Search results

To me, that's the HUGE difference. If the players come in eyes open (player buy-in) then "railroading" and all the negative connotations that apply, don't attach. The players choices are severely constrained, but everyone is aware of this and simply choosing to move forward.

I have long wanted to do a campaign - where it starts at "the end." Namely, first session is the group at 20th level and they get brutally wiped out by whatever the big threat is, as it completely overwhelms them (tricky, but possible to a 20th level party). The scene (after the wipeout) then...

These are clear cases of the player being a jerk and trying to have fun at the expense of everyone else at the table. It is an out of game problem and needs to be discussed and treated as such. This seems straightforward. The action itself is not invalid (charming someone immune etc.), it just...

Usually I will too. If I'm running a module, I will just be up front with the players about what it expects. Like here, when I ran it I just told my group after a round of blights what is expected to move forward.

The 5e Spelljammer adventure Light of Xaryxis has a similar start. The PCs are in a coastal town when twig blights start bursting up from everywhere and attack. If the PCs go to the docs (as the adventure, through NPCs and other means, hints to do), they get to the docs and things move on. If...

I prefer the term linear or mostly linear Which is what you are describing. There is a clear start and end point and maybe a branch or two but it's a linear structure. Railroad, to me, implies the players are unaware of the linear structure or that the DM is taking steps to keep then on the...

Which is why I prefer to only have Railroad apply when the players really have no choice in the matter. Keeps things from being confusing. And keeps from the inevitable follow-up of: do you mean "good or neutral" railroad or "bad" railroad?

This is the definition I go by as well. As opposed to linear, where the players are fully aware that there may be only one choice and they're on board with that.

Thinking about it, hard not to agree. Both TOS and TNG did a really good job showing just how fully/well crewed the Enterprise is. SNW kind of gives the impression the ship is seriously understaffed.

That would explain the eventual falling out with Captain Batel. Only room for 1 weird alien hybrid!

Are you kidding? Starfleet Doctors are a dime a dozen. But a hairdresser that can manage Pike's hair? They probably have strict orders to stay completely out of harms way!

As far as truly little things that made me laugh. When the mask comes off and there's the big reveal: The baddie has an immaculately groomed moustache and goatee. I just couldn't help laughing and thinking the real reason he didn't shoot was because he got a look at Pike's hair and couldn't...

Absolutely, they should investigate and they should want to find out all/more about it. But Star Trek has a pretty long history of introducing insanely game changing technology and then just acting as if it was never a thing. But yes, we'll see if this goes anywhere.

Well, we know they'll have this and at least 2 more seasons to do it. But they made it a real point to 1) completely destroy the ship 2) have absolutely no survivors - I'll be surprised if this is brought up again.

I like that part of it. But I hated the twist, mostly because it ended up being so completely meaningless.

This is a definition issue again. You see constraints on player choice as railroading - even if they are transparent, known and fully accepted by the players. I, and many other participants here, only consider it railroading if the constraints on the players are hidden or otherwise involuntary...

Or if the players are aware of the constraints (such as an adventure path is being run) and choose to go along. The point being, if the DM is open and up front about how they are running, and the players choose to accept that - it won't be a railroad.

That's a really good point. If the DM never denies any of the players meaningful choices - no railroading occurs. It's also a good way to look at why linear =/= to a railroad. If the players are voluntarily following a linear path (because that's all there is and they are aware of that, such as...

Not even remotely the same! The DM here is merely describing that the door is locked and if the character wishes to open it, there are conditions which must be overcome. The example we were discussing was: Player: Relg picks his nose. DM: Nope, sorry not happening here. Relg just stands...

I don't follow? Here, the DM has presented a scene and is having it go a certain way (the track). The player, not wanting things to go in that direction, says his character is explicitly picking his nose (trying to get off that track). The DM, not wanting to derail his scene with the nose...