Search results

I'd like to ask a question here. It may sound harsh, and I apologize for that in advance. Did you intend to completely ignore the point I was trying to make? Because that's what happened here. Instead of even remotely engaging with the point--namely, that there are in fact some times when even...

If one's personal perception of what feels plausible or realistic is what is doing the deciding, I don't understand how that differs from what I said. It just means GM Q tries to direct their feelings at properties X and Y, rather than properties A and B. And, I'll note, plenty of people have...

Okay! Time to dive in for real. I very much appreciate your patience here. Understood. I'll aim for listening to understand, rather than only listening to reply...and to be concise. Yes, that seems an amply fair summary. Thank you for the compliment (albeit not quoted here). Asymmetry...

That isn't what I've gotten from it. I have gotten repeatedly people telling me things of the loose, general form "well 'realism' tells me everything I need to know, so if you don't get anything out of it, sorry, but I won't tell you anything more than that." Like I've gotten that SEVERAL times...

I'm afraid my sleep meds are kicking in (it is extremely late but I need to sleep), so I cannot respond to this post right now. I just wanted to say, before any other response, this is an EXCELLENT response and is pretty much ideal, like this goes above and beyond what I was hoping for. So...

I must beg your forgiveness for being rather annoyed at your phrasing here, when you took me to task for saying literally exactly that only a few posts ago... As for the actual response to what you're saying here? No, unfortunately, there isn't GM advice discouraging people from doing this. In...

Because the bulk of it simply seemed to be in agreement with what I'd said all along: you do what you do because you feel like doing it, and you avoid what you avoid because you feel like avoiding it. In other words, there are no actual limits. If ever you felt like railroading in a game would...

I'm not the one claiming that the players have power so great it overwhelms anything the GM might do.

Because I was told they were constrained. By "realism" or "consistency" or various other things. Now, surprise surprise, folks are admitting what I already argued, thousands of posts ago, but which was utterly unacceptable then. They aren't limited. Like they literally flat-out aren't. It...

Sure. I don't believe pemerton claimed otherwise. But is that an aggressive assault by a foreign invader? Or is it in response to the hostility already present here, or at least that has been seen over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and.............

So, if I'm understanding correctly... Your answer to "what power does the player have when on an invisible railroad?"... Is "None, except to leave." Which is what I already said. So...why are we arguing about this point?

....all of which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not the conflict occurs. It could've happened anywhere. At the inn. On the trail. At dawn's first light. Good Lord, are we really trying to claim now that "See! See! The players ARE making meaningful choices! They have a CAMPFIRE!!!"...

Yes, because so many people simply refuse to discuss those principles in any way, shape, or form, other than in the most abstract and uninformative terms like "realism". I've gotten, I believe, two people to actually engage on that. And with at least one of those two, guess what, we made some...

And yet I've played quite a bit of D&D that...didn't work that way. That wasn't the GM authoring the entirety of the world and waiting to see which dominoes I tipped over. GMs who instead worked with me and other players, who made it an actual conversation, not a dictation.

I didn't say THAT GM was. I asked what power the player has WHEN ON an invisible railroad. The power that was described has already presumed there is no railroad, regardless of its visibility.

And yet nobody has actually given me one thing to indicate that the GM doesn't control those inputs and outputs. At this point, I have now had people tell me that in fact yes, the GM DOES control those things, and they're just agreeing not to control it in the wrong ways.

Isn't that circular? "Provided the GM never does anything wrong, the GM never does anything wrong."

Would it, really? Like seriously, would it? Because ships get blown off course all the time, and the destination could very easily be a place known for treacherous waters or the like. After all, all of that is within the DM's notes which can be rewritten if the players haven't encountered it...

As requested: Note, Kromanjon, I am not trying to re-litigate this with you. I am only quoting the post because Bedrockgames asked for the place where that was said.

And if the DM tells you, "What barmaid?", what would you say? You've been one of the folks quite ready to trash anything that you think looks like players "inventing" things in the world. Which means there's nothing in it unles you gave the sign-off first.