D&D General Adventure Types and Literature Types

[Guest 7034872]

So the YT pages for Matt Colville and Web DM have helped me a lot over the past year as I've put together this new campaign I'm going to run. In the course of watching all their advice videos, I came around to a notion as to why some people dislike railroad-y adventures and prefer sandboxes (which seems to be most DMs and players) while some others actually dislike the sandboxes and prefer railroads (which seems a minority). It was always easy for me to see why people wouldn't like being stuck on a railroad adventure: the illusion of agency is too often too illusory. But I struggled a bit to understand why a few folks disliked the sandboxes: "Why would anyone not prefer these?," I asked myself. I think at last I might have an idea why.

I'm going to assume most EN World members read a lot of fantasy literature. But I'm also going to assume most members don't spend a lot of time with Homer, Virgil, Beowulf, or the like (I do, but I'm a weirdo). It occurred to me this afternoon when reading through two very helpful threads on rest mechanics that sandboxes tend to resemble classical adventure literature a lot more, while railroad adventures resemble the modern novel. In almost any modern novel, all the events therein feed into or off of some one or two driving, over-arching plot elements. You rarely read much about major characters engaging in any little side-quests "just because." But in the ancient and medieval epics, that sort of stuff is almost what the book is made of. Odysseus is stuck far away and needs to find his way back home. In working his way back home, he runs into all sorts of fantastical lands, people, and monsters, and has to use his wits and weapons to keep progressing homeward. It isn't exactly Grand Theft Auto MXIV, no, but the same basic notion is there: the main character's progress toward his/her ultimate goal is initially thwarted by all these NPCs s/he encounters and progress depends on successfully negotiating the encounters by whatever means.

But when I've tried teaching stuff like Homer and Virgil to students, I've found, much to my chagrin, that most of them hate it. They can't stand reading five solid pages of the Iliad devoted exclusively to a description of Achilles' shield. The Divine Comedy is, to them, almost offensively boring. Even with the Odyssey, they just don't like all those random adventures crammed in there with no apparent plot advancement as a pay-off. But to a classical mind this is crazy. The beauty of the Odyssey is in all those wild adventures and it isn't some larger, artificially unifying plot purpose that makes them interesting: they're interesting because just in themselves they're wild and cool, and that's that.

Sandbox adventures, it seems to me, resemble classical epics, while railroads more resemble modern novels. The people who dislike the sandboxes, I suspect, dislike them for the same reasons they dislike classic epics: they want a tightly defined, unifying plot around which everything else revolves, so they feel disoriented and disappointed when they don't find one.

Anyway, that's my current hunch.

But you know--maybe I read too much and would do better to get away from the books in order to see what's around me.

 

[payn]

So, I'm going to use linear instead of railroad because they mean different things. To many railroad means little to no agency in the hands of the players. Linear means an overarching plot and theme create a boundary for the game. For example, " Odysseus is stuck far away and needs to find his way back home. In working his way back home, he runs into all sorts of fantastical lands, people, and monsters, and has to use his wits and weapons to keep progressing homeward..." there is nothing stopping this from being a linear adventure. Mini escapades dont make a non-linear adventure on their own. Its an imperfect example because its a story that has no participant agency in the outcome.

I think kids have trouble with Odyssey and Divine Comedy because of the writing style. It's from a time they cant relate to. Just like students often glaze over with the flowery prose of Shakespeare because they have little reference for cultural aspect of both the language and the events occurring on page. They might grow an appreciation for this style and become interested in it, or maybe they never will because it isnt relevant to them at this (or any) time in their life.

Perhaps a better example is television writing. In the past, popular television writing had an episodic style. A formula appears around the crew and each week they face a new challenge. Some small threads appear and the characters change over time, but that is largely in the background to give a sense of development and progress. The heart of those stories was an adventure by the characters, for the characters, in an expected fashion for the characters.

Modern television writing has become more serial. Where an overarching plot and story develop in each serial piece. All movement is forward, or perhaps backward, but progress is happening in every episode. Often, the world around the characters has more impact on them and their development than the opposite, which is common in episodic writing.

Both linear and non-linear can be episodic or serial in their approach. I think folks have a problem with the episodic approach in non-linear games because they have no focus. They must be entirely proactive in their adventuring which adventuring itself is its own reward. A serial minded player wants to see impact both on the character and the world around them. This often requires a lot of investment that episodic style doesn't require.

So, ultimately I dont think the style of game (linear vs non-linear) has a lot to do with it. I think overall drive and agency does. What are the boundaries of the game? If you are expected to adventure in the desert, then being a Druid with a Shark companion isn't really going to work. If the band of adventures decides to become sailors or pirates, that doesn't fit the desert theme either. Though, there is no reason a linear adventure cant start in a desert and end up in the ocean. Linear will be driven by the overarching plot in those elements, where nonlinear is often driven by the character's themselves.

Furthermore, I think preference for linear or non-linear often comes from your gaming formative preferences. You will likely prefer one method or the other based on the first and most successful attempts at gaming. In the past, there was very little in linear adventure design, so folks had the most experience in a non-linear episodic style game. Modern gamers have a wealth of linear serial style of adventuring material to choose from.

-Cheers

 

[Guest 7034872]

Thanks. This is very helpful, especially because I think you're clearly right that linear/non-linear ≠ • ⇹ railroad/sandbox. I had thought of them in those terms, but I think you're right that that's confused. Storm King's Thunder is a pretty linear module, but no way would I call it a railroad.

The writing style issue in literature I knew about and worked to overcome, but for some reason the kids just were not having it with any of the classical epics even when I gave them modernized versions. As best I can make out, they just weren't having it with stories that go onto long tangents that do not feed into the overarching plot. LoTR I totally could sell them on (with many, they were already sold before I said a word), but not Virgil, not Dante, and never, ever Homer. Writing style certainly didn't help my case, but that alone doesn't seem to capture their antipathy boredom. "It just seems to wander around a lot," was a common complaint. It's funny to me, because in console/computer games they seem absolutely fine with that, but not with literature (and even with television these days--you're right that serial seems preferred over episodic now).

I guess this is what it comes to: the players who don't like the more episodic games/modules want what they'd call "a story," by which they mean a unifying, linear story arc.

Of course, all these insights of yours, while extremely helpful, also make my life a lot harder. I'm fighting like a cornered dog to finish up this adventure I've written, and I was worrying that too much of it was too railroad-y linear, but now what I have is that linearity is fine so long as it offers more than just an illusion of agency. So long as I maximize player agency, the players might even enjoy the linearity. But the more I enhance player agency, the trickier that linearity is to maintain without something somewhere becoming artificial and ad hoc.

I've got a lot more thinking and writing to do...

 

[aco175]

I find completely open games lack a story and are very hard to plan for as a DM. I like when PCs have a story and an idea of what they want to do so that I can weave it into the story. I also like to have a couple side quests that follow the story or are one-offs. I like to have larger stories that span a few levels and then move to something else.

The adventure books are harder to branch out and more forces the party to stay on the path. It makes a grand story, but at the expense of PC goals. This is why a lot of them talk about having players pick goals that are part of the story. Which may be another discussion if that is good or not.

 

[payn]

Of course, all these insights of yours, while extremely helpful, also make my life a lot harder. I'm fighting like a cornered dog to finish up this adventure I've written, and I was worrying that too much of it was too railroad-y linear, but now what I have is that linearity is fine so long as it offers more than just an illusion of agency. So long as I maximize player agency, the players might even enjoy the linearity. But the more I enhance player agency, the trickier that linearity is to maintain without something somewhere becoming artificial and ad hoc.

I've got a lot more thinking and writing to do...

My pro tips on how to avoid a bad linear adventure.

1. Give the PCs at least 3 clues to the adventure. Let them follow up on them as they see fit. DO NOT make clue 2 require 1, or clue 3 require 2. Allow each clue to open an additional or new path forward.
2. Once the PCs follow up on clues, have the baddies react to their meddling. How much? Depends how close the PCs get and how reckless or loud they make their presence known. DO NOT just have clue 1,2,3 be static and all happen exactly as written and waiting for the PCs to come around and encounter them. (Experienced GMs may be able to fool players, but amateur and novice GMs will stick out like a sore thumb)
3. Leave the ending open. If the PCs are smart and foil the plot, then have the baddies react to keep the adventure an adventure. If the PCs blow it, then allow them a final encounter to try and redeem the adventure. DO NOT script an ending that happens no matter what the PCs do during the adventure.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sandbox adventures, it seems to me, resemble classical epics, while railroads more resemble modern novels. The people who dislike the sandboxes, I suspect, dislike them for the same reasons they dislike classic epics: they want a tightly defined, unifying plot around which everything else revolves, so they feel disoriented and disappointed when they don't find one.

Anyway, that's my current hunch.

But you know--maybe I read too much and would do better to get away from the books in order to see what's around me.

Honestly I think that the difference is that sandboxes resemble traditional TV shows while railroads more resemble modern ones. In a pre-Sopranos TV show (really a pre-Babylon 5 one) there wasn't much progression between episodes. There might be a season finale - but there's basically a reset at the end of each episode and there's so little continuity that you can watch them in almost any order. And (especially in sitcoms) everything resets at the end of the episode so they can be watched out of order and you can drop in and out at any point. And so too with classical hex crawl sandboxes where part of the point is that you can take the hexes in almost any order - which makes the world unreactive.

Modern TV, by contrast, is created with much more continuity, much more consequences that track between shows, and things unfolding over the course of the show. There's change and genuine growth. And the bad guys are doing things rather than waiting around. These shows stand up to binge watching amazingly well (sometimes better than being aired weekly) because sometimes you can see more clearly what is happening as you watch the whole thing than you could having to remember the old episodes (and if there was continuity you had a lot of recapping in old stories).

The thing is that there is a modern form of storytelling that's a near plot for old school hexcrawls. I'm talking of course of open world video games, especially ones with "ubisoft towers". But the best of them aren't quite what I'd call sandboxes; they give the characters a reason to want to do things other than "because it's there". The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild not only has an incredible physics engine, but the reason Link's wandering around and collecting loot and spirit orbs is to get strong enough to face Calamity Gannon whose castle is literally visible from almost everywhere in the entire setting.

 

[Guest 7034872]

My pro tips on how to avoid a bad linear adventure.

1. Give the PCs at least 3 clues to the adventure. Let them follow up on them as they see fit. DO NOT make clue 2 require 1, or clue 3 require 2. Allow each clue to open an additional or new path forward.

Yep, this one I've already done. When I started writing, I resolved that any plot element so important that it must happen needed at least four different ways for players to achieve it and at least three different ways for them to discover it as a goal. This also means if clue #2 depends on clue #1, then between them there should be 16 different independent ways of getting there.

Once the PCs follow up on clues, have the baddies react to their meddling. How much? Depends how close the PCs get and how reckless or loud they make their presence known. DO NOT just have clue 1,2,3 be static and all happen exactly as written and waiting for the PCs to come around and encounter them. (Experienced GMs may be able to fool players, but amateur and novice GMs will stick out like a sore thumb)

Ohhh, believe me: I'm all over that one. One of the most frustrating things to me about the old adventure computer games of the 90s was the way everything would just sit there and wait for the player to interact with it. There is no sitting around and waiting with my NPCs--that's for sure.

Leave the ending open. If the PCs are smart and foil the plot, then have the baddies react to keep the adventure an adventure. If the PCs blow it, then allow them a final encounter to try and redeem the adventure. DO NOT script an ending that happens no matter what the PCs do during the adventure.

Hm. I do have a script for the expected possible endings, but it's a script with ten different scenarios I've been able to foresee. It may be that I need to expand that list or perhaps broaden the range of possible ways various NPC groups react to players' choices. I will look hard at what I have there and consider expanding it.

On advice from Cody Lewis' Taking20 YT channel, I also resolved to keep re-editing future chapters in response to whatever wild 'n' crazy things the players generate each week. Until the session actually begins, each chapter they haven't completed is, almost by definition, a rough draft. Players' choices determine what the finished draft looks like.

Thanks for the tips!

 

[el-remmen]

I think it is important to keep in mind your specific group of players as well when designing an adventure - especially if they are new or newish they may not have the confidence or experience to just go out and do whatever, and may need a stronger motivation and guidance regarding a direction at least at the beginning and very likely at several points along the way.

Not always, some newer players get into the open world format right away and a mixed group of vets who like to help guide newbs without being overbearing or condescending is my preferred way to introduce people to the game.

But even some experienced players prefer to have that guidance of what to do next. Personally, I like to have a handful of hooks and events percolating at once for the PCs to choose from, emphasizing (or deemphasizing) some as the players show interest.

 

[el-remmen]

Oh and I wanted to add that I don't think the type of literature people read has that much to do with it.

 

[jasper]

The literature epics are freaky railroads and the authors were padding out the word count because they were getting paid by the word and had no freaking editor. Aka 5 pages on stick jock's shield. Most modern novels are railroads but the editor is cutting content to keep from paying the author.