Plot Railroading: How much?

[Segev]

So, D&D 3.5 and we have four players: Amanda, Jenny, Sofie and Zoe. Their characters have discovered proof that D'rk the half orc has been behind some recent bad events and has targeted them as well. They find out the location of his hidden lair, and as yet, D'rk is clueless that the characters are on to him. So the players and characters being Good want to capture D'rk and bring him to justice, but also clear the lair of evil folks.

It is a typical bad guy lair of ruins and a dungeon: so lots of rooms including barracks, a dinning hall, kitchen, etc....with, the big bag guy ''in the middle'' . So this example is low level, so the PCs have only a little magic so they can't teleport, travel in time, cast wish spells or anything like that. Only a single character is sneaky, so the rest of the group can't really 'sneak around'. The bad guy has a simple ''detect evil'' policy of only letting evil folks in, so the group can't ''disguise themselves as tapestry inspectors'' and bluff their way in(and all ''unknown'' guests are striped down and chained automatically anyway, even if the are evil). And it takes three locked, guarded doors to get into the lair by the main way. This lair has only the one entrance and no other physical way in or out. So this leaves the somewhat obvious ''go through the front door approach''. And the players themselves are no fans of ''plan B'' of waiting for the bad guy to come out so they can jump them, as they want all the clear(and loot) the lair, and the most obvious way to get all the loot is to raid the lair.

The lair is set up for mostly a combat encounter, as the obvious thing to do is attack the lair. Half the players do like some hard core combat, so this is for them.

The setting is the untamed wildness just outside of current civilization, the edge of the borderlands. A couple of small villages are in the immediate area, a single small town, and the lair ruins. There is only limited local law, a couple sheriffs, and no army of good nearby.

So there are two goals .Capture D'rk and 2.Clear the lair of evil, though only 1. is also a plot, both are intertwined together.
So at the game start the players have the illusion of choice to do(or more accurately try) anything to accomplish those two goals and get to the end of the plot. They do have the self imposed limit of they don't want to tip off D'rk that they are around and after him, and common sense. So, as they are all intelligent adults they dismiss all the dumb ideas like: starting a fire so everyone runs outside of the lair, making a big fire to smoke out the lair or making a pit trap right in front of the entrance. They are also limited by the game reality and their characters, so they can't snap their fingers and blow up the lair, cast wish spells, alter time and space. They also dismiss things they could do in theory, but would be dumb, silly, or near impossible; like they could take a year and buy all the alchemist fire in the world and pile it up around the lair and blow it all up or they dig a tunnel into the lair.

So, with all the above limits, the players are still free to do anything. Other then just the direct attack, I can think of a couple other ways the players can do the two goals and advance the one plot. The players are free to try any other way they can think of, within the game. The players can not, for example, just say it is reasonable that there is an unguarded easy to find not so secret tunnel and have the game reality alter so that tunnel does exist. Or the players can't just suddenly, somehow tell the DM there is a huge other fort of bad guys nearby and they somehow trick them into attack the lair. In a normal game only the DM creates such setting things. Though if there is something established in the setting, then they may (try) to use it.

So the players have the illusion of choice to pick from anything in the DM controlled setting, but only from things in the setting. The most basic railroad here is ''the group must fight D'rk together'', so if a single player tries something..like Jenny wants her sneaky character to slip in and grab D'rk, it won't work....though mostly it won't work as the set -up and lair and setting would make that very hard, if not impossible even with no railroading. And once the plot to capture D'rk moves forward, when the characters do anything, they might encounter D'rk for a pure role play/drama/set up, and if this does happen he will be immune to attacks, though again, most likely through the cover of the game. For the good of the whole game, D'rk needs to put in at least one tease appearance, where he can't just be attacked, as this is good for and advances the plot. It also has the added bonus of being a quick recap for the players of why they are even after D'rk (as he will like hold up a locket he took form a murdered npc friend of the characters, for example).





Well, maybe we can use this very example. Just watch someone do a player alter reality move.

Okay! I will go ahead and accept - despite disagreeing - that "smoke them out" is an "obviously stupid" idea, and that there are, in fact, already in place reasons why this wouldn't work.

Now. You keep using the terms "illusory choice," but have described some very real choices the players are making.

1) They wish to capture D'rk alive.
2) They have no interest in waiting for D'rk to come out for any reason.

Having said that they've already made those decisions, you then proceed to act as if they had no choices at all.

So let's enter a hypothetical: Let's say that, after they spent some time going around to the villages you'd set up, you - accidentally or on purpose - described some of D'rk's depredations in such a way that they actually infuriate your players and their characters to the point that they decide that D'rk just plain has to die. Would you allow them to make this change to their plans? Would killing him, rather than capturing him alive, change future events in the game after their plan succeeded? (Assuming, of course, it did succeed.)


Now for a second hypothetical, independent of the first: After preparing for this assault on the lair, the party incorrectly interprets some of their scouting information such that they feel the lair is nigh impenetrable, and that the costs and risks of assaulting it head-on are just too great. They decide, after all, that waiting for D'rk to come out of the lair and ambushing him will be a better way to capture him.

Will you allow them to do this? (I chose this option as one because it's one you didn't say was "obviously silly," but rather something the players themselves chose not to do.)

[Lorsa]

And once the plot to capture D'rk moves forward, when the characters do anything, they might encounter D'rk for a pure role play/drama/set up, and if this does happen he will be immune to attacks, though again, most likely through the cover of the game. For the good of the whole game, D'rk needs to put in at least one tease appearance, where he can't just be attacked, as this is good for and advances the plot. It also has the added bonus of being a quick recap for the players of why they are even after D'rk (as he will like hold up a locket he took form a murdered npc friend of the characters, for example).

To be perfectly honest, when I read your scenario, this part is the only one that I would classify as "railroading" straight off. All the rest aren't railroading when seen in isolation.

The scenario is a little bit restrictive though, so if all scenarios looked like this the game as a whole could be considered railroady as well.

But anyway, there's only one obvious point that can be said to be "railroading" right off. And, if you are as honest as you say you are and the players like that kind of railroading, then it's really no harm no foul as we've said many times.

The point though is to clarify to each other what we mean by "railroading", While there could still be other railroading in your scenario that will come forth when you clarify some questions people ask, reading it through there's only this one.

[Darth Ultron]

the point that they decide that D'rk just plain has to die. Would you allow them to make this change to their plans? Would killing him, rather than capturing him alive, change future events in the game after their plan succeeded? (Assuming, of course, it did succeed.)

Yes, it is their wish of what to do with him. In a general sense I don't make the call. The setting is full of people with their own ideas, but none of them are mine.

Again, in general, if I want a villain to be a long term one, like be around for a real year or more, they won't be a combat type villain.

Now for a second hypothetical, independent of the first: After preparing for this assault on the lair, the party incorrectly interprets some of their scouting information such that they feel the lair is nigh impenetrable, and that the costs and risks of assaulting it head-on are just too great. They decide, after all, that waiting for D'rk to come out of the lair and ambushing him will be a better way to capture him.

Again, this is there call. I'd be quick enough to enlighten the players through game play that they are wrong though. I know lots of players have the Catastrophic Thinking problem: They see one guard and are like ''the place is nigh impenetrable''. Though this is also why I like to stick with good players that won't do that.

Will you allow them to do this? (I chose this option as one because it's one you didn't say was "obviously silly," but rather something the players themselves chose not to do.)

Sure, in both cases they are not changing the plot. The only plot is: Deal with D'rk. So it does not matter how they do it. The lair has no plot, it is just lots of rooms of combat. And as the players want to free the land of evil, they will have to deal with it sooner or later...but if they want to level up a bit before that is fine.

To be perfectly honest, when I read your scenario, this part is the only one that I would classify as "railroading" straight off. All the rest aren't railroading when seen in isolation.

I have always said Railroading is part of the game, not the whole game.

[jayem]

So there are two borderline-railroad events
a) The design of the map
b) The taunting by D'rk
[With] the potential for railroading
c) On the player's trying 'wacky' ideas
d) On the D'rk appearance going off script

Regarding the map:

With our bit of OOC knowledge, we know it's been designed to allow one true path (in this case the single straightforward charge) and only that.
We also know that the reason is for this is because the DM wants to have that occur. We don't really have an in character explanation as to why D'rk has done this, we presume (possibly unreasonably, he might have a trap planned) it's not his imagined goal. We presume (again possibly unreasonably, he may not grasp the concept of teamwork) that if you cover fear, impersonation, you might also need to cover there being 4 of them. We presume that he (again, possibly unreasonably) that the purpose of the cave is to facilitate his operations and not solely to (almost) resist one attack of a finely tuned size.
There is a potential break between what is claimed and what is that kind of shows (metaphorically you've just rolled 20 twice, this time it's probably coincidence. Next time we'll be suspicious, third time we'll decree enemy action (sod's law when it actually was coincidence)).

We also believe that the players want to more or less go down the single straightforward charge route and will favour it if it's viable. It's is just as viable had there been a main gate and a kitchen gate and the whole 'detect evil' security procedure is then just redundant. So (assuming that there aren't in world reasons for the single entrance) we've half used a suspend-disbelief card for absolutely nothing.

Suppose instead we are wrong. The players really want to do some mole plan, or ... (based on their latest history lesson). Then this time they'll come against the preplanned obstacles, and push against the contradictions. At the end of it they are resigned to do the straightforward charge. So we've used our suspend-disbelief card, and we've got what we thought we wanted ... but what was the purpose of it, if it were to give the players what they wanted, well clearly that didn't work, so there must be something else that was worth the double cost.

We should note here that had it been the other way round, that is you believed the players wanted it to be harder than just charging in. Then things don't work out so nicely. And there is a third case here too. It could be that the players believe that they ought to try the other options as being safer and more sensible, but really do want to them to be unviable. In this case the suspend-disbelief card is being used! However even then you don't then need to make all the alternatives impossible,
The trivial ones you obviously need to ('no, you can't go through the none existent tunnel to D'rks bedroom'), but the player's won't be surprised (unless he's previously used the tunnel)
But once down to the harder ones (if you smoke them out they might come out angry and alert) you're effectively back to the first 2 situations. So you only need a tiny fence (perhaps a password, and a faint chance of questioning inside), and if they scale that who cares

So all in all, it seems it's railroading (to the extent that it does) for the sake of railroading (the one feature it does explain nicely is how D'rk can't escape though).

[Max_Killjoy]

With our bit of OOC knowledge, we know it's been designed to allow one true path (in this case the single straightforward charge) and only that.
We also know that the reason is for this is because the DM wants to have that occur.

With that alone, it's already established that there's railroading going on.

[jayem]

With that alone, it's already established that there's railroading going on.

Actually that was me projecting and assuming [as I edited]. We didn't actually know, strictly speaking, that was the purpose (I'd bet on it, but it's not explicit) [It's why when thinking, I've called it borderline, etc...].

It was the apparent pointlessness of that got me.

We could have got a very similar level design from different motives. In which case it would have been worth the cost to have demonstrated D'rk's paranoia ... (and thinking about it from this end you'd immediately be thinking about resolving the food issue)

It could have genuinely been designed to achieve something good that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Maybe half the players favour sneaky and the others haven't had their day in the sun. There are actually hints of this. However the design goes far further than needed for that. It's a reason to fudge 'reality' so all ways are guarded, not to only have one way. *

As it is, you get the 'this looks a bit railroady' feeling (not as strongly as when told) when the players were already going that direction.

*I think both of these are case where you could craft examples that get between peoples definitions of railroads/railroading/rails.

[dascarletm]

What if, the players after finding out that there is only one entrance, decide to barricade them in, forcing them to surrender or starve inside the death-trap of a lair they have?

[jayem]

...railroading...

There are also 3 examples of a potential choice that have been apparently been explicitly granted.
a) Going away and leveling up
b) Attempting to use (if explicitly present), other rivals.
c) Other approach (The players are free to try any other way they can think of, within the game.)

Now granted I think it's a pretty safe bet that (b) will turn out to be a safe 'not falling for that', regardless of what the plan is. So it's more likely to be a short one sentence digression, rather than an interesting option to gamble and risk the chance of creating an additional problem. But it's still there.

Similarly for (c), this is the flip side of saying there is only the potential for railroading. If this is a meaningful choice and carried out then it is not railroading.
This definitely does not mean that all choices Have to Succeed, or even has to have a chance to succeed. It doesn't mean any choice has to be easy. (realistically an serious choice by definition should be roughly balanced, but that doesn't mean every choice has to be serious).
However if by "they can try" and "I can't see any way", you mean they can ask, but whatever it is (no matter how well researched, logical etc...) I will say no. Then it will be railroady.

(a) is a bit of a boring choice, hopefully it has some more interesting effects. But it is still a real choice.

[Darth Ultron]

With our bit of OOC knowledge, we know it's been designed to allow one true path (in this case the single straightforward charge) and only that.

So it has been said that anything reasonable is not railroading. The wilderness and the lair are both perfectly reasonable. It is only Jayem's hate glasses that make it a railroad. So this is going back to anything someone does not like on a whim is a Railroad.

So to make it official:

Poster Jayem has said anything a DM does that is not liked is Railroading

With that alone, it's already established that there's railroading going on.

No surprise Max has the hate glasses,

Poster Max_Killjoy has said anything a DM does that is not liked is Railroading

What if, the players after finding out that there is only one entrance, decide to barricade them in, forcing them to surrender or starve inside the death-trap of a lair they have?

It is a plan they can try.

[Max_Killjoy]

Poster Max_Killjoy has said anything a DM does that is not liked is Railroading

That is a lie.

You cannot provide any quote showing me saying that.

[Darth Ultron]

That is a lie.

You cannot provide any quote showing me saying that.

You agreed as shown in the above post, that railroading absolutely must be going on for the only reason of you did not like what the DM said (typed).

So that is, simply, anything you don't like is Railroading, to you.

The DM said, the lair only has one entrance: a reasonable thing. You, not liking that, just immediatly went to: it is a railroad. So....my point stands.

[Max_Killjoy]

You agreed as shown in the above post, that railroading absolutely must be going on for the only reason of you did not like what the DM said (typed).

Here is exactly what was said:

With our bit of OOC knowledge, we know it's been designed to allow one true path (in this case the single straightforward charge) and only that.
We also know that the reason is for this is because the DM wants to have that occur.

With that alone, it's already established that there's railroading going on.

If there's only one single predetermined "true path" through an adventure, session, or campaign, fixed in place on the GM's whim and nothing else, and the only way forward for the players (or their characters) is to follow that path, then that is railroading. If anything and everything the players might do other than the one thing you wanted them to do is "silly" or "stupid" or "players trying to tyrannize", simply because you didn't think of it or you didn't want it to happen, then you're railroading.

Unless you can find a post and directly quote me saying railroading is "anything the DM does" or depends on whether it was "unliked", then this is something you have made up.

You have so consistently made this assertion that "everyone" or "other people" claim that "anything other than the DM sitting there and reacting and letting the players do whatever they want is railroading", and the fact that no one is saying it (other than when you try to assert that "everyone" or "other people" are saying it) has been pointed out to you in detail so many times, that at this point we are left with a single conclusion -- that you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what other people say.

But then, you have repeatedly said with pride that you deceive and manipulate your players (or at least try to... if your "skill" at deceit and manipulation is what you've put on display in these "discussions", then you're not fooling many of them for very long)... so why should we expect you to be in any way honest with a bunch of strangers on the internet?

[Darth Ultron]

Unless you can find a post and directly quote me saying railroading is "anything the DM does" or depends on whether it was "unliked", then this is something you have made up.

Well, notice how you said my above lair example was automatically railroading, just as you did not like it....it is just like that.

You have so consistently made this assertion that "everyone" or "other people" claim that "anything other than the DM sitting there and reacting and letting the players do whatever they want is railroading", and the fact that no one is saying it (other than when you try to assert that "everyone" or "other people" are saying it) has been pointed out to you in detail so many times, that at this point we are left with a single conclusion -- that you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what other people say.

Yes, if the DM is not in control of the game plot and using things such as railroading to advance it...then yes the DM is a unmotivated, casual type DM as they just sit there and wait to react to the players.

But then, you have repeatedly said with pride that you deceive and manipulate your players (or at least try to... if your "skill" at deceit and manipulation is what you've put on display in these "discussions", then you're not fooling many of them for very long)... so why should we expect you to be in any way honest with a bunch of strangers on the internet?

This is just pure bias and hate.

[An Enemy Spy]

DU, people disagreeing with you for making lazy, half formed arguments and refusing to ever concede even an inch of ground no matter how thoroughly disproven you are is not the same as them just arbitrarily hating on you for no reason. You can fool yourself into thinking you're winning this debate but you can't fool anyone else.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, notice how you said my above lair example was automatically railroading, just as you did not like it....it is just like that.

That literally has nothing to do with what was in the quoted comments.

But I suppose if you can fool yourself into thinking you're a good GM despite all the things you've said you do to your players... you can fool yourself into thinking that people have said things that they clearly and plainly have not.

Yes, if the DM is not in control of the game plot and using things such as railroading to advance it...then yes the DM is a unmotivated, casual type DM as they just sit there and wait to react to the players.

The GM has control of an entire endless cast of (potentially, at least) proactive NPCs and indeed most of the fictional reality surrounding the PCs -- a good GM doesn't need to domineer and deceive to keep things moving, doesn't need to resort to railroading, illusionism, and bullying to make the game work. All the players -- GM or otherwise -- in a functional game both act and react, cyclically, to each others actions and reactions.

That you believe you need to lie to and bully your players in order to make the game functional and fun is telling.

This is just pure bias and hate.

Bias would be unfounded and unreasoning.

There's nothing unfounded or unreasoned going on in other posters dislike of you and your behavior, you've given them plenty of foundation and reason for disliking you.

That is, it isn't bias if you've given them a good reason.

[Cluedrew]

I for one don't believe that anything players don't like is railroading. I can think of a lot of other ways to make the game unfun besides that. For example:

• Directionless: Providing no direction, no plot hooks, not pulling on any of the character's strings, doing nothing of any sort to drive the game forward.
• DMPC: Creating a character that constantly overshadows the PCs and is always nearby. Although often pair with railroading it does not have to be.
• Killer Difficulty: If nothing the party does has any chance of success without half the party dying... well I suppose the most detached players might still enjoy that game from a tactical point of view.

There is a few off the top of my head.

[Pleh]

You agreed as shown in the above post, that railroading absolutely must be going on for the only reason of you did not like what the DM said (typed).

So that is, simply, anything you don't like is Railroading, to you.

The DM said, the lair only has one entrance: a reasonable thing. You, not liking that, just immediatly went to: it is a railroad. So....my point stands.

No, Max was observing the fact that the scenario matched the basic definition of Railroading. Your counterargument seemed to be, "But the scenario was reasonable."

This does not preclude the possibility that it was railroading. Railroading can happen even when there exists justification establishing the cause as reasonable.

While incidentally true that Max did not like the scenario, he did not call it "railroading" because he didn't like it. He called it Railroading because it clearly matched the definition and happened to dislike it for the fact that it matched the definition of railroading.

You have conflated Cause with Effect.

[Quertus]

[*]Killer Difficulty: If nothing the party does has any chance of success without half the party dying... well I suppose the most detached players might still enjoy that game from a tactical point of view.

That sounds like a proper war game to me. Or, you know, a game of Chess.

[Alcore]

People who play D&D love to ramble against walls and feed trolls. It is unavoidable.

I am always offended on the behalf of Trolls. Has you seen Warcraft trolls? Lean, mean and cool with somed going into beautiful territory with fan art. To see internet people use that word for other people makes me so upset; trolls are too good for that.

[Darth Ultron]

DU, people disagreeing with you for making lazy, half formed arguments and refusing to ever concede even an inch of ground no matter how thoroughly disproven you are is not the same as them just arbitrarily hating on you for no reason. You can fool yourself into thinking you're winning this debate but you can't fool anyone else.

Just as I don't give to a single person, does not mean anything. Some things are just wrong.

But I suppose if you can fool yourself into thinking you're a good GM despite all the things you've said you do to your players... you can fool yourself into thinking that people have said things that they clearly and plainly have not.

I'm a Great DM, but who is keeping track.

The GM has control of an entire endless cast of (potentially, at least) proactive NPCs and indeed most of the fictional reality surrounding the PCs -- a good GM doesn't need to domineer and deceive to keep things moving, doesn't need to resort to railroading, illusionism, and bullying to make the game work. All the players -- GM or otherwise -- in a functional game both act and react, cyclically, to each others actions and reactions.

That you believe you need to lie to and bully your players in order to make the game functional and fun is telling.

Everybody lies. I never bully.

I for one don't believe that anything players don't like is railroading. I can think of a lot of other ways to make the game unfun besides that. For example:

• Directionless: Providing no direction, no plot hooks, not pulling on any of the character's strings, doing nothing of any sort to drive the game forward.
• DMPC: Creating a character that constantly overshadows the PCs and is always nearby. Although often pair with railroading it does not have to be.
• Killer Difficulty: If nothing the party does has any chance of success without half the party dying... well I suppose the most detached players might still enjoy that game from a tactical point of view.

There is a few off the top of my head.

Amazingly, a great many in the anti-Railroad hate crowd love the Directionless game; I call this the Second Life game.

I have never used and never will use a DMPC.

Mine is a Killer Game, but not the ''no chance'' type. More like the players just need to be smart and clever.

This does not preclude the possibility that it was railroading. Railroading can happen even when there exists justification establishing the cause as reasonable.

Really? I thought everyone's arguments was that Railroading was all ways something unreasonable. Everyone seemed to say that.

1.I'd say ''the vault has a locked door'' as that is readable and makes sense.
2.Everyone would whine and cry that was Railroading.
3.I'd say ''um, so no door in the game world can ever be locked?" and ''so the DM can't do anything the players don't like?"
4.Everyone would respond that it depends ''why'' they are locked.
5.I'd say, well because of reasonable common sense and the DM has the power to decide such things.
6.Everyone would seem to agree with that.

So from that we get: noting possible and reasonable can ever be Railroading.


1.And sure some lie Max want to go all Cosmic Theoretical and say it ''matters'' what the DM is thinking and the weight of their soul.
2.I'd say, ''well a player can never know that type of thing for sure'' and ''they would just have to guess'', and ''They would just not like something on a whim then".
3.Then Max either would not reply, send and insult or type some nonsense like *Turkey Sandwitch*.

While incidentally true that Max did not like the scenario, he did not call it "railroading" because he didn't like it. He called it Railroading because it clearly matched the definition and happened to dislike it for the fact that it matched the definition of railroading.

You have conflated Cause with Effect.

He did not like it, so he called it Railroading, seems clear enough.

[Pleh]

Really? I thought everyone's arguments was that Railroading was all ways something unreasonable. Everyone seemed to say that.

It can be justified, making it reasonable.

I'd say most alternatives tend to be more reasonable. Railroading is, at best, sloppy DMing.

He did not like it, so he called it Railroading, seems clear enough.

No, he saw railroading accurately, called it out, and you assumed it was only because he didn't like it.

You correctly discerned that he didn't like it, but not why he called it railroading.

[Darth Ultron]

You correctly discerned that he didn't like it, but not why he called it railroading.

Hatred?

Well, guess it is back to the old ''anything a player does not like is Railroading'', oh well.

[Alcore]

Hatred?

Well, guess it is back to the old ''anything a player does not like is Railroading'', oh well.

where are you getting this from?


Hatred has not been used. Hatred had nothing to do with anything till just now. I, personally, won't go back. You can, and have, but i like going forward.

I'd say most alternatives tend to be more reasonable. Railroading is, at best, sloppy DMing.

no. Railroading is not sloppy, more of a lack of imagination. The railroader never conceived the notion of those other plans (reasonable or not) or if he did thought the PCs would not.

[Pleh]

Hatred?

Well, guess it is back to the old ''anything a player does not like is Railroading'', oh well.

Again, you are incorrect. It was a scenario of "railroading by definition" where the definition involved restricting a player's ability to succeed with any course of action not preordained by the DM. Max's feelings on the matter are irrelevant to that fact. The scenario given contained railroading whether the player liked it or not.

[Max_Killjoy]

where are you getting this from?

His own imagination. It's his ongoing strawman. He keeps insisting that "everyone" or "other people" keep saying it, but he can never actually provide any quotes to put fact to his claim.

[Alcore]

His own imagination. It's his ongoing strawman. He keeps insisting that "everyone" or "other people" keep saying it, but he can never actually provide any quotes to put fact to his claim.

Oh i know


I just hope he will surprise me someday

[An Enemy Spy]

Oh i know


I just hope he will surprise me someday

The day Darth Ultron uses actual evidence is the day he's knocked out from behind and someone else starts posting in his name.

[jayem]

So to make it official:

Poster Jayem has said something a DM does that is designing map elements for the sole purpose of ensuring a single true path is Borderline-Railroading

Furthermore Jayem has said that the lair map has some particular features that are redundant given the stated attitude of the players. As the questions they raise require sufficiently convoluted actions of D'rk and D'rk to make some odd choices. This he feels pushes the definition of reasonable a little while providing no benefit.
Ordinarily that would be the case, however previous episodes have shown that D'rk has been exceedingly lucky and grown confident in the combat powess of his men (many of the guards in fact served him in his initial campaigns, it's just now they are getting older), while having had some nasty experiences of treachery. Knowing these aspects of D'rk (like my PC's do) makes his actions seem much less random, wacky and capricious. D'rk does generally feel that he needs to protect against high level sneakery while being able to ignore brute force so the map design actually reflects his known character better than you (Jayem) might think. In fact it more or less matches the case you suggest where "We could have got a very similar level design from different motives. In which case it would have been worth the cost to have demonstrated D'rk's paranoia ... "

Oh ok, did you come up with a good plan for how he obtains supplies?

[Cluedrew]

That sounds like a proper war game to me. Or, you know, a game of Chess.

Sure, I enjoy both of those things, but not as role-playing games. Tactically

I'm a Great DM, but who is keeping track.

Yes, I would like to have a word with them. Joke over. From you descriptions I think in terms of technical ability, we are actually pretty similar. We have very different philosophies about how to approach it (you may have noticed), but in terms of preparation, improvisation and table dynamics we seem to match up quite closely.

Amazingly, a great many in the anti-Railroad hate crowd love the Directionless game; I call this the Second Life game.

I have never used and never will use a DMPC.

Mine is a Killer Game, but not the ''no chance'' type. More like the players just need to be smart and clever.

Your missing the point, I'm not accusing you of any of these. The point is there are things that players don't like that are obviously not railroading. Unless you want to argue things are either good (referring to the no chance killer, not merely hard) or are actually railroading, I believe this is proof by example that not all thing players don't like are railroading.

Really? I thought everyone's arguments was that Railroading was all ways something unreasonable. Everyone seemed to say that.

This is why people say you don't listen. Some people say that railroading is always bad, others say it is bad but can be justified and others say it is just a tool that can be used or (often) misused. And there are many variants and different ways of framing it within that I didn't cover. And then there is that one poster who says it is necessary for a good game. That's one is an outlier.

[Max_Killjoy]

Everybody lies. I never bully.

You keep telling us you bully. You describe in loving detail all the bullying you do.

Your belief that everyone else is deceitful tells us more about you than about "everyone else".

Amazingly, a great many in the anti-Railroad hate crowd love the Directionless game;

That is, again, something you have made up.