Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elfdart" data-source="post: 2955308" data-attributes="member: 31475">You can spot a railroading fairly easily. When you find yourself asking "If the DM has already decided what's going to happen and there's nothing my character can do to change that, why does he need me here?", you know you're being railroaded. A setup is different from a railroad. A setup just establishes the scenario. A railroad makes the PCs walk through it under the pretense that they're playing a game when in fact it's just self indulgence on the part of the DM. The worst offenders are David Cook's modules. His re-write of A1-4 (one railroad in A3 wasn't enough for him, apparently), the Vecna module, Greyhawk Wars and some lame OA module demonstrate severe consternation that players won't follow his script. So the amount of railroading in those works put Grand Central Station to shame. For any game to be fun, there has to be a chance that you can lose. In my opinion, it's a lot more fun if you are likely to lose, since tough wins are more rewarding. It also helps if you're not herded like sheep. If a DM has already made up his mind that you will win this scenario or lose that one without even playing it out, he doesn't need the players at all, does he?</blockquote>