Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8694329" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Give your definition of "railroading," then, and we can see. Because, at least by my definition of "railroading," I never do it, and my players have explicitly stated that they appreciate that I do not use railroading.No. It is choices having consequences--so long as their capture was the result of their choices (and, presumably, undesirable dice rolls).Sometimes, logically, there just aren't other choices to be made. That's not railroading. That is life.Unless you mean to say that, for example, reality itself railroads you every time you must exit a room via the only door because you cannot physically destroy the wall to exit....Which, IMO, means it isn't railroading anymore. The players' agency is respected, because they want to go where you're leading. You don't need a fence to hem them in. They go of their own volition.Exactly this. Couldn't have said it better myself.Then you are simply incorrect. There are player choices that are not illusions. So long as you continue to hold this incorrect belief, contradictions will result.I have never done this and would never do it. Period.I have never done this, and would never do it. Period.Thus far, you're 0/3 on examples of railroading; the first by not actually being railroading in the first place, the second and third by absolutely being railroading...and being things I would never do and have never done.If time has passed, then the adventure not only can change, it should change. That's literally how I respect my players' choices, by having the world change. Sometimes it changes because of what they do; sometimes it changes because of what they didn't do. And sometimes it just changes regardless of their actions. That, again, is life. Things change.And if the players choose to go to City B, it sure as heck won't have the same adventure hooks as City A would. The two are distinct cities; they should have distinct components. I will consider such elements as local (sub)culture (e.g. Al-Maralus, to the north, is more tropical and more directly influenced by Moroccan culture and names, while Al-Tusyoun, to the south, is much more arid and more influenced by the Levant), past events associated with those cities in-game (the party has been to both cities before, but has rarely been to Al-Tusyoun while Al-Maralus they've visited repeatedly), and both secret and non-secret information about the setting (e.g. the Cult of the Burning Eye is not particularly active around Al-Tusyoun while the Shadow-Druids are, something the PCs do not know; they do, however, know that Al-Tusyoun is more of a "crossroads" town, while Al-Maralus is more of a "gateway" town to another region.) Being further south, Al-Tusyoun will have more elves/half-elves and dragonborn (who are more common in the temperate, southern "elf forests," though the dragonborn are rare in general on this continent), while Al-Maralus is mostly humans and orcs/half-orcs, with many of them related to the indigenous peoples of the northern jungles. Etc. As a result, the names, races, and occupations of the people they meet will depend on where they go, and the dangers they face will differ. My commitment to maintaining a consistent, grounded, meaningful world is part of how I respect my players' choices.For my part, I consider it non-railroading because, for my world, there is a reason why this fact is true, and the players can not only discover that fact, but attempt to do something about it. (Indeed, I hope that they not only attempt to do something about it, but that they do so with gusto!) If they just petulantly said, "But we want to go to another world NOW!" then I would be rather annoyed with them (and extremely surprised that they became petulant all of a sudden!), and explain that while I am 99.9%* of the time willing to work with them on the things they wish to do, sometimes there will be barriers or difficulties that must be overcome before that can happen, and that if they wish to participate in my game, they will need to accept that sometimes getting the thing they want to get will be an adventure, possibly a lengthy one, rather than instant gratification.But, as I said in an earlier post, my players are troopers, and have never even once been petulant or demanding. In fact, they've been nothing but accommodating, which is part of why I do everything I can to support their choices and ensure that appropriate, grounded consequences result from those choices. I also do that because of my ardent belief that it is my duty as DM to foster player enthusiasm whenever and wherever I can, but it certainly doesn't hurt that my players are respectful and cooperative.*There are a small number of areas where I am....reluctant to compromise. I made sure that as many such areas were explicitly identified as possible during Session 0, and work to be absolutely transparent and forthright about such things. E.g., I do not run games for evil PCs, not because I don't think evil PCs can be interesting, but because I do not trust my ability to produce an enjoyable game for evil PCs. Players can choose to have their characters go full-on capital-E Evil if they want, but I consider that a form of retirement for the character. A formerly evil character struggling to atone for past sins is awesome, however, so I'm quite willing to make stuff like that happen. Likewise, necromancy (as in raising the dead as profane things like ghuls or zombies), alongside slavery, is one of the very few EXTREME taboos of the culture of the land the game is set in; to practice necromancy in any way that could be discovered would be reputational suicide, so I have strongly encouraged the players not to do that sort of thing. When any issues with these topics arise, I give players a fair hearing and work with them to try to find consensus, and I have only once had to do anything more than "have a quick, polite conversation."</blockquote>

Verification