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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2314101" data-attributes="member: 20239">Maybe "railroading" isn't the correct term for what others are trying to say.  I think the overall statement is simply that 100% player autonomy is mutually exclusive with a DM defined metaplot.  You can certainly have varying degrees of player autonomy which are less than 100% in such a campaign, but the players are always giving up some options (i.e. - metagaming some choices) in order to cooperate with the DM's vision of the campaign.  If they're not, then the DM isn't running a "pre-determined" plot, he's winging his way through his own "scenery" which has been set up in advance, which isn't the same as "plot".Personally, I have seen only one campaign run where there was 100% player autonomy.  The DM was highly experienced and very very comfortable winging encounters, description and adventures.  I really enjoyed that game.  I've seen LOTS of campaigns where player autonomy was significantly less than 100% and quite a few (amongst them, my own) where player autonomy approaches 100% (let's call it 90%+).  I find that as the amount of player autonomy drops, so does my enjoyment as both a player and a DM.So yes, it is possible to have a DM conceived plot that is driven by player choices, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's no railroading or that the players have significant amounts of autonomy.  It is actually more likely that in those situations the players and DM have either an acknowledged or unspoken agreement to cooperate in certain ways to make the game move forward.  If the players are voluntarily choosing only the options which support the DM's predetermined plot then they are still giving up autonomy; it's just covert rather than overt (sometimes referred to as "illusionism" in RPG theory-speak).</blockquote>

Verification