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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Delemental" data-source="post: 1134076" data-attributes="member: 5203">For this particular situation, whether or not it's okay depends on how you handle it.If you're running it so that no matter what happens they will be presented with a lead-in for this module, but they are free to decide whether or not to follow this lead, I think that's fine.If you intend to force the PCs to run this module regardless of where they go or the choices they make, then that's railroading and not acceptable.In the example you gave (which does sound like KoDT, or Dork Tower), if the GM really wanted for the party to experience this trap, then he could have placed it on both doors (if it was logically consistent, of course - if the second door led to the bathroom then a death-trap would be ridiculous) only had one door, or changed the trap's location to one that didn't involve as much of a choice (inthe middle of a corridor, for example).  Of course, by extension the GM can't really complain if the party is somehow able to get around his death-trap, or chooses to turn around and leave without going through either door.Or, another way to think of it: you're free to present the party with a particular event or encounter, but the party must have the choice of being able to apply any preposition they want to that event that isn't impossible within the rules of the game (the party goes through the door, around the door, under the door, etc).I'm personally in the 'structured free will' camp - I believe a group should have freedom to decide what they want, but that a DM should provide a finite number of options to choose (and 'none of the above' is a valid choice, in which case it falls to the DM to determine what the group would want to pursue).  I've been a player in a completely open game, and it does bog down IME if there's no direction at all.</blockquote>

Verification