Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5600412" data-attributes="member: 177">(Yes, I know I'm responding to very old posts, but I think the topic is interesting)Railroading entails elimination of player choice.&nbsp; If the players say they want the characters to go to Point B, and the GM says they arrive without incident, the players have not been railroaded.&nbsp; I don't think that at all.&nbsp; I think the shift to play focused on individual character goals is more the culprit.&nbsp; The party is typically traveling for a reason.&nbsp; The stuff that happens in route is usually not relevant to the reason for travel, and so in terms of dramatic pacing, it's a flop.&nbsp; It is stuff that happens between the things that the players really feel is important.&nbsp; It wears away resources, but other than surviving, the players are not particularly concerned with the outcome.&nbsp; And, if learning things about the setting is one of the things that makes the game fun for you, that's excellent.&nbsp; But I'm not sure how common that is these days.&nbsp; For most character-driven games, I expect overland movement comes off as busywork.For players like I'm describing, the solid solution to making overland movement interesting is making it relevant - and not just in the tactical sense that their resources might get used up along the way.&nbsp; Make the things found along the way inform and impact their ultimate goal, and they'll find it interesting.For example - fighting random bandits between two cities may be interesting as a tactical challenge, but it will tend to bore the player unless it is also relevant to the world events they care about.&nbsp; If those bandits are employed by the guild leader they're on their way to defeat, it becomes a different encounter, and a whole different story to the players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5600412, member: 177"] (Yes, I know I'm responding to very old posts, but I think the topic is interesting) Railroading entails elimination of player choice. If the players say they want the characters to go to Point B, and the GM says they arrive without incident, the players have not been railroaded. I don't think that at all. I think the shift to play focused on individual character goals is more the culprit. The party is typically traveling for a reason. The stuff that happens in route is usually not relevant to the reason for travel, and so in terms of dramatic pacing, it's a flop. It is stuff that happens between the things that the players really feel is important. It wears away resources, but other than surviving, the players are not particularly concerned with the outcome. And, if learning things about the setting is one of the things that makes the game fun for you, that's excellent. But I'm not sure how common that is these days. For most character-driven games, I expect overland movement comes off as busywork. For players like I'm describing, the solid solution to making overland movement interesting is making it relevant - and not just in the tactical sense that their resources might get used up along the way. Make the things found along the way inform and impact their ultimate goal, and they'll find it interesting. For example - fighting random bandits between two cities may be interesting as a tactical challenge, but it will tend to bore the player unless it is also relevant to the world events they care about. If those bandits are employed by the guild leader they're on their way to defeat, it becomes a different encounter, and a whole different story to the players. [/QUOTE]

Verification