Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3699272" data-attributes="member: 30001">Well look - since you're typing the word &quot;no&quot; more than once I realize there's an emotional issue here and I'll try to be sensitive and understand what you're saying.&nbsp; But I've always had a difficult time in sorting out what &quot;story tellers&quot; say about gaming, and at times the statements seem to flat-out contradict each other.Once you want to &quot;guide&quot; events in a certain pattern, then you're railroading.&nbsp; I really think it's as simple as that.&nbsp; Sure, there are degrees.&nbsp; For example, you might have expect a BBEG to escape the final battle, and instead he gets killed.&nbsp; Either way, you construct telling about the events in such a way that it seems like a climax.&nbsp; You respected the results of the dice, and made a story of them.&nbsp; So that's story telling but it's still a game, right?Well, maybe not.&nbsp; The problem IMO is that the examples don't always work out so nicely.&nbsp; The DM is still oriented towards engineering results in such a way as to produce a desired result.&nbsp; So what if his skills enable him to work with a random set of events - the desire for a certain outcome is enough, IMO, to lead to a situation where, because of fatigue, lack of ideas, or mistake, the DM is going to step outside of the role of adjudicator of events and instead become a determiner of events in a way that excludes the random chance and player choice that is a fundemental part of the RAW.&nbsp; Having your heart set on a certain outcome, whether it's generally defined (ex. intro-coda thing) or specifically (the BBEG will escape) puts the DM into a similar box - it's just a matter of degree, and a matter of time until the DM starts fudging.&nbsp; It's a matter of orienting the DM into thinking that he has to produce a result according to a certain pattern - in a way that exceeds the capabilities of the tools that he has to work with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3699272, member: 30001"] Well look - since you're typing the word "no" more than once I realize there's an emotional issue here and I'll try to be sensitive and understand what you're saying. But I've always had a difficult time in sorting out what "story tellers" say about gaming, and at times the statements seem to flat-out contradict each other. Once you want to "guide" events in a certain pattern, then you're railroading. I really think it's as simple as that. Sure, there are degrees. For example, you might have expect a BBEG to escape the final battle, and instead he gets killed. Either way, you construct telling about the events in such a way that it seems like a climax. You respected the results of the dice, and made a story of them. So that's story telling but it's still a game, right? Well, maybe not. The problem IMO is that the examples don't always work out so nicely. The DM is still oriented towards engineering results in such a way as to produce a desired result. So what if his skills enable him to work with a random set of events - the desire for a certain outcome is enough, IMO, to lead to a situation where, because of fatigue, lack of ideas, or mistake, the DM is going to step outside of the role of adjudicator of events and instead become a determiner of events in a way that excludes the random chance and player choice that is a fundemental part of the RAW. Having your heart set on a certain outcome, whether it's generally defined (ex. intro-coda thing) or specifically (the BBEG will escape) puts the DM into a similar box - it's just a matter of degree, and a matter of time until the DM starts fudging. It's a matter of orienting the DM into thinking that he has to produce a result according to a certain pattern - in a way that exceeds the capabilities of the tools that he has to work with. [/QUOTE]

Verification