Sandbox vs. Railroad spectrum as applied specifically to Transhuman Space

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

One of the existing classifications of roleplaying campaigns is their place on the sandbox-railroad spectrum.

The sandbox end of the spectrum describes campaigns with a diffuse or 'bush-like' structure of quests, goals and storylines; the party is generally free to explore the campaign setting to their heart's content and seek adventure wherever they go; there are no predefined overarching goals, and the individual adventures tend to be linked only by the fact that a single, persistent group of people undergoes them; PCs get a lot of freedom in choosing which adventures to pursue and which to stay away from; sandbox games make integrated, tightly-knit parties with interwoven motivations absolutely essential, because nothing else keeps the PCs together.

On the other hand, the railroad end of the spectrum describes campaigns with a strictly defined, perhaps even linear major storyline; there are strong narrative and causal connections between one adventure and the next; PCs tend to have little to no freedom in which adventures to go through and what parts of the setting to explore; there is more leeway in character concepts, as the circumstances commonly force PCs to cooperate even they'd rather bicker or go separate ways.

Now, this being a spectrum, not a dichotomy, most games fall somewhere along the line, while the ends are generally avoided (as they should be, as the fun of campaigns tends to break down at the ends).

However, here's what I'm wondering: is Transhuman Space predisposed towards campaigns set on the more-railroady half of the spectrum? There is a variety of reasons why I got this impression:
People asking 'Neat setting, but what do I do with it now?'. A certain non-portability of character niches across different adventure types (perhaps somewhat greater than in a more traditional ultra-tech setting). A significant non-portability of character legality - a character hopping between jurisdictions is very likely to get into trouble based on what it is and what it owns or befriends.
A significant difficulty in figuring trait usefulness during chargen in a sandbox: e.g. a Tennin feels great for the first 5 or so adventures in space, but will be absolutely miserable dirtside; the problem is, for a sandbox game, there is no way to predict whether the campaign will have an even split of two environments, or will be 90%+ dominated by one or the other.

The campaign I'm currently in was designated as more sandbox than railroad (but with an emphatic urge not to spend more than minimal time on Terra), however it is to early to tell how much of that sandboxiness will be actually practiced.

What are your opinions on the spectrum as applied to Transhuman Space?

Thanks in advance!

[whswhs]

I don't think that's an exhaustive set of categories. There's at least one other category: The crucible, let's call it. You give the protagonists a problem, and then you see what they do to solve it. There are no rails—in that it's like the sandbox; you haven't predetermined what the outcome will be—but they aren't free to just wander around exploring, either; they have something to focus on.

I don't do railroad. I rarely, if ever, do pure sandbox. But my campaigns have ranged from fairly straight crucible (supers with threats to resolve, criminals with capers to pull off) to a large element of sandbox in a slowly developing crucible.

This latter was what I used for THS, and especially for Whispers, which I think was the more successful of my two campaigns there. The PCs were normally working on at least one case, and sometimes two. But there was a long interval when we focused on how they were conducting their personal lives. And there was the running storyline about Gianni's relationship with his daughter Constanza, which was close to pure sandbox.

Bill Stoddard

[Keiko]

I think "Sandbox vs Railroad" is a prejudicial way of framing the question since one term is generally positive and the other is generally used a pejorative, a term to describe a game where the player character's actions and choices really don't matter as its preordained how things will go. They're almost literally along for the ride in the GM's (or adventure author's) story as spectators watching the scenery pass. That's where Railroad comes from. Maybe structured would be a better term than Railroad?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Keiko

I think "Sandbox vs Railroad" is a prejudicial way of framing the question since one term is generally positive and the other is generally used a pejorative, a term to describe a game where the player character's actions and choices really don't matter as its preordained how things will go. They're almost literally along for the ride in the GM's (or adventure author's) story as spectators watching the scenery pass. That's where Railroad comes from. Maybe structured would be a better term than Railroad?

I can't say Railroad is necessarily negative on its own. Both terms are negative when taken to the extreme. Sandbox is derogatorily described as 'So why not go play Sims instead?' (which may or may not actually be more or less fun, depending on the quality of the campaign in question and the player involved). Likewise, on the CRPG examples, Morrowind caught some significant flak in my circle of friends for being too sandboxy, while Planescape Torment is praised despite being rather railroady compared to many CRPGs (though of course it's not as railroady as, e.g., the traditional FPS).

And as I said before, when applied to THS, a wide-open sandbox actually looks scary on top of the usual pros and cons.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think that's an exhaustive set of categories. There's at least one other category: The crucible, let's call it. You give the protagonists a problem, and then you see what they do to solve it. There are no rails—in that it's like the sandbox; you haven't predetermined what the outcome will be—but they aren't free to just wander around exploring, either; they have something to focus on.

I don't do railroad. I rarely, if ever, do pure sandbox. But my campaigns have ranged from fairly straight crucible (supers with threats to resolve, criminals with capers to pull off) to a large element of sandbox in a slowly developing crucible.

This latter was what I used for THS, and especially for Whispers, which I think was the more successful of my two campaigns there. The PCs were normally working on at least one case, and sometimes two. But there was a long interval when we focused on how they were conducting their personal lives. And there was the running storyline about Gianni's relationship with his daughter Constanza, which was close to pure sandbox.

Bill Stoddard

Hmm. I think a lot of it is a matter of layers. In my current campaign (ÆS, not THS), the overarching line is fixed (a railroady trait) and walking away from an individual case is strongly discouraged but not impossible (a railroady trait with a hint of sandbox), but within the scope of an individual case there are vague objectives that the PCs get to achieve (or fail) with whatever means they pick (a sandboxy approach). Such a top-level railrodier + bottom-level sandboxier approach seems to indeed match the 'crucible' descriptor. Yes, 'crucible' is a useful category, which is indeed distinct from leaning towards either end of the spectrum on all layers.

Thanks for pointing it out. Now that I think of it, THS seems more crucible/rail-friendly on the macro/top-level, as far as my reasoning in the OP is concerned. At least so it seems - not pretending to know The One Truth here.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I can't say Railroad is necessarily negative on its own.

Just saying that IME "railroad" is rarely as ever used in neutral or positive way among role players so that negative connotation might bias responses to the thread.

[Keiko]

On topic: From my experience when trying to gm the game THS runs better with some structure. It doesn't have to have a highly linear rigid storyline but some thing to hang the campaign around like "You're all colonists explorers on Mars or the outer solar system" or "You're the staff of a detective agency/troubleshooters for hire". When I first tried to run the setting I threw the door wide open and got concepts that just didn't work together or wouldn't without me being much more heavy handed than just defining some limits and a starting point to begin with.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Keiko

On topic: From my experience when trying to gm the game THS runs better with some structure. It doesn't have to have a highly linear rigid storyline but some thing to hang the campaign around like "You're all colonists explorers on Mars or the outer solar system" or "You're the staff of a detective agency/troubleshooters for hire". When I first tried to run the setting I threw the door wide open and got concepts that just didn't work together or wouldn't without me being much more heavy handed than just defining some limits and a starting point to begin with.

Care to share the first-try concepts?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Keiko

On topic: From my experience when trying to gm the game THS runs better with some structure. It doesn't have to have a highly linear rigid storyline but some thing to hang the campaign around like "You're all colonists explorers on Mars or the outer solar system" or "You're the staff of a detective agency/troubleshooters for hire". When I first tried to run the setting I threw the door wide open and got concepts that just didn't work together or wouldn't without me being much more heavy handed than just defining some limits and a starting point to begin with.

My feeling is that "here's a setting, come up with any characters you like" is going to produced a viable campaign only if the players are heavily indoctrinated in one and only one form of narrative. And even then mostly if the GM is ready to compensate for excessive player character diversity with some heavy handed plotline manipulation to bring them together.

Part of my standard prospectus is "Your characters have X in common, and they've come together to do Y." Sometimes I ask the players to choose X or Y, or to make them more specific; often I dictate them.

I think there are at least three ways you can ensure that player threads all stay together:

* Put them all in a confined space. If everyone has to be a first year student as Hagawaza High School, you can reasonably expect that they'll encounter each other regularly.

* Give them all a common mission and team assignment.

* Subject them all to a common disaster. If everyone but them has been wiped out by an air seal blowout at their asteroid mining facility, or if their small town has been cut off by a horde of the walking dead, their actions are likely to affect each other.

There may be others I haven't thought of. But if you don't impose a constraint, or sit the players down together and say, "Now all of you come up with a constraint," you likely won't have a campaign.

Bill Stoddard

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Care to share the first-try concepts?

It's been years and I tried to forget that train wreck so I don't recall very much.