Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8693360" data-attributes="member: 72555">Sure.&nbsp; Which is why I consider it part of the &quot;describe the world&quot; problem that DMs have.1. DM describes the world2. Players make choicesOne choice is &quot;I don't look at the clues and pick something random&quot;.&nbsp; But the DM should be providing some kind of clues asto what choices have what results.This is the game of dropping bread crumbs and hints, and the rule of 3 (if something clue isn't mentioned 3 times, it isn't a real clue).Once the rule of 3 is in play -- that the DM is responsible to hide 3 clues about meaningful choices, and let the players pick them up or not -- then this kind of invisible railroad won't work.Like the 10 room dungeon.&nbsp; The meaningful choices in the dungeon should have 3 clues describing what the choice means.&nbsp; Then when the players run into a choice, the DM is no longer &quot;allowed&quot; to nullify the choice, because the previous clues told the players information about the results of the choice.Even if the players don't work out the clues before making the choice, they could work it out afterwards.&nbsp; And those threads of clues to payoff in the world change what the world acts like in ways fundamentally incompatible with &quot;invisible railroads&quot;....On the other hand, the clues as yet ungiven can be changed based on player choices!&nbsp; For example, the DM might want there to be a Kobold dragon-cult, and might even have given clues it exists!&nbsp; But before giving a clue where it is, the location of the cult doesn't have to be determined.If the PCs follow a trail of clues to the tropics, or the arctic, maybe the cult retroactively follows them; in one case, it is a black dragon cult, in the other a white dragon cult.&nbsp; Or maybe it avoids them, and is in the other spot!This doesn't have to fully nullify the choice of arctic or tropics, so long as those choices where meaningful in another way, and the clues about them let the player make an informed decision.With no clues given where the cult is prior to the choice, the choice isn't about &quot;did I find the cult&quot;, but rather about the other clues.&nbsp; Still a bit dirty, because the players might honestly think they have a 50% chance to find the cult between the two choices, and in reality it is 0% or 100% (depending on DM's decision).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8693360, member: 72555"] Sure. Which is why I consider it part of the "describe the world" problem that DMs have. 1. DM describes the world 2. Players make choices One choice is "I don't look at the clues and pick something random". But the DM should be providing some kind of clues asto what choices have what results. This is the game of dropping bread crumbs and hints, and the rule of 3 (if something clue isn't mentioned 3 times, it isn't a real clue). Once the rule of 3 is in play -- that the DM is responsible to hide 3 clues about meaningful choices, and let the players pick them up or not -- then this kind of invisible railroad won't work. Like the 10 room dungeon. The meaningful choices in the dungeon should have 3 clues describing what the choice means. Then when the players run into a choice, the DM is no longer "allowed" to nullify the choice, because the previous clues [I]told the players[/I] information about the results of the choice. Even if the players don't work out the clues before making the choice, they could work it out afterwards. And those threads of clues to payoff in the world change what the world acts like in ways fundamentally incompatible with "invisible railroads". ... On the other hand, the clues as yet ungiven can be changed based on player choices! For example, the DM might want there to be a Kobold dragon-cult, and might even have given clues it exists! But before giving a clue [B]where [/B]it is, the location of the cult doesn't have to be determined. If the PCs follow a trail of clues to the tropics, or the arctic, maybe the cult retroactively follows them; in one case, it is a black dragon cult, in the other a white dragon cult. Or maybe it avoids them, and is in the other spot! This doesn't have to fully nullify the choice of arctic or tropics, so long as those choices where meaningful [b]in another way[/b], and the clues about them let the player make an informed decision. With no clues given where the cult is prior to the choice, the choice isn't about "did I find the cult", but rather about the other clues. Still a bit dirty, because the players might honestly think they have a 50% chance to find the cult between the two choices, and in reality it is 0% or 100% (depending on DM's decision). [/QUOTE]

Verification