Sandbox vs railroad in role-playing games.

One topic that comes up especially in D&D circles is the railroad v.s. Sandbox styles of DMing. Most any time these terms are used it's to point out the superiority of one or the other. I would like to propose that not just are they both totally valid, they should be thought of as being useful together. My average game is a mix of both elements.

I would like to better define what I mean by these two terms. whenever most people say a game or adventure is a railroad style game thy mean the game is set on a path. The plot is linear and travels from point to point without deviation, like a train on it's rails. The players talk to an NPC who sends them to a location, the location has clues that send the players to another location. Everything is planned out and the game moves along the points to advance the story. Most premade adventures and campaigns are railroad style games.

A sandbox adventure on the other hand is an open world. The players are set down in it and can follow any clue or path they choose. Players can follow a plot or clue, at the same time they can wander off on their own finding adventure wherever they travel.

Railroad adventures have some major advantages. They are easier to prepare for and easier to run. GMs only have to map out what they need. Railroad adventures are easier to run as one shots and short adventures, there is no wasted time and a lot can get done in the shortest amount of time. Also strictly speaking as a GM it's easier to customize the adventure to the players in a railroad game. Every encounter and battle can be part of your characters personal story, their rise to becoming a hero of legend or their struggle with their own demons. The story can totally revolve around the characters. The major criticism of railroad adventures is lack of world building and lack of freedom.

The benefits to a sandbox adventure is freedom and world building. Sandbox adventures are all about the players being dropped into a world in progress and imposing themselves onto the world. No matter which direction the players go there will be something there to interact with. Sandbox adventures are great for long-term campaigns where players have time to explore. The major criticism to sandbox adventures is the amount of prep time and planning it takes, or the ability and energy it takes to improve constantly in every session.

Myself I tend to use both styles. Sometimes it might be a 60/40 split or 80/20, but rarely is any game I run 100% railroad or sandbox. For one thing we almost never start games where the players don't know each other and mill around til they find an excuse to work together. That's a waste of time. My games often start as a straight up railroad, something like "you were all hired by a rich merchant to guard his caravan on the way to sell his wares in the town of Westlake". As a group we all know our play time is limited and we all want to get right into adventuring. I'll ask the players to give me reasons based on their backstories as to why they would want to go to Westlake. This Is me asking the players to buy into the railroad. This can then lead to adventure hooks set by the players once they reach their destination. Again like most railroads I can now customize the adventure to those players back stories and desired elements in the game. I can seed the location with elements the players want to see and find in the coming location.

Once the players reach Westlake I can provide those custom elements but also set about a whole city for the players to interact with. Political, social, and economical elements of the city go on all around the players without the players interacting with them, but they can if they choose to. The city is the sandbox. Players might meet an out of breath quest giver while getting a drink at a tavern, at which point the game might jump back on to the rails as the players go on an adventure. After all, what is a dungeon? If not a heavily railroaded adventure.