Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 8694981" data-attributes="member: 6775477">I think you're trying to fit a lot of situations in where a simple definition would suffice. Railroading is the limit/removal of player choice/agency (within the confines of the rules). It is not a binary situation, as you can have very small amounts of railroading that limit choices, or you can completely remove choice. Most players accept some level of railroading (we're exploring these caves, instead of sailing east), but primarily object to major removal or invalidation of choices.The is a complete railroad, as player choice is completely irrelevant.This isn't technically a railroad, since it's not necessarily invalidating a player's choice, but in general this is mostly just bad DMing. A DM could remove a paladin's ability for failing to live up to their oath, as part of a setup to allow them to become an oathbreaker, or to setup a redemption possibility. In this case, the DM is opening up more player choices, rather than invalidating them. The second part would also fall under the classification of &quot;fudging,&quot; which is a different issue.This isn't railroading in itself, but can be used as a justification for railroading.Like 3, this isn't necessarily railroading, but is definitely bad DMing. You can occasionally pull a switcheroo on a regular group to achieve a specific result, but it's much more likely to be a failure than a success. I've managed it once, and will never try it again.This is a primary definition IMO, along with illusionism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shiroiken, post: 8694981, member: 6775477"] I think you're trying to fit a lot of situations in where a simple definition would suffice. Railroading is the limit/removal of player choice/agency (within the confines of the rules). It is not a binary situation, as you can have very small amounts of railroading that limit choices, or you can completely remove choice. Most players accept some level of railroading (we're exploring these caves, instead of sailing east), but primarily object to major removal or invalidation of choices. The is a complete railroad, as player choice is completely irrelevant. This isn't technically a railroad, since it's not necessarily invalidating a player's choice, but in general this is mostly just bad DMing. A DM could remove a paladin's ability for failing to live up to their oath, as part of a setup to allow them to become an oathbreaker, or to setup a redemption possibility. In this case, the DM is opening up more player choices, rather than invalidating them. The second part would also fall under the classification of "fudging," which is a different issue. This isn't railroading in itself, but can be used as a justification for railroading. Like 3, this isn't necessarily railroading, but is definitely bad DMing. You can occasionally pull a switcheroo on a regular group to achieve a specific result, but it's much more likely to be a failure than a success. I've managed it once, and will never try it again. This is a primary definition IMO, along with illusionism. [/QUOTE]

Verification