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 LIVE! 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
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7079414" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>It's a bit extreme, I think, but I get your point. If the PCs frequent a certain inn, then I know I personally wouldn't mind a player establishing a minor detail like where the coats get hung. Or even something a bit more substantial. </p><p></p><p>But what if the player says "I hand my drenched coat to...my long lost brother who is standing beside the door!?!?!" Cue the dramatic music. </p><p></p><p>Again I think it comes down to GM judgment. If your GM is reasonable, then they'll likely let you establish coathooks in the local inn. They may kind of expect to be asked "I hang my drenching cloak beside the door...oh, is that what they do here, or some other way of hanging coats?" and the GM would likely just agree and ask you to continue. </p><p></p><p>I don't think that a bit of confirmation on the DM's part is all that disorienting to the player that it would carry over to their role playing. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think most games likely allow at least a little input into NPCs by players...supporting cast and family and the like are something I always try to use in my games. Typically, I let the players decide the basics, and then I may take it from there. </p><p></p><p>I feel like this is something that the GM has to mitigate to some extent. The example I gave above of the long lost brother showing up out of the blue...that was mostly a joke, but if the players are free to introduce such concepts in play, then what's to stop them? </p><p></p><p>I suppose the argument could be made that since nothing is predetermined by the GM, then no plans are being spoiled...the story that emerges is simply what happens. </p><p></p><p>My argument against that would be that story takes craft. A revenge story isn't made better or more pure if the protagonist sets out on what he expects to be a long, arduous journey....only to find his nemesis before he takes five steps. </p><p></p><p>I'm exaggerating for effect, but aren't these concerns to have? Or at least, aren't they as valid as being concerned with the impact that having to ask the GM for basic world details will have?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I feel like all of that could be addressed by having a discussion with the players ahead of the game, or in between sessions. I feel like having the game world feel more lived in, more dynamic would be more supported by planning ahead a bit rather than allowing everything to be established on the fly. I mean, I am forced to improv all the time by my players...but I find the improv fun and more constructive because of the amount of "prep" I've done with the world building. The planning is what allows me to more easily improv when needed. </p><p></p><p>So when one player explains to me that he has a brother and they were in a mercenary company together, but that his brother left the company for some mysterious reason, and he's been searching for him ever since....that's great. I love that the player came up with that. But doesn't the GM kind of have to decide how the brother comes into it? You've given an example of the "GM reading a story to the players" as a criticism of heavy handed GMing....but isn't that better than the players reading a story to themselves? </p><p></p><p>I am sure many games have a very similar style to the Conanesque vibe you described. But I know that's not remotely true of my game, and based on the discussion, I don't expect it's true of most of the other folks posting here. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How about using the passive approach and then deciding tiers of success? Like, for a lore check of some kind, DC 10 reveals X, DC 15 reveals X and Y, and DC 20 reveals X,Y, and Z. Depending on the system, you may need to tweak it a bit or use slightly different numbers. But instead of forcing a roll where a proficient character could fail and then a non-proficient character could succeed, you instead just let the player know what their PC knows based on 10 plus their skill rank. It makes learned characters seem learned and dumb characters seem...not so learned.</p><p></p><p>I find this works for knowledge checks and the like. It may require a bit of work beforehand, but I think it can still be abdicated on the fly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7079414, member: 6785785"] It's a bit extreme, I think, but I get your point. If the PCs frequent a certain inn, then I know I personally wouldn't mind a player establishing a minor detail like where the coats get hung. Or even something a bit more substantial. But what if the player says "I hand my drenched coat to...my long lost brother who is standing beside the door!?!?!" Cue the dramatic music. Again I think it comes down to GM judgment. If your GM is reasonable, then they'll likely let you establish coathooks in the local inn. They may kind of expect to be asked "I hang my drenching cloak beside the door...oh, is that what they do here, or some other way of hanging coats?" and the GM would likely just agree and ask you to continue. I don't think that a bit of confirmation on the DM's part is all that disorienting to the player that it would carry over to their role playing. I think most games likely allow at least a little input into NPCs by players...supporting cast and family and the like are something I always try to use in my games. Typically, I let the players decide the basics, and then I may take it from there. I feel like this is something that the GM has to mitigate to some extent. The example I gave above of the long lost brother showing up out of the blue...that was mostly a joke, but if the players are free to introduce such concepts in play, then what's to stop them? I suppose the argument could be made that since nothing is predetermined by the GM, then no plans are being spoiled...the story that emerges is simply what happens. My argument against that would be that story takes craft. A revenge story isn't made better or more pure if the protagonist sets out on what he expects to be a long, arduous journey....only to find his nemesis before he takes five steps. I'm exaggerating for effect, but aren't these concerns to have? Or at least, aren't they as valid as being concerned with the impact that having to ask the GM for basic world details will have? I feel like all of that could be addressed by having a discussion with the players ahead of the game, or in between sessions. I feel like having the game world feel more lived in, more dynamic would be more supported by planning ahead a bit rather than allowing everything to be established on the fly. I mean, I am forced to improv all the time by my players...but I find the improv fun and more constructive because of the amount of "prep" I've done with the world building. The planning is what allows me to more easily improv when needed. So when one player explains to me that he has a brother and they were in a mercenary company together, but that his brother left the company for some mysterious reason, and he's been searching for him ever since....that's great. I love that the player came up with that. But doesn't the GM kind of have to decide how the brother comes into it? You've given an example of the "GM reading a story to the players" as a criticism of heavy handed GMing....but isn't that better than the players reading a story to themselves? I am sure many games have a very similar style to the Conanesque vibe you described. But I know that's not remotely true of my game, and based on the discussion, I don't expect it's true of most of the other folks posting here. How about using the passive approach and then deciding tiers of success? Like, for a lore check of some kind, DC 10 reveals X, DC 15 reveals X and Y, and DC 20 reveals X,Y, and Z. Depending on the system, you may need to tweak it a bit or use slightly different numbers. But instead of forcing a roll where a proficient character could fail and then a non-proficient character could succeed, you instead just let the player know what their PC knows based on 10 plus their skill rank. It makes learned characters seem learned and dumb characters seem...not so learned. I find this works for knowledge checks and the like. It may require a bit of work beforehand, but I think it can still be abdicated on the fly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top