Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8701550" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, encounters are just a very simple and straightforward example of something which might or might not happen. They clearly require some effort on the DM's part to set up, while being easy to negate/derail purely by happenstance via player choice. There have been other examples, though, like running into an important NPC no matter which town you travel to, or finding a certain treasure in the next dungeon regardless of what that dungeon is or who(/what) occupies it, or certain physical locations cropping up regardless of the direction the players travel (such as, from previous threads, the "haunted house" scenario that the DM plonks down on the path the players take, no matter which path that happens to be.)Other examples of railroading appeared in the OP, like the dungeon which has 10 rooms that the DM will use in the order the players enter rooms, not as put onto any map or location, or the mystery-solving adventure where the DM just flings out a new clue if the players ever wander off in an unexpected direction. I think what you see as an "obsession" is just using the simplest, most ready-to-hand example that requires minimal faffing about with explaining or inventing context.So, to cover other examples that have nothing to do with encounters (in the sense of combats or at least the risk of such):1. The players are presented with what seems to be a difficult choice: they are adventuring through a cave system, and they can either try to rappel down a rock face, or take some circuitous pathways that hug to the wall. This looks like a real choice, with risks and significance, but in actuality, there's no way for them to get down safely: the DM has prepared a fall into an underground lake as a prelude to a "Lost World" scenario in the style of Edgar Rice Burroughs (which she happens to know several players are fans of Burroughs.) If they try to take the slow but safe path, a rockfall will occur, throwing them off into the darkness below. If they try to rappel, the crumbly rock will fail, same result. It seems to be a choice, but it isn't.2. A war is brewing. The PCs know that the Duke and the Countess are both gearing up for civil war against the childless King who has been acting strange and draconian, but that in truth, they are each being deceived by the Abbess, actually a demon in disguise who has been manipulating the King. If the players support the Duke, the King will in turn show favor only to the Countess, and vice-versa. If the players try to reconcile the two sides, the DM will invent new problems to prolong the tension until the three-way meeting can occur. If the PCs try to heal the King, find an heir, or seduce any of the three, all attempts will either fail or "succeed" (that is, appear to work, but never actually accomplish anything.) There are many different things the party could potentially think to do, but the DM won't let anything that doesn't lead to this (literally) crowning moment of heartwarming happen. No choice--they will get that awesome scene. Edit: Oops, trimmed out important info. First: Duke is King's sister's son. Second, at the fateful meeting, King will be freed of compulsion but will die, and Duke/Countess will fall in love and agree to rule jointly (since they both have a claim.) DM knows a player loves sappy romances, another finds inheritance law fascianting, and a third is an English historian who will catch the War of the Roses references. Hence, it's totally cool to block any player actions that would prevent this awesome, heartwarming scene!3. There is no example 3, because the DM won't allow there to be one. Oh, you'll think there's an option 3, there will be an option labelled 3, but it's actually one of the other options rephrased.4. It's early in the campaign, and the DM thinks the players would really love a story about cursed artifacts and ancient deals with eldritch beings and people, both wicked and well-meaning, making decisions for the whole world whether or not they are justified in doing so. But to get the ball rolling, the players have to get drawn into the curse. The players are presented with their choice of which magic item to take from a mysterious benefactor--but no matter whether they choose the ring, the sword, or the robe, it's a cursed item and the others will just be ordinary magic items. They won't be allowed to investigate which item might be cursed, nor even know that they're cursed. The choice is illusory, but presented as though it could have gone differently--they WILL get this plotline, there is no other way.5. Murder mystery. A victim was murdered, and there are clues that point to the real perpetrator. Let's say the Baron did the deed and the Duchess is the innocent person he's framing. The party has found clues and started to build a case. They fall for the Baron's ruse immediately, and interpret the deceptive clues as genuine. For a classical railroad (as described in the OP), the PCs will simply keep bumping into new clues until the resolution is a foregone conclusion; there will never be any doubt. Or for the quantum railroad, whoever the party decides is guilty is in fact guilty, no matter what fiction was established to begin with--which, to be clear, is just as bad. Either way, there is no choice: correct because of enforcement or correct because of transformation, either way, the only world allowed to exist is one where the PCs correctly identify the killer. This shows more clearly the connection to consequences, which is why "agency" is more important than "choice" per se--sometimes, a choice either has no consequences, or the consequences of a particular choice just aren't relevant. But clearly there should be consequences for pinning guilt on an innocent person, and that's not allowed to happen here.</blockquote>

Verification