Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2960164" data-attributes="member: 18280">I'm sorry if that was not clear from my post.&nbsp; I would say that a thing is linear when it follows a line.&nbsp; There is at least one example in this thread of a DM script that the players were not (at the time) aware of; clearly they were on a line with the illusion of choice.&nbsp; So long as their choices and the DM's script went hand-in-hand, an argument can be made that the railroad was only a potential railroad.&nbsp; The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks.&nbsp; Maybe the script DM could have swung with that.&nbsp; If so, not a railroad.&nbsp; At least, IMHO.If you agree with the proposition that &quot;The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks,&quot; then agreeing to follow the path is not a railroad.&nbsp; As I said earlier, IMHO, a railroad occurs when the DM usurps player choice. If player choice is not usurped, it is not a railroad.&nbsp; Linear development alone is not sufficient because linear development (i.e., something follows something else follows something else) is mandatory regardless of who is steering the ship.&nbsp; If the players agree to go A-B-C, then they are steering the ship.&nbsp; Conversely, if the players were following the Shackled City adventure path, grew tired of it, and decided to go delve into Castle Greyhawk instead, and the DM forced them onto the next section, then there is railroading.&nbsp; If the DM says &quot;Sorry, but I'm running Shackled City; perhaps someone else might like to do Castle Greyhawk&quot; within this context, and simply stopped DMing, there is no railroad.&nbsp; The DM has not killed the potential of the characters; the players have no right to expect anything outside the initial &quot;contract&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2960164, member: 18280"] I'm sorry if that was not clear from my post. I would say that a thing is linear when it follows a line. There is at least one example in this thread of a DM script that the players were not (at the time) aware of; clearly they were on a line with the illusion of choice. So long as their choices and the DM's script went hand-in-hand, an argument can be made that the railroad was only a [I]potential railroad[/I]. The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks. Maybe the script DM could have swung with that. If so, not a railroad. At least, IMHO. If you agree with the proposition that "The test of railroading has always been, and must be, what happens when you try to jump tracks," then agreeing to follow the path is not a railroad. As I said earlier, IMHO, a railroad occurs when the DM usurps player choice. If player choice is not usurped, it is not a railroad. Linear development alone is not sufficient because linear development (i.e., something follows something else follows something else) is mandatory regardless of who is steering the ship. If the players agree to go A-B-C, then they are steering the ship. Conversely, if the players were following the Shackled City adventure path, grew tired of it, and decided to go delve into Castle Greyhawk instead, and the DM forced them onto the next section, then there is railroading. If the DM says "Sorry, but I'm running Shackled City; perhaps someone else might like to do Castle Greyhawk" within this context, and simply stopped DMing, there is no railroad. The DM has not killed the potential of the characters; the players have no right to expect anything outside the initial "contract". [/QUOTE]

Verification