I don't see how it has any effect at all on railroading. Just because you aren't assuming the PCs will interact with it, doesn't mean you cannot be nailing down one and only one valid path forward. Design a religion that is utterly unpersuadable--by anyone, PC or not. Design a marauding horde, a reasonable thing in almost any fantasy setting, which reasonably besieges towns. Said thing can then be used to control player motions in various ways.
(snip)
So...I'm gonna level with you, this reads as "the process is reinforced by my solemn promise not to railroad." Which really makes the argument seem both circular and superfluous, even before the things I've said above.
We are working from fundamentally different assumptions about what constitutes railroading.
In my view, the distinction lies in whether the players’ choices are constrained by authorial intent or by the circumstances of the setting. A marauding horde that exists in the setting, that moves and acts according to its own goals, isn’t a railroad. It’s a situation. If the players want to negotiate with it, undermine it, flee from it, join it, or find another way around it, they can. None of those outcomes are predetermined by me; they emerge naturally from what would happen if the marauding horde actually existed. That’s the opposite of a railroad, that's World in Motion, responding to what the players choose to do.
If a referee uses setting elements to funnel players toward predetermined outcomes, then it doesn’t matter how “organic” it looks, it’s still a railroad. But that’s not what I do. That’s why referee intent and technique matter. A referee committed to impartial adjudication, and to letting player choices shape the direction of the campaign, can use the same prep and arrive at a fundamentally different experience.
As for first-person roleplaying: you’ve said you don’t see how it’s relevant, but for me it’s part of how the world becomes actionable. When I roleplay NPCs, it’s not just flavor, it’s how I communicate what the players’ characters are encountering. The way NPCs act, what they say, how they respond, all of it stems from the situation and their motivations. That’s what gives players the full range of social, moral, and tactical options. It’s how they make meaningful decisions. It’s also how we, as a table, assess whether things are fair and consistent. Because players experience the world through first-person engagement, when questions arise later, we can refer back to how the situation unfolded based on what was known about the setting and characters, rather than hidden behind unseen decisions.
It’s clear that we disagree on this foundation. You don’t believe referee intent or adjudication techniques matter, while I believe they are central to preserving player agency. As a result, we’re arriving at very different conclusions.
At this point, I think we have both clearly articulated our points, explored the nuances, and stated our conclusions. Those reading this thread can judge for themselves which approach better fits their table and goals.
