"He's beyond my healing ability..."

[Subtlepanic]

I think the famous last-words situation depends very much on the context. I'd be less likely to use it for "dying messager stumbles into town with an arrow in his back", and more likely to use it for "henchman dies during combat". In the latter case, the PCs already had the chance to save him, but failed. Now he's dead. But rather than go out suddenly, we have a cheesy movie moment where he sputters his last words to his friends. And cheesy movie moments are what my games are made of.

So I'm fine with saying "he's beyond healing". I also rule in my own games that the raise dead ritual is almost a myth. Certain clerics have these dusty scrolls hidden away in their temples, but they don't really expect them to work. Kings have the ritual cast over them almost as a tradition, but it rarely does anything. The heroes, however, have great destinies - and word of their resurrection spreads quickly. It won't work on their henchman though (and no, I won't charge them for trying).

 

[MrBeens]

This is how the DM in my regular 4e game runs it and it works perfectly well.

For all those saying "use a different system, one that supports this style of game" - D&D supports this style of game if the DM and players are on the same wavelength.

 

[Nagol]

This is how the DM in my regular 4e game runs it and it works perfectly well.

For all those saying "use a different system, one that supports this style of game" - D&D supports this style of game if the DM and players are on the same wavelength.

That's not the game supporting it -- it is an example of a group adopting it despite the rules. Perfectly cool if the group is OK with it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That's not the game supporting it -- it is an example of a group adopting it despite the rules. Perfectly cool if the group is OK with it.

The rules do not cover every single aspect of virtual life in the game world. Sometimes a DM (sometimes called a Judge) has to use his judgement to cover things that the rules do not. This is the "old school" feeling that I miss the most, the aspect of D&D that modern versions have lost. The DM does not have to "play fair" IMO, his job is to provide an intersting adventure. We do agree though that everyone needs to be on the same page, otherwise the players might not find what the DM is presenting interesting.

 

[Nagol]

The rules do not cover every single aspect of virtual life in the game world. Sometimes a DM (sometimes called a Judge) has to use his judgement to cover things that the rules do not. This is the "old school" feeling that I miss the most, the aspect of D&D that modern versions have lost. The DM does not have to "play fair" IMO, his job is to provide an intersting adventure. We do agree though that everyone needs to be on the same page, otherwise the players might not find what the DM is presenting interesting.

I agree with all that. It's just there are game systems that better support that trope and it should be recognised that while a game group can have any social contract that overwrites the ruleset that doesn't mean the ruleset is supporting that game play -- the social contract is.

 

[Umbran]

...Celebrim's Already Got a Lengthy Post on that Subject. If the word doesn't mean what I think it means, feel free to define it better.

I'm not a fan of defining personal lingo, I'm afraid. If you need a lengthy post to set up a personal definition, and folks have to read it in order to know what you're talking about, when to the rest of the world the exact same word means something rather different, I think that's bit of a communication failure on your part.

"Please see my previous writings to understand what I'm talking about," is okay for formal talks by authorities - which this isn't.

Secure in my abjurations, I now turn your retort back on you; that word you are using, I don't think it means what you think it means. A matter of degree leads to quantitative differences.

I this case, it means what I think it means. If I take a small amount of heat from water, I get a cup of cold water. If I take a lot, I get solid ice. A matter of degree (kind of literally) leads to difference in outright physical qualities, not just quantitative difference in temperature.

And neither are about good or bad, just about different. Quantitative differences are those that can be measured. Qualitative differences are those humans "feel" as different. You can have both at the same time - it is often difficult to produce a qualitative difference *without* a quantitative one.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But I'd widely regard as a railroad any DM action that by fiat causes the world to function in an inconsistent manner such that it removes the illusion of player choice. Having a single spell fail, that would otherwise work perfectly and as intended, in a minor instance so the DM can deny a player action to set up his pet dramatic scene? Yep, railroad.

Not all railroads are necessarily bad, particularly if short. I think it depends on how much you trust your DM. But as a DM I feel it is a slippery slope -- used too often, you can start to take away player choice in other areas...

There is another potential drawback from that same slope. If your players are invested in understanding how the world works, and then you change it, and they trust you--they will likely assume that there is some mysterious reason for the world working differently this time, and want to investigate.

One of the few times I ever came close to "players rebel" was when I set up a situation that obviously made no sense, but that I had a perfectly good reason for, and made it really difficult to determine that reason. It was meant to take a long time to unravel. It was meant to be a major campaign mystery, taking many sessions and clues to understand. I knew they'd want to know, because I didn't normally pull that kind of fiat on major things.

They got so frustrated they decided I had screwed up. We had to stop the game for a few minutes, and I had to flat out assert that there was an answer, and they could find it. Normally, we don't like to do that, because sometimes I'll misdirect them down the garden path, too.

Of course, this doesn't matter if your players aren't motivated by those kinds of things. Just a note that "trust" affects multiple playstyle issues, and isn't just about players having control. It has a real effect on what you can effectively do at time.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I agree with all that. It's just there are game systems that better support that trope and it should be recognised that while a game group can have any social contract that overwrites the ruleset that doesn't mean the ruleset is supporting that game play -- the social contract is.

Then again, IME, Game X may support trope X very well, but may not support tropes A through W well at all. Or it may support a particular trope, but otherwise be a game system the group finds unenjoyable. I'd rather work trope X into a game I like than try to find a system that supports it and meets all my other criteria for a good game.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not a fan of defining personal lingo, I'm afraid. If you need a lengthy post to set up a personal definition, and folks have to read it in order to know what you're talking about, when to the rest of the world the exact same word means something rather different, I think that's bit of a communication failure on your part.

I'm not offering a personal definition. I'm offering up a hopefully definitive Aristotilean definition of the sometimes loosely defined and used slang term 'railroading'. If you feel that I have failed to define it properly, then by all means critique my definition. I believe I am using the term in the proper way based on the lexicographic information I've observed at EnWorld and elsewhere. I have used an Aristotilean definition rather than a nice short Socratic one, because I've not yet hit on a nice short Socratic one that isn't misunderstood.

The 'rest of the world' for all I know consists of you, because I have no special knowledge of how you use the term or whether your usage is in wide agreement with the core ideas I've observed the term being employed to reference.

I believe that I have been understood when I used the term on this thread. The one poster I have been in a direct dialogue with offers up that I'm using the term more broadly than he's used to using it, but he doesn't seem to quibble with my general idea. I submit that I'm using the term more narrowly than I've seen some use it, and with good reason.

I submit that the main reason for the disagreement is that many posters in addition to using the term as I've defined use the term 'railroading' very loosely and in an overlapping way to pejoratively mean, 'sorts of DMing I don't like', much as the term 'power gaming' is also used as a slur of player behavior. In consider this use of the term as a blanket insult to be a hinderance to understanding, and while my definition incorporates the notion of 'railroading' as an activity where by the DM disempowers the players and recognizes the pejorative intent of the term, it is a definition which avoids subjective analysis of actual railroading.

In other words, some posters would not call Shrodinger's Map a railroad if they felt it was fun, and other's would call it a railroad if they didn't. But a subjective definition is in fact a personal definition. In previous discussions this has led to utter chaos, and different posters have tried to define virtually anything and everything as railroading, for example offering up the claim that any linear adventure is a railroad. This sort of definition is in fact a personal definition and is nearly useless. (As can be seen from the definition, a linear adventure is only a railroad if you can't get off, and specifically if the DM is employing certain tricks and techniques of DM force that prevent you from getting off.) You or someone else may in fact feel that any linear adventure is a railroad, but that is merely an attempt to use a pejorative to state something is badwrongfun because they don't like linearity. If 'railroad' merely means 'linear but you know in a bad way', then its a pointless term.

"Please see my previous writings to understand what I'm talking about," is okay for formal talks by authorities - which this isn't.

This may not be formal, but I'd like to think that when it comes to gaming topics, we are the authorities.

I this case, it means what I think it means. If I take a small amount of heat from water, I get a cup of cold water. If I take a lot, I get solid ice. A matter of degree (kind of literally) leads to difference in outright physical qualities, not just quantitative difference in temperature.

Which is precisely where you analogy breaks down because unlike the state change that occurs in water, there is no objective point where we could say 'this isn't railroading' and 'this isn't' based on the quanitity of something observed. Games don't actually under go some physical and measurable state change based on exceeding some absolute and objective point in a scale of 'railroading' where a little isn't and a lot is.

Moreover, you are still getting it wrong. Ice and water are qualitative differences that relate to quantitative differences, but they aren't intrinsic aspects of the quantitative measurement of temperature. The quanitity and the quality still measure and describe different things. For example, there are quantitative differences between red light and blue light. But being 'red' or being 'blue' is not a quantitative difference, but a qualitative difference based not on the wavelength of light but how the human brain processes and perceives light. 'Blueness' and 'redness' exist independently of their quanitative measurements. This or that frequency of light is a quantitative difference, but blueness is a quality distinct and independent from the measurement.

Quantitative differences are those that can be measured. Qualitative differences are those humans "feel" as different. You can have both at the same time - it is often difficult to produce a qualitative difference *without* a quantitative one.

Be as that may a matter of degree is not a qualitative difference. Ice is not ice because it is cold (see a vacuum for instance), but because matter undergoes a state change (consuming or releasing energy independent of that necessary to cool or heat the matter). Yes, there are quantitative differences in this case between the two qualities, but qualities they remain nonetheless.

Matter of degree is not measurable in the case of 'railroading'. What would you have me measure? Either it is qualitative or it is wholly subjective. If it is wholly subjective, what is the point? Hense, you are probably the one using a personal definition and not me. I reject that the term means only no more than what Umbran believes to be railroading.

 

[Janx]

The problem is, once you've done it once, it calls into question every ruling from then on. If you're willing to change the rules here to suit your specific outcome, then what other rules are subject to change? Is it truly a one time thing? How can the player be sure?

I'm not saying that this is the end of a game or something extreme like that, but, once a DM starts doing something like this, it's very damaging to the trust the players can put in the rules in the future.

This is the "slippery slope to eroding our personal freedoms and contaminating our precious bodily fluids" argument that Umbran seems to be asking folks to chill out.

It's just a bloody death scene.

If I want to try to setup a Last Words scene, I can. I shouldn't have to plot and plan how to cock-block everything the PCs could do to foil it.

Obviously, when the PC does the unthinkable and tries to heal the NPC, I have a conundrum. Let it wor, or not. And then I have to guage if not letting it work will cause me any further questions from the player or not. Some players wil go "oh, ok, must be hurt to bad, or some other problem" Others will dig and have to know WHY.

But the WHY is NOT something they have a direct right to know. I don't go figuring out where the orc got his weapons from that he used in the last encounter. I don't figure out where he learned his skills. If he has a special ability, I don't go figuring that out.

If there's a special environmental effect occuring in the area, I do not go backtrack exactly how within the rules of the game that an NPC could have caused it to happen (which might have required desiging new spells and items). It just does.

Asking WHY is the player trying to make you gamespeak your way to justify the exact reason the situation is as such. And sometimes, that information just isn't relevant or even appropriate for the player to know.


If the DM said the "healing had no effect, and he dies", what then? The DM can allow or block Speak with Dead or a Raise/Res spell. But can the PC really backtrack what technical reason the heal spell didn't work (like poison). Is Detect Poison going to work on a dead body? Is a PC really going to waste more resources on the dead guy, now that they got his last words?

Personally, when the PC says "I try to heal him", I'll probably be surprised (well now that this thread exists, maybe not). If I can't see a heal coming, I reckon I'm not going to see why having this guy NOT die would be such a problem. Here's some more info to help on your quest. Oh, you want him to come with, he's still to hurt... You heal him up to full, uh, OK, he wants to join you on your vengeance quest. Now the party has another sword, but at the cost of the resources they spent to bring him back and a split of the XP.

So, in a way, I don't see the problem, as it all takes care of itself. The game got easier for the party, but they paid for that ease in spent resources and XP if they go to the full logical conclusion.