Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2962347" data-attributes="member: 18280">He is limiting choices if he doesn't allow the fighter to turn into a bumblebee at will because the player thinks it would be cool.  He is limiting the choice of the other players by limiting their ability to understand consequences of choice if he instead allows the fighter to turn into a bumblebee at will.  He is limiting choices if there are only four branches at an intersection.  Perforce, choices are limited in the game.The borders of "legitimate" are a matter of opinion; the core of the legitimate authority of the DM is fairly objective in 3.X.  The CR/EL system gives you a pretty clear idea of what sort of encounter the players are liable to be able to deal with; anything where EL is significantly higher than APL means that the players must be provided with additional routes to anticipate said encounter and avoid it if they like.  That's pretty clear.  If the being they are facing can cast spells as a third-level cleric, what spells are possible and what spells are not is pretty clear.  That the DM may make modifications is clear.  That the DM is also responsible for balancing these modifications is somewhat less clear, but I would claim it as a pretty obvious objective standard.In fact, as I was saying above, once you get past the idea that any control is railroading, you can start working on the more subjective definition of what is legitimate or not, and thus create a stronger sense of what is desirable in the game.  Suddenly, at least IMHO, this thread would become twice as useful as a resource for DMs (especially those beginning their career).  There is a real difference between being mind-controlled for a couple of sessions and having an NPC enthrall you to gain a chance to escape, I would agree.  If something like this were to occur in a game that I was running, I admit freely that if all PCs were mind-controlled, I would skip ahead to when the mind-control was done and briefly fill the PCs in on what happened during that period.  I wouldn't force a player to play out a period of involuntary lycanthropy either, but I would probably let them if they wanted to, and involuntary lycanthropy would still be a very real possible consequence of hunting werewolves.This is obviously equivilent to being in a combat with ghouls and being paralyzed by one.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Here I disagree (again).A good DM presents a world in which many things are possible.   As I said earlier, the campaigns that I've run (since Christmas 1979) that have been most successful have started with a hook to a higher-level adventure that the players cannot hope to accomplish at the begining, a maiden voyage hook (an easy to see adventure that keeps the game from stalling at the get-go) and lots of hooks to do other things for those who want to cast around at the begining of play, the middle of play, or any time during play.  I try to ensure that following any given hook opens up at least three more possibilities, so that there is always material that the players will not use...always more to choose than it is possible to follow up on.  To me, and IME to the vast majority of players, this is good design and results in a fun game.One of the hooks thus presented might be to ghoul-haunted caves.  The players know that there are ghouls in the caves, and they know that ghouls might paralyze you if they touch you.  If the players then choose to go to those caves, and I decide to suddenly remove their ability to paralyze because it might be "unfun" then I have done a serious disservice to my players.  I have negated their ability to choose and to plan (all the equipment they got to deal with the paralysis is so much wasted gold).In another adventure location, I might set up an encounter where three skeletal ghouls (modified monsters) lurk in a half-flooded chamber.  When the PCs enter, paralysis offers another problem -- keep fighting, or lose another sword arm to recover and support your paralyzed comrade who has slipped below the water?  If the encounter is not unbalanced, and there is a chance to recover thereafter, this can become a tense and memorable battle.It certainly matters how the players feel about the game.  It matters that the players feel that their choices matter, which means that the DM shouldn't fudge rolls IMHO, and shouldn't pull punches.  Equally, it means that the DM shouldn't be stingy with information when the players seek to learn about the world, shouldn't nerf divination spells in general, and should be upfront about the type of game that they are running.  Players need to be able to make informed decisions, and then deal with the consequences of those decisions.The officious weasel taxman might be found in Saltmarsh.  Now the players have to weight the benefits of going to that town with the downside of prossibly running into Mr. Weasel (which should not happen every time; NPCs are...with very few exceptions...not omniscient).   Choices where you must weigh potential benefits against potential losses are legitimate, meaningful choices.  They are, in fact, more meaningful than ones where you simply choose between benefits.  If they were not, no one would adventure in the game.  We'd be satisfied to sit around levelling characters instead, making choices about how to move them from 1st to 20th level without any opposition or challenges at all. If a game isn't fun, no one in their right mind should sit through session after session of it, player or DM.  Life is too short, and there are too many other things you could be doing.  A game where loss is impossible because the DM is afraid of limiting my choices or dampening my happiness wouldn't be worth playing in to me.<a href="http://www.treasuretables.org/glossary-of-gming-terms#r" target="_blank">http://www.treasuretables.org/glossary-of-gming-terms#r</a> defines railroading asA linear play style in which the players have very few options, so named because much like a train, adventures like this proceed as if on rails. Railroading gets a bad rap, but it can be a good thing in certain situations (at con games, for instance).<a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-20521.html" target="_blank">http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-20521.html</a> defines it asRailroad (verb) To, as a DM, force the players along a linier storyline that often does not allow for deviations created by player input.(This definition is also used by GameSpy at <a href="http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=6113&tid=1110291&p=11" target="_blank">http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=6113&tid=1110291&p=11</a>.)My definition was Usurpation of player choice + linear play = railroading.Now let's examine these definitions and see how much they differ.The treasure tables definition begins with "A linear play style" and the wizards definition includes "a linier storyline" [sic] as part of the definition.  This syncs up very well with my notation of "linear play".The treasure tables definition includes "in which the players have very few options" but notes that railroading "can be a good thing in certain situations", so their definition clearly includes some DM control that the person or persons writing the definition viewed as legitimate control under some circumstances ("at con games, for instance").  However, they acknowledge that the term is generally derogatory ("gets a bad rap"), and that the circumstances under which railroading is appropriate are limited.  This is a broader definition than mine, but not by much.The wizards definition, OTOH, includes "force the players" and "that often does not allow for deviations created by player input" which seems to sync pretty well with "usurpation of player choice".Please note that both of these definitions of the common usage of the term require more than a player simply having some level of choice removed.  The first definition requires that the players "have very few options" and the second that the DM forces the players along a linear storyline.Here's another definition from <a href="http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:PQR:" target="_blank">http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:PQR:</a>A style of GMing in which the GM has only one specific plot line in mind, and forces the players to follow that plot regardless of whether they want to do so. From an analogy to a railroad, which constrains the train to one specific route. Sometimes referred to as The D&M Railroad (by reference to numerous real-world railroads, but especially the B&O Railroad referenced in the game Monopoly).Once more, we see a linear element ("only one specific plot line") and a usurpation of player choice ("and forces the players to follow that plot regardless of whether they want to do so").  Once more, we do not see anything about a player "having a choice taken away" except within specific context, nor do we see anything about going on the Internet to complain about it.That is the "real and common usage of the term", and it is not simply "any loss of power or choice which the player finds objectionable".  We may certainly discuss whether or not other forms of loss of power or choice are good or bad, but railroading as the term is used by the general gaming public is a very specific type.RC</blockquote>

Verification