Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7076498" data-attributes="member: 6802765">That implies a much more adversarial relationship between GM and player than I prefer.I'd consider dungeons and open-air tower-tops as "prisons" only in a metaphorical or conceptual sense. I was using the term more literally to refer to the type of building, stereotypically characterized by barred windows. That being said, yes, the utility of shapeshifting will depend on the specific construction. But if I haven't already introduced a falcon-proof prison, then I'm not likely to create a falcon-proof prison without a good IC reason (like the city in question being at war with (or fearing) druids or vampires or otherwise commonly needing to contain shapeshifters).The distinction between action resolution and framing doesn't matter to me as a player (nor do I find the distinction particularly meaningful as a GM)--when the GM places an obstacle (e.g. the falcon-proof prison) with the intent of thwarting the use of one of my PC's abilities, I consider that railroading.* In application, I don't see your choice to make the prison escape proof as practically different than a similar decision by a GM who wants to run a "captured by guards!" adventure. Sure, the genesis was completely different, but the consequence is the same: the shapechanging PC ended up in a shapechange-proof prison simply to thwart the ability the shapechange.*Caveat: if an obstacle is designed to thwart a spotlight-hogging PC's abilities in order to give an underrepresented player's PC a chance to shine, I consider that perfectly acceptable, even if it may still qualify as railroading. Care should still be taken to make sure it doesn't appear to be deliberately thwarting the spotlight-hogging PC (or, if hiding it is impossible, the reasons explained privately OOC).So, when it became aparent that the attempt to talk past the guards had failed, and that the PC was going to lose the bodies anyway, was there any IC reason the PC couldn't change into a falcon and fly away at that point? I understand it would violate your stricture of "no retries", but it seems to me that application of that stricture can cause railroading as a consequence. Consider:Once the PCs failed their checks to talk their way past the guards, you determined that the consequence would be to haul them off to prison. You may feel justified in doing so by the mechanics of the system, but, from this moment going forward, you're thwarting the PC's ability to avoid capture in order to impose a specific outcome: imprisonment. That seems to fit the definition of railroading that I understand you to be using. The only difference is that the outcome the PCs are being railroaded towards was the result of the combination of a failed check and the "no retries" rule, as opposed to having been chosen for story purposes. The consequences to the players after the failed check are identical: either way the character ends up in prison despite having an ability to avoid it.If your definition of railroading is nuanced enough to distinguish between examples with identical consequences, that would suggest to me that it is overly-nuanced, to the point that it would appear defined specifically to exclude your playstyle. (Or, alternatively, that it is defined in a way that produces distinctions only relevant to your play style.)More generally, I'm struggling to see how framing the game world (e.g. the falcon-proof prison) or resolving PC actions (e.g. preventing a subsequent shapeshift after social interaction failed) to thwart player intent as a result of a failed check (as opposed to simply narrating the failure itself) is ever practically distinguishable from framing the game world or resolving PC actions to thwart player intent to send the story in a particular direction.I agree. But not because the mechanics say so, but because, IC, the character is not conscious. (As evidence, note the 3e controversy that being dead didn't mechanically prevent actions. It still wasn't railroading to decree that a dead character couldn't act.)As above, I'd decide by relying on the established elements of the game world to decide whether the designers had a reason to either purposefully or incidentally (e.g. a dungeon instead of a prison) design a shapeshifter-proof prison. If yes, I'd strongly telegraph these reasons. If not, the prison simply won't be shapeshifter-proof.</blockquote>

Verification