comes prepared with a specific scenario for the game session and the players are expected to play through that scenario.

The catch is that I think most people would consider "the GM has a scenario and the players are expected to play it" to be extremely light railroading (if they considered it railroading at all). IOW, I think the severity of railroading is perceived to increase from the outside in: Predetermining that a particular scenario is going to be played is very light railroading. Predetermining the sequence of encounters is heavier railroading, but not as severe as predetermining the exact outcomes of those encounters ahead of time.

So when we cast "sandbox" and "railroad" as antonyms, we actually end up treating the lightest form of railroading as if it were the extreme form of railroading. And, in response, the meaning of "sandbox" gets warped towards meaning "any sort of non-linear design". Neither distortion is useful.

My final two-bits:

Railroading: Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.

Linear Design: Designing a scenario around a predetermined sequence of events and/or outcomes.

Non-Linear Design: Designing a scenario in which specific outcomes or events are not predetermined, allowing freedom of player choice.

Sandbox Campaigns: Campaigns in which the freedom of player choice is extended to include the choice of scenario. (And, specifically, it is the PCs choosing the scenario within the context of the game world.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;479840I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"?

To a large degree, however, there was never actually a competition in terms of published products.

It's like the megadungeon: Pre-2000 there were, at most, two megadungeons published in any form whatsoever -- Caverns of Thracia (which is a little undersized to be a true megadungeon) and Ruins of Undermountain (which was incomplete but significantly popular nonetheless).

Similarly, the only published example of a sandbox hexcrawl were the Wilderlands. I don't think TSR ever produced a hex-keyed campaign setting.

So if you look at the style of play described in OD&D, it basically never existed on the store shelf. It's not that people chose not to buy those products -- it's that, by and large, those products didn't exist.

I think the early TSR designers really failed to understand that people would want (and possibly even need) an example of how to prep their own material. So they unwittingly provided examples that didn't actually reflect how the game was "supposed" to be played.

And, eventually, this became the tail wagging the dog: This is what adventure modules look like; so this is what our next adventure module will look like.

When people started looking for more than the "set-piece" scenario-of-the-week, of course, it's possible that megadungeon and sandbox play might have provided the solution. But those products didn't exist (and weren't created). (And even the rulebooks weren't describing those styles of play any more.) In fact, the people who might have created them were stubbornly insisting (and many of them continue to insist) that hexcrawls and megadungeons can "never be published". Instead, it was Dragonlance that took the skeleton of the "convention series" and turned it into the first adventure path.

A real watershed moment, IMO, is when module B3 was recalled and redesigned. Whatever flaws the original B3 possessed, it was a complete mini-setting a la B2. The dungeon also specifically included passages to lower levels that the DM was supposed to provide: It was the seed for a proper megadungeon campaign.

The redesigned B3 closed those tunnels, removed most of the larger setting material, and turned the adventure into a canned scenario.

I've almost always run the scenario of the week. I usually have two or three prepared so that my players can choose to walk away from one. I also let them do things their own way, calling up things from previous games or asking for me to provide connections that I wouldn't have thought of. For example, I had a rogue fighting with kamas in a recent game. The party rogue wanted to track her and rightfully pointed out that she was the only person ever to fight with paired kama, so he should be able to investigate where that training came from. That's all fine.

But I probably show up to each game knowing what scenario the party is going to go for, even if I have 2 or 3 prepared. Even if I had a hex map, it wouldn't change that.

Lets say there is a magic sword at a magic lake they can quest for, a goblin cave to clear out, and farmer brown is asking for help to get his kid back, no doubt they are going to help farmer brown first. Then they will get the sword to help them clear out the goblins. Sure, they could tell farmer brown to go fuck himself and take on the goblins without the sword, but why would they do that other than to test the limits of the rails?

To me, the value in scenario selection, in sandbox, doesn't sound as important as deciding how you are going to interact with the big picture. Deciding which NPC to side with or where to set up a keep are nice decision to get to make, and of course there will be repercussions for whatever they pick. Having a detailed setting they can reference when they make that decision is nice so it can be meaningful. I don't know that it is important to avoid NPCs pushing the party to take a quest, or take obviously good quests off the table.

The whole sandbox thing sounds like it would be a lot more trouble to run for a bunch of neutral or evil selfish PCs that can take liberty in screwing anyone they want, who avoid helping people and don't go to dungeons.

Quote from: Cranewings;479911To me, the value in scenario selection, in sandbox, doesn't sound as important as deciding how you are going to interact with the big picture. Deciding which NPC to side with or where to set up a keep are nice decision to get to make, and of course there will be repercussions for whatever they pick.

All of those things you just listed (deciding to build a keep, deciding which NPC to ally with at a macro-level, deciding where to build the keep) are scenario selections.

QuoteThe whole sandbox thing sounds like it would be a lot more trouble to run for a bunch of neutral or evil selfish PCs that can take liberty in screwing anyone they want, who avoid helping people and don't go to dungeons.

The real distinction is between PCs with coherent goals and those without.

You can anticipate that they'll do farmer-sword-goblins because you know that they prioritize saving innocents and are practical about gathering resources before tackling large problems.

If I'm running an amoral group that I know prioritizes the acquisition of personal power, then I similarly predict that they'll tackle the sword first.

The most useful tool in your prep arsenal, however, is pretty basic: "What are you guys planning to do next week?"

Quote from: Justin Alexander;479902Railroading: Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.

Linear Design: Designing a scenario around a predetermined sequence of events and/or outcomes.

Excellent definitions, but let me add that the writer/publisher of a commercial product can be just as railroading cramming a totally linear scenario down the GM's and player's throats.

Let me give an example (NOTE: for honesty I worked on staff for this company for an entire month, leaving when it became clear the only opinion that really meant anything was the owners, dissension was attacked with a 'take no prisoners' mentality"

The company is Terra/Sol Games, third party publisher for Mongoose Traveller.
The adventure is "Somnium Mundus" or "Dream World".

Setup - PC's can be local cops, drug dealers looking to score, criminals looking to rob the dealers, rival gang looking to bust up someone cutting in on their turf, a group of mutants looking to stop the operation (the drug is new, and affects humans AND mutants in very nasty ways).

NOTE: Several points the plot 'rational' is changed depending on which group listed above the PC's are.

SCENE 1: For some reason the PC's are in a club which has the main floor and the basement (each really separate clubs, separate entrances, no stairs/access directly between them). The idea is the place is going to be raided (only cop group knows this) and so *EVERYONE is getting arrested, there are so many cops on the raid literally NO ONE gets away (per the text). Hopefully you stop the bad guys from remotely thrashing the computer (sitting open on a desk monitor on) and grab their PDA before they smash that.

SCENE 2: The police station.  Ok so you have the city, national, and planetary police in on this task force.  If you're cops you are told you go to scene 3 period. Any other group the NPC who interrogates your group will do everything to intimidate you into "investigating" a location gotten out of one of the dealers. They will go so far as citing their version of the US's Patriot Act to hold you indefinitely without charging you, put you in one of the large holding cells and setting up a small riot to scare the crap out of you,but scene 2 does not end until the PC's agree to raid the location given by the drug dealers. You ARE going to do this (break in, enter, and steal information from computers because the cops don't have enough for a warrant).

SCENE 3: Warehouse, security cameras and guards outside/on roof. Standard 2-bay loading dock in back. You have to sneak in to get the info. If you mention in front of the cops about using firearms you'll be told no (no group I ever ran did that!). If you manage to break in, get the info, get out wow you're a hero can go on your way. Typically the PC's can get firearms and shoot their way in. of the six groups I ran? they ALL had fire arms, started shooting, one guard dead one seriously wounded and down, third hurt badly, fourth not touched. THEN over their comm units (if they have them) their interrogator starts screaming to stop shooting/cease fire - turns out the interstellar cops were running this as a front you just killed one and sent two other agents to the hospital - and it's YOUR fault.  

Adventure ends with the locals arguing with the interstellar cops.

PC'S CHOICES:
1) To not play this adventure at all
2) Once on this train hold on since it's a hyper-sonic bullet train taking you on a ride down the railroad
3) Refuse to do the raid for scene 3 and enjoy the increasingly nasty tactics the local cops use to break your resistance
4) Wonder how you got into this mess.

This is literally a uber linear rail-road adventure of fun and misery.

Fortunately, the damm thing is free - if anyone ever had to pay for it they would have grounds to demand their money back.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908To a large degree, however, there was never actually a competition in terms of published products.

It's like the megadungeon: Pre-2000 there were, at most, two megadungeons published in any form whatsoever -- Caverns of Thracia (which is a little undersized to be a true megadungeon) and Ruins of Undermountain (which was incomplete but significantly popular nonetheless).

I'd consider TSR's T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil from the mid 80s to be a (small) mega-dungeon.  Another possibility is Judges Guild's Dark Tower, though again on the smalish size compared to later products.

Quote from: SionEwig;479920I'd consider TSR's T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil from the mid 80s to be a (small) mega-dungeon.  Another possibility is Judges Guild's Dark Tower, though again on the smalish size compared to later products.

T1-4 probably qualifies as a large lair rather than a true megadungeon.

You're probably right when it comes to Dark Tower.

Quote from: RPGPundit;479840I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"?  You make it sound like it was really a random fluke that RPG settings went one way and not the other, but could the reason really have been that more people overall felt they got more out of the former than the latter?

I think that the giant (TSR) just overwhelmed the dwarf (Judges Guild) by having more exposure. And the Greyhawk Folio was a more professional product than the any of the Wilderlands releases.

In sci-fi games the reverse is true because of Traveller.

From doing a fair amount of these hex base location it can be more difficult to manage than a travelogue especially as the number of hexes go up.  If you want to do a good job and have stuff in nearby hexes build off of each other.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908Similarly, the only published example of a sandbox hexcrawl were the Wilderlands. I don't think TSR ever produced a hex-keyed campaign setting.

Keep on the Borderlands and X1-Isle of Dread are similar in style to the Wilderlands. The important element is that you have a series of keyed location scattered across the landscape. Not that it is hex based. But B2 is high limited in it's scope, and X1 is confined to very large islands. So it seems that both were viewed as one off designs and not a general method.

Hey, check it out! I just made my first Hex Map for my new game coming up. Used the bat in the attic articles for ideas and bought hexographer pro. Good shit.

Very cool man.

Edit: Wait a minute, those rivers are flowing in the correct direction and manner!

Nice.

Quote from: GamerDude;479918Let me give an example (NOTE: for honesty I worked on staff for this company for an entire month, leaving when it became clear the only opinion that really meant anything was the owners, dissension was attacked with a 'take no prisoners' mentality"

The company is Terra/Sol Games, third party publisher for Mongoose Traveller.
The adventure is "Somnium Mundus" or "Dream World".

PC'S CHOICES:
1) To not play this adventure at all
2) Once on this train hold on since it's a hyper-sonic bullet train taking you on a ride down the railroad
3) Refuse to do the raid for scene 3 and enjoy the increasingly nasty tactics the local cops use to break your resistance
4) Wonder how you got into this mess.

This is literally a uber linear rail-road adventure of fun and misery.

Hmmm... Interesting.  I still have their flyer on my desk from GenCon. At the show after I had been looking over their booth for some time, a rather lovely looking blonde greeted me and ask me if I had any questions about the twilight sector.

Yes. As it turned out. I did. "Was this designed for Mongoose Traveller, or did Terra/Sol have a brand new Traveller license from Marc Miller?"

She didn't know, but would find out. I signed up for the mailing list and got an email about ten days later from Mike Cross thanking me for meeting him. (we never met... unless he was a she...) Them post-show form letters can be downright awkward, hey?

Anyway the Twilight Sector looked interesting, as well as the Netherell fantasy campaign setting (Still wondering if this is a 2d6 fantasy setting). In addition to the Twilight Sector, there were five other products at the show and advertised on the flyer as well.

1. Beyond the Open Door Adventure/Sourcebook
2. Twilight Sector Setting Update #1
3. Starfarer's Gazette #1
4. Six Guns: Gauss Weapons
5. Ship Book: Mirador

Do you happen to have any of these books, and if so, what is your opinion of them?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;480020Very cool man.

Edit: Wait a minute, those rivers are flowing in the correct direction and manner!

Nice.

Thanks man. Yeah, I try to keep it realistic as much as I can, sense I know that realism is cash in the bank I'm spending as soon as the game starts.

The program is nice because a lot of the icons are useful for zooming in on a hex. I could blow up any farm hex and put the village on it. I can even do a village by itself and do camp fires, buildings, animals... it's pretty handy.

Quote from: estar;480005Keep on the Borderlands and X1-Isle of Dread are similar in style to the Wilderlands. The important element is that you have a series of keyed location scattered across the landscape. Not that it is hex based. But B2 is high limited in it's scope, and X1 is confined to very large islands. So it seems that both were viewed as one off designs and not a general method.

X1 is probably as close as TSR got, IMO.

B2, T1, D1, S4, and a couple of others all show clear signs of having been designed as "sandbox seeds" (whether they used hexes or not). Reading any of them you can clearly see that the expectation was that a DM would take that core material and just start grafting on additional material to create a sandbox for themselves.

But what TSR never produced was the next level of product: The fully-realized sandbox that would show neophyte DMs both how to run it and what the "final product" would look like.

The other thing that disappeared from the game was the "default wilderness adventure". This, like the "default dungeon adventure", existed in sort of rough, prototypical form in the OD&D rulebooks. But in the 1E rulebooks this "default play mode" material got lost as the manuals transitioned to "reference book". The description of "default dungeon adventure" survived in the Basic Set (and was given dozens of examples in published modules), but the "default wilderness adventure" didn't make it.

Note: I'm not talking about rules for wilderness travel. I'm talking about the actual, playable structure. In the Mentzer Expert Set, for example, you can see the vestigial remnants of the OD&D default mode. Lots of details are given for "designing the wilderness" and rules are provided for wilderness travel. But the actual style of play described for the wilderness is "give your players a plot hook for the week".