Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2747875" data-attributes="member: 18280">Your defintion of railroading is &quot;not allowing the players to make choices (or not allowing their characters to succeed when they make those choices) which will not fit your preconception of where events will unfold.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; My definition of railroading is &quot;the DM taking decision-making power away from the players. To me, removing the results of decision-making is the same as removing the ability to make decisions. It doesn't matter whether those results are good or bad.&quot;Both of us agree that railroading is (1) not allowing the players to make choices, and (2) not allowing a result that does not fit the DM's preconception of where events will unfold.&nbsp; Our sole difference in definition, so far as I can see, is that when I say &quot;DM's preconception of where events will unfold&quot; I mean that the DM can preconceive both of PC failure and PC success, whereas you seem to view predetermined success as somehow less or a preconception than predetermined failure.&nbsp; And here, as you say, is where we differ greatly. For example, when we look at the player deciding to try something hazardous, you say &quot;he is not choosing this action or making this decision in order to fail. he is making this decision in order to try and succeed.&quot;&nbsp; I say, he is trying to succeed, but is aware of a possibility of failure.&nbsp; Yes, success is his hope.&nbsp; Success is not his choice, though. Trying is his choice.On that note, saying &quot;The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact&quot; as a house rule doesn't make it a &quot;dirty little secret&quot;.&nbsp; If anything, it is the antithesis.&nbsp; It empowers players to make choices based upon the actual rules they are playing under.&nbsp; You yourself claim that you are upfront with your players about this, so you should understand exactly why this is important.&nbsp; Moreover, pointing out that this is a valid house rule can (hopefully) get the discussion past the &quot;Cheater, cheater!&quot; stage and into what the actual purpose and effect of either fudging or not fudging are in the context of the game.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2747875, member: 18280"] Your defintion of railroading is "not allowing the players to make choices (or not allowing their characters to succeed when they make those choices) which will not fit your preconception of where events will unfold." My definition of railroading is "the DM taking decision-making power away from the players. To me, removing the results of decision-making is the same as removing the ability to make decisions. It doesn't matter whether those results are good or bad." Both of us agree that railroading is (1) not allowing the players to make choices, and (2) not allowing a result that does not fit the DM's preconception of where events will unfold. Our sole difference in definition, so far as I can see, is that when I say "DM's preconception of where events will unfold" I mean that the DM can preconceive both of PC failure and PC success, whereas you seem to view predetermined success as somehow less or a preconception than predetermined failure. And here, as you say, is where we differ greatly. For example, when we look at the player deciding to try something hazardous, you say "he is not choosing this action or making this decision in order to fail. he is making this decision in order to try and succeed." I say, he is trying [I]to[/I] succeed, but is aware of a possibility of failure. Yes, success is his hope. Success is not his choice, though. [I] Trying[/I] is his choice. On that note, saying "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" as a house rule doesn't make it a "dirty little secret". If anything, it is the antithesis. It empowers players to make choices based upon the actual rules they are playing under. You yourself claim that you are upfront with your players about this, so you should understand exactly why this is important. Moreover, pointing out that this is a valid house rule can (hopefully) get the discussion past the "Cheater, cheater!" stage and into [I]what the actual purpose and effect[/I] of either fudging or not fudging are in the context of the game. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification