Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7743096" data-attributes="member: 16814">Tony, you're being facetious.  I was very clear that player agency is the only thing players get to bring to the table.  They're one thing is choosing what their characters do and how they spend their character resources.  Abridging that, especially for the sole purpose of maintaining the DM's vision of what should happen instead of what the player wants to happen is clearly removing the one thing the players get to do.  The reason for doing it makes it clear that the only thing at stake here is the DM's ego, not any idea that the player will be happier being told what moves to make rather than getting to play their character.  It also breaks a number of the guidelines in the rules about the roles of the players vs the role of the DM. As for the history of the game, you, sir, should be embarrassed to even try to make that claim.  Again, how many threads are there about horrible railroad games?  Your argument defends those as good games that made D&D popular alongside the myth that the good DMs can do good with the same technique.  You've defending blatant bad gaming with your argument.  You're ignoring that with your rose colored glasses and claims of DM ubermensch that are what made D&D great.  Clearly, D&D survives in spite of railroading and bad DMs reading their campaigns to their tables, not because of it.</blockquote>