The gaming community has decided that the term railroading has a negative connotation (sure the definition is not always easy to pin down but connotation is negative), one not attached to merely linear design.
It's not MY personal preference. Linear and Railroad are not the same thing. One involves no choice (other than maybe reversing course), and one involves the illusion of choice. That's 2 very different things.
Yes, and I happen to prefer the second one, because I trust my DM and I can roleplay around it, although, technically, in both, my choices do not matter.
And again, a magician never reveals his tricks. Why in hell would you do this ? Although, actually, I might, just to show off the deviousness of whoever owns the dungeon, he is called Grimtooth and you should be weary of his "trust me, there is only one ogre". Agai, it's way more interesting and fun than saying "next room !" in a linear path.
Linear doesn't mean they can't turn around (maybe they can't and succeed in their goal, but going back to town might still be an option in a linear adventure). Railroad means, no matter what they do, no matter how many options they THINK they have, they really only have one.
Again, you are modifying the goal post in the direction that you prefer, but maybe in the railroading one, they can also go back to town. It makes it way fairer, it's only if they go forward that they will meet the ogres, but in both cases, if they turn around, no treasure.
I mean what's a Random Encounter Table in an adventure other than a random assortment of monsters that 9 out of 10 times you will just fight just because? No practical reason story-wise to meet these monsters, nothing gained from the fight other than the meta-currency of Experience Points, they just show up randomly in the path of the party, the party probably fights and kills them, and then they move on with their day.
There is an argument that random encounters work to make the region seem more dangerous, whether it's a wilderness or a dungeon; also in some styles of play there are resource attrition aspects to consider.
More seriously, of course not all actual life choices matter in the grand scheme of things.
But this isn't life. This is being presented with an apparent choice and thinking it matters (even if it's random) when it not only doesn't, but it's the DM actively making it not matter. I think that's different enough to merit comment.
Technically, I was assuming the Universe was uncaring.
Admittedly, there can be game worlds that do care - the PCs can have a special place within the world, and that may impact events ("I'm sorry, you are The One. You attract encounters like carrion attracts vultures.")
I disagree. I think that trust not built on honesty is at best unearned and probably false. I don't believe that the lying GM will inevitably be exposed, but I believe they'll very probably be exposed, and the radical reduction of fun when that happens is not worth the marginal increase of fun before then.
Sometimes I write dungeons. Today I wrote a checklist of things to put in the dungeon. The first couple items are pretty obvious, but it's...
goblinpunch.blogspot.com
I think it's important to hide things because there is a sincere joy in exploration and testing the limits. If all of the things in a dungeon are obvious, why even bother wondering what is at the bottom of the well? Is there anything interesting buried underneath all of this mud? Players who don't have the time or resources to explore a dungeon 100% (and they shouldn't) will always walk away with a feeling of enormity, that there was always more to find.
You know things there they they probably won't find, and the players know they haven't found every last thing in the dungeon. I think the idea is that writing down ahead of time keeps the DM honest--they aren't just inventing surprises but truly presenting a world with (some) depth (at least in the dungeon (pun intended)). Making the dungeon dangerous prevents the players from exploring every inch--they have to make choices, be skillful, and get a little lucky.
That's why you Jaquay the dungeon, right? It's not so that a party can literally explore every single room and corridor, but rather make choices that result in a particular path through the environment. For that to be meaningful, there have to be roads not chosen, as opposed to a more boring, linear dungeon.
But that's in the relatively constrained environment of the dungeon. It's infamously more difficult to pull off in more open spaces--wilderness, cities, the underdark. If you want to create this sense of exploration in a space with many orders of options more than a dungeon, maybe doing a pointcrawl is better than doing a hexcrawl. The downside is that you kind of lay bare the fact that you are treating wild-open wilderness travel, for example, as if it were a constrained dungeon space with limited options. But it's lower prep potentially than a hexcrawl and works for a variety of environments including cities.
There are plenty of people who argue linear adventures are fine, as long as they are done well and as long as everyone is on the same page. Preferences differ but it is not on the level of railroading, which is near universally reviled among gaming circles.
Yes, and I happen to prefer the second one, because I trust my DM and I can roleplay around it, although, technically, in both, my choices do not matter.
How do you roleplay around a railroad. If a situation is linear and you know it - then you can roleplay. If there is a true railroad situation, you THINK you're roleplaying around it but the DM has 1 and only 1 conclusion in mind regardless of what you think or do.
And again, a magician never reveals his tricks. Why in hell would you do this ? Although, actually, I might, just to show off the deviousness of whoever owns the dungeon, he is called Grimtooth and you should be weary of his "trust me, there is only one ogre". Agai, it's way more interesting and fun than saying "next room !" in a linear path.
We're discussing a very straightforward example, but that's not always the case. You "might do this" because the players have caught on that you are railroading them (it's rarely as seamless as most DMs think) and have complained about it.
There is an argument that random encounters work to make the region seem more dangerous, whether it's a wilderness or a dungeon; also in some styles of play there are resource attrition aspects to consider.
True. But I would counter that the way to make a region seem more dangerous is better served by story-based and narrative dangers, not just more fights. A forest wherein the party has heard from the folks in town lurks an adult green dragon who wanders around in the form of an elk to prey on unsuspecting people makes the region seem more dangerous (even if the group never actually encounters it) than the party walking through the forest and actually running into a pack of 5 wolves, an ankheg, and a scouting band of a half-dozen hobgoblins. But maybe that's just me.
And as far as the resource attrition... that's the same meta-currency that XP is for the reasons for fighting. It's purely for the board game-- lose a bunch of stuff in one fight so you have less for the next fight. But I have little use for it.
True. But I would counter that the way to make a region seem more dangerous is better served by story-based and narrative dangers, not just more fights. A forest wherein the party has heard from the folks in town lurks an adult green dragon who wanders around in the form of an elk to prey on unsuspecting people makes the region seem more dangerous (even if the group never actually encounters it) than the party walking through the forest and actually running into a pack of 5 wolves, an ankheg, and a scouting band of a half-dozen hobgoblins. But maybe that's just me.
And as far as the resource attrition... that's the same meta-currency that XP is for the reasons for fighting. It's purely for the board game-- lose a bunch of stuff in one fight so you have less for the next fight. But I have little use for it.
I've found that more and/or more dangerous encounters go some way toward conveying the dangerousness of a locale. Probably more than just hearing about the dangers. Opinions and experiences will of course vary.
Like you, I don't much like random stuff as resource attrition--though I'm not averse to running the PCs through a gantlet from time to time.
