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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8995948" data-attributes="member: 75787">One question I have for the group is: What are people's thought on the interaction between buying into a premise and railroading/illusionism?A: If I start a one-shot with the premise "you are all adventurers sworn to protect the Duke", and the players accept the premise, then is it railroading to expect them to protect the Duke? Specifically if I start a scene with "You meet the next morning with the captain to discuss how to protect the Duke from the assassination", would you consider that railroading?B: If I started a one-shot with an intro scene that has an assassin attacking the duke and you defending him and then jumped back a week, is that railroading because we're going to get that scene no matter what, or is it the players accepting the premise that we're playing to see how we get to that point?C: If I run a campaign where I say "The Duke is a key character and will survive as the Duke no matter what", and the players like that idea, buy into it and in play support the premise; is that railroading?Now if I do not set up the premise, then for (A) forcing the players to turn up to protect him does feel like railroading (assuming the players made non-guard characters). For (B) Without the intro scene you could well argue that it is illusionism if I ensure that we get to that final scene no matter what, and for (C) an invulnerable Duke, over years of play, certainly will seem like illusionism.So, as a summary question: Given that players buying into a premise is explicitly giving up some agency, does the fact that they have done so essentially make railroading (which is the GM forcing players down a route) not applicable?</blockquote>

Verification