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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7101999" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So after all the discussion, I wanted to get back to the OP, perhaps my perception has changed a bit.For railroading to occur, I think that there has to be at least three things present:1) a predetermined plot/story outcome by the DM, or at least a consistent bias to the DMs plot/story/preferences2) an action/adjudication by the DM that disregards the player's actions in the determination of the results. That is, the players actions and choices don't have a meaningful impact on the plot/story.3) the players don't want, or have the expectation that the DM won't do, #1 and #2For example, if the DM is just fudging rolls, or making soft adjudications to avoid killing the PCs, I'm not sure that qualifies as railroading. It's not really directing the action toward a predetermined conclusion, other than saying that the characters won't die, or perhaps just won't die here. That sort of approach can be a flag that perhaps railroading is happening. In other words, it might be a symptom of railroading.In other words, I'd consider railroading more of a big picture problem, than a specific scene or specific task issue.Another aspect that I think is often not mentioned in discussions of railroading, is #3. If the players are explicitly playing a game in which they expect the DM to keep them on track, it's not a railroad.Is it possible for the DM to railroad without a predetermined plot/story? I think so. That is, the DM might not have an end-game or even a particular story line. But they might have prepared material and their goal is to keep the PCs within that material. It might be totally improvised, but as the game progresses, the DM consistently forces the outcomes to be favorable to their own preferences. That leads to another potential gray area. Illusionism. I think railroading isn't just about the choices presented, but that regardless of the choices, the players/characters actions and choices don't have a meaningful impact on the plot/story. Illusionism is a related subject, but refers to a specific choice. Railroading is related to multiple choices over time. I'm more forgiving of illusionism I guess, but why?Perhaps it's the magnitude of the infraction, and the intent that bothers me more. The times when I have used illusionism is when the players have a goal, but that goal isn't location based. For example, they are hunting for an ancient Netherese tomb. We know the tomb is in the mountains, but it's not specifically placed. The players don't need to know that, though. They just need to know that it takes time, and with skill, interpretation of the clues they have, and a little luck, they'll find it. So the specific direction they take in the mountains isn't really the issue I'm addressing, it's time and creative play and problem solving, combined with skill (either through passive or active checks). If I pre-place it, I've set a direction, but all of the other details aren't described yet. The specific terrain, the local creatures, etc. That's all determined during play. Technically it's illusionism, since no matter which direction they go will get them to the tomb. The amount of time it takes is still variable. They will still engage the rules, and make decisions, and those decisions (measured by "good and creative, or really way off base considering the clues") will have an impact as well. So I guess it's that i've really just set different criteria for "locating" the tomb than picking the right direction. As such, the physical location of the tomb is somewhat dependent on a criteria other than me arbitrarily selecting the location.Other times have been when I do have an encounter sketched out, and it's just something that will happen. Again, the specific location doesn't matter. It's the who or what that matters. So once again, the criteria for the encounter is something other than location-specific, and the implementation of that encounter (it could be just my placement based on the session, it could be a random percentage, or even an entry on a random encounter table), is something other than they select the right place to walk.So I guess I see illusionism as a tool that can be used in a negative manner, and can certainly be used for railroading. But sometimes it's used (or perhaps something very similar) to place events, locations, or encounters based on criteria other than arbitrary DM preference. (Which is perhaps more of a narrative approach?). The DM still has some control over the final placement, but it's also determined in part by player/characters actions/decisions and/or engagement of other rules. Wow, it can all be so complicated...but I digress...Another question - is it possible for the DM to railroad to the players preferences? Point #3 above is specifically to address the situation where a specific story is expected. The original Dragonlance adventures could be construed this way. Or if the players want to play The Fellowship of the Ring or the original Star Wars trilogy. The general plot is known, and while there could be some deviation in the specifics, ultimately there are a few things that have to happen.And what about published modules, then, particularly APs? Some are presented as linear plots, some as locational, some as linear with multiple roads leading to the same conclusion. They really aren't all that different than the Dragonlance/LotR/Star Wars question. Certain major things have to happen, and certain choices need to be made to remain on the AP. In my opinion, railroading is a negative thing. That is, it's something the players don't want. So if the players agree that part of the DM's job is to keep things moving in the "right" direction, it cannot be a railroad. The trick for DMs in these situations is to hide the fact that they are providing more direction to the story. Although, especially in the case when a given plot is known by all ahead of time, the players have to actively suspend disbelief for heavy-handed redirection. Although I guess that's really no different than the sort of plot holes and leaps of logic that often occur in stories in other mediums.--So no, I don't think your scene even remotely resembles railroading, especially since the alteration of the scene was initiated by the player. I would have run it a bit differently.In your specific example above, I would not have required a Perception check. If the player's argument is plausible, then I'd just go with the idea that there is a vessel of some sort. A Perception check isn't to determine if something is there, it's to determine if they notice it. So if it's a common item like that, and it's plainly visible in the room (once it's been determined that it's likely there), then there's no need for a roll.However, I might have considered some sort of Dexterity check to get the bowl under the body quickly enough. But that's really more a question of how much blood they were trying to catch and how quickly they would exsanguinate. But ultimately I don't see much point in even that, realistically they would have time to get a fair amount, and there aren't significant consequences for failure, so I probably wouldn't have required a check for that either.Setting the DC, the scene itself - what you put in the room, what you don't, how you actually describe the scene, etc. can all shape the fiction itself. That is, regardless of play style, the DM will have some impact on the fiction just in the process of being a DM. How much influence they have, or how much the players want the DM to have is a question of play style.</blockquote>

Verification