Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4736693" data-attributes="member: 40961">That's not your definition at all.&nbsp; Your definition is, at best, &quot;restrictions on player freedom that I don't like.&quot;&nbsp;You apparently don't mind restrictions on player freedom that are built into the setting.&nbsp; Meanwhile you heavily dislike restrictions on player freedom that the DM comes up with on the spot because he doesn't want the PCs to follow a particular path.&nbsp; That's fine and all, for you.&nbsp;But.&nbsp;1. Restrictions on player freedom that are built into the setting can be done for the same motivation as restrictions on player freedom that are thought up on the spot,&nbsp;2. Restrictions on player freedom that are built into the setting can be just as clumsy or worse than restrictions thought up on the spot, and&nbsp;3. Most everyone else acknowledges this.&nbsp;I don't really feel the need to prove to you that people talk about published modules and discuss whether the module is a railroad.&nbsp; I feel that this is sufficiently self evident that it is your credibility that is undermined by disputing it, not the credibility of my point.&nbsp; Type &quot;adventure railroad D&amp;D&quot; into yahoo or something.&nbsp; Its inexact, but in the two seconds I spent on it I found discussions of a paizo adventure as a railroad, a WOTC article on &quot;travel&quot; plotlines and how they can be railroads, a review of thunderspire labyrinth that suggested that it was on rails, and an accusation that the entirety of dragonlance was so much of a railroad that it ruined D&amp;D, permanently.&nbsp; I'm sure I could find more, but I don't feel that this should be my job.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4736693, member: 40961"] That's not your definition at all. Your definition is, at best, "restrictions on player freedom that I don't like." You apparently don't mind restrictions on player freedom that are built into the setting. Meanwhile you heavily dislike restrictions on player freedom that the DM comes up with on the spot because he doesn't want the PCs to follow a particular path. That's fine and all, for you. But. 1. Restrictions on player freedom that are built into the setting can be done for the same motivation as restrictions on player freedom that are thought up on the spot, 2. Restrictions on player freedom that are built into the setting can be just as clumsy or worse than restrictions thought up on the spot, and 3. Most everyone else acknowledges this. I don't really feel the need to prove to you that people talk about published modules and discuss whether the module is a railroad. I feel that this is sufficiently self evident that it is your credibility that is undermined by disputing it, not the credibility of my point. Type "adventure railroad D&D" into yahoo or something. Its inexact, but in the two seconds I spent on it I found discussions of a paizo adventure as a railroad, a WOTC article on "travel" plotlines and how they can be railroads, a review of thunderspire labyrinth that suggested that it was on rails, and an accusation that the entirety of dragonlance was so much of a railroad that it ruined D&D, permanently. I'm sure I could find more, but I don't feel that this should be my job. [/QUOTE]

Verification