Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

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

No, that's not what he said (as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong Ahnehnois).

The argument is that there may be situations, ie. scenes, (as opposed to whole games) where diplomacy is not a viable option and will not work.

 

[Wicht]

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

I'm with you. It is best used in small amounts, but it can make a good game.

Personally, I think a campaign somewhere in the middle between being a total railroad and being entirely open-ended, player driven typically turn out the best.

But to each their own.

 

[ImperatorK]

I tend to call it an adventure.

If it looks like a duck...

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

Never said it's always bad. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

I'll allow a player to determine what his character says.

What check is called for, what the parameters of that check are, and what the outcome is, I will determine, like any DM.

Ergo, not railroading.

 

[ImperatorK]

I'll allow a player to determine what his character says.

What check is called for, what the parameters of that check are, and what the outcome is, I will determine, like any DM.

Ergo, not railroading.

The player wants to use Diplomacy. You won't let him. Ergo, railroading.

 

[Wicht]

The player wants to use Diplomacy. You won't let him. Ergo, railroading.

That is, no offense, a foolish definition. If my players are in the desert, at the foot of a cliff, and one of them wants to use their swimming ability to climb the cliff, it is not railroading to say, no. If the PCs are in the middle of a struggle with a rabid wolf, and they want to use diplomacy, it is not railroading to say no. If a player is in a castle, and there is a chamberlain, for whatever reason, who is immune to diplomacy, then its not railroading to say, no. To change the definition of railroading to mean any of these is to render the word meaningless for conversation.

That is, you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The player wants to use Diplomacy. You won't let him. Ergo, railroading.

Denying something isn't railroading anymore than disallowing any action is.

"I want to teleport to the moon."
"You don't have that ability. You are a fighter with no magical powers. You can't teleport to the moon. Maybe if you found a wizard somewhere with that power and asked him to teleport you there you could do that."

"I want to use Diplomacy."
"You can't, he hates your guts and won't listen to anything you say no matter how its worded. You can tell me what you say and maybe, just maybe I'll considering it so moving and so compelling that it'll change his mind. But otherwise this is impossible."

 

[Ahnehnois]

The player wants to use Diplomacy. You won't let him.

I'll let him try. The decision as to whether the mechanics are engaged is not his, as we've clearly established throughout this thread.

Your position on the issue is remarkably ironic, given that several of us in this thread have attempted to diplomatically dissuade you of it, have presented persuasive arguments and ample evidence, and you refuse to listen.

Clearly we're being deprived of our "protagonism". I guess we're being railroaded.

 

[TwoSix]

Denying something isn't railroading anymore than disallowing any action is.

"I want to teleport to the moon."
"You don't have that ability. You are a fighter with no magical powers. You can't teleport to the moon. Maybe if you found a wizard somewhere with that power and asked him to teleport you there you could do that."

"I want to use Diplomacy."
"You can't, he hates your guts and won't listen to anything you say no matter how its worded. You can tell me what you say and maybe, just maybe I'll considering it so moving and so compelling that it'll change his mind. But otherwise this is impossible."

Honestly, I think this just proves my point that DM force technique is a useful game technique for situations of passive and/or bad players, players who prove incapable of creating interactions within the fiction. Player-driven games fail badly if the players are terrible; just as DM driven games fail if the DM is terrible.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Player-driven games fail badly if the players are terrible; just as DM driven games fail if the DM is terrible.

I think that's true, with two important caveats:

One, D&D is by default a DM-driven game, is written as such (with the possible exception of 4e), and is played as such.

Two, it's a lot easier to find one DM good enough to run a game than to find an entire group of players who are all good enough to run a game.