Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8156793" data-attributes="member: 6785785">How so? I don’t think the players having GM powers is necessary. I think that’s just one means toward agency. What does a “GM doing their job right” mean? I mean, if the rules don’t work to prevent railroading, and there are few or no GMing principles to guide a GM, then how do they know they’re doing things right? To the GM. They feel like they have a logical outcome to the GM. And if the players agree, then things are okay. I think this is largely how my experience with 5E has been. My players and I know each other well. But that doesn't mean that sometimes someone doesnmt disagree about what is a logical outcome. Or that there can’t be more than one logical outcome, which I think is the bigger deal. Most actions or events, prior to their resolution, would appear to allow for any number of outcomes.What then? If it’s “GM decides”, that’s a perfectly valid choice for play. It makes sense in the role of GM as referee to allow them to make judgment calls. I understand that decision.But it absolutely takes that agency from the players. Whatever logical outcome they had in mind, which may be equally or perhaps even more plausible, matters not. No it’s not trust. I agree that can be a part of it....and honestly I think trusting the other participants is a hugely important thing. But if we’re going to say that there’s one thing that can be done to end railroading, saying “don’t railroad” does nothing. If we were going to do one thing, I’d say changing the rules to make railroading less certain/expected/likely/possible would be the best thing. I think I may just have done that with the “fastest gun in the west/ smoothest talker in the west” post. I was typing that up as you posted this.I’m sure I can come up with more if you want another example.</blockquote>

Verification