Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2962410" data-attributes="member: 22779">Heh.&nbsp; I know.&nbsp; It's just so odd to agree with you so wholeheartedly.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Really, my problem with HappyElf's definition is it relies on the players views of the situation too much.&nbsp; There could be times when there are elements they don't know about which gives the illusion of railroading.&nbsp; Take the example of the player missing.&nbsp; Say, for example, he hit the first time with a 16.&nbsp; Later, he rolls another 16 and misses.&nbsp; &quot;Railroad&quot; goes up the cry.&nbsp; However, there could be a multitude of other answers depending on the situation.&nbsp; A simple contingency spell with mage armor or shield would do it.&nbsp; A magic item goes into effect that changes the equation.&nbsp; Perhaps the player's weapon is cursed.&nbsp; I could go on, but, I think I've made my point.Yes, it could very well be that the DM is railroading.&nbsp; That's true.&nbsp; But, it might not be true.Take the idea that every mage the party meets whacks them with charm spells.&nbsp; Sure, you could say that's railroading.&nbsp; YOu could also make the arguement that it's a very good tactic for wizards to use against armored types and that's why it gets used so often.&nbsp; Why use fireballs when you can make friends?&nbsp; The players could possibly get around it fairly simply as well.&nbsp; Have the cleric memorize protection from evil once in a while.&nbsp; Take some will save bump feats.&nbsp; Spend some of that point buy in Wis.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't label effective tactics as railroading.&nbsp; If the party continually falls for the same tactic, why should the DM change?I would prefer a more objective standard which RC has illustrated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2962410, member: 22779"] Heh. I know. It's just so odd to agree with you so wholeheartedly. :) Really, my problem with HappyElf's definition is it relies on the players views of the situation too much. There could be times when there are elements they don't know about which gives the illusion of railroading. Take the example of the player missing. Say, for example, he hit the first time with a 16. Later, he rolls another 16 and misses. "Railroad" goes up the cry. However, there could be a multitude of other answers depending on the situation. A simple contingency spell with mage armor or shield would do it. A magic item goes into effect that changes the equation. Perhaps the player's weapon is cursed. I could go on, but, I think I've made my point. Yes, it could very well be that the DM is railroading. That's true. But, it might not be true. Take the idea that every mage the party meets whacks them with charm spells. Sure, you could say that's railroading. YOu could also make the arguement that it's a very good tactic for wizards to use against armored types and that's why it gets used so often. Why use fireballs when you can make friends? The players could possibly get around it fairly simply as well. Have the cleric memorize protection from evil once in a while. Take some will save bump feats. Spend some of that point buy in Wis. I certainly wouldn't label effective tactics as railroading. If the party continually falls for the same tactic, why should the DM change? I would prefer a more objective standard which RC has illustrated. [/QUOTE]

Verification