Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5409370" data-attributes="member: 61155">I think one of the trickiest parts in these discussions is that there are a couple very fine lines here, both in terms of results as well as intent.  Say the DM has a goblin encounter statted out that he wants to use. The players go north instead of south. The DM still wants to use the encounter, so just has the goblins show up there - obvious railroading.  What happens if he simply, on the spot, reflavors the goblins as small lizardfolk? The players feel like their choice has made a difference - they fight lizardfolk instead of goblins - but in practice the outcome is the same.  What happens if he makes enough adjustments to the stat-block that the lizardfolk feel like a genuinely different type of encounter? The players don't actually have the context to know the difference, but their choice yielded a different outcome.  Or what happens if the DM has actually statted out the entire region beforehand. But happens to have a similar tribe of goblins in the north as in the south - the only difference is that there are more travelers from the south, so more chance the PCs will know about that group of goblins. So they head north... and fight goblins anyway. Same result as the first example, but the DM isn't guilty of any actual railroading. (Just, perhaps, an uninspired setting design. Or not giving players enough information to make informed decisions.) I'm not really sure what conclusions to draw from these comparisons, admittedly. My own games tend to lean towards being linear and story driven, while also trying to anticipate different directions players could go in and have options based on that... and, if something truly unexpected happens, hoping I can roll with it. Methods 4 through 6 are the ones I'm most likely to take advantage of if I really need to.  Of course, it should be noted that even then, players will defy expectations. I know I had one game development that I expected to be, essentially a 'False Choice' - the PCs uncover a plot by Vecna to destroy Hestavar and its citizens, with the ultimate goal that this would draw the gods of Hestavar into an ongoing battle against the Primordials.  I liked the plot because I thought it gave the feeling of offering the players a tricky moral choice, but I expected the outcome to be a foregone one - I assumed that 'letting thousands of innocents die' was simply not an option for them. Instead, they seriously considered it, and only just ended up deciding to stop the plot and save the dominion.  And I think they found it a strong and compelling scene - but the truth is, I have no idea what I would have done if they had decided to let the city be destroyed. I don't think I would have just stepped in and prevented it, so it wasn't true railroading in that sense - but it did underscore the lesson that if you present an option to your players, no matter how unlikely a choice it seems, be prepared to follow through on it.  Now, what form that response might take can vary, and can end up as some of the invisible forms of railroading in its own right. But I think a lot of the more rigid forms of railroading can come up essentially unconsciously - not because the DM is trying to deny agency to the party, but because something has happened that they didn't even consider, and so there is no room for them to even react to it other than try and prevent it from happening.</blockquote>

Verification