I've found myself in an argument. It boils down to this:

>>51309872
He sounds like a dumbass, just pretend to agree so he shuts up.

>>51309872
your friend is retarded, move city so you can avoid them forever

>>51309872
I like your idea OP. It really seems that most campaigns are composed of the standard story arc's beginning middle and end, complete with the whole "hero's story" revolving around level 1 characters where you come from a place that allows for a lot of exposition and finds a mentor that improves them etc. etc.

The problem I find is that a lot of GMs will make a railroad out of a campaign when they see the game approaching territory they don't want, or when the players want to drop the current storyline and do something more sandboxy where they pursue their own goals.

Railroads aren't dangerous, in fact they CAN be fun, as long as the story's good. Even without any player agency it can be seen as "solving the GM's puzzles" and the story is secondary to the game.

I GM only sandbox games, because I find simulationist experiences to be interesting and give rogue-like sense of adventure and storytelling.

>>51309872
seriously though, what prevents the railroad when you're making a campaign?

>>51312720
>what prevents the railroad when you're making a campaign?
For an example, let's go with a fairly generic "evil god plans to destroy kingdom" plot line
>Sandbox: Kingdom is threatened by evil god but the players may or may not give a shit and may decide to fuck off to a different kingdom and let this one rot
>Campaign: "The evil god cult are threatening your home, you can stop him, you can go to these locations to gather allies and lore or try to cut the cult off at the source, but if you have a different plan, lay it out"
>Railroad: "Save the kingdom by gathering the three Holy Shards of the Good God's Sacred Codpiece, which are in these three hidden locations around the kingdom, then take the completed Codpiece to the capital city and use it to destroy the avatar of evil before he finishes forming."

>>51309872
Play a one on one game, 40 point buy level 20 gestalt pathfinder, all 3pp allowed, mythic level 3.

Tell him its a sandbox game.

When he starts playing he starts in a desert full of sand.
No matter what he does everything is sand. There are no people apart from him. There are no towns. The other plains as well are full of sand. No matter how far his character goes, even with teleportation or plane shift, there's more sand. All creation spells only create more sand.

Then ask him if he thinks his sandbox game is being railroaded.

That's a cute little fort. Do you have more pics like that?

>>51312806
what about for situations where it's clear that you'll have to go to a certain location?
>evil god is threatening the kingdom
>the magic macguffin is here
>you go there
>you have to take the macguffin here
>you go there
>the macguffin didn't work, and you have to do this
>you do this

Doesn't that become a railroad in itself?

>>51313061
"Railroading" is a very subjective term familia.
I'd reckon it's not railroading if it's done in a naturalistic way.
That is to say it makes sense why certain steps to beating the antagonist are mandatory.

>>51312806
Like take this guy's example for railroading.
If there are multiple ways to get each shard (negotiating with the guy who has it, conning him out of it, stealing it, murdering everything between you and it, etc) it's not as railroad-y.

The last bit is or isn't railroading depending on the situation. If the BBEG can sense that god's codpiece has been reassembled and therefore has decided to rush the capital and do the Avatar of Evil shit before it can be used on him, then fair enough. This should be reflected by the forces of doom being weaker due to less preparation or some shit.
If the bad guy just so happens to decide to do that part of his plot after the heroes have the codpiece it's more railroad-y

Honestly it's all a matter of taste. The only thing I would say is capital-R Railroading(tm) is if the GM stops you from doing something (or lord forbid, makes you do something), because of the "story" they want to tell. Not because it doesn't fit the tone or whatever, just because it doesn't fit their "story"

Railroading, in my head canon, is all about taking away player choices to do with the plot. If they have one route to take from the start of session 1 to the end of session 10, that's miserable railroading and the gm should probably be shot.

If they have a setting in session 1 and are left to it that's utter sandbox, and the gm will probably shoot himself sooner or later and the players, if they insisted upon this, should also be shot.

The balance between them can vary wildly, and anywhere between the two extremes can make for a good campaign. What that balance should be for maximum fun depends on the preferences of the gm and players.

Your friend is retarded. You should probably just agree politely and move on though, this isn't worth arguing about.

>>51309872
Leave them.

>>51309872
I think you may be having this trouble from people thinking of different things when they say "sandbox". The term has become most widespread in its usage referring to video games with an open world and somewhat freeform choice of side quests despite many of them still having an overarching plot with only minor deviations for the most part.

If anything I think it's a scale from pure railroading to pure freeform but something to consider is giving the option to not follow the hook.
Maybe the players don't want to check out the abandoned tower with rumours of goblins that may be being organised as part of some larger plot, maybe they wanna run a protection racket on the small town and start their own criminal guild. Maybe they eventually clash with goblins anyway for disrupting trade or face off against rival guides that are being funded by the same guy organising the goblins and they can still choose not to face off against him and his forces.
It can be a fine line between railroading players into the path you want and having a believable living world with consequences and activity beyond the players but just as important is clear open communication between the players and the gm on what sort of game they want to play.

>>51309872
Your friend is a retard.

"Railroading" is inherently a negative thing. When it's experienced as positive, it's automatically not railroading, but simply good GMing. Railroading is what happens when players are not allowed to make their own choices, essentially.

For instance, I was playing a campaign where we did the typical thing and started fucking around. The GM didn't expect it, and saw his entire plan slide into the abyss as we were doing random shit. He had no idea how to get us back on track, and became miffed. I told him that he is, essentially, God, and could do literally anything he wanted. So he gave us a flimsy excuse, and "railroaded" us into the encounter he had planned. And it was a very entertaining puzzle session that was loads more fun than anything we could have done by pulling random ass shit.