Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1869668" data-attributes="member: 812">Well and good. It would be weird if EVERYONE agreed with each other.Eh? Railroading? Not according to the definitions being tossed around in this thread, which are more or less variations on &quot;The DM only allows one course of action to be followed.&quot;Having sinister assassins stalk the party, deceitful nobles try to manipulate them into serving evil schemes, ruthless warlords send bands of berserkers to destroy their homes isn't railroading in any sense of the word I've been using. It's just having bad things happen to the party that they need to react to. If I try to control how they are allowed to react to such things, THEN I'm railroading them (&quot;No you can't negotiate with the berserkers. No you can't misdirect them to another village. No, you can't dig a pit and catch them -- you have to fight them in the town square, guys!&quot; THAT'S railroading). But I don't do that. HOW they react is up to them entirely.How is this disempowerment? How is it railroading?In my campaign world, THINGS HAPPEN. If the party sits in the bar and drinks, things will continue happening around them. Since they're the stars of the story, I try to make sure that things happen to THEM.If good things happen to them, that's nice for them, but not exactly thrilling adventure. If bad things happen to them, they then need to take steps to solve the problem, and hey presto! we've got adventure.Maybe you and I are using terms like &quot;bad things happen&quot; and &quot;railroading&quot; to mean different things, cause otherwise, I don't understand your point of view at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="barsoomcore, post: 1869668, member: 812"] Well and good. It would be weird if EVERYONE agreed with each other. Eh? Railroading? Not according to the definitions being tossed around in this thread, which are more or less variations on "The DM only allows one course of action to be followed." Having sinister assassins stalk the party, deceitful nobles try to manipulate them into serving evil schemes, ruthless warlords send bands of berserkers to destroy their homes isn't railroading in any sense of the word I've been using. It's just having bad things happen to the party that they need to react to. If I try to control how they are allowed to react to such things, THEN I'm railroading them ("No you can't negotiate with the berserkers. No you can't misdirect them to another village. No, you can't dig a pit and catch them -- you have to fight them in the town square, guys!" THAT'S railroading). But I don't do that. HOW they react is up to them entirely. How is this disempowerment? How is it railroading? In my campaign world, THINGS HAPPEN. If the party sits in the bar and drinks, things will continue happening around them. Since they're the stars of the story, I try to make sure that things happen to THEM. If good things happen to them, that's nice for them, but not exactly thrilling adventure. If bad things happen to them, they then need to take steps to solve the problem, and hey presto! we've got adventure. Maybe you and I are using terms like "bad things happen" and "railroading" to mean different things, cause otherwise, I don't understand your point of view at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification