Search results

Well, I guess you can always have nazis and their analogues. Stormtroopers of an evil tyrant, evil cultists, etc.

Yah, I guess. And in other thread I was also told that having to make meaningful decisions is tedious and exhausting to the players...

I'm moderately pleased with it being D&D, but I am really stoked about this campaign structure. My enthusiasm level for this certainly has increased.

And will gladly point them towards the nearest railway station, I just do not wish to join them!

Yes, this! It is so simple. I am always flabbergasted how people feel they need to have always evil things to have conflict in their stories. We don't have those here on Earth, but there hasn't exactly been scarcity of conflict!

I definitely think the complicated situations should be the main ingredient. Simple ones are just scaffolding to get there. I really, really do not think that making meaningful decisions is onerous or tedious in a RPG, it is in fact the point of playing.

Yes. I just think people are using words weirdly. If there are many meaningful decisions that impact what course the events take, then it is not linear or a railroad!

Yes, thus it is not a complicated or nuanced situation. Hell, it is barely a situation at all, it is more of an exposition, a setup. Indeed. And I think it is fine to have some of this sort of structure in game, but it is there just to be scaffolding to get to more complicated situations where...

No, I want there to be complicated and nuanced situations that do not have one obvious correct solution.

Some situations are like that, but I think it is poor adventure building if every situation has one correct and obvious answer, and yeah, to me that is rather railroady.

I can accept what you mean by imprecise words once I understand it. It is just that with such word choices it is not surprising if misunderstandings happen, and people talk past each other. Also, at this point I still do not know whether other who used the term "linear adventure" understand it...

I literally not was sure what people meant by "linear." Now as it seems that they do not mean linear by "linear" I better understand why people think that "linear" adventures ae different thing than railroading! But yeah, it is a terrible word choice that is bound to lead to confusion, so on...

I mean that there doesn't seem to be a coherent definition of "linear adventure" that is impossible to answer. If people merely use it to mean "a non-sandbox adventure" then I think term "linear" is a colossal misnomer. You can easily have a game with more tightly focused premise than a sandbox...

I don't think having a general premise for a campaign makes it linear. Words mean things. Linear implies that the events follow one predetermined path. If that is not happening it is not linear.

One compromise option where you can have humanocentrism without human ascendancy is that the humanocentrism is merely local; the campaign is mostly set in lands where humans are most populous, but other parts of the world are dominated by other species. This also allows the campaign to evolve...

What makes them linear?

But if the path can branch in such a significant way via a player choice, then it is not linear!

It definitely is not. As a GM I often just present situations. I do not at this point know how they will be solved or whether they will be solved. That is for the players to figure out.

Yeah, that's just bonkers. Of course any adventure will have taken only one path once it is completed! I mean it is not by coincidence, it is by design. The situations are engineered such way that there is only one sensible choice to make. That is what makes it railroady. And I don't think...

I am not sure it is as plain as you seem to think. So is the argument that railroading takes force to block outcomes? And that framing mono-solution situations is not force thus not railroading? Because sure, there is real difference here, I just am no sure it is terribly meaningful one. In both...