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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9855709" data-attributes="member: 86653">I agree with all that. Well said. I disagree with that in the sense that, to me, the referee is there to react to the PCs and their choices. Not impose those kinds of restrictions. This is why I run open-world sandboxes instead of modules. I think it is a violation of the social contract on the part of the referee to tell the player to make a new character in that moment. The literal heart and soul of an RPG is the players making choices, which includes the ability to choose to engage with or skip any given content the referee presents. The referee can and should set boundaries, of course. Make an adventurer, make a character that will work with the group, this setting includes/excludes these character options, etc. But it crosses the line when the referee dictates what content the players must engage with and how. If this is clearly spelled out in session zero, "I want to run this module" and the players agree, then it might be a player problem. If you as the referee assume the PCs must charge into a town being attacked by a dragon, i.e. charging into certain death depending on level, then that's 1) a very badly designed start to a module, and; 2) a railroad because the referee is dictating which choices the PCs are allowed to make. The PCs could decide to simply wait for the attack to end. They could decide to sneak in. They could decide to...etc. Here's the situation and here's how you must engage with it is basically the definition of railroading.</blockquote>

Verification