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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9733422" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't consider that railroading, no, and I have fairly high standards when it comes to this sort of thing.You did not take away choices. You chose to frame events in such a way that future action was required. You didn't invent entire new concepts just to make sure the players definitely failed every time; maybe the second, discussion one was pushing boundaries a little, but only a little, since as you say this particular stone giant thane had a hot temper and was unlikely to respond well to a forthright answer.Other than the stone giant, I see this as pretty distinct from the typical "I saved the BBEG from death because I wanted them to be more intimidating/show off their fancy moves/continue to bother the players later" type of fudging-as-railroading, because there, the players objectively and unquestionably achieved a clear and specific result (e.g. they dealt enough damage to kill a target outright), but the GM chose to secretly make it so that that effect didn't happen.You weren't being secretive. You said it openly: the first giant's conch was destroyed because she accidentally crushed it. That is a reasonable, diegetic consequence of their actions. The second was destroyed because the thane intentionally destroyed it in a fit of pique; not "reasonable" in the sense that the thane was being petulant, but it's reasonable in the sense that we understand why she would behave in this irrational way. The third wasn't destroyed, but was out of reach because the cloud giant countess wasn't amenable to parting with it, and the players could easily see that from, y'know, being imprisoned.You chose to deviate from the module by putting the conches in precarious positions such that they could be destroyed or otherwise made inaccessible. The only way this would have been railroading is if you had conspired against them even if they had clearly succeeded on things. Like for example, would you still have destroyed (or otherwise removed/eliminated) the second of the shells you described if they had successfully conducted their discussions with the thane? Or if no player had given you a golden opportunity, would you have manufactured one by declaration (fiat) to ensure that the thane would destroy it no matter what? If so, then yes, you were railroading with that specific interaction, and I would find that rather unfortunate. But if it was, at least in principle, possible to get the shell and just reasonably difficult to actually do so (e.g. "80% failure chance" is fine, "99.99% failure chance" is not), then I would not consider it railroading. I would consider it framing a scene where the chances of success are low but still worth pursuing.</blockquote>

Verification