Players want to make a legendary magic item. Do you:
a) tell them it's a phenomenally expensive process that requires 144 spell components collected on a full moon across 7 continents.
b) caution them that neglecting their duties will probably mean that they won't get home in time to stop their womenfolk being burnt at the stake by a passing Witchfinder.
c) explain the first of the demanding but necessary steps required to research and prepare the item over weeks or months.
d) ask how they're going to set about making the item.
more propaganda than survey or humour
The Conductor and Sheepworrier get ridiculed in contrast to the Freeform 'mentor' and the 'zen' Invisible GM. Polished versions as used in concept marketing go for the contrast, but insinuate rather than ridicule.
I concur, that the wording biases the reader.
Just calling the GM who advises his players of consequences a Sheepworrier.
It is the GMs job to give the players information. When players do unexpected things, or act contrarily to their stated goal, there's a lack of information (at the minimum, the GM has no clue what the PCs are trying to do).
I look at it as if the game environment allows me to convey information to the players, use it.
PCs investigating a murder and investigating the a dead end SHOULD find something that brings doubt of that persons guilt.
Wasting time on some side problem should bring word of growing problems with the main "quest", assuming they're not deep in the woods. In PCat's example, the PCs could spend considerable time in the woods, isolated, where they wouldn't recieve word.
So is a DM who mentions, "Hey, uh, while you guys are building up this fort, the bad guy is probably expanding his operations" a railroader? If you were sitting at PKitty's table and his mom/wife/animal walked in and said that, is she a railroader?
Having the DM mention "facts" not threats (threatening the PCs to get them to do stuff is a different thing) is technically influencing the party. Hopefully it is with the intent of helping the party pursue the party's goals (rather than the GM's goals).
The inverse extreme is the GM who is so tight-lipped, if the PCs don't think of it, or don't think to ask, he won't provide any information. One would think he has inward glee at the PCs stumblings and losing track of their own goals.
Here's one for your railroad test:
An NPC wants to capture the PCs (perhaps they broke a law). He sends people to capture them.
a) the resources sent will be escalated until the party is captured or dead
b) the resources will be low level or level appropriate as 1 encounter, the outcome is uncertain
c) the resources will be higher level than the party in anticipation of difficulty in capturing them. It is expected that the party will be captured, but it is possible they could get lucky
d) the resources will be carefully planned to counter the party and nearly ensure a capture
answer A is most certainly railroading. Answer B is a non-railroad, making the attempt a generic encounter. C & D get into whether it is appropriate for the NPC to have those resources. Clearly there is a bias get the desired outcome (for the NPC or for the GM?). GM Motive and NPC Means are potentially being misused.
