Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6703156" data-attributes="member: 4937">Probably not, but one more try, if only for the spectators.If the PC's get to Mount Fire because the DM thinks that getting to Mount Fire because it makes for the most interesting game, it is an objectively different process of play than if the PC's get to Mount Fire because Mount Fire is due north of their current position and the PC's successfully navigate due north, or if the PC's get to Mount Fire because they are going in a generally north direction and the results of their random navigation brings them to Mount Fire, or any number of other processes which are mechanical and not fiat.  The PC's doing something because the DM thinks it makes for the most interesting game is what railroading is. Yes, it may be true that having the PC's get to Mount Fire because the PC's declare that they are going generally North and Mount Fire is generally North but not perhaps straight and exactly North is the most artful thing the DM can do because it actually does make for the best game.  It may be true that railroading the players to the good stuff is more artful than leaving them to flail around in a rowboat never finding something fun to do.  But there is fundamentally a different process of play in choosing as a DM what happens based on what you feel would make for the best game, and choosing as a DM what happens based on a non-subjective process where you own feelings of what makes for the best game don't influence the outcome.It is not at all true that every choice a DM makes or that every process of play amounts to choosing what happens based on the DM's belief of what makes for the best game.  We can list all sorts of different ways to resolve what happens through travel that aren't setting the player's exact destination for them simply because they declare they are heading "generally north".   I could probably list a half-dozen different processes of play for handling moving across a map, many of which don't amount to the DM choosing anything except for the particular mechanical process of play designed to churn out a non-arbitrary non-subjective answer based on player input.  And were it true that every arbitration and every process of play was contingent on the DM's perception of what makes for the best game, then indeed that whole game would be on rails.It's ok for a DM to decide what would make for the best game and make that happen.  I'm validating that as oft times artful technique.  I'm declaring invalid the declaration of the Sand Box purists that that should never happen and all the DM's arbitration should be neutral and mechanical with no consideration of whether something makes for a good game.   I'm only advocating that even if you believe that is true, you should remain conscious of what your techniques are and their strengths and weaknesses.To be honest, I'd never considered "fuzzy points of the compass" instead of the more powerful "fuzzy location of mountain" when doing Schrodinger's Map, but clearly it accomplishes the same thing albeit I think with more possibility of player rebellion once they recognize that they declared North and you interpreted it as North by North-East for your own purposes.  As a practical matter, I'm worried that "fuzzy points of the compass" results in the player map and the GM map being objectively different, and I've known players that would go ballistic over that and demand a retcon.</blockquote>

Verification