Search results

And if those manipulations were seen or called out?

Is the threat not implicit? The railroading GM, sooner or later, applies the threat of being ejected from the game. I strongly suspect you're taking the piss, but just so we're clear, that's pretty much the definition of a qualitative standard.

What is the unit of measurement for quantity of railroading? For freedom possessed or denied? Because I was given to understand that unless you have a measurable unit, it isn't quantitative. Is that not the case?

If you have still lost your freedom, even if you don't realize it, is that not itself still a form of coercion? It's just coercion you don't know is happening.

I wouldn't say I'm quite at that level of improvisation. But I've done enough background prep that I can usually improvise at least a couple hours' worth of stuff. And then I can whip up a combat relatively quickly--perhaps a five, ten minute break--so that's not a huge burden. I do use fantasy...

I mean, the "con" in "con artist" means confidence trickster, as in, someone who abuses the confidence (=full trust) of another person. So, yes, by definition I would say such a person is being coercive. And, to put my cards on the table, I have an extremely negative view of the vast majority...

@Celebrim Is railroading always coercive?

It just seems to me like a very obvious elective choice, rather than an enforced one. Some rangers use magic. Others don't. There are plenty of woodsman-type characters in the fiction that inspires D&D who would look painfully silly being forced to do their thing through chanting words and...

And those people working that out are not going to have a Friendship Master who makes the final call on everything that occurs in this friendship. They'll talk it out like adults and work out which thing to do, perhaps making concessions or plans or splitting time between interests.

Nah. Ironsworn alone is proof enough that the minimum necessary amount of railroading is zero.

Well then, I agree that it can be railroading. You're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than anything you've said thus far in order to get me all the way to "it is ALWAYS railroading". Because, as said above, I don't do timeskips (not even sleep!) unless the players explicitly agree that...

Critical difference here, compared to previous framing, at least as I had understood it. Here, you're saying that these techniques can be railroading, if used in a manipulative, deceptive manner. Bull-rushing toward GM-desired things, digging in heels against GM-undesired things. Previously...

I mean you can make any combat boring, in a host of ways. But what you mean is, do I see combat with no life or death stakes as automatically boring? And the answer is no. I think it can be meaningful, if there are other consequences. Nope! Because you've literally just made the argument...

And that remains a mere assertion, not something you have even remotely proven. Unless and until you do that, all you're doing is asserting you're right, and then concluding from that that I must be wrong. Edit: Further, using examples solely derived from the Forgotten Realms isn't any more...

But there aren't exceptions to literally everything. It is in fact extremely important to many things that this be true. Some things are just...true. There just isn't an exception. Because the artifact doesn't exist anymore? Because the material cannot be reproduced? The Silmarils were unique...

how is that railroading???? Like...what?? Let's say an artifact gets destroyed. That artifact is gone! You aren't going to be able to rebuild an artifact created by a long-lost civilization using knowledge lost to time, materials nobody knows how to replicate, magic that is literally not...

but...like... You've literally just said that you CAN lose. And tactics...are what make the difference...? If you can lose and tactics can in fact be what differentiates things, why does loss absolutely NEED to be death? You've already said that loss can occur that isn't "my character died"...

I just see that as incredibly boring. That's like saying you could skip Lord of the Rings by being told, "They climbed Mount Doom and the Eagles rescued them. The end." The blow-by-blow is the point, even though you can know with pretty much total certainty that Tolkien would never write a...

Why can't combats meaningfully affect the story even if you just get captured? Like I genuinely don't understand how or why that is an automatic thing. If you get captured and can't save the queen, the queen DIES. The nation is in chaos. Evil won. Why isn't that meaningful?

All of these are still predicated on the assumption that: (1) If you're alive you can ALWAYS fix EVERYTHING wrong (2) No consequences are ever permanent except death (3) You can never lose something you care about All of these are wrong. Heck, that second one is wrong in both directions...