Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 3677434" data-attributes="member: 386">Well, it is my definition, so I'll step in.I don't think it is railroading.&nbsp; What the DM is doing is providing the players with choices to make.&nbsp; Whether or not they are meaningful depends on the group.&nbsp; The players suddenly get to make a whole range of choices: Do I cast my only remaining Web spell now, or are more guys going to jump us?&nbsp; Do I power attack for all I have or use Expertise?&nbsp; Do I run into the fray and flank or stay back?&nbsp; Do I want to disable one of the assassins to question them for information, or kill them all because they are evil bastards?&nbsp; Do I side with the assassins against my fellow party members? And on and on.From one point of view, even if the assassins have no chance but to succeed, it may not be railroading.&nbsp; (For this type of play, I would prefer the DM to say, &quot;The assassins are going to steal the MacGuffin, no question.&nbsp; But...&quot; + whatever is at stake.)&nbsp; The players get to make the tactical choices that they came to the game to make.&nbsp; They might not care that they can't get the MacGuffin; they want the MacGuffin to be stolen in order for the adventure to continue.&nbsp; But they might want their characters to live; they might want to conserve their resources (HP, spells, wand charges) for the next battle; etc.And others might not care a whit for the MacGuffin, but want to play out how their characters react to built-up tensions within the party now that they are in the fight; the fact that the MacGuffin is stolen just provides them with the excuse to explore those choices.With other groups/players/campaigns, it might be railroading.&nbsp; Some players might want the choices that they make to affect the assassin's ability to take the MacGuffin.&nbsp; I'll take a leap and say most people want this, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.&nbsp; A definition of railroading must include people who don't see this as railroading, as well as those who do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 3677434, member: 386"] Well, it is my definition, so I'll step in. I don't think it is railroading. What the DM is doing is providing the players with choices to make. Whether or not they are meaningful depends on the group. The players suddenly get to make a whole range of choices: Do I cast my only remaining Web spell now, or are more guys going to jump us? Do I power attack for all I have or use Expertise? Do I run into the fray and flank or stay back? Do I want to disable one of the assassins to question them for information, or kill them all because they are evil bastards? Do I side with the assassins against my fellow party members? And on and on. From one point of view, even if the assassins have no chance but to [i]succeed[/i], it may not be railroading. (For this type of play, I would prefer the DM to say, "The assassins are going to steal the MacGuffin, no question. But..." + whatever is at stake.) The players get to make the tactical choices that they came to the game to make. They might not care that they can't get the MacGuffin; they want the MacGuffin to be stolen in order for the adventure to continue. But they might want their characters to live; they might want to conserve their resources (HP, spells, wand charges) for the next battle; etc. And others might not care a whit for the MacGuffin, but want to play out how their characters react to built-up tensions within the party now that they are in the fight; the fact that the MacGuffin is stolen just provides them with the excuse to [i]explore those choices[/i]. With other groups/players/campaigns, it might be railroading. Some players might want the choices that they make to affect the assassin's ability to take the MacGuffin. I'll take a leap and say most people want this, but that doesn't mean that everyone does. A definition of railroading must include people who don't see this as railroading, as well as those who do. [/QUOTE]

Verification