Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8719143" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>We're starting to get on the same page. So I am not suggesting your way of playing is wrong. (At least not yet. I reserve the right to do so once I figure everything out.) I haven't even figured out exactly what your process of play is, and that process of play is only likely to be wrong if it doesn't actually fit the aesthetics of play of your players. For example, you're strongly trending with your description toward a process of play that doesn't prioritize Challenge as an aesthetic of play at all (even more suggested by the fact you describe yourself as Lenient), and that's fine - unless you have players that would really enjoy Challenge more often and your table style is denying them that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what do you mean by that? For example, if the player says, "I have a grappling hook. Can I throw that to the top of the wall and use the rope to gain some advantage?", do you respond, "No. I don't care how much detail you give. I only care how well your character can climb."? Because I'd guess what you actually mean is only, "I don't care how well you the player know how to climb, and I'm not going to give your character an advantage in climbing if you do."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's another form of railroading. You are rejecting player propositions if you don't think that they are good propositions. Rejecting propositions is a form of taking away player agency. You may well have good reasons for doing that such as keeping the game going, but that is railroading.</p><p></p><p>As for the answer to your question, because the ivy could be poisonous, the tree could be carnivorous, and the carved stone wall with its projections could be hiding traps. But you, by answering, "Wait what, why?" have just given me a huge amount of information about the scene out of character that I will now use to metagame.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So in absence of specificity, you are deciding for the player what they do? Again, taking abstract propositions and making them concrete using knowledge the character couldn't have is another form of railroading. You decided which wall the player climbed on their behalf rather than asking the player for some more specific proposition so that you wouldn't have to decide that as a GM (thereby playing their character for them). Again, I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, I just want you to be aware of what you are doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No the fact that flanking can't give advantage in your game is really interesting. Like that is not only a process of play, but a house you seem to have adopted to reduce the role of player skill in the game. I think it really interesting that the only choice you seem to be happy with granting an advantage is a Move (aid other). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, railroading. I don't mean that pejoratively. I mean that as an exacting description of what you are doing. See my essay for times when railroading is a good process of play, and I leave it up to the GM to decide how much they want to lean into those techniques.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this is the statement you made that I think indicates we are starting to meet in the middle. As long as you are talking about quantities of character versus player skill, that's a valid discussion. As soon as you start saying you perfectly 100% want to take player skill out of the game, it's at that point you are stating an impossibility. But if you only mean, "I want player skill to matter as little as is practical", then I understand you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And again, if you are quarreling with the player proposition for reasons of outcome, it's a form of railroading. I'm mostly interested at this point in whether you know you are railroading and accept that as a valid play style because you enjoy the benefits of it more than you enjoy the lost aesthetics of play implied by that</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is fine, and I cite this of an example where railroading a player can be justified. But the truth is, it's very hard to separate "This is what your character would know" from telling the player what to do. At some point the player is going to start metagaming you as a GM hard having learned you have that quirk, looking for the thing you are giving approval for. Or to put it another way, they'll start trying to figure out what you think will work based on all the out game information you are leaking to them the player, and they'll just do that. After all, if there are rails, the best move is often to just sit back and enjoy the ride.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8719143, member: 4937"] We're starting to get on the same page. So I am not suggesting your way of playing is wrong. (At least not yet. I reserve the right to do so once I figure everything out.) I haven't even figured out exactly what your process of play is, and that process of play is only likely to be wrong if it doesn't actually fit the aesthetics of play of your players. For example, you're strongly trending with your description toward a process of play that doesn't prioritize Challenge as an aesthetic of play at all (even more suggested by the fact you describe yourself as Lenient), and that's fine - unless you have players that would really enjoy Challenge more often and your table style is denying them that. So what do you mean by that? For example, if the player says, "I have a grappling hook. Can I throw that to the top of the wall and use the rope to gain some advantage?", do you respond, "No. I don't care how much detail you give. I only care how well your character can climb."? Because I'd guess what you actually mean is only, "I don't care how well you the player know how to climb, and I'm not going to give your character an advantage in climbing if you do." That's another form of railroading. You are rejecting player propositions if you don't think that they are good propositions. Rejecting propositions is a form of taking away player agency. You may well have good reasons for doing that such as keeping the game going, but that is railroading. As for the answer to your question, because the ivy could be poisonous, the tree could be carnivorous, and the carved stone wall with its projections could be hiding traps. But you, by answering, "Wait what, why?" have just given me a huge amount of information about the scene out of character that I will now use to metagame. So in absence of specificity, you are deciding for the player what they do? Again, taking abstract propositions and making them concrete using knowledge the character couldn't have is another form of railroading. You decided which wall the player climbed on their behalf rather than asking the player for some more specific proposition so that you wouldn't have to decide that as a GM (thereby playing their character for them). Again, I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, I just want you to be aware of what you are doing. No the fact that flanking can't give advantage in your game is really interesting. Like that is not only a process of play, but a house you seem to have adopted to reduce the role of player skill in the game. I think it really interesting that the only choice you seem to be happy with granting an advantage is a Move (aid other). Again, railroading. I don't mean that pejoratively. I mean that as an exacting description of what you are doing. See my essay for times when railroading is a good process of play, and I leave it up to the GM to decide how much they want to lean into those techniques. And this is the statement you made that I think indicates we are starting to meet in the middle. As long as you are talking about quantities of character versus player skill, that's a valid discussion. As soon as you start saying you perfectly 100% want to take player skill out of the game, it's at that point you are stating an impossibility. But if you only mean, "I want player skill to matter as little as is practical", then I understand you. And again, if you are quarreling with the player proposition for reasons of outcome, it's a form of railroading. I'm mostly interested at this point in whether you know you are railroading and accept that as a valid play style because you enjoy the benefits of it more than you enjoy the lost aesthetics of play implied by that Which is fine, and I cite this of an example where railroading a player can be justified. But the truth is, it's very hard to separate "This is what your character would know" from telling the player what to do. At some point the player is going to start metagaming you as a GM hard having learned you have that quirk, looking for the thing you are giving approval for. Or to put it another way, they'll start trying to figure out what you think will work based on all the out game information you are leaking to them the player, and they'll just do that. After all, if there are rails, the best move is often to just sit back and enjoy the ride. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top