Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8694560" data-attributes="member: 97077">Except that it is giving the players a choice. If they have a sense of what lay behind each door, then it's an informed choice. If those choices are meaningfully different such that the players want to see what's behind one door and the DM gives them the content of their choosing regardless of which door they picked, then the DM is railroading. It's not railroading for all three doors to lead to one place, however, unless we're prepared to say that the great hall of the king with its many doors is somehow railroading in and of itself.First, what a tedious player that is in the example. The party's already made a decision to go to Balwick and then Captain Waitaminute wants to open the floor for 10 minutes of further debate instead of getting the heck on with it. Yikes.Second, there is still a choice here. It does not impact anything with regard to what happens next, but it does change the story - the PCs took the scenic route instead of the direct one. A minor detail in context probably, but again, it's not railroading in and of itself. The players want to go to Balwick. They get there with one route taking longer than the other.Finally, it's not railroading to have NPCs hanging around for color but who otherwise have no connection to the events in play, even if the players taken interest in them. NPC X does and has motivation to seek out adventurers like the PCs who they need for a quest. This presents the players with another choice. Again, not railroading.All in all, I think this is a great example of why it's not useful in my view to obfuscate what railroading actually is otherwise one will tend to see it everywhere (even when it's not there).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8694560, member: 97077"] Except that it [I]is [/I]giving the players a choice. If they have a sense of what lay behind each door, then it's an informed choice. If those choices are meaningfully different such that the players want to see what's behind one door and the DM gives them the content of [I]their [/I]choosing regardless of which door they picked, then the DM is railroading. It's not railroading for all three doors to lead to one place, however, unless we're prepared to say that the great hall of the king with its many doors is somehow railroading in and of itself. First, what a tedious player that is in the example. The party's already made a decision to go to Balwick and then Captain Waitaminute wants to open the floor for 10 minutes of further debate instead of getting the heck on with it. Yikes. Second, there is still a choice here. It does not impact anything with regard to what happens next, but it does change the story - the PCs took the scenic route instead of the direct one. A minor detail in context probably, but again, it's not railroading in and of itself. The players want to go to Balwick. They get there with one route taking longer than the other. Finally, it's not railroading to have NPCs hanging around for color but who otherwise have no connection to the events in play, even if the players taken interest in them. NPC X does and has motivation to seek out adventurers like the PCs who they need for a quest. This presents the players with another choice. Again, not railroading. All in all, I think this is a great example of why it's not useful in my view to obfuscate what railroading actually [I]is [/I]otherwise one will tend to see it everywhere (even when it's not there). [/QUOTE]

Verification