Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

You like railroading and using DM fiat to negate player options, I don't. That's really all there is to it.

Railroading. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

edit: seriously, no-one is talking about railroading PCs or negating player options. Continually making the accusation is not conducive to a productive conversation. We are talking about the means by which various DMs decide the consequences for Character actions, and what level of game control should the players have. Railroading implies zero. Nobody has gone there.

 

[TwoSix]

Long story short, the idea of player-driven play, where the DM always says "yes," if possible seems like not much fun at all for me as a DM. I like DMing, in part because I like the world-building. The Chamberlain is either crazy before the PCs arrive or he is not crazy. A botched roll on the part of the PCs resulting in the Chamberlain being possessed is a foreign sorta concept to me, but seems exactly what I mean by saying the consequences come from within the mechanics (ie. a botched roll) instead of the story-line (a demon trying to take over the kingdom via driving the Chamberlain crazy).

Then yes, I agree you shouldn't waste your money on these type of games and should stick to the games you're accustomed to.

I think PCs are more awesome and interesting when they do awesome things and make interesting choices, not merely because the mechanics dictate they are awesome.

You found an [Old Chestnut]!

 

[Wicht]

Then yes, I agree you shouldn't waste your money on these type of games and should stick to the games you're accustomed to.

Well, I do buy games just to read them. I actually want to give Mouseguard a whirl, and I do not mind Toon, which has far more player control than Pathfinder; but it all depends on the experience I want. But as for my Dungeons and Dragons flavor, Pathfinder does fit that pretty well right now.

 

[ImperatorK]

Railroading. You keep using that word.

I call em like I see em.

edit: seriously, no-one is talking about railroading PCs or negating player options. Continually making the accusation is not conducive to a productive conversation.

Lets make a deal. I'll stop making my "accusations" when you do.

We are talking about the means by which various DMs decide the consequences for Character actions, and what level of game control should the players have.

Not allowing for player actions is railroading.

Railroading implies zero.

Not really. You (or at least Ahnehnois) imply zero.

Nobody has gone there.

If by nobody you mean Ahnehnois, then sure, nobody has gone there.

 

[Wicht]

I call em like I see em.

Lets make a deal. I'll stop making my "accusations" when you do.

Not allowing for player actions is railroading.

Not really. You (or at least Ahnehnois) imply zero.

If by nobody you mean Ahnehnois, then sure, nobody has gone there.

Alright, first of all, I have tried very hard not to accuse anyone of anything except failing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and making unwarranted assumptions about playstyles.

Railroading is traditionally defined as forcing the story to go along a predetermined track regardless of player choice.

The argument as to when player actions are viable is distinct from the discussion of rairoading, or should be. Nobody, not even Ahn, has argued that player choice is meaningless, or that PCs should never be allowed to do anything. This is what I mean about making unwarranted assumptions about play-styles. What we have argued is that there may be times when the game (either mechanically or story-wise) dictates that some player actions will be ineffectual.

 

[ImperatorK]

I call that railroading.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If by nobody you mean Ahnehnois, then sure, nobody has gone there.

Wherever it is, I didn't go there.

Not allowing for player actions is railroading.

Maybe. However, not allowing player actions is not railroading.

Nobody, not even Ahn, has argued that player choice is meaningless

Of course not. I'm simply arguing that a player's choices generally don't mean any more than the character's choices do. In some cases, this is a lot. In other cases, it isn't. In any case, the DM is in control.

 

[ImperatorK]

Wherever it is, I didn't go there.

So you didn't say that you wouldn't allow a player to use Diplomacy?

 

[Wicht]

I call that railroading.

I tend to call it an adventure.

With problems to be solved, enemies to be overcome, treasures to be won, and hard choices that have to be made.

A game full of easy choices does not appeal to me, and part of the job of the DM, imo, is to present meaningful choices over the course of a campaign.

Now, none of this is to say that a good railroad cannot be enjoyable. The one Convention adventure I have written and got the most praise for is pretty much a railroad where the players have the illusion of choice but there is really only one option open to them. But, the adventure is so much fun, and engrossing enough, that I have never had a single complaint about it and have had more than one player (total strangers) enthusiastically shake my hand for having written it. So railroads are not something I am necessarily dead-set against.

But most of my campaigns, while story driven (I have been using APs) very much allow the PCs to make decisions about how they want to approach the story, the sort of characters they want, and how they want to try and resolve story elements. They are not railroads. I know the difference and we are not talking about railroading, unless you want to drastically redefine the word.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I call that railroading.

This is the issue at hand, I think. The world railroading means absolutely nothing because 50 people will define it 50 different ways.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, railroading has become the boogieman of the RPG world. Everyone agrees it's bad. But what exactly it is? No one knows.

I've seen people say "You won't let me jump over that 100 foot pit. You're railroading me. You only put the pit there because you didn't want me to go that direction. You made it big enough so that I'd accept that I can't go that direction. You could have chosen NOT to put the pit there but you put it there so I'd do what you wanted me to. You are a bad DM. I'm supposed to be able to do whatever I want without restriction."

The problem is that a DM can't actually run a game if railroading is defined that narrowly.

I propose that we stop making railroading out to be a boogieman. Some of the best games I ever played were heavily railroaded but the players didn't care. Some of the worst games I've ever played had no railroading at all and ended up directionless and boring. Then again, I've had the reverse experience in both of those situations.

Let's say that railroading is just another tool in a DMs toolbox that can be good or bad depending on the execution.