Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3678060" data-attributes="member: 30001">I agree.&nbsp; I don't think railroading is so much about published products.&nbsp; An adventure module &quot;The Keep of Doom&quot; might just describe a keep, and some DMs might take this to mean that the PCs must be forced to enter the keep and proceed through all of the encounter areas there.&nbsp; But that's the DM technique.&nbsp; It's not a module's job to necessarily present all of the options that the players should have - that can't really be done with limited space.&nbsp; IMO it's the DMs job to incoporate adventure modules in the campaign - so a module isn't a complete enough entity on it's own.&nbsp; If the players want to lay siege to the keep, and reduce the thing to rubble with a magical battering ram rather than enter the dungeon and proceed through the encounters in numerical order, it's the DMs job to judge it.That being said, there are times when published products encourage railroading.&nbsp; Using the hypothetical &quot;Keep of Doom&quot; above, the module could say something like &quot;no matter what force the PCs bring to bear, siege techniques will NEVER work against the keep.&nbsp; To defeat the BBEG, PCs must enter the keep and proceed through the encounter areas as expected.&quot;&nbsp; I've seen stuff to this effect in published modules.&nbsp; I'm not sure if I'd call it &quot;railroading&quot; or &quot;bad rules adjucation&quot;.&nbsp; That's not to say that designing the Keep to resist siege techniques is bad design.&nbsp; Keep builders living in a fantasy world should have to pretend that they've never heard of the passwall spell.&nbsp; Nor is it unreasonable that keep builders would have developed counter-measures to common magics used against a keep.&nbsp; But a good module IMO would take into account the possibility of the PCs laying siege to the keep, and at least talk about what would work and what wouldn't - rather than a blanket statement of &quot;anything that you try to do except X won't work&quot;.&nbsp; Granted though, there are limitations of space and ultimately the DM's judgement has to pick up where the module leaves off.So IMO it's up to the DM to decide how to judge &quot;Keep of Doom&quot; as a siege rather than a dungeon crawl if that's the way his players want to play it.&nbsp; And so the responsibility for railroading or not rests with the DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3678060, member: 30001"] I agree. I don't think railroading is so much about published products. An adventure module "The Keep of Doom" might just describe a keep, and some DMs might take this to mean that the PCs must be forced to enter the keep and proceed through all of the encounter areas there. But that's the DM technique. It's not a module's job to necessarily present all of the options that the players should have - that can't really be done with limited space. IMO it's the DMs job to incoporate adventure modules in the campaign - so a module isn't a complete enough entity on it's own. If the players want to lay siege to the keep, and reduce the thing to rubble with a magical battering ram rather than enter the dungeon and proceed through the encounters in numerical order, it's the DMs job to judge it. That being said, there are times when published products encourage railroading. Using the hypothetical "Keep of Doom" above, the module could say something like "no matter what force the PCs bring to bear, siege techniques will NEVER work against the keep. To defeat the BBEG, PCs must enter the keep and proceed through the encounter areas as expected." I've seen stuff to this effect in published modules. I'm not sure if I'd call it "railroading" or "bad rules adjucation". That's not to say that designing the Keep to resist siege techniques is bad design. Keep builders living in a fantasy world should have to pretend that they've never heard of the passwall spell. Nor is it unreasonable that keep builders would have developed counter-measures to common magics used against a keep. But a good module IMO would take into account the possibility of the PCs laying siege to the keep, and at least talk about what would work and what wouldn't - rather than a blanket statement of "anything that you try to do except X won't work". Granted though, there are limitations of space and ultimately the DM's judgement has to pick up where the module leaves off. So IMO it's up to the DM to decide how to judge "Keep of Doom" as a siege rather than a dungeon crawl if that's the way his players want to play it. And so the responsibility for railroading or not rests with the DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification