Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8342475" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I don't find this persuasive. If you don't want a sandbox, that is totally fine. Sandbox isn't the only non-railroad. But the point is if I am presented with four cardinal directions to choose from, and no matter which direction I choose, the adventure the GM has planned is going to happen, that is absolutely a railroad. The choice of direction is meaningless in this case. Whereas if the GM has a haunted house in the north, a kobold tribe attacking villagers in the south, a town to rest in in the east, and a princes kidnapped by pixies in the west, at least my choices matter. Not every adventure needs to be this kind of exploration of the map. But if I am making that sort of choice and the Gm just moves things to undermine that choice, I don't see how that isn't railroading. Now there is a deeper layer here. Agency isn't just about making blind choices about cardinal directions. Once the players get to these places, you can still have railroading if the players choices aren't being respected, and if they are being forced along. The standard definition of a railroad is being forced to go on the adventure. So if you are moving things around so the adventure happens no matter where the players go, that is a railroady GMing decision. And again, if everyone has bought into this idea that the GM has a single adventure planned for the night, this is the adventure and we are all going to go on it, that is different. The players are agreeing to buy into the scenario, and they aren't interested in exploring a range of adventuring choices. But if you are tricking the party so they think their decision to go west was the thing that led them to the haunted house (even though all directions led to it) absolutely, it is a railroad.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8342475, member: 85555"] I don't find this persuasive. If you don't want a sandbox, that is totally fine. Sandbox isn't the only non-railroad. But the point is if I am presented with four cardinal directions to choose from, and no matter which direction I choose, the adventure the GM has planned is going to happen, that is absolutely a railroad. The choice of direction is meaningless in this case. Whereas if the GM has a haunted house in the north, a kobold tribe attacking villagers in the south, a town to rest in in the east, and a princes kidnapped by pixies in the west, at least my choices matter. Not every adventure needs to be this kind of exploration of the map. But if I am making that sort of choice and the Gm just moves things to undermine that choice, I don't see how that isn't railroading. Now there is a deeper layer here. Agency isn't just about making blind choices about cardinal directions. Once the players get to these places, you can still have railroading if the players choices aren't being respected, and if they are being forced along. The standard definition of a railroad is being forced to go on the adventure. So if you are moving things around so the adventure happens no matter where the players go, that is a railroady GMing decision. And again, if everyone has bought into this idea that the GM has a single adventure planned for the night, this is the adventure and we are all going to go on it, that is different. The players are agreeing to buy into the scenario, and they aren't interested in exploring a range of adventuring choices. But if you are tricking the party so they think their decision to go west was the thing that led them to the haunted house (even though all directions led to it) absolutely, it is a railroad. [/QUOTE]

Verification