Railroad, Sandbox, and ... Theme Park?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

"Theme Park" is a term I've noticed being thrown around by the MMO community and, not being a card-carrying member, I'm not totally sure what it refers to. The nearest I can tell, it's where you can choose between different "railroad" paths. Can someone explain this better? Also, what kind of application might such a term have with regard to tabletop gaming?

**Platuan4th**

It'd be like a GM who limits where you can go with the story, but you still have a choice of what paths to follow at various points. Not side-quests, but simple choices in where the main story takes place. It's the illusion of choice.

So not the one-way restriction of a pure Railroad campaign, but not the absolute freedom that a Sandbox gives

**Manchu**

"Illusion of Choice" is a term I associate with a particular example. So, in a dungeon, the PCs come to a T-intersection of corridors. Down both the left and right hallways are doors. Behind one of the doors is a room with a scary dragon and behind the other door is a room with an item that will help you defeat the dragon. In a game with "real choice," the PCs can stumble upon the dragon before ever stumbling upon the dragon-slaying item. In a game with the "illusion of choice," whichever door the PCs walk through will lead to the room with the item.

Is this what you mean by "illusion of choice"?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a write-up that may be more on-point with regard to your post:

Chris Fox wrote:The Illusion of Choice

This brings us to the Illusion of Choice. What is it exactly? The Illusion makes your players believe they are dictating the plot's direction. It prevents them from feeling railroaded, and gives them the feeling that adventure lies in all directions. No matter which way they go the world around them is vibrant and full of life. Interesting people and find cool stories lie around every corner.

This helps build suspension of disbelief, which is critical to all games. The players need to see the NPCs, scenes and adventures as a seemless whole. They can never know that if they go the wrong way they'll walk right off the edge of the map, or that there are areas you haven't defined. You are the man behind the curtain, and you can't ever let them see you.

Let's assume one of your PCs is an aspiring blademaster, but has been looking for a master to train him. When the PCs return from the mine have them stop in an inn to rest for the night. As they enter the common room they're toasted as heroes. While there an NPC tells a story about a blademaster facing down ten soldiers at once. If you're right about the player's motivation, this with get his attention.

A single reason could be enough to sway the party to go to Evilbears, but it's unlikely so we still have work to do. Maybe one of the other PCs has a sister who he hasn't seen in a while. Have him receive a letter telling him that she's involved in a whirlwind romance with a young noble named Stephen Colbear, and that she's visiting his estates in the town of Evilbears (damn bears).

Since the PC isn't likely to care that his sister is being courted we'll need to add more to the story. Maybe a third party member overhears disturbing rumors that the lord of Evilbears is a necromancer with a penchant for luring young women to his castle and sacrificing them. Hopefully, this will give the player whose sister is in danger a pressing reason to head to Evilbears. The threat posed by the necromancer may sway even more party members.

After that you just sit back and let the party do their thing. You aren't forcing them to go to Evilbears, and they could still choose to head to the capital to do some shopping. However, by giving several PCs different reasons you've made it an attractive destination. They may choose another direction, but its far more likely that one more players will make a strong case to the party for heading to Evilbears. That is the illusion of choice. If they want to go to the capital to blow their new found wealth you're not going to stop them. You didn't take their choice away, but you stacked the deck so that you knew what they would do.

http://www.rpg.net/columns/evilgmfundamentals/evilgmfundamentals3.phtml

To me, that doesn't seem like an "illusion of choice" -- rather, it seems like a real choice. You could go to X or to Y, where X and Y are not interchangable. I think Mr. Fox is really talking about giving people good reasons to really to choose X instead of Y. That's commensurate with DMing a sandbox, whereas my example above is more like a "pure" railroad. Still, no theme park.

**Platuan4th**

Yep, that's what I was driving at. You give them some leeway, but in the end, you make the most attractive option the railroad or you make the railroad as disguised as possible(like your door example). Either way, you as the DM get what you want and your players believe that they got the choice in doing what THEY want.

**Manchu**

As I understand it, a sandbox is a world that exists independently from the goals of the PCs. Therefore, they can move through it without regard to their goals and still encounter the active, ongoing life of the world. But they could also only move through it according to their goals. So like I said, I don't see the above example from Mr. Fox as being an "illusion of choice" at all. A real choice, after all, is in part contingent upon outcomes that are meaningfully different. If X and Y are the same, then choosing between them is meaningless -- it is an illusion. But if X and Y are different, as in Mr. Fox's example, then there is no illusion; the choice is a real one.

**Lynata**

Very much so. Of course it's also about the amount of choices - or the degrees of freedom, if you will. This is absolutely no problem in Pen&Paper games, where a human Gamemaster can improvise something on the spot. Computer games, however, work with pre-programmed options, so unless you have a human component in there as well (which is possible - see NWN Persistent Worlds or UO Freeshards), there can be no 100% sandbox. Still, there are games that qualify as "sandboxy" because they provide a much greater scope of options. Star Wars Galaxies, for example, was noted as being very "sandboxy", as you could do a whole lot of stuff that usually isn't "taken for granted". Civilian careers (from crafting to trading to dancing), fully customizable housing, a neutral faction in addition to Empire vs Rebels, full starship models that could be decorated and controlled by multiple players, ...

Railroading and Theme Parks are pretty much the opposite, though the latter may also show up in Sandbox games. In my opinion, Theme Parks are not only recognizable as offering multiple activities (as this can also happen in a purely railroaded game or a purely sandbox one, where I'd simply call it a "Quest Hub") but also in how they actually fit into the world - both visually and in terms of focus. An area where the sheer abundance of possible activities appears in an overly strong contrast to the absence of such elsewhere in the world is likely to be a Theme Park. If these activities are "advertised" as or by being especially "epic" or appear somewhat out-of-place in relation to the rest of the world just to look "more fun", that place is likely to be a Theme Park.

In essence, instead of being able to pursue a continuous personal adventure throughout a consistent world, you jump from "hotspot" to "hotspot" and do the same either supposedly legendary or simply silly and/or humorous things as everyeone else, like some kid visiting all the circuses of our world. Just that these circuses in the games are supposed to fit in with everyday life, which usually fails due to their inherent exaggeration of "epicness" or the absence of seriousness.

Note that my understanding of the term is very much biased by the real world application / meaning, and it is entirely possible that the internets' definition may differ from mine - however, I find it perfectly applicable to a growing number of MMOs, which worries me. I kind of miss the sandbox style from old UO, where the absence of predetermined paths has given rise to some truly unique and wonderful stories by the hands of players.

**Manchu**

So is "theme park" a place within a game (say, "town" as opposed to "dungeon" or "wild" in a PnP game) or is it a style of setting/storytelling, like sandbox and railroad? The idea of jumping from hotspot to hotspot sounds like a railroad to me. So let's say a "hotspot" is a plot point rather than a location in which PCs can exist: a "pure" railroad game takes you from A to B to C without deviation; a less stringent railroad lets you go from A to either B or C. In a sandbox, meanwhile, A and B and C all exist out there somewhere but they can be discovered/experienced in any order.

**Lynata**

Personal opinion again: I think it's both a place and a style. It's the combination that makes a Theme Park different from a simple location like, say, a "quest hub". They do not even require railroading, they just exist and the average PC gamers go there because it's "fun" - whilst purist roleplayers complain that it doesn't fit or is too much.

In a way, I could even call entire games a Theme Park if they're all about fun over consistency, so I guess that for me it is more a style than a specific place. The "level of seriousness", in a way ...

"Theme Park" is a term I only ever apply to MMOs, though. It is certainly possible that a GM could craft something similar in a PnP setting, but I don't know one that would actively support such a campaign.

All of this is also heavily influenced by the individual player's personal preferences. In MMOs, the concept of Theme Parks is used so often these days because the average gamer really seems to like them. They offer a lot of fun with few "downtimes". Conversely, this also leads to a certain burnout because as with anything, after a while things just tend to get stale.

Or, to illustrate:

**Manchu**

Hmm, doesn't seem to applicable to table-top the way you describe it. But, to be honest, it doesn't sound like it means very much in video games, either.

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:Hmm, doesn't seem to applicable to table-top the way you describe it. But, to be honest, it doesn't sound like it means very much in video games, either.

It is a video game term. In general a theme park game, while sometimes in theory has multiple options, tend to really have a limited area where xp is made. You can explore all you want, but to actually level up you have to do quests A, B, and C, which in turn unlocks Dungeon Quest X, which will then send you to the next zone, where you repeat the process until you are level capped. When level capped you just grind out money/crafting waiting for your guild to choose which ride(raid) to go on. You could also play a lot of alts.

A sandbox game, like the original Star Wars Galaxies or Asheron's Call just dropped you into the world and said good luck. You might quests occasionally, but you also could build up (or invade) towns. The structure was very loose. In SWG if you were a high enough level Bounty Hunter you could take bounties on other players from the bounty board and then had to actually track them down somewhere in the galaxy. I would include Eve Online on the list of Sandbox games.