Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7283506" data-attributes="member: 6880599">... So I am going to reply, largely because what your saying is part of what I keep hearing that pushed me into writing this post... I see you said you read my posts but you still right around my points so by your replies the does not SEEM possible. I believe you read it. What I believe is you are reading if for support of your argument against it and ... well that's normal an to be expected. It is really hard to show someone what you see in words if 1. The don't want to see it and 2. if they are looking for something else based on what they believe. I am aware that works both ways so I am trying ... really trying to hear you and hope that one of us gets through but I also recognize this maybe an exercise in futility. That said...I understand what your saying but I NEVER said all fights should be or that I want all fights to be beatable. That was one example. ONE. What is driving me crazy is you keep keying in on things like that am missing/avoiding the point of the GM not railroading those and allowing a possible way out that players can choose to ignore. THAT IS PLAYER AGENCY... a choice. NO choice no player agency. I play the same way you describe your games... (I am sure you will disagree with me here but, my GMs create world and as a rule run it as an open world with player agency, however I was TRYING to show some exceptions to play where the GMs decisions were dictating play indirectly and the GM wanted to ensure players agency was still part of the game.) The difference is you imply your characters walk into a empty room no subtext and reads how the evil make kills your whole group ... then tell me its about player choose to walk in the room... but that is a description of a GM railroading players. In my example, the hints that we were near a boss and our ability to run or make any decision to fight was missed because we missed the "intended" paths and found 1 the GM did not expect. We were at a point where we were going to have to fight and TPK with no awareness or options or warning. I don't know anyone who would. At the same time you act like your letting the dice role however they fall but saying that the GM could not role so bad you win an encounter is possible. Your approach to my statements is that you want to give all credit and capability to players so that the challenge belongs totally to the players but that is impossible in any game (D&D and other wise) where you play in the world in someone else's head.The true is in the GM's world you die because the GM lets you, that's not an opinion it is a matterly how the game functions. BUT DO NOT mistake that for a "a good GM will not let you die or suffer the consequences of your actions" because I don't know anyone who believes that. At the same time just because you have free agency of your character does not mean your ever in complete control of the game as a while. Its not possible. If your in control of the game your the GM. Complete blame to the GM is not really my goal but to say the GM does not flavor all events where the players impact is less. This is intended more as warning to GMs about unintentional railroading and removal of free agency. If group TPKs the question the GM should ask themselves is how did I lead them to this? If the answer includes I gave them these choices all the way to the end and a story that came to an awesome climax that they met willingly. Then the GM did the job right even if the fight was unbeatable. If however the GM looks at it and realized that the story hook for the players and lack of player options pushed them to a TPK they would have avoided at all cost otherwise the GM railroaded them taking away player agency perhaps without even realizing it.... I feel like some how I am going to get some wisdom out of this conversation with you though I may be too foolish to grasp it.. We will see I guess.</blockquote>

Verification