The thing about "weighted scenarios", as you describe them, is that they often include situations where the party has their backs to the wall and there is only one viable solution to the predicament. The problem with that is if there was no way of avoiding that situation in the first place, it's basically just railroading. Now, nobody likes railroading, but a little bit of subtle railroading to keep the game on track doesn't hurt that much. However, if the railroaded situation you create is "Do what I expect you to, or you'll be TPK'd", a variety of things could happen.>1. The party immediately realizes that it's railroaded, and does what you want them to do (run away, negotiate, surrender, etc)
This is a likely scenario, but it's rather unfun when the players realize that they're not getting to make choices in the matter, which can lead to situation 2b (see below) if you do this more than once.>2. The party recognizes it's a railroaded situation, but misinterprets what they are supposed to do (fight until expected help arrives, die with honor, kill the enemies' leader, distract the enemy and die while the rest of the party escapes, destroy the McGuffin, use up all of their resources, etc)
This is a situation you create for yourself when you give the party problems with only one solution. If there is only one solution in the situation, any other significant action has potential to derail the plot that you tried to railroad. As the GM, you are responsible for eloquently communicating the situation to the party; any inadequacy in making the situation clear is a failure on your behalf.>2b. The party realizes that the situation is railroaded, and gets frustrated or antagonistic as a result, leading them to do something you don't expect them to (destroy the McGuffin, kill themselves, fight to the death in a show of 'bravery', join the evil side, exploit a mechanical loophole, sacrifice a key NPC, destroy the world, etc)
This outcome is more likely than you think. If you haven't been communicating with the party well, or you've frustrated them with your plot resolution, they're going to be unpredictable. Players who feel like they're being deprived of choices will try to create choices for themselves, leading them to subvert the plot and/or to the one thing you haven't prepared for them to do. Some players will do this without even realizing it, or just have a belief that they're supposed to outsmart the GM even when surrounded and supposedly out of options. This is something to watch out for, because players will never fail to surprise you in their plot-derailing ingenuity or equally-powerful stupidity. Cornered PCs can act like cornered animals, even if they don't realize they're cornered (see number 3 below).>3. The party DOESN'T recognize that the situation is railroaded, and does the opposite of what you expect them to (fight to the death, destroy the McGuffin, join the evil side, sacrifice a party member, use up all of their resources in desperation, etc).
You can expect at least one party member to misinterpret the situation, so this outcome is rather likely.>3b. The party is more optimized/powerful than you expected, leading them to simply bulldoze right through odds you thought to be "insurmountable" with brute force and clever tactics.
This happens all of time, but isn't really a problem unless you hinged your entire plot/universe on the the party's failure, which you should never do. If you don't want the PCs to murder the goddess of light, you shouldn't have put her there in the flesh (if it has stats, you can kill it).>4. The party doesn't recognize the situation is railroaded, but still does what you expect them to.
This is the most desirable outcome, but notice how it's only one of 4-4 outcomes possible, and with 4-6 party members you can expect at least one player to try something whacky. It is also the outcome that requires the most skill as a GM, because it means getting the party to do what you want without letting them realize that they aren't the ones making the choices.
From what is listed above, there are 4-6 ways a party can react to any situation with "insurmountable odds", and only 1-2 of them are really any good. As a GM, you shouldn't really be depriving your party of choices, because when you do that you deprotagonize the players and worse you create the possibility of PCs frustrating you by defying your expectations. Not only is railroadinging in this fashion unfun, but it gets even worse when you realize that the party might not properly cooperate with the actions you are trying to force them into.
Of course, it's not always bad. This stuff happens in games all of the time, but you might be setting yourself up for failure if you rely on the PCs doing exactly what you expect them to.>>149800
Idk. I might have just wasted 15 minutes typing the post above if i've misinterpreted Anon's post.