Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8399727" data-attributes="member: 29398">Possession, charm, domination, and similar effects are a generally accepted risk in most games; with the main out-clause being that they don't last forever.Railroading, if done quite infrequently and-or gently, can certainly make for a better game.&nbsp; I mean, a classic example is the transition from A-3 Slave Lords into A-4 Slavers' Dungeon - that transition simply can't happen without the party getting captured; and so the end of A-3 railroads the party into captivity.&nbsp; Fine.Problem is, there's far too many DMs out there (and I've been guilty at times as well) who simply overdo it.I agree.&nbsp; The problems arise when the DM wants to go one way and one or more players want to go another (a simple example being the players are biting a different adventure hook than what the DM has prepped); who takes precedence.&nbsp; My own take is that ideally the players' ideas should take precedence in these situations; but it's only a should, not a must.Given this, how can your players engage in any free-flowing in-character conversation during a combat?The problem there is that by the end of the session it might be too late to fix whatever's gone wrong without invalidating or needing to ret-con everything that came after the point of dispute.Far better IMO to sort it out then and there, even if sorting it out consists of no more than people having their say followed by the DM handing down a non-negotiable and precedent-setting ruling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8399727, member: 29398"] Possession, charm, domination, and similar effects are a generally accepted risk in most games; with the main out-clause being that they don't last forever. Railroading, if done quite infrequently and-or gently, can certainly make for a better game. I mean, a classic example is the transition from A-3 Slave Lords into A-4 Slavers' Dungeon - that transition simply can't happen without the party getting captured; and so the end of A-3 railroads the party into captivity. Fine. Problem is, there's far too many DMs out there (and I've been guilty at times as well) who simply overdo it. I agree. The problems arise when the DM wants to go one way and one or more players want to go another (a simple example being the players are biting a different adventure hook than what the DM has prepped); who takes precedence. My own take is that ideally the players' ideas should take precedence in these situations; but it's only a should, not a must. Given this, how can your players engage in any free-flowing in-character conversation during a combat? The problem there is that by the end of the session it might be too late to fix whatever's gone wrong without invalidating or needing to ret-con everything that came after the point of dispute. Far better IMO to sort it out then and there, even if sorting it out consists of no more than people having their say followed by the DM handing down a non-negotiable and precedent-setting ruling. [/QUOTE]

Verification