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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6587797" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Okay, we'll proceed with that in mind for now.A critical element, yes. And the players don't even need to have an inkling one way or another. Why would that matter in a discussion of illusionsim or railroading? Whether or not players are aware of those techniques are completely independent of them being used.Okay, also noted for this discussion.I think it really only makes a difference if the GM then goes on to change it. But in your example we don't even have a choice by the players (going left vs right). So, illusionism will be harder to produce from your example. The GM may or may not be railroading, depending on how we got to this point. More context is needed.I guess I don't really believe in actual "random selection" really happening, even if players are uninformed. They may not know which way is better (since they have no knowledge either way), but they're probably basing their decision on something. Lucky number, a perceived pattern, guessing how the inhabitant's psychology works, a gut instinct, etc.Alrighty.I guess they don't necessarily. But by being presented with a choice, they probably assume that the choice matters. Why pause to address it otherwise?I don't think the players or the GM rolling the die in this scenario matters, either.That should have been "the GM has notes" and not "the GM has no notes." Sorry about that. I was worried I'd mess up while going out the door (with the copy-pasta modification), and apparently I did. My fault.In my mind, making a decision, even without a way to discern the different, is still something that I don't want to rob the players of. In this unlikely scenario (the fork with no indications and no information for the players), which way they pick will affect the rest of the campaign. Why would I want to change that? I want to see what happens when we play it out!I like both in my game, because both can lead to really, really interesting scenarios. But in my RPG, I don't run anything that looks like dungeons (as far as I can tell), so I also have a suspicion that my campaign is wildly different from most tables. It's more about unfolding events: wars, politics, diseases, dynasties, uprisings, disasters, etc. The players react and involve themselves in the events as they unfold, or struggle to avoid them (or the consequences of them, at least).Heck, like I've said previously, 90% or more of my game isn't combat, even if the players like to build combat-capable characters (when my RPG in no way demands any combat proficiency); right now, the PCs include a polearm warrior, a fire mage, and a dark knight (kind of a TK/fire knight). Of course, they can all do stuff outside of combat (the warrior is a capable physician, surgeon, diplomat, courtier, and knight-level noble, for example).Anyway, as a sandbox-oriented GM, not finding a clue might mean they never get something. They never know that a plot is underway, giving it greater odds of happening (I don't really run things as "only the PCs can stop this event!"). But that's okay, because the plot going through and the king being assassinated can be really interesting. They weren't directly involved, but now they get to deal with the social ramifications of such a change in power. How will the new king act? How will other nations react? The noble houses? Bandits?And this might come about because they chose right instead of left. And I'm cool with that. That makes for an interesting game for me, as GM, because I have no idea what's happening, and get to discover things with them. I don't want to do the heavy lifting of setting a narrative. I'd rather explore it with the players (as much as I'm able to). All of that make sense?</blockquote>

Verification