Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7085320" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>l don't agree with this. At the risk of repetition, I think it is presenting a difference in GMing technique as if it were a difference in the fiction.</p><p></p><p>The advisor in my main 4e game had his own plan and (within the fiction) his own agency. Eg at one point the PCs discovered the cavern where, many years before, the advisor had almost succeeded in seizing the tapestry before being driven off by gelatinous cubes. The even found a piece of fabric torn from the hem of his robe. (Which then formed the subject matter of the final taunt during the skill challenge.)</p><p></p><p>When you say <em>the advisor still has independent agendas</em>, if that is taken literally then it is as true in my game as in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s. The advisor has agendas indpendent of the PCs. It's just that they are all in tatters. But I don't think you mean it literally. What I think you mean is that <em>the GM has a power, independent of the outcome of action resolution, to narrate the advisor achieving certain things adverse to the interests of the PCs (and thus of the players)</em>.</p><p></p><p>And I'm sure that's true of [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game. My point is that it is not a difference about the fiction. It's not a difference about the point of the advisor. It's a difference about the power of participants to establish truths in the shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: I reread the quote and was struck by <em>The advisor cannot initiate a new challenge that alters this success, only the players can enact a new challenge that might alter this success. The advisor only ever reacts to the players.</em></p><p></p><p>The advisor doesn't react to the players. The advisor does variouos things. Some of those (eg dealing with the PCs at the dinner) are reacting to the PCs. Some of those (eg forming a goblin army to help him recover the tapestry) aren't reactions to the PCs - they take place before he or the PCs have ever crossed paths or even heard of one another.</p><p></p><p>The advisor can also initiate whatever he wants. He can try this, or that. But the players' victory at the table ensures that, whatever the advisor might be trying as far as his relationship with the baron is concerned, I as GM am obliged to narrate it as failing. This is similar to how, in AD&D, a player can narrate his PC attempting to pick the lock. But if it failed once, and the PC hasn't gained a level, then the GM is obliged to narrate the attempt as failing.</p><p></p><p>The shorthand that you favour - which, upthread, I characterised as expressing a category error - seems to me to run together <em>stuff in the fiction</em> (eg the advisor tries to win back the baron's trust) with <em>stuff at the table</em> (it is open, at the table, to establish as true in the fiction that the advisor has won back the baron's trust). But as soon as the game has some sort of "no retries" or "let it ride" or similar rule for finality, any such running together is just going to mislead.</p><p></p><p>For instance, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] keeps saying that the advisor is "retarded" because he can't try to mitigate. Which is a product of the same sort of running together. The advisor can try whatever he wants; it's just that the fiction isn't going to change in a direction where the advisor has achieved what he wants.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7085320, member: 42582"] l don't agree with this. At the risk of repetition, I think it is presenting a difference in GMing technique as if it were a difference in the fiction. The advisor in my main 4e game had his own plan and (within the fiction) his own agency. Eg at one point the PCs discovered the cavern where, many years before, the advisor had almost succeeded in seizing the tapestry before being driven off by gelatinous cubes. The even found a piece of fabric torn from the hem of his robe. (Which then formed the subject matter of the final taunt during the skill challenge.) When you say [I]the advisor still has independent agendas[/I], if that is taken literally then it is as true in my game as in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s. The advisor has agendas indpendent of the PCs. It's just that they are all in tatters. But I don't think you mean it literally. What I think you mean is that [I]the GM has a power, independent of the outcome of action resolution, to narrate the advisor achieving certain things adverse to the interests of the PCs (and thus of the players)[/I]. And I'm sure that's true of [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game. My point is that it is not a difference about the fiction. It's not a difference about the point of the advisor. It's a difference about the power of participants to establish truths in the shared fiction. EDIT: I reread the quote and was struck by [I]The advisor cannot initiate a new challenge that alters this success, only the players can enact a new challenge that might alter this success. The advisor only ever reacts to the players.[/I] The advisor doesn't react to the players. The advisor does variouos things. Some of those (eg dealing with the PCs at the dinner) are reacting to the PCs. Some of those (eg forming a goblin army to help him recover the tapestry) aren't reactions to the PCs - they take place before he or the PCs have ever crossed paths or even heard of one another. The advisor can also initiate whatever he wants. He can try this, or that. But the players' victory at the table ensures that, whatever the advisor might be trying as far as his relationship with the baron is concerned, I as GM am obliged to narrate it as failing. This is similar to how, in AD&D, a player can narrate his PC attempting to pick the lock. But if it failed once, and the PC hasn't gained a level, then the GM is obliged to narrate the attempt as failing. The shorthand that you favour - which, upthread, I characterised as expressing a category error - seems to me to run together [I]stuff in the fiction[/I] (eg the advisor tries to win back the baron's trust) with [I]stuff at the table[/I] (it is open, at the table, to establish as true in the fiction that the advisor has won back the baron's trust). But as soon as the game has some sort of "no retries" or "let it ride" or similar rule for finality, any such running together is just going to mislead. For instance, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] keeps saying that the advisor is "retarded" because he can't try to mitigate. Which is a product of the same sort of running together. The advisor can try whatever he wants; it's just that the fiction isn't going to change in a direction where the advisor has achieved what he wants. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top