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
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: 7092745" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>I disagree. D&D 5E is an intentionally mod-able system. </p><p></p><p>And I also find it odd that you would deny flexibility on the part of D&D and then use an example of an alternate version of Burning World in support of system flexibility. </p><p></p><p>There are and can be alternate versions of any game. Or alternate rules and/or subsystems. If you're going to hold up BW as a flexible system, then I can't see how you can deny that D&D is, as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's similar to illusionism in that things that the players do not know about are being changed. Or in this case, not necessarily changed, but left open to be determined later on....which is not the way that the real world works. </p><p></p><p>So the players see the yellow skulker....they will assume that the guy has some kind of motivation or goal, even if it is not clear to them at this point....and yet, his motivations and goals are undetermined at this point. So, there is an illusion of sorts at play.</p><p></p><p>It's definitely not exactly the same, I wasn't implying that it was....just that there are some similarities. And as I said, this is a technique I use in my games, so I'm not knocking it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The difference I would point out is that in most of the examples the "thwarting" is done simply to "thwart". In the example you just provided, the GM is simply going with the prepared material....the purpose of his decision to not have a secret door there is not to deny the player's desires, although the end result is the same. </p><p></p><p>I suppose an argument could be made that either way, the GM is trying to steer the narrative...in the earlier examples, he's taking away the player's desire for knowledge of the king's death or whatever, and in this case, he's making the players use the established exit from the room rather than a previously unknown exit. </p><p></p><p>But I don't think that establishing some limitations on what the players can introduce through action declaration is a bad thing. I don't see that as railroading. I mean....can players simply try to find a secret door in any room in which they find danger? Is it forcing a specific narrative to not allow that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What if I say "I'll go see anything that's not a rom-com or sappy drama...I'd be happy with just about anything else"? There are degrees of player desire in between "none" and "many". My point is that the criteria you gave are not specific to a high level of player desire, and as such, may not be the best example to use as elements of player-driven games as opposed to GM driven games. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, that's exactly why I've been saying that I use both player driven and GM driven elements in my game. In this case, the player came up with the basic idea of his shameful past. Because the PC is a fighter with the soldier background, I proposed him taking part in some questionable actions during some conflicts, and then the player said that he was in a mercenary group. I came up with the name of the group, and the idea that it started off as a pretty principled group (based on the PC's Neutral alignment, it didn't seem that he'd be involved in a group with any kind of extreme stance), but that the mercenary group was effectively infiltrated by elements of a CE war deity, and that things slowly shifted. The PC stuck it out for a while, and was involved in a lot of increasingly questionable actions. He finally reached a point where he had to get out or totally lose himself. </p><p></p><p>So it really was a lot of back and forth until we were both happy with the results. And I also tied in elements from both an NPC I had planned for the game and one of the other PCs. This is why I feel my game is likely not nearly as different from yours despite having GM driven aspects....most of those are based around story or character ideas created in conjunction with or entirely by the players. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really have a problem with the terms side-quests or main plot. I understand your point, I just don't know if it always applies. I think that even players would admit to some of their desires or wants being less important than others. Or maybe they decide to pursue some game element on a whim. Relevance to the players should always matter. I think that's the difference....relevance to the players or relevance to the "main plot". Something that doesn't relate to the main plot of the campaign would be something I'd call a side quest. But that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the characters. </p><p></p><p>Perhaps the terms side quest and main plot are a bit loaded....but I don't see either as a bad thing. They're just terms I've used in discussion, I don't really make such distinctions when it comes to the actual game. In the game, we just play based on what happens and where the players decide to go. Their motivations and goals and the glue that binds them all together are strongly tied to the "main plot" to the point where that always comes into play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7092745, member: 6785785"] I disagree. D&D 5E is an intentionally mod-able system. And I also find it odd that you would deny flexibility on the part of D&D and then use an example of an alternate version of Burning World in support of system flexibility. There are and can be alternate versions of any game. Or alternate rules and/or subsystems. If you're going to hold up BW as a flexible system, then I can't see how you can deny that D&D is, as well. It's similar to illusionism in that things that the players do not know about are being changed. Or in this case, not necessarily changed, but left open to be determined later on....which is not the way that the real world works. So the players see the yellow skulker....they will assume that the guy has some kind of motivation or goal, even if it is not clear to them at this point....and yet, his motivations and goals are undetermined at this point. So, there is an illusion of sorts at play. It's definitely not exactly the same, I wasn't implying that it was....just that there are some similarities. And as I said, this is a technique I use in my games, so I'm not knocking it. The difference I would point out is that in most of the examples the "thwarting" is done simply to "thwart". In the example you just provided, the GM is simply going with the prepared material....the purpose of his decision to not have a secret door there is not to deny the player's desires, although the end result is the same. I suppose an argument could be made that either way, the GM is trying to steer the narrative...in the earlier examples, he's taking away the player's desire for knowledge of the king's death or whatever, and in this case, he's making the players use the established exit from the room rather than a previously unknown exit. But I don't think that establishing some limitations on what the players can introduce through action declaration is a bad thing. I don't see that as railroading. I mean....can players simply try to find a secret door in any room in which they find danger? Is it forcing a specific narrative to not allow that? What if I say "I'll go see anything that's not a rom-com or sappy drama...I'd be happy with just about anything else"? There are degrees of player desire in between "none" and "many". My point is that the criteria you gave are not specific to a high level of player desire, and as such, may not be the best example to use as elements of player-driven games as opposed to GM driven games. Sure, that's exactly why I've been saying that I use both player driven and GM driven elements in my game. In this case, the player came up with the basic idea of his shameful past. Because the PC is a fighter with the soldier background, I proposed him taking part in some questionable actions during some conflicts, and then the player said that he was in a mercenary group. I came up with the name of the group, and the idea that it started off as a pretty principled group (based on the PC's Neutral alignment, it didn't seem that he'd be involved in a group with any kind of extreme stance), but that the mercenary group was effectively infiltrated by elements of a CE war deity, and that things slowly shifted. The PC stuck it out for a while, and was involved in a lot of increasingly questionable actions. He finally reached a point where he had to get out or totally lose himself. So it really was a lot of back and forth until we were both happy with the results. And I also tied in elements from both an NPC I had planned for the game and one of the other PCs. This is why I feel my game is likely not nearly as different from yours despite having GM driven aspects....most of those are based around story or character ideas created in conjunction with or entirely by the players. I don't really have a problem with the terms side-quests or main plot. I understand your point, I just don't know if it always applies. I think that even players would admit to some of their desires or wants being less important than others. Or maybe they decide to pursue some game element on a whim. Relevance to the players should always matter. I think that's the difference....relevance to the players or relevance to the "main plot". Something that doesn't relate to the main plot of the campaign would be something I'd call a side quest. But that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the characters. Perhaps the terms side quest and main plot are a bit loaded....but I don't see either as a bad thing. They're just terms I've used in discussion, I don't really make such distinctions when it comes to the actual game. In the game, we just play based on what happens and where the players decide to go. Their motivations and goals and the glue that binds them all together are strongly tied to the "main plot" to the point where that always comes into play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top