DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Umbran]

No, a railroad is the situation where the PC takes what appears to be a reasonable action or reaction to the scenario and is foiled by GM fiat alone.

Well, fine. Let's use your definition.

Maybe you and I think of "fiat" differently. I don't think the GM imposing entirely plausible consequences for an action to be "fiat". The GM seems to have informed the player of the consequences beforehand, presumably because he felt they would be pretty obvious to the character. Sounds like an opportunity for the player to make an informed choice, to me. Is not informed choice the centerpiece of *non*-railroading play?

Kinda like, "Sure, you can attack that dragon, but you'll die, just so you know". Is killing a character who attacks a dragon they've been told is way too powerful to take on also "fiat"? I don't think so.

 

[The Shaman]

* If a character in my game does something particularly mind-numbingly stupid, a giant flaming haycart falls from the sky and crushes them. If it's REALLY stupid, there are oxen attached to the haycart.

Y'know, you could just have it drop near them if they're contemplating something stupid, as a warning from the gods.

Player 1: "Forget sneaking in! Let's just rush the gate!"

Referee: "FWOOOOOSH! BOOM!"

Player 1: "Another haycart?"

Player 2: "Seriously, you are just not cut out to play the warlord, dude."

 

[billd91]

Kinda like, "Sure, you can attack that dragon, but you'll die, just so you know". Is killing a character who attacks a dragon they've been told is way too powerful to take on also "fiat"? I don't think so.

Allowing them to get killed by the dragon isn't railroading. They had the choice to do what they wanted and it didn't turn out well. Preventing them from going to the dragon by either outright telling them or by GM fiat in the first place, that's the railroad.

In many instances, that form of railroad, pushing them away from things that will complicate the game in ways that may not be fun for everyone, is not a bad idea. There are times I'd consider it good game management. But not all the time. And I think it's still a form of railroading, particularly when attempting the action may be entirely reasonable in the views of the character (like in the OP case, a mercenary with a history of petty banditry facing a potential rape charge fleeing arrest).

 

[billd91]

Sounds like an opportunity for the player to make an informed choice, to me. Is not informed choice the centerpiece of *non*-railroading play?

On a separate topic from railroading: I'd say not necessarily. Choice may be the centerpiece of non-railroading play. I don't think it has to be well informed at all.

 

[The Shaman]

Yes you have to know your players and I am glad that I have mine because vanilla style games with no areas of gray bore the living daylights out of me.

But to each their own. Which is why I think it is a mistake to tell a DM on the boards that he shouldn't do something in his game just because you would not like it in yours.

Elf Witch, it's not often you and I agree, but in this we are in complete accord. Especially that last line.

 

[prosfilaes]

Kinda like, "Sure, you can attack that dragon, but you'll die, just so you know". Is killing a character who attacks a dragon they've been told is way too powerful to take on also "fiat"? I don't think so.

On the other hand, having an undefeatable dragon fly down to the PCs and start ordering them around is a railroad, and reminding the PC that attacking it is certain death is just highlighting the issue.

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe you and I think of "fiat" differently. I don't think the GM imposing entirely plausible consequences for an action to be "fiat". The GM seems to have informed the player of the consequences beforehand, presumably because he felt they would be pretty obvious to the character. Sounds like an opportunity for the player to make an informed choice, to me. Is not informed choice the centerpiece of *non*-railroading play?

I think you're missing the point. The player felt that reasonable choices were being denied to him "just because" and that there was really only one way out of the situation--follow the DM's tracks down the rails. It's all well and good for the GM to say after the fact that there were other things that could have been done (things that the player says are not in his character's nature and which probably therefore never occured to him to attempt), but it was a case where he felt that the GM was putting him over a barrel and denying him reasonable options.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough--whether another player, or you or I, or anyone else posting on this board would have felt railroaded is not the question at large and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. The player under discussion did. I believe conventional wisdom (and if not, certainly it's my opinion) is that it's the GM's responsibility to provide a game to the players that they enjoy, not one that ticks them off, makes them feel impotent, and denied choice of reasonable action. That's a subjective and individualized place. Sure, you can say at some point that PC entitlement has gone too far and is no longer cool, but I don't think this example sounds like anywhere near that line for most players.

Kinda llike, "Sure, you can attack that dragon, but you'll die, just so you know". Is killing a character who attacks a dragon they've been told is way too powerful to take on also "fiat"? I don't think so.

Apples and oranges. Is the dragon accosting the PC and telling him to put his weapons away and come with him to stand trial?

 

[Nellisir]

Kinda like, "Sure, you can attack that dragon, but you'll die, just so you know". Is killing a character who attacks a dragon they've been told is way too powerful to take on also "fiat"? I don't think so.

First of all, if the DM doesn't bother rolling any dice, then by definition it is "fiat".

Secondlly, you've got it backwards. The OP didn't give the player a chance to attempt the action, and he said if the action was successful, the character was out of the game. The character actually got penalized for -succeeding-! He killed the unkillable dragon, and as a reward, he got kicked out of the game.

 

[Nellisir]

Yes you have to know your players and I am glad that I have mine because vanilla style games with no areas of gray bore the living daylights out of me.

We're getting off topic, but what you call "vanilla" I call "heroic" & "high fantasy". As a general rule, I expect the PCs to not steal from the poor, take advantage of the helpless, or put the well-being of innocents behind their own. I want them to put it on the line, haul out the big guns, and kick ass or die to stop the monstrous horde and save the baby.

I do have my little quirks; I like to use obviously evil NPCs to convey necessary information and leave the characters confused about the NPC's goals & motivations (which seems appropriate when dealing with 700-year old archmages), but I keep the "trusted NPC is an evil stooge" betrayals to a minimum, because a little goes a long way. Burned once, good for me. Burned twice, and they'll never trust an NPC again. I use the fey a lot also, because characters tricked by the fey invariably blame themselves.

I am also completely unable to run city adventures, so certain circumstances just don't come up very often.

 

[Corathon]

its not railroading for actions to have consequences. I see nothing wrong in what you did.