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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6595408" data-attributes="member: 6775031">For the same reason it's not railroading when a player makes a decision. A timeline is just a best guess about how everything is going to work out, based on known factors. They're subject to change. Players can make timelines, too, but it's rarely worthwhile since they know fewer of the factors involved. That's the disagreement. I'm saying that it takes more "force" for the GM to cause an unlikely event than a likely one. If you walk down a street and the GM says that nothing happens, then that requires less GM force than if you walk down the street and the GM says that you find a bag of money on the side of the road.Another way of looking at it, you could say that the GM has a finite amount of 'plausibility' that can be expended before players lose interest and/or call shenanigans. The amount of plausibility expended with an event is directly related to its perceived probability. The question then comes down to how much plausibility the GM is allotted, and what rules he or she should follow when spending it. The naturalistic approach would give as much plausibility as is required to emulate a naturalistic world, with the caveat that it be spent randomly. Some people might suggest a much larger amount, which the GM should spend toward making things more exciting for the players. I suspect that even those people would have a limit, though, before things get too silly.</blockquote>

Verification