Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 9856047" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Well, again, the question [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] asked was "to what degree" must such influence (I believe he called it campaign constraints) rise before you call it railroading, so one can ignore the many degrees (of whatever) below that point and just focus on what qualifies as railroading. If there's an objection to the dichotomy forming the premise of that question, I would expect those comments to be directed to the person asking the question rather than someone giving an answer to it.Also, you seem to be subbing in GM influence for railroading, or saying that because varying degrees of GM influence can be present in a game that there is always some amount of railroading, no matter how insignificant. I don't think that's true. Railroading isn't tied to any specific set of actions or statements on the part of the GM, and this isn't just about the GM. Any game participant can railroad by exerting control over another player's PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in a way the player perceives as breaking the group's interactions and relationships, so no matter what's actually being done at the table, it only crosses the line into railroading when a player makes that interpretation.</blockquote>