Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg Benage" data-source="post: 6629449" data-attributes="member: 93631">Absolutely. To be clear, I have no issue with the DM deciding that the shark breaks off its attack if Lack-Toes manages to reach Rosemary. I only struggle with the DM's choice to disclose the shark's reaction to the player ahead of time.Two points. First, I said &quot;railroad-y&quot; rather than &quot;railroading.&quot; I don't think your resolution style is railroading. I think it has a railroad-y quality because the narration potentially closes off player decisions and character actions. Second, I believe we disagree that coercion is required for railroading, but it's probably just semantics. I think the absence of meaningful choice is sufficient for railroading; you might call that &quot;coercion.&quot; I don't know. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when he reaches Rosemary before the shark, because you've already told him. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when the snake-men catch up to him, because you've already told him. Whether this counts as &quot;coercion&quot; or not, or whether it is &quot;railroad-y&quot; or actual &quot;railroading&quot; isn't particularly important to me.But I'd also say that if the players agree these decisions aren't important or meaningful, or that the outcomes you've described ahead of time are desirable, there's nothing objectionable to the &quot;railroad-y&quot; (or just &quot;narrative&quot; or whatever) task resolution for the players at the table. For that matter, I'm not a zealot on these matters. I expect I'd enjoy one of your games. However, my constant &quot;negotiation&quot; to constrain the stakes to the actual action I've declared and reign in the &quot;storytelling&quot; would likely become tiresome to you and your players rather quickly!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg Benage, post: 6629449, member: 93631"] Absolutely. To be clear, I have no issue with the DM deciding that the shark breaks off its attack if Lack-Toes manages to reach Rosemary. I only struggle with the DM's choice to disclose the shark's reaction to the player ahead of time. Two points. First, I said "railroad-y" rather than "railroading." I don't think your resolution style is railroading. I think it has a railroad-y quality because the narration potentially closes off player decisions and character actions. Second, I believe we disagree that coercion is required for railroading, but it's probably just semantics. I think the absence of meaningful choice is sufficient for railroading; you might call that "coercion." I don't know. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when he reaches Rosemary before the shark, because you've already told him. I do know that the player doesn't get to decide what he does when the snake-men catch up to him, because you've already told him. Whether this counts as "coercion" or not, or whether it is "railroad-y" or actual "railroading" isn't particularly important to me. But I'd also say that if the players agree these decisions aren't important or meaningful, or that the outcomes you've described ahead of time are desirable, there's nothing objectionable to the "railroad-y" (or just "narrative" or whatever) task resolution for the players at the table. For that matter, I'm not a zealot on these matters. I expect I'd enjoy one of your games. However, my constant "negotiation" to constrain the stakes to the actual action I've declared and reign in the "storytelling" would likely become tiresome to you and your players rather quickly! [/QUOTE]

Verification