Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8343323" data-attributes="member: 85555">More context is always going to be useful. But again the original example was there are two doors to choose from: one has a monster behind it, the other does not. The poster stated this, so clearly there is a note on the page or an idea in the GM's head that something is behind door A and not door B or vice versa. The issue is the players are presented with this choice, they make it, but it never mattered which door they went through, the GM is railroading the encounter and making it happen anyways. I am certain that in most campaigns if this situation arose, then after the fact the GM told them the creature was behind the other door but he or she moved it after they made their decision about which door to go through the majority of players are both going to cry foul and say they were being railroaded. There can be added layers to this, like what happens once something emerges in the game, and if the players decisions after it emerges are also being thwarted. Railroading is an ongoing process. It is possible the only thing railroaded is the decision to move the create behind whichever door, but perhaps the GM then gives them freedom to run away, to negotiate with it, to fight it, to do whatever. The original choice is still railroading though, and if the GM doubles down and forces encounters to play out how he or she wants then its even more of a railroad.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8343323, member: 85555"] More context is always going to be useful. But again the original example was there are two doors to choose from: one has a monster behind it, the other does not. The poster stated this, so clearly there is a note on the page or an idea in the GM's head that something is behind door A and not door B or vice versa. The issue is the players are presented with this choice, they make it, but it never mattered which door they went through, the GM is railroading the encounter and making it happen anyways. I am certain that in most campaigns if this situation arose, then after the fact the GM told them the creature was behind the other door but he or she moved it after they made their decision about which door to go through the majority of players are both going to cry foul and say they were being railroaded. There can be added layers to this, like what happens once something emerges in the game, and if the players decisions after it emerges are also being thwarted. Railroading is an ongoing process. It is possible the only thing railroaded is the decision to move the create behind whichever door, but perhaps the GM then gives them freedom to run away, to negotiate with it, to fight it, to do whatever. The original choice is still railroading though, and if the GM doubles down and forces encounters to play out how he or she wants then its even more of a railroad. [/QUOTE]

Verification