Well yes, when the DM blocks player action so that play only goes the way the DM wants rather than the way the players want, that's railroading.
DMs block player action all the time--it is part of their job, to create challenges for the players. Failure is part of the game.
Preferably, there were have been some mechanics involved here. A roll of some sort to interrogate, a Saving Throw by the kobold to resist, or even just a comparison between Hit Dice and Level or similar.
But if the DM is not going to use mechanics... if they're just going to decide the outcome... yes, I think it's preferable that they go with what the players are trying to do instead of block them for some reason.
Not sure how you can't see a difference here.
Have you read any of my posts in this thread? I feel like you are jumping mid-way into the discussion...
I've already said (for like the tenth time or so...)
that if the DM did not use a game system to determine whether or not the kobold gave in to the interrogation, it is railroading. AD&D has morale checks and reaction rolls for a reason and this is one case were they should have been used.
The problem comes more when after giving in to the interrogation, the kobold has nothing useful to tell the PCs. THAT is entirely a DM call. You asked:
And how is what the kobold knows determined?
My reply was the DM decides. They can do it due to world-building considerations, random roll, or whatever. There is no game system to determine what a captive actually knows... that is the DM's call to determine, in whatever manner they wish.
Yet your response to this was bringing up game mechanics for giving in to interrogation--different things.
So, I know there are a lot of posts here, but really, I am getting tired of repeating myself.
It's crappy because it's a kobold. The typical kobold is... in my imagination... isn't (a) tough enough to really withstand an interrogation, (b) loyal enough not to try and save its own skin, or (c) stupid enough not to know something useful that the characters are asking about.
Well, that is your imagination then I guess?
In AD&D kobolds are average (low) intelligence and lawful evil alignment. Tough could be check via morale rules, easily enough. Loyal? DM call. They are lawful evil. A reaction roll might work, however, to cover this, if the kobold is favorable to the PCs and will flip on their own. Stupid? average to low intelligence covers a range of 5-10, so they might be pretty dumb. Of course, they might just be a lowly foot soldier in the masses who does what its told and doesn't ask questions--sort of like the strong ruling the weak in their society.
IIRC, the kobold was played by the DM as non-sensical. So, not claiming to just "not know", but basically talking nonsense. There are a number of reasons why a DM might have a captive act in this fashion. I've gone over it before, not doing it again.
It's clearly a case of the DM just not wanting to give the players intel. And to me, that's a crappy DM. I tend to provide an abundance of information, and I kind of expect that when I play, as well. I want to see what players do with the information. I don't want to hoard it and make them work endlessly for a drizzle of info so that the game goes exactly the way I foresee it.
Well, crappy to you then. Not crappy to me. Glad we covered that.
It isn't clearly a case of anything. You weren't there, I wasn't there, and the only person who was only knows their side of the situation. They don't know what the DM was or wasn't thinking, nor do they truly know what the other players were thinking. Some of those players might have just gone along with a primary "leader" of their side of it.
I'm not talking about determining everything with a random roll. I'm talking about involving the mechanics somewhere... anywhere... in the process.
When all the factors of a given situation are decided solely by DM whim, then the DM is controlling the game, not facilitating the game.
True. But we don't know that is the case here. If it was (I wasn't there) then I would agree there are systems for a reason. However, not using them doesn't make a DM bad. Not using them
AND not informing the players they aren't using them... well, that's a different story.
Sure, if some kind of rules were used to determine the outcome of the interrogation, then I don't think you'd see the complaints about it.
I think we still would, because even if the DM used a system, the DM also getting to decide what level of knowledge the captive has is still an issue... why, I have no idea... but it is.
If I try and use Intimidate to interrogate a prisoner, and I roll poorly, I accept that I don't get any information, or that the information I get is nearly useless. That's perfectly fine!
If you roll poorly you get nothing at all. Not just no information, but not even the useless kind.
You seem to think that the morale check to withstand the interrogation should serve two purposes:
1) determine it the kobold talks
2) determine what the kobold has to tell
I see those as two separate things, the second being in the hands of the DM to decide. I don't consider that railroading.
Now, if the DM just decides "the kobold isn't talking" or "
I'll have him talk but give them false intel" without using the morale system or something akin to it, that is railroading. Of course, it is also
railroading if the DM just decides without using the system to have the kobold spill everything. It's just in the second case, it favors the PCs so it is ok and makes sense.
The key difference is the absence of mechanics here. It's not about players just expecting everything to go their way... it's about the fact that a game is being played, and they should have the ability to steer the outcome of the game.
They do, to a point. They captured the kobold (yeh!), they made him talk (yeh!), they got nothing useful (aww...).
What they get, what information the kobold knows, is not in their ability to steer. It belongs to the DM.
In the example, he did not. That's the entire point.
We don't know that. I'm still waiting for a response on it. I've already conceded if he didn't use one, that's bad, unless the players know he doesn't, in which case its fine. In this case, odds are they didn't know. But they also don't know if he rolled anything or not--so far that is unclear.
That's all that anyone is saying. So it seems you actually agree?
Sure, I've said so in several posts now. My point is if that was the case, it was omitted in the initial summary of the scene, which focused more on what the kobold knew given the post's reference to the players' knowledge of the MM then and the range of kobold intelligence.
This is also railroading, no? I mean... "it's the encounter!" is a pretty thin justification for the DM to make something happen.
If the DM introduces a chance to escape from a fight, then I would expect as a player that such a chance may work.
DMs "make things happen" all the time, it sort of goes with the job IMO.
In my second option, the point was escape wasn't plausible before the fight ensued. If escape or avoidance is presented as an option, then yes there should be some chance of that happening.
No... eschewing all mechanics in favor of the DM determining all variables is crappy DMing.
Hard disagree. Happy and can we drop this point? DMs IME (like, forever...) have always determined things for a scene, but those determinations
are not mechanics, so I'm good with that.
I'd likely not have every street mapped out, so I'd likely establish these details on the fly.
And for me that means this was never a planned encounter or challenge. Even on the fly I will draw a quick map to give players reference--they like that.
I'd present choices that may be relevant to the players and their characters, and provide them details to choose their path.
So let's say the alley was one thing... I'd maybe also provide a gutter that could be used to climb to the rooftops. And perhaps a gathering crowd into which they could try and slip. I'd present the risks of each along with their description. "The door in the alley is likely to be locked in this part of the city... can you pick it before your pursuers reach you?" and "The gutter looks somewhat rickety, but should support your weight. Can each of you climb quickly enough to get up there before the pursuers catch up?" and "The crowd is pretty large, but mostly made up of commoners... simple folk in simple dress. Can you blend in somehow, or will your weapons and armor give you away?"
Something like that. Offer choices, let the players choose. Allow each of these options a chance to succeed.
Great, but do you understand all those different options are just different "allies"? Presenting them with more options doesn't change the fact that they have to choose ONE of your prescribed options.
Anyway, that wasn't what we were presented with in this situation. There are all sorts of ways this encounter/challenge could play out, but again it comes down to what is the intent of it?
Challenge A) players are spotted, can you escape before a fight happens!?
Challenge B) the killers have you cornered in an alley way. there is a door, but it's locked. can you get through the door to escape or will you have to fight it out tooth and nail with the killers?
Otherwise, there's no point in the chase. If you want the fight to happen, just make it happen before the chase. Still seems like railroading to me, but at least it saves some table time and some potential frustration.
If the challenge is the chase, sure. If the challenge is the fight, you set it up that way. In the original post of it, this just seemed like the DM setting up the scene for a fight. Not railroading at all to me, that is just the encounter.
I wouldn't do this. This is railroading.
Scene setting for an encounter, not railroading. How will the players handle the fight is the challenge. With they manage to get through the door? Will they be captured? Will they triumph? These possibilities and many others are why this scene was established--and what the PCs do in it is their agency in the game. No railroading IMO.
No, I wouldn't offer only one choice, and I'd also likely involve mechanics of some sort. There might be a DC to pick the lock or break the door. I may even just make a fortune roll to see if it's even locked to begin with.
Having only one option is a pretty clear indicator of a railroad, no?
Well, I assumed a roll to pick the lock or a roll to break it down if the players choose that. I don't think the original scene said those were never options. Again... (sorry, this is really annoying repeating myself) as I said upthread if the DM pulled 1) the DC is 100, good luck picking it or breaking through; 2) it is admantine has AC 50 and 10000 hp, good luck destroying it; and so on. THOSE are sort of bad DM moves to make the tooth and nail fight happen or the PCs surrender if things go badly UNLESS the intent of the scene is for the PCs to be captured and moved to the next part of the adventure; however, that being the case, yeah, no door as it's dumb to have it as set dressing.
Now, you have normal DCs for checks, AC and HP for the door, etc. and the PCs fail in those avenues... oh well.
I'd set this based on the circumstances, and would let the players know. "You have three rounds until they're on you" or what have you.
Right, which is what every other DM does IME. Make it random (you have d4+1 rounds for example), just say it (you think you'll have maybe three rounds), or tell thems the distance (they are 150 feet away and closing fast!) and let the normal movement rules play out.
That’s because you’re failing to realize that the criticism is about the lack of mechanics, and the difference between blocking player actions and allowing them to succeed and how that impacts player agency.
No, that wasn't it at all. I've never failed to realize blocking mechanics is an issue. It was never the issue to begin with. What information the kobold conveyed (or failed to in this case) was the issue.
In other cases it is an issue of what is the intent of the scene.
Is it? In each of these points you made below I quickly and easily countered with one that "makes sense".
A kobold having information about its recent actions and the number of companions it has… makes sense. A kobold having INT 5 and not knowing anything and just doing what it was told... makes sense.
An unlocked door… makes sense. Or even a locked door that can potentially be picked BEFORE the pursuers catch up… makes sense. Or a locked door the can be picked, broken, or destroyed to enable escpae during a fight with the pursuers.... makes sense.
A stolen relic turning out to be authentic… makes sense. A fake relic being left in its place because the real, valubable one is hidden elsewhere and a challenge for the players do discover a) who has it and why leave the fake, b) did the people who have the fake know its a fake, and c) where is the real one... makes sense.
