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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7055173" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't disagree with any of this. However, I think that DM fiat can be used to offer player's meaningful choices. I feel like much of the discussion revolves around the idea that DM Fiat can only be railroading, which is what I disagree with. One instance of such, even several, doesn't mean that a game must be a railroad. As you say, sometime she a check is needed, other time she it is not. I used those terms in order to make sure I understood what you were saying. Now that it is clear, I understand what you are going for. I have no problem with allowing player authorship in this manner.Didnt you say that when the player asked about a vessel with which to catch the spilling blood, that you were not sure what they were up to, and so you asked for a skill check rather than simply deciding by DM Fiat? I would think from the circumstances that you've described that the PC's intention would have been at least partially clear. A DM who said no because he wanted things to continue as is, yes that can be seen as railroading. But what about the DM who simply said yes? There is a vessel to catch the blood. That's not railroading, right? The DM is actively allowing this alternate path that the player introduced to continue. Well you said the chance of failure was about 1%...so I think dispensing with the dice in such a case makes sense. There is as little drama as possible when the chance to fail is 1%. So given that, I don't really see your approach as much different than what can be accomplished by DM Fiat. I think the question really comes down to the DM. Whichever approach they use, they can promote choice or limit choice. I mentioned it because perhaps the result of the roll would help shape the options of failing forward. So if it was close to the DC, perhaps an alternative that would not be that hard to achieve, or if it was far from the DC, then a more difficult option. Perhaps it is my interpretation, but you seem to view DM Fiat as railroading. Which I disagree with, in general. It can be railroading, but I do not think it must be. I think that it is the same as DM Judgment, just a higher degree. I don't see this dichotomy. What is dead end narration? Must DM Fiat decisions always be considered such?And this is where I feel you're creating a connection between dead end narration and DM Fiat that need not exist. Your assumption is that the DM would say no simply to remove the player getting what he wants rather than saying yes and actively giving the player what he wants. This is why I'm confused. No, it's not that. Remove the failure from the situation. In the example you gave, I don't see a meaningful difference between the DM using his judgment to determine a DC for a skill check and using his judgment to decide simply yes or no in regard to the vessel. As I said, I suppose we could say that one approach is more susceptible to railroading than the other, but neither is immune. The DM can force a railroad through fiat or he can do it through more subtle methods. So in the case of the DM deciding by fiat that there was no vessel, that could be a railroad if no further options are offered. But the DM can offer other alternatives in this method just as he could in the case of a failed check.This is not to say that I see no difference between DM judgment and the chance of success being determined by the dice. For many such instances, I would go to the dice...the more meaningful the potential impact, the less likely I would lean on DM fiat as the tool to use.But in the example you gave? I tend to go with the approach that you roll the dice when the result is in doubt. In this case, the doubt isn't strong enough to bother with the dice. But I wouldn't shut down the PCs idea...I'd confirm it and see what happens. So do am I railroading my players in this instance?</blockquote>

Verification