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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6108795" data-attributes="member: 4937">You are the one that first brought the term 'morphic' into play.  I never made assertions about how 'morphic' the world was.  You world may not be morphic, but you are the one that brought that red herring into this.   Don't complain about luring people into an argument of definition over an irrelevant term of art that you introduced purely to lure people into an argument of definition over an irrelevant term of art.  Arguing about whether or not something is 'morphic' completely evades the point that was being made.  Yes, and that is completely standard DMing as your many examples prove.  But proving that it is bog standard GMing rather than a "morphic universe" demonstrates nothing about my opinions because you are the one that introduced 'morphic' to the discussion. The objection I raised was that the outcome at stake was not predictable from the player's chosen mechanical resolution.  It doesn't have to be a 'morphic universe' - something no one really cares about but you - to be unpredictable.  It just requires heavy GM force justified by 'conflict resolution' overriding the logical results of task resolution.  And once again, you fail to notice just how radically different your approach is compared to  Manbearcat on this issue, conflating the introduction of the previously unknown invisible ink as result of a perception check (improvisation of task resolution) with the introduction of a previously unknown chasm as a result of a failed ride check (improvisation of conflict resolution).   The two things aren't remotely similar.If you must label this, I suggest it's a 'schrodinger's universe' continually being discovered by all participants as we lift the box up.  One we lift up the box, the cat is really dead.  But noone observed the cat before the box was openned.   Thus, not 'morphic' as you are defining it, but then again only you see to care about that.Giving no regard to the players isn't really a good thing, but it isn't the definition of a railroad.  It's quite possible to railroad the players while giving full regard to the players desires for the game.  Note for example that Manbearcat's definition of 'railroad' could be seen as giving DMs that do railroad the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to deliver to the players what they want.  It doesn't in fact say that the players object to this or that it is bad, merely that the goal is obtained by heavy handed use of GM force.   Whereas, we both seem to agree that regardless of the merits of railroads, ignoring your player's interests isn't a good idea regardless of what you are playing and your theories about how to deliver the fun.</blockquote>

Verification