Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 3677091" data-attributes="member: 1106">It's open to misinterpretation, though.&nbsp; For example - the PCs get jumped by assassins and thieves in the inn they're staying at.&nbsp; They have no choice in the matter; it just happens.&nbsp; IMO this isn't railroading, but by your definition it is.Say the assassins fail, but the thieves steal the mcguffin from the PCs.&nbsp; Whether or not the PCs have a choice in pursuing is where the point of potential railroading happens, because there's clearly an opportunity for meaningful choice presented there in the form of an adventure hook, and the DM can potentially take it away in some sort of metagamey way (&quot;you guys should really get after them, or the world will end&quot;...or, &quot;that's all I've prepared&quot;....or, &quot;oh yeah, and they took the paladin's sword and your spellbook too, so you really should get after them.&quot;).That's why I go for the rather narrower definition of railroading as something like &quot;presenting adventure hooks that cannot be rejected&quot;, or even, &quot;presenting a campaign arc which has no opportunity for meaningful player choice with regard to it's direction&quot; (e.g. an adventure path where no matter what the PCs do or choose, the next adventure is the next adventure in the path.&nbsp; The campaign's on rails...or a path with no forks, if you prefer).&nbsp; These are open to hair-splitting, but that's the nature of the term - the distinction isn't a black and white one.Neither is railroading necessarily bad.&nbsp; If everyone's bought a Savage Tide ticket and gets on the train willingly and, knowing the nature of the beast, just follows where their nose is being led, there's no bad wrong fun there.&nbsp; Would it be better if there were less railroading?&nbsp; Probably...but that's a luxury which couldn't be afforded as written.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 3677091, member: 1106"] It's open to misinterpretation, though. For example - the PCs get jumped by assassins and thieves in the inn they're staying at. They have no choice in the matter; it just happens. IMO this isn't railroading, but by your definition it is. Say the assassins fail, but the thieves steal the mcguffin from the PCs. Whether or not the PCs have a choice in pursuing is where the point of potential railroading happens, because there's clearly an opportunity for meaningful choice presented there in the form of an [b]adventure hook[/b], and the DM can potentially take it away in some sort of metagamey way ("you guys should really get after them, or the world will end"...or, "that's all I've prepared"....or, "oh yeah, and they took the paladin's sword and your spellbook too, so you really should get after them."). That's why I go for the rather narrower definition of railroading as something like "presenting adventure hooks that cannot be rejected", or even, "presenting a campaign arc which has no opportunity for meaningful player choice with regard to it's direction" (e.g. an adventure path where no matter what the PCs do or choose, the next adventure is the next adventure in the path. The campaign's on rails...or a path with no forks, if you prefer). These are open to hair-splitting, but that's the nature of the term - the distinction isn't a black and white one. Neither is railroading necessarily bad. If everyone's bought a Savage Tide ticket and gets on the train willingly and, knowing the nature of the beast, just follows where their nose is being led, there's no bad wrong fun there. Would it be better if there were less railroading? Probably...but that's a luxury which couldn't be afforded as written. [/QUOTE]

Verification