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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9760927" data-attributes="member: 23751">It's impossible.  Clearly you don't understand the generally accepted definition railroading if you think your examples fit it.  They don't, because your examples still involve the players having the ability to choose options that the DM didn't want them to take.Edit: Time skips also fail utterly to meet my definition since they inherently remove 0 agency from the players.  The players can always interrupt them to do something else, unless the DM adds railroading to them.First, influence =/= removal/negation of all player choice, so it fails to meet the definition right there.  Second, you have failed to prove that it's even influence.In my game I ask, "Are you sure you want to do that?" for times where it's a bad idea, times where it's a good idea, and times where it's neutral.  That way my question doesn't influence them to go in a particular direction, but instead just prompt them to think about it again before making a decision.As a result, sometimes they change their mind and sometimes they don't, but it's not because I influenced the direction.  If I only asked that question when their decision was a bad one, or only asked it when it was a good one, then it would influence their direction, because they would know what I thought of their choice and would respond based on what I thought.That's simply untrue.First, crudely and obvious is probably what you really meant, since railroading by definition can't be ineffective.  They players always end up where the DM wants, which is effective.Second, whether it's used in a crude, blunt force manner, or in a very subtle and unseen manner, the amount of force used is the same.  It's total. The players will end up where you want them regardless of what they wanted or chose to do.</blockquote>

Verification