Thats like saying everything in Eberron is a railroad because the book for it has maps, NPC's and city descriptions. Its absurd. Players dont need authorship in the Geography of the campaign world or the major NPCS's who live in it.
Says who? There are whole RPGs, after all, built around the assumption that the players
will have authorship of the geography of the campaign world and/or of the major NPCs who live in it - Burning Wheel is one well-known example.
My own approach is something of a middle path - I told my players that I wanted to run a core 4e game; they built PCs which related to various pre-authored story elements, like the Raven Queen, and the dwarves who freed themselves from the giants, and Corellon and the Feywild; and they also authored some important elements of the campaign, like secret societies, and dwarven culture, and towns destroyed by humanoids. And when I have framed scenes for them, the backstory I have drawn is the backstory that
they chose to make relevant in the game. So, for instance, in my game Avandra, for practical purposes, barely exists as a god - perhaps her name has been mentioned once or twice during play. Whereas the Raven Queen - who is worshipped and served by three of the PCs - comes up multiple times in every session.
I believe I understand your point, predetermined locations, predetermined foes, etc. But that would mean any advanture with any background info on who done it, could be considered a railroad.
<snip>
Or should I change the foe to an aboleth based on the PCs interest, and if I don't would keeping it as the dragon be railroading. I would think not, but this is an honest question searching for understanding of your views.
My own approach would certainly be to change the dragon to an aboleth, based on player interest as expressed via metagame talk plus PC background and play at the table.
When I use modules, I use particular encounter areas or vignettes rather than the whole module from go to woe, and I either choose a module whose theme and story elements fit what my players are interested in, or I revise and repurpose what is there.
Your comment about "any adventure with background info on who done it could be considered a railroad" is interesting. As I think I mentioned upthread, my preferred approach makes mystery gaming hard - because I am constantly toying with backstory and its realisation in play to respond to the expressed interests of the players, and to maintain pressure on the things they care about. Whereas a traditional mystery RPG more-or-less presupposes a stable backstory.
They can still go away and do other things, they have full freedom of choice.
<snip>
So say for instance they want to go pirate hunting instead with their ship, or be pirates. Either way. So what? Throw a quick session of pirate based fun at them and then when they come back to claim their rewards or sell their loot you let them know whats happened in the meantime and see if they want to check it out and get back on the AP.
What is striking to
me about this is that "freedom of choice" is being expressed purely in ingame terms - the PCs can go where they like - but has no metagame meaning, because what the PCs will encounter is being decided by the GM based, presumably, on some pre-given background. And then when the PCs "come back" the situation they encounter has also been pre-determined by the GM based on a pre-given timeline.
For me that is not really a player driven game. It's a predominantly GM-driven one.
You can "deal with the dragon problem" in whatever way you see fit and the ensuing game can be about that. Or you can "not deal with the dragon problem" to your greater peril and the ensuing game can be about that and the inevitable repercussions.
For me, I want to know where the "dragon problem" came from.
If the player have built dragon-slayer PCs, or paladins of Bahamut, etc, then I would think that evil dragon tyrants are fair game (like undead and Orcus to my Raven Queen-focused players). Or if everyone agrees that the dragon tyrant game sounds like fun, then that is not a railroad. (One variant of this - the "Burning THACO" approach - involves the GM going through his/her stack of old D&D modules, reading out the back blurbs and the intro blurbs to everyone until they agree on one that looks like fun, and then having everyone build PCs with Beliefs, Relationships etc tailored to that module.)
If the players just turn up and get told by the GM, "OK, this game is going to be about the dragon tyrant and your potential struggle with it - otherwise sorry, we haven't got a game" then I personally think that's closer to a railorad.
If you chose to play that adventure, then its not a railroad.
For me that's not enough. I mean, if my friend wanted to run an AP and I though I could have fun dicing and talking my way through it, I might sign up even though I know in advance it's going to be a railroad.
The thing I'm interested in is not whether the players choose to participate in the game. It's who gets to author the dominant story elements, and determine the plot, of the game. Hence I'm not especially attracted to the traditional sandbox either, because it is still the GM who determines the bulk of the story elements, and the significance they have within the fiction.
According to him.. but thats crap. If the players are asking about every way conceivable to destroy the thing from outside rather then going into it its because they dont want to go in it. If they did they would have just walked up to the door and gone in without all the hallabaloo about destroying the tower.
<snip>
I dont ever remember seeing a railroading GM say "my players hate when I railroad but I do it anyway". Thats just not how it works. The railroader convinces himself that its better for everyone as an excuse for his poor behavior. You have to talk to the actual players in that game to see what they really think about this.
As [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] noted upthread, [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]'s players didn't ask about every conceivable way to destroy the thing from outside.
As far as whether or not Majoru Oakheart is misdescribing his own game, I trust him more than you as a witness of what is happening at his table.
