Search results

How is expressly blocking a players declared, and presumably 100% legal, action, just because the DM doesn't like it, not railroading? If the DM feels the action is utterly inappropriate and wants to say something before the action resolves? That's usually appropriate. If the DM believes the...

This is absolutely deception - the DM is deceiving the players by not openly admitting they can't leave or that there is only the one path. Illusionism is a common way to do this, but not the only way. If the DM is honest with the players, and they're simply choosing to accept these constraints...

While I would love to see the Critical Role gang do L5R, their massively chaotic play style would be hilarious in such a setting, I think, if anything, that would be a 1 shot or 2.

I tend to limit the term railroad to the derogatory usage, to avoid confusion. Otherwise, I just prefer the term linear. If an adventure goes from A-B-C-Z, the players are aware of this and go along, that's just linear. Not only is there nothing wrong with this, in my experience, many players...

I guess I'm confused by what you mean? Are you saying a world completely independent of the PCs cannot have railroading in it? I suppose that's true IF the players realize that no matter what they do their actions have no impact. But then, what exactly are they doing there?

For me, if the players are aware and choose to follow along, as they would in most published adventures - that's not railroading. The players simply recognize that their choices are constrained by the adventure and are cool with that. For it to be railroading there had to be an element of...

Right, and if "the world" reacts to the players by invalidating their choice in favor of the DMs predetermined outcome, that's railroading.

It can certainly be railroading if the players are interacting with it and think they have a role in establishing it, when they, in fact, don't. If the DM wrote a story (all elements are established without the players) and is simply leading the players through it, without the players being...

She did have a thing for Kirk, but then found out he had a pregnant girlfriend - and backed right off. I'll agree that the Spock romance is a bit weird.

It is IF the DM leads the players into believing that they are the ones establishing these details, when in fact they are not. If/when the players think that certain details are established by their actions but, actually, they are determined by the DM regardless of what the players do - that's...

I disagree that this is semantics. If something is not determined, then it doesn't yet exist, and might never exist. That's not a state because it's not anything yet. But that's the secondary point here. To the main: Because it matters, it REALLY matters who gets to determine the price of tea...

That doesn't seem right. If the fictional reality is undermined and then it becomes determined, it becomes set not changed. As in it wasn't there before, now it is. Applying that to railroading, IF: The players THINK the reality is undetermined and that their choices/actions can/will...

Apparently there's been some complaining online that Paul Wesley wasn't quite doing Kirk's delivery "properly." The writers sure had fun with that in today's episode!

As you said in a previous post, I think he is absolutely willing to do whatever is necessary - for good to win. I'd also go with neutral good.

I absolutely agree about providing encouragement! But that doesn't mean letting clearly bad habits solidify. Rules whiplash is something that can be addressed without being at all harsh - and it seems it would solve most of the OPs issues.

It's always difficult when getting information from just the one viewpoint. But here, the OP expressly stated that the rules were 1)house rules 2) sprung on the group/person mid-session. I'm all for letting a new DM find their bearings (heck that's exactly what's happening in my Sunday group...

If that were the case, sure. But here it seems most of the changes are from the new DM going, wait that was too easy let's change the rule to xyz. With xyz being what the be DM thinks is "appropriate" going forward. That's the real issue, rule changes sprung on the players, often mid game and...

Seems like a great time for an email requesting a write up of all of the rules changes as well as (gently) suggesting a discussion/write up of any more the new DM still wants/is thinking about, so they are not just sprung in the group.

What about stealth and observation focused characters, characters with familiars, or casters with any number of "scouting" spells? Or do you just tell groups not to bother with that?

Though I won't forbid it, I'm generally not a fan. Tends to split my attention, leaves some players twiddling their thumbs, and can cause problems if there is a serious combat encounter. There are ways around any and all of those problems, but 5e doesn't tend to embrace them wholeheartedly (for...