Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8336823" data-attributes="member: 23751">I agree.&nbsp; Doing that with the doors is just as bad as encountering an ogre no matter what you choose. In both cases you are rendering the choice of the players meaningless, which is railroading them onto the path you choose, rather than the one they chose.&nbsp; To me the promise doesn't make it much worse than the ogre issue, because the primary problem is with the DM forcing what the DM wants to happen no matter what, not whether or not the DM told you something.Were I to make those doors, the first thing I'd do is have some clue either somewhere else in the dungeon or on the doors themselves, so that it's possible for the players to figure out the correct door.&nbsp; Simply leaving it to blind chance doesn't seem very dramatic to me, nor very fair to the players.&nbsp; Second, I'd make it McGuffin behind one door, and then a trap or an encounter for the other two doors, rather than just two encounters.Others have argued that the ogre is okay, because the DM is improvising.&nbsp; No.&nbsp; That's not an excuse to railroad players like that. I improvise a lot and what I would do if they came to that fork is choose one that has an ogre down it.&nbsp; Say the right fork.&nbsp; Down the left fork I'd probably place a small village.&nbsp; That way there is meaning to the players' choice on which way to go. Maybe I'd have it being harassed by an ogre. Giving them another meaningful choice. Do they decide to help the village or move on and leave the ogre behind.&nbsp; Improvisation is not an excuse to railroad the players by forcing an ogre on them no matter what they do, rending any choice they make meaningless in the process.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8336823, member: 23751"] I agree. Doing that with the doors is just as bad as encountering an ogre no matter what you choose. In both cases you are rendering the choice of the players meaningless, which is railroading them onto the path you choose, rather than the one they chose. To me the promise doesn't make it much worse than the ogre issue, because the primary problem is with the DM forcing what the DM wants to happen no matter what, not whether or not the DM told you something. Were I to make those doors, the first thing I'd do is have some clue either somewhere else in the dungeon or on the doors themselves, so that it's possible for the players to figure out the correct door. Simply leaving it to blind chance doesn't seem very dramatic to me, nor very fair to the players. Second, I'd make it McGuffin behind one door, and then a trap or an encounter for the other two doors, rather than just two encounters. Others have argued that the ogre is okay, because the DM is improvising. No. That's not an excuse to railroad players like that. I improvise a lot and what I would do if they came to that fork is choose one that has an ogre down it. Say the right fork. Down the left fork I'd probably place a small village. That way there is meaning to the players' choice on which way to go. Maybe I'd have it being harassed by an ogre. Giving them another meaningful choice. Do they decide to help the village or move on and leave the ogre behind. Improvisation is not an excuse to railroad the players by forcing an ogre on them no matter what they do, rending any choice they make meaningless in the process. [/QUOTE]

Verification