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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5499621" data-attributes="member: 2011">Precisely. But, technique and degree is the important point here.Some DMs feel comfortable blurting out "it's heavily guarded" and the players react to that before the PCs even go find out if it is guarded or not. And, some DMs feel comfortable waiting until the PCs go there and then they tell them that the PCs see that it is heavily guarded.In both cases, the DM influences the group. So, it is a style issue.But, there is a difference. The perception of the players for the DM that just blurts it out is "Oh, the DM doesn't want us to go there, let's not do it." It feels like mild railroading. It feels like the players do not have a choice, even if they decide to ignore the DM's "hint".The perception of the players for the DM who lets them find it out for themselves is "Oh, there are guards. Hmmmm. This might be trickier than we thought. We might not want to go in here." It flows a lot better. It feels like the players have more of a choice.In the first case, the DM is shouting with an exclamation point DON"T GO THERE! Why? Because he emphasized the point out of context of an "in character" description. He just blurted it out.In the second case, the DM is still influencing the group in the exact same way with the same goal in mind, but he's not shouting. He emphasized the point in the context of "in character" as part of a normal description of what the PCs see.Similar amount of player decision influencing. Different feel. In the second case, I might look at it as a challenge as a player. The DM is trying to challenge us here. How can we solve this? In the first case, I'm pretty much reading the DM as saying "don't go do that" and I'd feel like the other players will view me as disruptive if I tried to influence the group to ignore the DM.DMs really do have this much power, hence, the reason to use it via the "soft voice" instead of the "big stick".And it's a simple thing to do. Speak up via NPC conversations, environment descriptions, reminding players of information that they have already learned, and adding knowledge information due to the skills of the PCs. But, don't just go blurting our your ideas on how their plan could be better or giving them information that the PCs have not yet acquired (like the building is guarded). Be part of the background, not intrusive, when the players are making decisions.The difference between "nudging" via just blurting out an opinion or idea, and "nudging" via describing the scene or via interacting with the NPCs is miles apart.Which is why the DM should keep his mouth shut when the players are discussing ideas or plans and let the players come to their own conclusions without pushing their plans into the direction that the DM wants. Let the players come upon the building with the guards. They now have a choice. Give up, or modify to their plans. Again, their choice.They really don't have a choice when the DM intercedes during their planning.And note: this is not to say that the DM shouldn't remind the players of information that they already know, but may have forgotten. It's not keep your mouth shut about everything. And if he does remind them, he is influencing them. But the DM has a better idea of the entire campaign and much of what has gone on within it before, so he will remember things that players will forget. He should, where appropriate, remind players of information that they have already acquired. But, that's different than shutting down an idea or suggesting a new idea or adding new information that the PCs have not yet acquired.It's not directly nudging, it's indirectly nudging where indirect might not even be picked up on as intended and can more easily be ignored (or not even noticed in the first place) if that's what the players want to do.</blockquote>

Verification