Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8344686" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Because they explicitly say so? They call it "illusionism," and explicitly advocate for a style where the players are presented with a situation that looks like a choice, but which secretly isn't, and the DM keeps up this illusion indefinitely.It absolutely is NOT all decided by me. I think the problem here is that I've been talking only about one narrow portion (things I present to my players) because that's what's been talked about as examples (of railroading), whereas you've taken that as me describing the entirety of my game. That is absolutely NOT the case. I work very hard to support whatever it is my players want to do--and absolutely love it when they pursue their own goals, or even insert their own additions into the fiction. Rahim the prince of thieves (as mentioned in the "trickster" thread) was invented by the party Bard--I just gave him a voice. The party Battlemaster has pretty much single-handedly brought to light the culture of rigorous study regarding tactics and warfare that has spanned centuries. The Ranger has spearheaded (pun intended) the development of his own city-state from a secret base, hoping to outdo even his illustrious grandmother (leader of his orc/half-orc tribe, whose leadership position he intends to claim by right).Breadcrumbs are only necessary when I insert things into the fiction, because I as DM have direct access to the world, while the players only have indirect access to it through me. If I insert something into the fiction, it may go unnoticed unless the players are given a real opportunity to find out about it. That is, it's very easy for me to "slip something past them" and pretend it was "there all along," which I'm very concerned to avoid. I see it as my responsibility to furnish them with the chance to find out. When they insert things into the fiction, though? It's public, for all to see, because they do it at the table, as part of speaking their characters' voices and revealing their characters' pasts, interests, drives, etc. It is literally only a thing I do so that I'm not cheating my players.Some of my players have attention deficit disorders or other issues with keeping focused, so things that keep play dynamic and changing can mitigate some of their concerns. Further, one of my players is very very new to TTRPGs, and generally his gaming is in high-action, twitch-reflex computer games. Between those two concerns, I try to "spice things up" in those rare occasions where the players seem to be getting a little scattered. In general, however, my players have described my game as engaging, thought-provoking, and surprising--sometimes surprising in ways they never expected could be surprising.I do feel you're being a little overly harsh in your judgments of my game, of course, but of course I understand that since it's mine I have rather a lot of bias on that front. Edit: Since there's not a lot of charitable reading going on right now, to be clear, I obviously do not mean that the game "belongs to only me" when I say it's "mine." I merely mean that, because I run it and have invested a lot of effort into it, I'm obviously going to be a bit defensive when, more or less, frankly told that my game just doesn't sound like it could even potentially be fun (for a given poster).Reading this, I feel like you're describing how I go about things. You described the players as "keen for a naval encounter." That seems like a perfectly valid description of what I'd said. Keep in mind, that was purely hypothetical--the party has taken trips on the ocean exactly twice, one of which did include a fight as a way to establish a link in advance)Perhaps I overstated the "plot" of the world? I have known what the various Evil Things are, and what they intend to do. As the players thwart enemy plans or make changes in the world, those enemies must change--sometimes radically. As an example of the latter, when the party defeated and destroyed the Song of Thorns (an infectious mind-virus spirit), they accidentally caused a crisis within the Raven-Shadows assassin cult (already established as actively fighting Song activity). This led to outright (well, shadowy) sectarian warfare between those who see the Bard as the prophesied savior, and those who revile him as a pretender. I never planned any of this civil war stuff. It rose from different parts of the established fiction fitting together, and the Bard's player enthusiastically embracing the mystery of the Bard's "double" tiefling heritage (demon ancestor is known, but devil ancestor is not)."Foreshadow" is a strong word. I do, occasionally, surprise them--but usually only when there's a reason. E.g., they've been hired for a mission to go recover something, and the captain of the ship they're on expresses thanks that competent people are on board. That's enough "foreshadowing" for an encounter, which itself can be indicator for future things.I really really think people are taking me as being FAR more strident than I said, and I'm kinda frustrated at this, considering how much latitude has been expected for anyone pro-illusionism. Yes, I do include the unexpected. I'm not creating an ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY RIGID world where NOTHING CHANGES unless I, DM-Emperor of Gamekind, Officially Decree it. Please, man, give me a little credit?I have absolutely surprised my players in tons of ways. I'm talking about scrupulously avoiding gotchas, not "never ever ever ever ever EVER do ANYTHING even REMOTELY unexpected." Please, please cut me a little slack?</blockquote>

Verification