Search results

Incorrect. Here is what I said: Railroading is a style of play, just like sandbox, linear, or follow player agency, which I consider improv. And, just so you know, our table plays best when it is railroad. Too many objectives and we don't do well. Most tables I have played at do best when it is...

T Thanks for taking the time to explain it. It is appreciated. I will say this, some of the context regarding railroading seems to anchor within whether the group has an objective or not. It's off how they are connected. Even the OP had an objective for them - escape. Somehow, that seems frame...

What does the bold mean given the context of your statement?

I don't know the answer to that question. As I stated earlier, I personally don't feel you are railroading. But I have been a part of thread after thread after thread (with you included) on this forum about railroading. And you know, as well as I, that railroading is a very personal definition...

I agree.

Mamba, that question does not matter. You're right, their first idea failing doesn't make a railroad. But, and this is important, for some, having to simply fill a blank canvas with the DM's whimsical desires, is railroading. It is the old: Gygax, the DM, makes you search the dungeon, until he...

I agree with this and with @hawkeyefan. These two can co-exist. I had a lot of fun with 4e. Since I skipped 3.5, and this is what brought me back, it was so much fun. I liked the mechanics, and enjoyed DMing in that system. But there are certain things, as a I look back on, that were not that...

I think that is a fair take. But, it is a "somewhat of a leap" to: I get the logical step, but it is a bit much to say that it went that far.

I think the general definition is that the DM exerts too much control. That is what it all boils down to in a nutshell. Call it lack of player agency. Call it having to follow a path. Call it lack of options. Whatever you call it, it distills down to the DM exerting too much control over the...

On a side note, this statement also leans more into the railroad for many players. So now, the players are just acting on impulses you provide (not them), and they have to appease and succeed whatever veiled solution (that you don't even have) in order to get out. If you had specific ideas in...

A fun encounter in my opinion. But that's good. Because dice are swingy. It is a good litmus test.

Yeah, that seems like it might work. I don't know the environment or character abilities or the players' tactical knowledge, so it is hard to say. But, I know any group of five at that I've run wouldn't find this encounter too difficult. Again, there are variables.

Then I can see why a few players might find it railroading. Again, I do not agree with their take. And personally, I like the concept behind the adventure you set up. But listening to posters on EnWorld, I can see quite a few who would think of this as railroading. All players are different...

Nice. I was just curious, because it goes against the conventional norm of character creation these days. Are these characters you're stuck with for a long time?

Perhaps trying 1-2 combat encounters per long rest? That way, the party's not going to be in too much danger, but you can stretch and flex your creative impulses.

I know I am in the minority here, but it is railroading IF you as a DM didn't set up a reason as to why and how all the exit points are blocked. And by that, I mean, if this was something that just kind of appeared out of nowhere, without interconnecting threads ting the big-bad in your climax...

I am curious: Who is still doing ordered placement?

I actually just got done reading Draw Steel!'s advice on encounter building, and I think they summed it up nicely for any D&D style RPG. It read something like (not verbatim): It's not science. There are too many variables to create encounters using any system design. Too many monsters. Too...

I understand. But a skill check is the same thing as an attack with a sword. It's all the same. One uses dex and proficiency, and the other uses dex/strength and proficiency. Combat just has one little extra step, damage. The overall way you determine success is the same. Add up the numbers and...

To answer this question, I think it would take a very deep dive into a lot of different mythos and stories. It seems a lot more reciprocal to me, ideas flowing back and forth, alternating slightly, and then being put back out into the zeitgeist.