Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5341541" data-attributes="member: 57112">Welcome to the fascinating world of RPGs.I've played many Wizards (well, Sorcerers and Beguilers, never much liked spell memorization) without Magic Missile. I've played several (and know people who've played characters) that have taken Magic Missile mainly because it seemed forced. The generally consensus from my anecdotal viewpoint was that a spell like Magic Missile was "Necessary but boring." I always had much more fun with spells like Silent Image and Major Creation, because they engaged my imagination, which is whole point in playing D&D over, say a board game or computer game.Hell, even given Magic Missile's "necessary" status, if you told me I was making a 3.x spellcaster and had to choose between Magic Missile or Grease, I can guarantee I'm picking Grease every day of the week and twice on Sunday.There is a mile of difference between the line you quoted and the kind of situations you've been describing. Obviously if you design a combat encounter you're anticipating the PCs will be fighting it. But that isn't anywhere close to saying that PCs "are supposed" or "must" fight it. That's called "railroading" which is not, has never been and one can hope never will be advocated in any DMG. There's a HUGE difference between a sandbox game and players solving your challenges in ways you never anticipated. And there's a HUGE difference between that and sequence breaking. If a group of players come up with a clever solution to a situation that a DM has designed, and that solution isn't the solution that DM intended, and the DM decides that the players' solution simply doesn't work just because it isn't the "right" solution, then that is TERRIBLE DMing by every virtually standard that exists, including, I'm willing to bet, every DMG ever printed. Well, DMG's are usually more tactful then this... but suffice to say I'm fairly certain every DMG strongly discourages such behavior.But you're right about one thing; we've strayed quite a ways from the original topic here, though I wouldn't go so far as to say we've gone completely off topic. And no, I won't be creating a another thread on the subject or likely participating in it should such a thread be created. I'm fairly certain the discussion has been exhausted, and I certainly don't know what more I'd have to add.The mindset that considers "railroading" to be a virtue and "open-endedness" as a vice is simply one that is so antithetical to what I hold to be the core of tabletop roleplaying that I cannot at all comprehend it. I can't even think of a value-free term for the concept "railroading" encompasses, because the idea of praising or even defending such a concept is so abhorrent to me. When I have to go over my post and edit it to include more third-person hypothetical and fewer instances of the word "you" so as to not appear that I'm making any direct personal attacks (apart from the usual levels of snark required to pass off as "wit" on the internet, which I also hope you understand I mean no offense), that's when I'm done with a discussion.I can usually see both sides to an argument (at least eventually), and try to hash out a middle ground from there, but on this I cannot. If this is the way that you and friends play the game and you all enjoy playing it that way, then I certainly must applaud you. But it bears such little resemblance to the game I play that I can't imagine a middle ground existing.</blockquote>

Verification