Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8342996" data-attributes="member: 85555">If the GM is telling them what he is doing, like I said, I don't have a problem with it. It is still railroading, but at least people have bought into the idea. But there isn't any reason for me to assume this isn't secret. Otherwise the example doesn't make tremendous sense. But yes, if he isn't being secretive, then it is not as much of an issue Because the direction the players went was a choice they made. And by having it always go to the outcome the GM had planned, you are stripping that choice of any value. You are railroading them, pretty much by definition. Now you can argue, that isn't as big a problem as people say, that there is gray in these kinds of decisions (which I think most of us have acknowledged) or that a little railroading is necessary if you want, but it is definitely railroading. In both examples there is a choice presented: do the players go through door A or door B; do the players go north, south, east, west, etc. And the poster has said, even though they are making a choice here, it is going to result int he thing the GM has in mind (that he will even move things from where they originally were placed, in order to make sure the players encounter them). And again, perhaps there is a type of session where this isn't railroading for a particular set of reasons. But that is an edge case. In most situations, this sort of action by the GM will be regarded as railroading. If there is some mitigating reason why it isn't the poster can include that detail in the example. Otherwise I just have to go with some baseline assumptions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8342996, member: 85555"] If the GM is telling them what he is doing, like I said, I don't have a problem with it. It is still railroading, but at least people have bought into the idea. But there isn't any reason for me to assume this isn't secret. Otherwise the example doesn't make tremendous sense. But yes, if he isn't being secretive, then it is not as much of an issue Because the direction the players went was a choice they made. And by having it always go to the outcome the GM had planned, you are stripping that choice of any value. You are railroading them, pretty much by definition. Now you can argue, that isn't as big a problem as people say, that there is gray in these kinds of decisions (which I think most of us have acknowledged) or that a little railroading is necessary if you want, but it is definitely railroading. In both examples there is a choice presented: do the players go through door A or door B; do the players go north, south, east, west, etc. And the poster has said, even though they are making a choice here, it is going to result int he thing the GM has in mind (that he will even move things from where they originally were placed, in order to make sure the players encounter them). And again, perhaps there is a type of session where this isn't railroading for a particular set of reasons. But that is an edge case. In most situations, this sort of action by the GM will be regarded as railroading. If there is some mitigating reason why it isn't the poster can include that detail in the example. Otherwise I just have to go with some baseline assumptions. [/QUOTE]

Verification