DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Nellisir]

I would say a PC that is connected to the location, one for whom permanently leaving the place behind would be worse than the inconvenience of defending against a false charge.

Yeah, though it seems like a character that connected might have a relationship with the locals (or be a local), which would put a different spin on the matter.

 

[Nellisir]

The whole scenario is supposed to be only a small, side, smaller-than-mini encounter.

That's what I suspected. I agree with your final analysis. The stakes in the scenario were raised (to make it more "serious"/character-building?), but the characters were still expected to treat it as a minor role-playing encounter, not a serious threat.

 

[Rogue Agent]

And no, definitely not a railroad.

This attitude astonishes me.

For a DM to literally be able to say "you will do what I want you to do; if you don't, I will do everything in my power to force you to do that; and if I can't force you to do it, then you don't get to play your character any more" and have multiple people in this thread say, "I don't see the railroad." completely baffles me.

What the heck would a DM have to do to make you describe it as railroading? Pull out a gun and threaten to shoot the player in the head if they didn't get back on the tracks?

 

[Loonook]

This attitude astonishes me.

For a DM to literally be able to say "you will do what I want you to do; if you don't, I will do everything in my power to force you to do that; and if I can't force you to do it, then you don't get to play your character any more" and have multiple people in this thread say, "I don't see the railroad." completely baffles me.

What the heck would a DM have to do to make you describe it as railroading? Pull out a gun and threaten to shoot the player in the head if they didn't get back on the tracks?

The DM presents multiple options (bribery, going in, slashing it up, talking to the guards out front). The DM then gets back "screw that, I'm just going to be disruptive and run as far as I can, splitting the party in the middle of an adventure!"

Obviously, total DM railroad...

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This attitude astonishes me.

For a DM to literally be able to say "you will do what I want you to do; if you don't, I will do everything in my power to force you to do that; and if I can't force you to do it, then you don't get to play your character any more" and have multiple people in this thread say, "I don't see the railroad." completely baffles me.

What the heck would a DM have to do to make you describe it as railroading? Pull out a gun and threaten to shoot the player in the head if they didn't get back on the tracks?

Player A: "I'm going to leave and go over this way, and I'm not going to wait around."
Players B, C, and D: "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go."
GM: "Player A, you know that if you leave like you plan to, you won't get to keep the character, because the rest of the players are still going through with something else?"

Where is the railroading coming in? He has the option to leave, if he wants to. Or fight. Or surrender. Or talk. Or bribe. Or throw counter-accusations. Or whatever. Each has individual consequences, and likelihoods of success.

However, running and leaving the party behind means he'll lose his character. That's pretty much not railroading, in my opinion. He's leaving them behind. His call, and the GM is informing him, based on the input of the other players.

If the GM told all of them "you realize if you leave, you'll lose these characters, right?" then I'd agree with you. As it stands, that's not been the case as presented. As it stands, it's Player A's decision to leave the party, and the GM is letting him know what's going to happen based on the decisions of Players B, C, and D.

The GM isn't railroading him. The players are forcing a choice upon him if he wants to keep his character. The GM is just giving him a heads up. As always, play what you like

 

[Rogue Agent]

The DM presents multiple options (bribery, going in, slashing it up, talking to the guards out front).

Here's the thing: That is literally the exact opposite of what the OP said. What the OP said was that he didn't lay out those options and was, in fact, opposed to doing so even when the players at his table suggested that it might be useful if he did.

Sure: If you sufficiently change what the OP did, it's no longer railroading. What's your point?

Player A: "I'm going to leave and go over this way, and I'm not going to wait around."
Players B, C, and D: "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go."
GM: "Player A, you know that if you leave like you plan to, you won't get to keep the character, because the rest of the players are still going through with something else?"

And ditto to this. You're describing a situation which is radically different from the sequence of events the OP described, while conveniently ignoring all the other railroading.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think this counts as a spoiler:

There's nothing about the girl claiming rape or anything like that... It's only supposed to spiral out of control if the PC kills the father and is then facing a murder trial. Turning it into a rape charge is what screwed the pooch.

Hm, in that case (and the rest of what's in the sblock) there seems nothing wrong with the adventure per se. It was the DM's additions, combined with his choice not to have the PCs already know and trust each other, that screwed things up. It's a pretty easy mistake to make, but you need to be aware that a world-simulationist style and a linear adventure often don't mix well.

 

[Loonook]

Here's the thing: That is literally the exact opposite of what the OP said. What the OP said was that he didn't lay out those options and was, in fact, opposed to doing so even when the players at his table suggested that it might be useful if he did.

Sure: If you sufficiently change what the OP did, it's no longer railroading. What's your point?



And ditto to this. You're describing a situation which is radically different from the sequence of events the OP described, while conveniently ignoring all the other railroading.

The OP never stated such. The Original POSTER actually went on to clarify in later posts that the other players proceeded to denounce the character 'in character' and left him hanging. He also states that he attempted (in vain) to explain this issues with it, and that there were no closed options.

There are never closed options. He just offered what would happen to a PC when they leave a campaign. Which is what he's doing...

Sorry for reading the thread.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sure: If you sufficiently change what the OP did, it's no longer railroading. What's your point?

And ditto to this. You're describing a situation which is radically different from the sequence of events the OP described, while conveniently ignoring all the other railroading.

The OP:

I describe to the player, who is at the stables seeing to his horse, the following:

[SNIP: The Sheriff and two guardsmen approach. As they closed within 30ft of him, he decided to flee on his horse. He's informed him that they might be able to intercept him, and that even if he did make it out, it would mean he may as well roll a new character.

The other players were a town guard, a woman, and a religious ranger - none of whom were inclined to believe that he was innocent or try to help him if he escaped.

He goes on to say:

All I told him was this his plan to flee the town on horseback was likely to be a bad one. And I consulted the other players, none of whom were willing to fight for his innocence should he flee.

This is also mentioned briefly in the original post (who the other PCs were, and that they weren't on his side). Then he says:

It was more that I wanted him to be aware that if he were successful with his current plan, it would not have positive results. Yes, he would temporarily avoid being imprisoned, but with no allies and outlaw status, I didn't see a way to work him back into the campaign in any kind of timely fashion. Basically it would have resulted in him surviving out in the woods and (according to him) most likely leaving the area while the rest of the party continued on with the quest. If he'd had a vested interest in the town or allies there, I would have certainly been open to him striking out on his own. As it stood, if he escaped, he would have left the campaign.

We know that:

1) The player was confronted.
2) The player announced he wanted to leave.
3) The other PCs weren't inclined to support him if he fled.
4) The other players indicated that they wouldn't support him if he left.
5) He indicated that he was planning on leaving the area, most likely leaving the rest of the party to continue the quest without him.

How does this not lead to my quote (that you disagreed with):

Player A: "I'm going to leave and go over this way, and I'm not going to wait around."
Players B, C, and D: "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go."
GM: "Player A, you know that if you leave like you plan to, you won't get to keep the character, because the rest of the players are still going through with something else?"

What am I misrepresenting?

 

[Hussar]

/edit

Didn't realize that the thread had gone for a couple of pages from what I was quoting and responding to.

Rogue Agent pretty much nails it on the head AFAIC. The DM presented a situation (no consequences involved here since this was entirely initiated by the DM and not the player - the player didn't actually DO anything to have consequences about) and then tried to strongarm the player into reacting a particular way. There was no reason for the PC to stick around and many, many reasons not to.

Chalk this up to a bad DM choice and a learning experience.