Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7732715" data-attributes="member: 42582">None of this makes any sense.Why do I "owe it to my players" to describe the corridors? That's like saying I "owe it to them" to describe the embroidery, or the colour of the dirt on the road, or the details of the windows in the cathedral. Until you can show me that anything is actually at stake in any of these descriptions, they're all just colour - and I'm pretty satisfied with the amount of colour I establish in my game.As far as the "railroading" issue - as I already posted, the players (in character) ask the angels to take them to the reliquary, and the angels do so. When, in your game, the players order an ale at a tavern, do you describe every motion of the barkeep in pouring the ale; every step of the barmaid in bringing the ale to the PCs' table? There is always detail that doesn't get narrated. Again, until you give me some reason to think that something was at stake, why would I bother about it?(And I as GM know no more about what is in Mal Arundak between the room where the PCs lifted the curse on the angels, and the reliquary, than the players do. It never mattered in the game to establish that.)You seem to be importing an asumption from Gygaxian dungeoneering - that geographic details of indoor areas (ie rooms, corridors, staircases, etc) always matter. That assumption is true for dungeoneering, but in its universal form is simply false.There's no mapping. Likewise, the player who wants to draw copies of the embroidery on every NPC's tunic is simply out of luck. I don't have that information ready to hand, and frankly have very little interest in it.But as far as wanting to check out the corridors in Mal Arundak, if you want to do that well you can say so. I would ask, "What are you hoping to find?" And if you say "Whatever is interesing there" then I can quickly tell you "You wander the corridors for a bit, but there's nothing of interest other than some meditation rooms for the angels. The reliquary seems to be the heart of the structure." If there's something particular you're hoping to find (eg further information about Miska the Wolf-spider) then we can frame a check or two and resolve that.But as I already posted, in my game no players declared such actions for their PCs. They asked to be taken to the reqliquary. And they were. No one's desire to do something different was thwarted.To follow up on  [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s post - what happens if, at the moment of play, you work out that Q would be better?This is a very significant claim. I think it's contentious.Lewis Pulsipher, in his essays in early White Dwarf about how to GM D&D in a "wargaming"/Gygaxian style, emphasises that for the GM to change the backstory (eg redraw dungeon corridors) is bad play, because it makes it impossible for skilled players to "solve the puzzle" of what the dungeon contains, and to thereby exercise their skill in beating the dungeon.And if we're playing in a different (non-Gygaxian) way, then it is still a big thing: because if the GM is free to change the backstory before it's established in play, then how is s/he sometimes allowed to rely upon it to stipulate that action declaration fails? What governs the choice between the two options? And how does this relate to the role of the players in RPGing?</blockquote>

Verification