Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wolf1066" data-source="post: 5181693" data-attributes="member: 88680">Well, for a start, the GM didn't ask/tell the player to wish for a magic sword.And the question is "would the magic sword have existed in story had the player not wished for it?"Answer: most likely not.  The GM is responding to the whim of the players and "letting them win".Yes, it's railroading in the sense that the players don't have a choice about whether they succeed or fail, but it's the choices and whims of the characters driving the game.The "two doors" and the false choice obviously did exist prior to the session - the GM decided beforehand that the players were going to win or do something before the game started and then presents a meaningless choice.In this case, the game is driven by the whim of the GM.Actually, I didn't make any comment on what I think is OK or what I do or don't mind, I just commented that planning in advance what is going to happen then pretending the players have a choice in the matter and magicking up stuff that the players choose to want are two different very different things in a lot of ways.For a start, one is "no matter what happens, the characters will win and I will give them what they want" while the other is "no matter what they choose, they will do what I want them to."And I'm not saying that either is good or bad in and of itself - both can become bad if overused, each has its useful points used in moderation.A large degree of illusionism and railroading is inherent in adventures just to get the PCs to go to where the action is and solve the problems the GM/module writer has set.  The players can wander around in circles all they like but unless they meet certain people and go to certain places, they're not going to achieve a hell of a lot.Not unless their sole aim is power escalation and going up levels - whereupon wandering around in circles killing random monsters would be sufficient - if a somewhat boring game (for me and a lot of people I've played with over the years, anyway.)So, if the GM decides they are going to play module X - the premise of which is they rescue the princess from the Dark Tower and learn in the process that it's part of a plot, hatched by the Grand Vizier, to overthrow the king - and the players are doing everything but walking into the tavern right tavern to meet NPC Thrud and read the reward notice on the wall, thus setting themselves on the path to the Dark Tower, the GM is going to make bloody sure that Thrud and the notice are in the next place the players go - even if it's the town's public toilets.Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.  The players still have scope to do some things their way and there should still be a fair chance of both success and failure.If they don't wind up going to the Dark Tower, then it's likely to be a pretty short and boring game.Deciding that the players will meet a particular person, visit a particular tavern and interact with certain PCs etc in the interests of furthering the gaming and setting them off on adventures is perfectly acceptable IMO.  Where it starts getting sticky is when the players are railroaded in such a way that they must do things exactly as the GM wants in order to succeed or ensuring there is no possible way they can loose by having every person they need to encounter appear as though by magic no matter which wrong turn they take.</blockquote>

Verification