Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The_Universe" data-source="post: 2356233" data-attributes="member: 8944">I'm saying that it's really not all that different whether I reveal the patrols statistics, keep them secret, or never assign them (and thus just label that patrol a &quot;force of nature&quot; or something).&nbsp; Regardless of the fact that it's *really not different* IMO, I'd still try to run it pretty much as you have suggested.&nbsp; My argument has been that the line between &quot;letting proactive players do things that might work out to their benefit&quot; and &quot;giving players that aren't proactive a way out&quot; is extraordinarily blurry. At least in my experience, as soon as you let some players *attempt* something, they assume it has to have a way to succeed.&nbsp; I'm really not for just telling players, &quot;no, you can't try that.&quot; I never have been.&nbsp; But I do think that there can be a slippery slope when labelling railroading, and because the differences between each level of consequence are relatively small, if one thing is &quot;the wrong way,&quot; then it's just a little jump to the next step, etc. As a DM, neither you or I should *have* to justify everything we do to the players, to constantly assure them that they did indeed have valid choices. To me, railroading is often about a lack of trust.&nbsp; I dunno - I'm probably rambling.&nbsp; DM's should allow choice without being illogically permissive, and players should have opportunities to effect their collective destiny without constantly trying to thwart (or complain about) every in-game event that does not meet with their specific approval. &lt;---That's the core of my argument.Most of the things I've taken issue with just logically extend to the point where players would have to &quot;approve&quot; anything to make it &quot;not railroading.&quot; I'm not a big fan of it, but I think some people expect too much; demanding the game center completely on the &quot;self.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The_Universe, post: 2356233, member: 8944"] I'm saying that it's really not all that different whether I reveal the patrols statistics, keep them secret, or never assign them (and thus just label that patrol a "force of nature" or something). Regardless of the fact that it's *really not different* IMO, I'd still try to run it pretty much as you have suggested. My argument has been that the line between "letting proactive players do things that might work out to their benefit" and "giving players that aren't proactive a way out" is extraordinarily blurry. At least in my experience, as soon as you let some players *attempt* something, they assume it has to have a way to succeed. I'm really not for just telling players, "no, you can't try that." I never have been. But I do think that there can be a slippery slope when labelling railroading, and because the differences between each level of consequence are relatively small, if one thing is "the wrong way," then it's just a little jump to the next step, etc. As a DM, neither you or I should *have* to justify everything we do to the players, to constantly assure them that they did indeed have valid choices. To me, railroading is often about a lack of trust. I dunno - I'm probably rambling. DM's should allow choice without being illogically permissive, and players should have opportunities to effect their collective destiny without constantly trying to thwart (or complain about) every in-game event that does not meet with their specific approval. <---That's the core of my argument. Most of the things I've taken issue with just logically extend to the point where players would have to "approve" anything to make it "not railroading." I'm not a big fan of it, but I think some people expect too much; demanding the game center completely on the "self." [/QUOTE]

Verification