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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 2962878" data-attributes="member: 8835">I'll bite.You could define railroading as this, but this is the LEAST dangerous form of railroading.  And it often is agreed to by the players.  Furthermore, Adventure B and C often come as logical responses to the previous adventure.  If in A you kill off the mooks, and Lord Evil teleports to his backup base, in all likelyhood, you will hunt him down to his base.  Adventure B ought to involve that hunt and his new base (and evil plan).See my post prior to yours here for classical explanation of railroading.  Adventures running in sequence is common, but the real railroading errors occur INSIDE the adventure.Basically I dismiss your concern of railroading being Adventure to Adventure.  Certainly it can happen, but the bigger problems lie inside the adventure.For one thing, I don't use written modules.  Never have.  I write my own.  So when I write the next adventure, I base it on what happened in the previous, and based on my prediction of what the PCs want to do, and what the NPCs will try to do.  I may have a problem during the adventure when the PCs do something completely different, but that's internal to the adventure.  I think it is fair to say that as a writer, I try to make my sequential adventures follow logically to each other, and I expect the commerical ones do the same.  Certainly, as a GM, we've got a problem when the players decide NOT to pursue the bad guy into the next adventure.On the otherhand, if you're running a good PC party, it is reasonable to expect them to rescue the next princess or pursue the next bad guy they hear about.  Thus, it is reasonable to expect them to enter Adventure B willingly, assuming a rationally motivated party.In fact, I would say, if as a GM, you cannot predict what the PCs will do at a high level when the hear news of "something that leads to adventure" that you have a problem with either the adventure hook, or the players.For RC/quasqueston, the term you need is "hook-fighters" or "bait-shy" players.  If a player of a PC that has a plausible motivation for pursuing a feasible hook refuses to do so, you've got a problem player.</blockquote>

Verification