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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5175259" data-attributes="member: 22779">Now this is an interesting point.  How far does it go?  If I can predetermine a situation, and that's not a railroad, at what point does it become a railroad?  Is it only a railroad when the DM has determined a single outcome?But, by predetermining your situation, you have also predetermined an outcome.  The Baron will get married, UNLESS the party intervenes.  There is a single, straight line plot with a beginning, middle and end.  And, if the party does not intervene, their enemy (you did specify he was an enemy at the beginning, backtracking now to make him a possible ally is just moving the goalposts) will be that much stronger later.  The best possible choice is to deal with him now as dealing with him later will be more difficult, not easier, or the same difficulty.Again, how is this not railroading?  Maybe I'm missing something here but, it seems to me that the DM is saying, "Do this plot now.  If you do not do this plot now, when you try to do it later, I'm going to screw you over for not doing it now by making it ten times harder when you eventually do get around to doing it.  Go ahead, pursue those personal goals, I'm just going to stick it to you in the end."Now, if I'm wrong here, and the difficulty doesn't actually change (while the specifics might change, it doesn't suddenly become much more difficult, if not outright impossible) then it's not a railroad.  The players have a valid choice of A or B.  Choosing A or B will not turn around and bite them in the ass down the road.If, on the other hand, it does bite them on the ass, then it's railroading.  Because the DM is punishing the players for not doing what he wants them to do.No, I define rail road as any time the DM screws over the players for not bowing to the plot he puts before them.  You've flat out said that if I don't deal with problem X now, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible to do so later.  Thus, it becomes my only realistic choice.  I could choose to pursue my own goals, but, that's only going to make things more difficult later.  Why would I pursue my own goals then?  Why would I not deal with the problem now, and then deal with my personal goals later?  My personal goals are not slaughtering innocent people, nor are they growing in power, making it that much more difficult to achieve later.  The logical choice would be to deal with the DM's scenario first and come back to my stuff later.And I'm still waiting to see how any of this is actually a player resource.  You guys have amply proven that it's a DM tool to spur the players.  I never denied that.  I find it heavy handed, but, it certainly works.  I much prefer to let my players explore things on their own schedule, but, hey, whatever works for you.  The odd time dependent adventure can certainly be fun.  I think I would strongly dislike a campaign where any goal I don't actively pursue all the time suddenly backslides.  Smacks too much of antagonistic DMing to me.  But, hey, if that's your style and your players like it, roll with it.  Groovy.It's interesting that the idea of taxes was brought up earlier.  How exactly are taxes a resource for the tax payer?  They're a resource for the tax collector (or in the case of time, the DM), but, they're not something the player gets to influence, only react to.  The same way as the tax payer can only react to the tax collector, but he can never actually utilize the taxed money on his own.</blockquote>

Verification