Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5403192" data-attributes="member: 4937">If you start breaking chains of consequences in order to preserve your story goals, how is that any different than &quot;railroading&quot;?&nbsp; You can rationalize this to yourself by saying that you are doing it for the players own good, because it is the story that they would prefer to have, but isn't that exactly the same rationalization that a DM who is heavily railroading is making? Sure, I will do that from time to time.&nbsp; However, by intervening in the situation in this way, you putting yourself on very slippery ground.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, you won't be &quot;saying no&quot;, but you aren't as far away from railroading as you seem to think when you say to a player, &quot;You don't want to do that.&quot; or &quot;Your character wouldn't want to do that.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my case, explaining the situation to the player would have been functionally equivalent to saying, &quot;If you do that, I will see to it that you die.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see that as being really different than saying, &quot;No.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Asking a character to make a choice under duress isn't giving them real freedom and real choices.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's saying, &quot;See, you can either do what I want you to do and go along with my story, or else I can make things really hard on you, understand?&quot;&nbsp; That's a railroad, and you'd recognize it as such if it was written into a module.Also a railroad.&nbsp; Seriously, &quot;step off your appointed stage and you don't get any screen time&quot;?&nbsp; That's about the most diabolical and dastardly railroading I've ever heard suggested.&nbsp; That would be one of the few things that would tempt me to do something I've never done in my history of gaming, walk out in the middle of a session.Right.&nbsp; Railroad.&nbsp; The irony in that statement is so sharp that it makes me want to wince rather than make fun of you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5403192, member: 4937"] If you start breaking chains of consequences in order to preserve your story goals, how is that any different than "railroading"? You can rationalize this to yourself by saying that you are doing it for the players own good, because it is the story that they would prefer to have, but isn't that exactly the same rationalization that a DM who is heavily railroading is making? Sure, I will do that from time to time. However, by intervening in the situation in this way, you putting yourself on very slippery ground. Sure, you won't be "saying no", but you aren't as far away from railroading as you seem to think when you say to a player, "You don't [I]want[/I] to do that." or "Your character wouldn't [I]want[/I] to do that." In my case, explaining the situation to the player would have been functionally equivalent to saying, "If you do that, I will see to it that you die." I don't see that as being really different than saying, "No." Asking a character to make a choice under duress isn't giving them real freedom and real choices. It's saying, "See, you can either do what I want you to do and go along with my story, or else I can make things really hard on you, understand?" That's a railroad, and you'd recognize it as such if it was written into a module. Also a railroad. Seriously, "step off your appointed stage and you don't get any screen time"? That's about the most diabolical and dastardly railroading I've ever heard suggested. That would be one of the few things that would tempt me to do something I've never done in my history of gaming, walk out in the middle of a session. Right. Railroad. The irony in that statement is so sharp that it makes me want to wince rather than make fun of you. [/QUOTE]

Verification