Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5835264" data-attributes="member: 6668292">No, he wasn't.If the BBEG shows up early on while he's still more powerful (setting up a recurring NPC), and he's a lich, or a dragon, or just a warrior who's a BAMF, and a player says, "I'll attack him" with a level 1 PC after he's taken out the town guards who attacked him, I see absolutely no problem with saying, "well, if you do, you're dead."Now, you seem okay with this (he's a credible threat). We're on the same page (even though setting up a recurring BBEG is too heavy-handed for me, personally).If, however, the PCs are offered a decision, and the party decides one way, and another player decides he'd rather leave, I don't think it's fair to say it's railroading. That is, the other players decided to cooperate with the law. One player didn't. It's not railroading to say, "if you split with the party, you're not going to be in the party, and will need a new character."If a player says his PC would rather stay behind because he objects to the party's decision, he can. That's fine. He can also leave. That's fine. But he's now not part of the party. Pointing that out is perfectly fine, in my opinion.If the players go into a dungeon, but a superstitious druid PC's player says "I'm not willing to go in" I think it's fine to point out "well, the party won't work with someone who doesn't have their back, so you're basically going to lose the character." It's a meta-warning. It's not trying to railroad him.It's saying, "this will split you from the party. The other PCs won't accept it. The environment (town, etc.) won't accept it. You may want to reconsider if you want to keep the character, but you can go ahead if you want to." It's the same if the PC wanted to torture someone when he's in a very Good-aligned party (with a Paladin to boot). He can do so if he wants to, but there're consequences.Yes, the GM brought the situation to the player. Sometimes, there are tough decisions to be made. To me, it's just as acceptable as any other tough situation you find yourself in, including people with hostages, morally grey areas, and the like. They're fun; they're interesting.I should note, the situation sounds heavy-handed, but it may not be (depends on how naturally it unfolded). But, even if it is, that's not railroading. And I think it's wrong for you to label it so. Rails are there to guide the story in a certain direction, and as long as the players would have supported the PC in question, and the GM ran with it, there's no rails. The other players effectively vetoed it. Just my opinion, of course, and it's no more valuable than yours. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification