IThe only thing I can say here is, WTF? I have no idea where this is coming from, or what your experience here could possibly be.
Any approach where the players determine what goals are being focused on, by definition, precludes a railroad (Dragonlance-style or otherwise) by definition, no matter what those goals are.
My view is that 2nd-ed style railroad is what you get when you combine (i) an emphasis on
exploration of a
GM-created world as the focus of play, with (ii) an
abandonment of self-interested looting as the main goal of play. That is, when you combine one aspect of classic D&D play (the exploration) while abandoning the other (the mercenary/self-aggrandizing focus).
The particular mechanism is, in my view, something like this:
*as in classic D&D play, the GM remains in charge of the world that is to be explored;
*as in classic D&D play, this includes settling evaluative questions within the gameworld (what is good, what evil, etc);
*the play is intended to be aimed at some non-mercenary/looting goal (typically, Dragonlance-style heroics; perhaps, Ravenloft-style gothic angst);
*the players set out to have their PCs achieve this goal;
*the measure of achievement of this goal depends upon the resolution of some evaluative questions within the gameworld;
*therefore, the GM has the principal say over what counts as achievement of the goal.
The result is that the whole setup is oriented towards the GM, rather than the players, directing play.
A secondary mechanism, I susepct, is this:
*just as, in classic D&D play, the GM decides where the loot is to be found (by stocking dungeons, etc), so in 2nd ed/Dragonlance-style play, the GM decides where the heroism may potentially occur;
*because what counts as heroism depends upon resolving an evaluative question within the gameworld, in deciding where heroism is to occur the GM is deciding not just how the relevant situations will begin, but how they must conclude (if the goal of heroism is to be achieved).
The result of this secondary mechanism is that the GM takes on responsibility for encounters being resolved in a particular way.
Because of these two mechanism, the railroading dimenion of this sort of play won't be resolved simply by giving the players a choice of whether to save the princess or free the slaves - in fact, because this sort of pseudo-sandbox choice sets up a potential moral dilemma, which (per the underlying exploratory presupposition) the
GM has responsibility for adjudicating, this sort of choice can potentially just increase the railroading. (In my view, this conclusion is in fact borne out by various threads over the past few months on ENworld, where GM-established moral dilemmas in combination with GM-enforced alignment mechanisms have been criticised by a wide range of posters as railroading.)
As to the question of where I get these wacky ideas - whereas it is common to criticise the Forge for treating purist-for-system and high-concept as two forms of simulationism, I think that in fact this is a terrific insight, which picks up on the centrality of exploration to both approaches. The above analysis of the mechanism that turns 1st ed AD&D into 2nd ed railroading, via Dragonlance, is an application of the Forge account to that particular historical transition. For me, it gets its empirical cogency from my own engagement with that historical transition, via play (both group play and convention play) and via reading The Dragon magazines of the period.
The classic "wisdom check" has often been used, in my experience, to get the player's perceptions more in line with what you could reasonably his character's to be.
<snip>
How this is somehow detestable boggles my mind.
As I posted upthread, I have nothing against GM-initiated Perception and Insight checks. Nor, for that matter, do I have anything against Knowledge checks. These are all the GM using the mechanics of the game to feed the player information that, by default, a PC in that player's PC's situation would not have access to. In effect, by spending PC-build resources on these sorts of skills, the player is purchasing the entitlement to additional information to make his/her choices. (I would have thought that the inability of an ordinary human to clear a 50' chasm in a single leap would fall into the category of something that the GM could point out without requiring a Perception or Knowledge check - especially in a system like 3E, where a PC's maximum leap is a mathematically determined value which, if it is not transparent to any particular player, is only because they're not very good at mental arithmetic.)
But the WIS check we're talking about in this thread is not about information. It is about motivations and goals. In particular, it's about the GM querying the rationality of the player's action. And at least for a mainstream RPG, player control over PC motivations and goals seems pretty fundamental to me.
Now if the GM, as one participant to another, wants to tell the player that they're about to do something silly - because it will get their PC killed (a mostly ingame silliness) or because it will destabilise harmony among the players (a mostly metagame silliness) - then by all means do so. Talking to one another about the cleverness or otherwise of player choices is part of playing the game.
But what is the point of turning it into a PC-stat based mechanic? In practice, what this means is that the GM is (needlessly, as far as I can see) limiting his/her participation in the play by reference to a stat on the character sheet which is, relative to the purposes identified in the previous paragraph, a purely arbitrary number.
The only way I can see of regarding the WIS-check as
not arbitrary is to assume that the GM, in calling for the check, is not simply limiting his/her participation in the game by reference to an arbitrary number, but rather is in some sense or other
taking over the play of the PC - perhaps playing the PC's conscience, or intuition, or something similar.
Why would anyone think it desirable for the GM to present a comment to a player in [i[this particular fashion[/i]? Perhaps because they are so hostile to metagaming that they can't envisage the GM making a comment to the player unless it can be given some ingame interpretation.
Whatever the reason, and whether or not the GM enforces the result of the WIS check or simply uses it as a gentle prod to the player, the WIS-check mechanic (in my view) has the effect of cloaking what is a purely metagame thing - the GM, as participant, suggesting to another player in the game what might make for a good play - in the authority of the GM's role of arbiter of ingame actions and consequences. Intended or not, it is the GM not only putting pressure on the player to play his or her PC in a particular way, but applying that pressure in a fashion that suggests that the GM, as rules artiber and final arbiter of the shared fiction, has some special authority to suggest PC motivations and goals to a player.
That's why I detest it. It is an element of, and before it became such an element it was a prelude to, a whole approach to play - one which attempts to sublimate real, player to player conflicts
into the game and the action resolution mechanics, and one which in my view leads naturally (if not inevitably) to railroading according to the mechanisms I have described above - which is in my view one of the more dysfunctional RPGing styles around.
If you want to play a game where finding and selling the loot is more important than asking the question of whether it is a legitimate object of value at all, and where killing a fellow party member is a permissable response to destroying property, then fine - but resolve this at the table via discussion among the real people! Alignment rules and GM pressure via WIS checks won't do the job. (If I've understood the OP, they certainly didn't do the job in this particular case.)
If you want to play a game where non-mercenary considerations are more important to play, then fine (sounds like the sort of game I personally might enjoy) - but if you want to avoid railroading, give evaluative authority to the players! Which means leaving alignment rules and GM pressure via WIS checks to one side.
If you as GM want to particpate in the play by talking to your players about the choices they are making, then fine - I do this all the time when I GM - but don't cloak it in pseudo-authority by the use of WIS-checks and alignment rules. When givin this sort of advice to the player you, as GM, are in no different position than any other audience-member at the table.
II think the GM, in giving a Wisdom check, is essentially telling the player "Are you absolutely sure you wish to pursue this course of action?" without calling it a bad decision outright - which it was; because in a game where a group of people are all sitting down and trying to enjoy themselves, you should be mature enough as a player to make some role-playing concessions to allow that to happen.
As I've asked already, in this and an earlier post,
what is the point of the WIS role. If you, as GM, think that there is something important to communicate about the effect a player's choice might have upon harmony among the group,
just speak up! I'm not against GM's speaking. I am against GM's cloaking their metagame commentary on the game in the guise of authority over action resolution and the content of the shared fiction.
