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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9734797" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I've been watching this thread, but haven't commented yet. In recent conversations that touched on railroads and linear adventures, I was a poster who said there was not much functional difference. And I still feel that way... as far as experiences go, the GM having a pre-determined scenario that must happen is not all that different from me politely agreeing to stay within the lines and stick to the path. I find both constraining in a way that I'm not crazy about. In the past, I've tried to point out how I don't view railroads as inherently negative. This is because I equate them with linear adventures... and I don't think those are inherently negative. But there has been some distinction made about when a GM resorts to force to maintain the linear adventure... and that this is what makes it a railroad. This isn't necessarily how I'd view it, but there's obviously something there... many people have cited it. I'm going to set aside the discussion of what label to use RE linear adventures and railroads. I'll just use linear adventure in this discussion for the type of game. Because I don't think it's the type of game that's the problem.It's the GM force. Linear is an adjective that describes the game. Force is a verb that describes action by the GM. Most people are clearly objecting to the GM exerting force over what would normally be considered a decision of the player's. Most people seem perfectly fine playing in a linear manner, where A leads to B leads to C and so on. In most cases, there will be some amount of freedom within this overall structure. The players will likely be able to have their characters wander a bit, maybe get involved in some tangential "side quests" or what have you, and may be able to overcome obstacles or challenges in any number of ways. But if the GM usurps even that freedom by overriding player action declarations, or by insisting that there is only one solution to every obstacle... that's when it's problematic. I agree that there is a difference in this sense between a linear adventure and one where a GM uses force to enact their preferred state of things. I think the difference is more social or emotional than it is experiential. Having played in both kinds of games, I can say that neither really appeals to me... but in a linear adventure, there may at least be a chance for some fun. And I'm at least given some choices that may matter at least a bit. Isn't one of the reasons that Lost Mines of Phandelver is held in such regard precisely because it's not linear? It's a small regional sandbox consisting of a town with a gang problem, and a few nearby locations of interest. It's also designed for beginners in mind... and any time that's the case, I think it's reasonable to expect at least a little hand holding. I mean, if you want to look at an example of a linear 5e adventure, look at the Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat adventures. They're certainly linear... and definitely not as highly regarded as Phandelver. The linearity of them is one of the major criticisms.</blockquote>

Verification