Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mwnrnc" data-source="post: 5835452" data-attributes="member: 88107">He was in it from the start, this was our third session in the campaign.&nbsp; His background was entirely his own.&nbsp; She seduced him for a number of reasons - in the battle, he had slain the most goblins, he had the highest Charisma, and he was the character most likely to respond to her advances (which I knew).&nbsp; The guard was a local and had not participated in the battle (he came into the group late, in session 2).&nbsp; The other players were a woman (a Half-Elf thief) and a very religious ranger, who would simply have rebuffed her.&nbsp; The Sheriff talked to him because it's his job to bring in criminals and ones who have shown they are capable in battle are best approached with caution and as many men as possible.IMO, railroading has occurred when a perfectly logical course of action&nbsp; has been arbitrarily disallowed by a DM.&nbsp; I never said &quot;you can't do&nbsp; that.&quot;&nbsp; I certainly encouraged one course of action over another - by&nbsp; throwing several guards at him, for example, so he'd be less inclined to&nbsp; fight his way out.&nbsp; However, I don't think it is railroading to present&nbsp; a scenario in which a PC can't win in their preferred way.&nbsp; If, say, he&nbsp; was playing a fighter who vowed never to shirk from battle and the&nbsp; party was threatened by a powerful dragon, is it railroading because I&nbsp; gave him a fight he couldn't win by fighting?&nbsp; Is it wrong to tell him&nbsp; that if he DOES try to fight, he will most likely die?&nbsp; Well, when he walked in he was angry and threw the player out.&nbsp; It was&nbsp; only after when he confronted his daughter about it that she accused the&nbsp; player of rape.&nbsp; Also, he was an unarmed commoner and the player was&nbsp; the guy who recently killed a bunch of Goblins - he didn't like his&nbsp; odds.&nbsp; As to the players, I didn't put words in their mouth at all.&nbsp; I asked,&nbsp; &quot;guys, what do you think, are you willing to help him?&nbsp; Do you think he&nbsp; is innocent?&quot; I got a resounding &quot;No!&quot;&nbsp; An error on my part was not&nbsp; giving them enough of a reason to stick together before dividing them&nbsp; like this.Point taken, I agree it probably wasn't the best time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mwnrnc, post: 5835452, member: 88107"] He was in it from the start, this was our third session in the campaign. His background was entirely his own. She seduced him for a number of reasons - in the battle, he had slain the most goblins, he had the highest Charisma, and he was the character most likely to respond to her advances (which I knew). The guard was a local and had not participated in the battle (he came into the group late, in session 2). The other players were a woman (a Half-Elf thief) and a very religious ranger, who would simply have rebuffed her. The Sheriff talked to him because it's his job to bring in criminals and ones who have shown they are capable in battle are best approached with caution and as many men as possible. IMO, railroading has occurred when a perfectly logical course of action has been arbitrarily disallowed by a DM. I never said "you can't do that." I certainly encouraged one course of action over another - by throwing several guards at him, for example, so he'd be less inclined to fight his way out. However, I don't think it is railroading to present a scenario in which a PC can't win in their preferred way. If, say, he was playing a fighter who vowed never to shirk from battle and the party was threatened by a powerful dragon, is it railroading because I gave him a fight he couldn't win by fighting? Is it wrong to tell him that if he DOES try to fight, he will most likely die? Well, when he walked in he was angry and threw the player out. It was only after when he confronted his daughter about it that she accused the player of rape. Also, he was an unarmed commoner and the player was the guy who recently killed a bunch of Goblins - he didn't like his odds. As to the players, I didn't put words in their mouth at all. I asked, "guys, what do you think, are you willing to help him? Do you think he is innocent?" I got a resounding "No!" An error on my part was not giving them enough of a reason to stick together before dividing them like this. Point taken, I agree it probably wasn't the best time. [/QUOTE]

Verification