Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3915813" data-attributes="member: 467">There's a big difference between &quot;ultimate authority&quot; and &quot;ultimate arbiter&quot;.&nbsp; With the latter, I agree with you.&nbsp; Part of the contract that is written when you sit down to play a game is that the DM will, to the best of his or her ability, arbitrate play in a fair and unbiased (whether in regards to his world, his NPCs, a particular PC, his adventure story, or what have you) fashion.But the DM isn't the &quot;ultimate authority&quot;.&nbsp; it is his table, but it is everyone's game.&nbsp; he has the right and the responsibility to design scenarios for the PCs, but how those scenarios are engaged and dealth with is the right and the responsibility of the players.&nbsp; Just as it is bad Play to throw off every adventure hook just to upset the DM's preparation, it is bad DMing to restrict the choices of the players in regards to the adventures he creates.In the context of the subject of this thread, it isn't that the DM designs or chooses &quot;quests&quot; that concerns me, or that those quests come with a &quot;story award&quot; associated with them, above and beyond the rewards gained during play.&nbsp; It is that the way the system is described by Mearls (very directly and with little ambiguation, I might add), those quest rewards are not dependent upon vague goal settings (&quot;There are evil spies in Hommlett; deal with them.&quot;) but very specific victory conditions (&quot;Bring them alive before the Archbishop.&quot;)And while I agree with Grog that his example is railroading, it is a rather extreme example and hardly the only way to railroad.&nbsp; The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading.&nbsp; It is different than putting landslides across every path but the &quot;right one&quot;, certainly, but only insofar as it is less subtle.&nbsp; Instead of saying &quot;You can't do this&quot; it says &quot;You can do this, but you aren't going to get bonus XP for it.&quot;All in all, I think the idea of providing beginning DM's with a guideline for how to award XP for achieving certain goals is a good one.&nbsp; However, if the final result looks anything like Mearls' explanation or is invested with his philosophy behind the design, what it will do is limit the one thing that is unique and wonderful about table top RPGs -- freedom for the players to do what they wish and go where they wish in the context of the agreed upon setting/campaign/adventure framework.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 3915813, member: 467"] There's a big difference between "ultimate authority" and "ultimate arbiter". With the latter, I agree with you. Part of the contract that is written when you sit down to play a game is that the DM will, to the best of his or her ability, arbitrate play in a fair and unbiased (whether in regards to his world, his NPCs, a particular PC, his adventure story, or what have you) fashion. But the DM isn't the "ultimate authority". it is his table, but it is everyone's game. he has the right and the responsibility to design scenarios for the PCs, but how those scenarios are engaged and dealth with is the right and the responsibility of the players. Just as it is bad Play to throw off every adventure hook just to upset the DM's preparation, it is bad DMing to restrict the choices of the players in regards to the adventures he creates. In the context of the subject of this thread, it isn't that the DM designs or chooses "quests" that concerns me, or that those quests come with a "story award" associated with them, above and beyond the rewards gained during play. It is that the way the system is described by Mearls (very directly and with little ambiguation, I might add), those quest rewards are not dependent upon vague goal settings ("There are evil spies in Hommlett; deal with them.") but very specific victory conditions ("Bring them alive before the Archbishop.") And while I agree with Grog that his example is railroading, it is a rather extreme example and hardly the only way to railroad. The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading. It is different than putting landslides across every path but the "right one", certainly, but only insofar as it is less subtle. Instead of saying "You can't do this" it says "You can do this, but you aren't going to get bonus XP for it." All in all, I think the idea of providing beginning DM's with a guideline for how to award XP for achieving certain goals is a good one. However, if the final result looks anything like Mearls' explanation or is invested with his philosophy behind the design, what it will do is limit the one thing that is unique and wonderful about table top RPGs -- freedom for the players to do what they wish and go where they wish in the context of the agreed upon setting/campaign/adventure framework. [/QUOTE]

Verification