Community

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:03AM, LunarSavage wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />My players don't do well with full blown unfettered freedom. If I give it to them, they usually have no clue what to do with it outside of maim, kill, pillage, and other vile acts. Hell, right now they're building a town from scratch in their game and what do they want to do with it? Build an army and just attack other kingdoms willy nilly because they're evil tyrants and just like making imaginary characters suffer for literally, no reason. How do I know this? I've asked them. That was their damn answer. (well, partly. The other part was they think it's funny)

They're very much the kick in the door style players. I could just throw monsters at them all night and they'd have a blast just fighting things and figuring out good combat strategies. So long as it's paced with smatterings of rewards here and there and the ability to do some shopping on ocassion.

Nothing wrong with that. So long as you are fair in arbitrating them pillaging and do not give them false choices you are doing your job as a DM. Now, depending on the setting, their actions might result in reprisal but that is higher level thinking than he core of what we're discussing.

I have no objections to the type of 'total freeform DM'ing' some are proposing.   If it works for them and their group, great.

I personally disagree with the notion that writing an adventure in advance, similar to one you might find in Dungeon magazine, is automatically considered "lesser" for no other reason that it is already written down.   The thinking seems to be that if someone wrote it down, then the players are being railroaded into that adventure.

I think that if you are DM'ing a group of players and tell them in advance that you've prepped and are running the Tower of Inverness and they deside to go elsewhere, then it's your players who are doing something wrong (this says nothing about their actual characters).

I feel that a good DM can improv as necessary and allow a party to have a fairly open adventure that will not feel railroaded in the least, despite the fact that players know in advance they are going to explore the Tower of Inverness.   Whose to say their characters might not have even stated such intentions?

Lastly, I think it is flawed thinking to assume that all players prefer a completely open, utterly-no-railroading type of game vs a more guided experience.  I can say with certainty that I know players who have tried both methods and can find equal or better enjoyment from the latter.

SwampDog, you're missing the actual discussion point. The point is that pre-planned things ONLY become an issue when the DM openly or behind-the-shield invalidates player choices and agency to get them to go along with what is pre-planned.

Pre-planning is not on trial. I pre-plan many things...it is foolhardy to do everything off-the-cuff. What is on trial is using those pre-planned things to justify taking away player agency by providing false options so that the players fall in-line with what the DM has planned.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:25AM, YagamiFire wrote:

SwampDog, you're missing the actual discussion point. The point is that pre-planned things ONLY become an issue when the DM openly or behind-the-shield invalidates player choices and agency to get them to go along with what is pre-planned.

Pre-planning is not on trial. I pre-plan many things...it is foolhardy to do everything off-the-cuff. What is on trial is using those pre-planned things to justify taking away player agency by providing false options so that the players fall in-line with what the DM has planned.

Fair enough.  But then, isn't pre-planned really taken out of the argument?

I mean that, surely no reason is sufficient to 'justify taking away player agency by providing false options'?  

I guess I would clarify the above statement with two caveats:

1.  It is a huge violation of the rules.  

2.  The players are being utterly obstinate and demanding to run one adventure when they'd previously stated their intentions to run the one the DM prepared.

To be honest, I think the above two happen so rarely as to not be a worry, but those are the only sufficient reasons I can think of off hand.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:34AM, SwampDog wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Fair enough.  But then, isn't pre-planned really taken out of the argument?

I mean that, surely no reason is sufficient to 'justify taking away player agency by providing false options'?  

I guess I would clarify the above statement with two caveats:

1.  It is a huge violation of the rules.  

2.  The players are being utterly obstinate and demanding to run one adventure when they'd previously stated their intentions to run the one the DM prepared.

To be honest, I think the above two happen so rarely as to not be a worry, but those are the only sufficient reasons I can think of off hand.

"Pre-conceived" would be another way to put it. The DM has a pre-conceived notion of what the PCs should get or where they should go and he will violate agency to make it happen.

The argument in the article is that, yes, often people DO justify taking away player agency and many times it is because of pre-planned material. I would also personally add that it often also happens because of pre-conceived notions on the DM's part.

And yes, it definitely happens....there have been arguments on this board that if you make room A on the left and room B on the right it is okay to give the PCs room A if they go right because "they won't know the difference anyway"...but you, as DM, have actually violated their agency.

I can accept that but I will also restate one earlier point I made:

I think it is flawed thinking to assume that all players prefer a completely open, utterly-no-railroading type of game vs a more guided experience.  I can say with certainty that I know players who have tried both methods and can find equal or better enjoyment from the latter.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:48AM, SwampDog wrote:

I can accept that but I will also restate one earlier point I made:

I think it is flawed thinking to assume that all players prefer a completely open, utterly-no-railroading type of game vs a more guided experience.  I can say with certainty that I know players who have tried both methods and can find equal or better enjoyment from the latter.

Agreed.

I will put forth to you though that NO player would actively like knowing that a choice they were asked to make literally didn't matter because the DM decided to invalidate it.

Is that also valid?

Yes.    I merely meant that sometimes, for some, limited choices is preferable to anything goes.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:52AM, SwampDog wrote:

Yes.    I merely meant that sometimes, for some, limited choices is preferable to anything goes.

Agreed. So long as those choices actually exist they're still choices.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:50AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:48AM, SwampDog wrote:

I can accept that but I will also restate one earlier point I made:

I think it is flawed thinking to assume that all players prefer a completely open, utterly-no-railroading type of game vs a more guided experience.  I can say with certainty that I know players who have tried both methods and can find equal or better enjoyment from the latter.

Agreed.

I will put forth to you though that NO player would actively like knowing that a choice they were asked to make literally didn't matter because the DM decided to invalidate it.

Is that also valid?

I don't agree. I would rather have a well built encounter that I would come across whether I choose the north pass or the south pass, than two encounters that the DM only spent half the amount of time planning each. The encounter that the PCs actually face would be substandard and the one that they don't face is wasted time on the part of the DM.

My view of this is slightly skewed because I play almost exclusively online and creating combat encounters is a long and arduous process (even once you've actually decided what you want in the combat).

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:14AM, Fardiz wrote:

I don't agree. I would rather have a well built encounter that I would come across whether I choose the north pass or the south pass, than two encounters that the DM only spent half the amount of time planning each. The encounter that the PCs actually face would be substandard and the one that they don't face is wasted time on the part of the DM.

My view of this is slightly skewed because I play almost exclusively online and creating combat encounters is a long and arduous process (even once you've actually decided what you want in the combat).

You are crafting an unfair either-or scenario.

What would be preferable to you? Having two seperate encounters where your choice actually mattered in determining which one you ran into based upon your actions in-character? Or getting one encounter where your choice didn't actually matter in determining which one you ran into?

That is what matters. You are creating a False Dilemma where the DM can either create one encounter with 100% effort of two encounters with 50% effort each.

Unless you have unlimited time to spend, it is not a false dilemma. You seriously do have to chose how much time to alot to each encounter as your total "encounter-making time" is limited, the more different encounter you make (half of which won't be used in your world), the less time you can spend on each one.
 

What would be preferable to you? Having two seperate encounters where your choice actually mattered in determining which one you ran into based upon your actions in-character? Or getting one encounter where your choice didn't actually matter in determining which one you ran into?

I know you  mean that as a rhetorical question, but I would say the latter, given that the DM is more likely to have spent more time on it.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:46AM, Fardiz wrote:

Unless you have unlimited time to spend, it is not a false dilemma. You seriously do have to chose how much time to alot to each encounter as your total "encounter-making time" is limited, the more different encounter you make (half of which won't be used in your world), the less time you can spend on each one.
 

What would be preferable to you? Having two seperate encounters where your choice actually mattered in determining which one you ran into based upon your actions in-character? Or getting one encounter where your choice didn't actually matter in determining which one you ran into?

I know you  mean that as a rhetorical question, but I would say the latter, given that the DM is more likely to have spent more time on it.

You are still qualifying the situation to sway it one way or the other.

We are speaking of an ideal. Which is better? Choices that matter? Or a choice that doesn't? That is the end-all be-all at the moment.

There have been many, many politicians who have argued that human beings 'by nature' don't really want freedom, and that it is better if decisions are just made for them.  After all, people don't really make good decisions.  They need smart, prepared leaders to make up their minds for them in order that they be truly 'happy.'

You want to know how politicians become unself-consciously corrupt and criminal?  There it is.  People can justify anything if it justifies their continued behavior.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:51AM, YagamiFire wrote:

You are still qualifying the situation to sway it one way or the other.

We are speaking of an ideal. Which is better? Choices that matter? Or a choice that doesn't? That is the end-all be-all at the moment.

So your grand theory only works with spherical chickens in a vacuum?

You can continue your sophistry all you like, but most people have real-world considerations that must be taken into account.

A "be-all and end-all" that effects exactly no one is completely pointless.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 5:29PM, Fardiz wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:51AM, YagamiFire wrote:

You are still qualifying the situation to sway it one way or the other.

We are speaking of an ideal. Which is better? Choices that matter? Or a choice that doesn't? That is the end-all be-all at the moment.

So your grand theory only works with spherical chickens in a vacuum?

You can continue your sophistry all you like, but most people have real-world considerations that must be taken into account.

A "be-all and end-all" that effects exactly no one is completely pointless.

Assuming it HAS To be one way or the other, that you can get either one high quality encounter or two lower quality encounters is, in and of itself, a fallacy...as I already pointed out. It is not necessarily true. A DM could prepare two equal quality adventures that would both be fun. Also, both choices don't NEED an encounter, they could have something different...treasure, an NPC, nothing, anything.

And no, that grand theory doesn't work only with spherical chickens...it works with people that can put in a certain amount of work towards something or that create/find/use tools that allow them to output quality with enough efficiency that the time excuse is a non-issue.

Similarly, it assumes that combat is the end-all-be-all of interesting situations that can be derived from having choices in the game...this is a very narrow view of the game in general. I will also point out that you are falsely qualifying that an encounter that has more time spent on it will necessarily be more fun/interesting...which is not necessarily true. Encounters are not equal and, again, a non-encounter could be FAR more enjoyable for the players. However, all that gets into the realm of hypotheticals in regards to the question.

Additionally, you have still not answered the question...you've only made dismissive remarks now and a vague insult towards me and my "sophistry", which is a word you're actually misusing considering there is nothing misleading about my question. It is very direct. Would you prefer to be offered choices where your choice actually impacts the outcome or not? It is a very simple.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:40PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Assuming it HAS To be one way or the other, that you can get either one high quality encounter or two lower quality encounters is, in and of itself, a fallacy...as I already pointed out. It is not necessarily true. A DM could prepare two equal quality adventures that would both be fun. Also, both choices don't NEED an encounter, they could have something different...treasure, an NPC, nothing, anything.

Meeting an NPC and finding a great treasure would be encounters. Encounters aren't just combat you know... Also I was giving your theory the greatest benefit of the doubt, where the players only had choice A and choice B and you only had to prepare 2 encounters. In reality they have almost infinite choices and so you cannot possibly creative a /different/ /cohesive/ /relevant/ encounter that changes by every single player choice.  

And no, that grand theory doesn't work only with spherical chickens...it works with people that can put in a certain amount of work towards something or that create/find/use tools that allow them to output quality with enough efficiency that the time excuse is a non-issue.

Similarly, it assumes that combat is the end-all-be-all of interesting situations that can be derived from having choices in the game...this is a very narrow view of the game in general.

Your words not mine.

I will also point out that you are falsely qualifying that an encounter that has more time spent on it will necessarily be more fun/interesting...which is not necessarily true.

There won't be 100% correlation but as good encounters take time to construct, you can't say that there is no correlation at all.

Encounters are not equal and, again, a non-encounter could be FAR more enjoyable for the players.

What on earth is a non-encounter? A non-encounter is literally nothing happening; afaik no one would find that enjoyble. Did you mean a non-combat encounter? Perhaps you should say what you mean.

However, all that gets into the realm of hypotheticals in regards to the question.

This entire question is a hypothetical.

Additionally, you have still not answered the question...you've only made dismissive remarks now and a vague insult towards me and my "sophistry", which is a word you're actually misusing considering there is nothing misleading about my question. It is very direct. Would you prefer to be offered choices where your choice actually impacts the outcome or not? It is a very simple.

I thought my answer to the question was easy enough to infer. Yes, in a perfect world where the DM has infinite time and resources (or a computer with the perfect algorithm for making encounters) every single player choice would have a bearing on the encounters that the party meets. However this is never the case and you presenting it as the normal state of affairs and that anyone who runs their game elseways is doing it wrong is completely misleading. Hence it is your argument that is sophistry rather than your original question (though clearly the thoughts and intention behind the question are sophistry too).

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:51AM, YagamiFire wrote:

We are speaking of an ideal. Which is better? Choices that matter? Or a choice that doesn't? That is the end-all be-all at the moment.

The illusion of choice is what matters most. That the players don't know that they would have faced something else in a different direction. In this case the choice of paths (north or south) is a topical choice, it is showing that the route through the mountain is more complex and can create the feeling that there is a maze of trails, that they are in an unknown wilderness and could be getting themselves lost helps drive home their location, it also gives them a sense that the world is a bigger place.

Players in a game accept that they are central to the story, it is about them, and so they are fated to have these encounters. While this might not seem realistic, it is a basic principle of a story, the heros are in the right place at the right time.

Which is better? The players don't know what was down the other path, there could have been something worse, there could have been something better, there could be the exact same encounter. So without knowing that there is effectively no "better" arguement from their point of view their choice matters, you can yammer about ideals all you wish but the truth is the player doesn't know that his choice didn't really matter, he only ever sees the choice that he did make.

That means there really is only the need in certain cases to make one encounter that you can use in either choice, since you know you will be throwing away the second encounter. You could prepare 2 different encounters, but the player will never know or see the second one, and thus your illusion of choice will be uneffected either way. 

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:33AM, Fardiz wrote:

I thought my answer to the question was easy enough to infer. Yes, in a perfect world where the DM has infinite time and resources (or a computer with the perfect algorithm for making encounters) every single player choice would have a bearing on the encounters that the party meets. However this is never the case and you presenting it as the normal state of affairs and that anyone who runs their game elseways is doing it wrong is completely misleading. Hence it is your argument that is sophistry rather than your original question (though clearly the thoughts and intention behind the question are sophistry too).

And what if either direction can potentially lead to differently derived random encounters (perhaps that the DM has already rolled for...or not) that the DM is able to elegantly and interestingly improvise? This makes neither path require more or less work, which eliminates the argument about time constraints.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 6:12AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:51AM, YagamiFire wrote:

We are speaking of an ideal. Which is better? Choices that matter? Or a choice that doesn't? That is the end-all be-all at the moment.

The illusion of choice is what matters most. That the players don't know that they would have faced something else in a different direction. In this case the choice of paths (north or south) is a topical choice, it is showing that the route through the mountain is more complex and can create the feeling that there is a maze of trails, that they are in an unknown wilderness and could be getting themselves lost helps drive home their location, it also gives them a sense that the world is a bigger place.

Players in a game accept that they are central to the story, it is about them, and so they are fated to have these encounters. While this might not seem realistic, it is a basic principle of a story, the heros are in the right place at the right time.

Which is better? The players don't know what was down the other path, there could have been something worse, there could have been something better, there could be the exact same encounter. So without knowing that there is effectively no "better" arguement from their point of view their choice matters, you can yammer about ideals all you wish but the truth is the player doesn't know that his choice didn't really matter, he only ever sees the choice that he did make.

That means there really is only the need in certain cases to make one encounter that you can use in either choice, since you know you will be throwing away the second encounter. You could prepare 2 different encounters, but the player will never know or see the second one, and thus your illusion of choice will be uneffected either way. 

The illusion of choice is not choice. That is what the article argues is wrong to do in the game. I agree.

Do you believe your players would be pleased to find out that you have invalidated a number of their choices in the game that you asked them to make? To effectively tell them "Yeah it didn't matter what you did. Either way would have been the same". Would that make them more or less happy as players?

Jan 31, 2013 -- 9:51AM, YagamiFire wrote:

That means there really is only the need in certain cases to make one encounter that you can use in either choice, since you know you will be throwing away the second encounter. You could prepare 2 different encounters, but the player will never know or see the second one, and thus your illusion of choice will be uneffected either way. 

I completely agree with this statement.

There is a big difference between railroading and presenting PCs with the encounters that you've prepared.

Railroading is really about limiting the choices of the players to....."you have one path available to you and that's it" kind of thing.

But if you allow your PCs to choose which direction you want to go and flow with it, you can still insert the encounter you prepared somewhere along the path that THEY have chosen.

Unless you are telling your players absolutely everything about the world, the monsters they're gonna fight, what happens in the future, basically making them omniscient (sp?), then they do not know that the path through the forest will lead to an ambush by Orcs.  They would not know either that if they had chosen the path through the desert that they would encounter an ambush by Orcs.  Any direction that they choose could potentially lead them to an encounter that you have prepared.  They still have the choice on which direction they want to take and you should never force them to pick any specific one.

One thing is that you need to be flexible with your encounters.  If your encounter is a "hidden fortress" somewhere, all paths could potentially lead there, but then it is up to you to provide plenty of hooks to see if your players decide to explore it.  If they choose to ignore it then just go with the flow.

The key however is to have good communication between you and your players so that you know what they will enjoy doing.  This helps allow them as players to make choices in the game, and you as the DM to be able to prepare things you know they'll like and put the option in their path so that they can ultimately decide if they want to experience what you've prepared.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:38AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 5:33AM, Fardiz wrote:

I thought my answer to the question was easy enough to infer. Yes, in a perfect world where the DM has infinite time and resources (or a computer with the perfect algorithm for making encounters) every single player choice would have a bearing on the encounters that the party meets. However this is never the case and you presenting it as the normal state of affairs and that anyone who runs their game elseways is doing it wrong is completely misleading. Hence it is your argument that is sophistry rather than your original question (though clearly the thoughts and intention behind the question are sophistry too).

And what if either direction can potentially lead to differently derived random encounters (perhaps that the DM has already rolled for...or not) that the DM is able to elegantly and interestingly improvise? This makes neither path require more or less work, which eliminates the argument about time constraints.

I would say that rolling random encounter is worse behaviour to your players than constructing good ones yourself. 

Sometimes in D&D the players have to make a choice without having any clue what the consequences are, such as whether to take the right or left door. It sucks having to make an uninformed choice, but it's even worse to have someone else choose for you.

If you have a really cool encounter that you think the players will love, there are plenty of ways to lead them to it without shoving it in their faces. Most of them include simply asking the players or the characters if they want to fight your mummified troll and its army of snakes.

Breaking the 4th wall all the time is not necessarily any better.

YagamiFire, unless your game looks like this:

Ok it's been a week, nothing has happened anywhere to you guys, you should probably start looking for a job, because you are all homeless and unemployed.....fast foreward 40 years, you are sitting on your front porch of the shack you live in, looking at your farm, recalling your dreams of glory in your youth and wishing somethign had happened....

The very existence of the adventure is that fate brought it to them, otherwise see above. Understand that without this illusion they would have probably never have been adventurers.

That guy with a map they met in the town? The rogue caught pickpocketing one of them, that traded information in exchange for being let go?  As for their choices making a difference, they still can and do despite fate working to make certain things happen.

For example, they have limited suplies and time. They need to get to a certain place as soon as possible, and the amount they get paid is dependent on this. Or they are sent as reinforcements and the sooner they get there, the better they can help, so there is a sense of urgency.

They need to get over a mountain pass, and don't know the route, so I have a map with a number of paths and options they can take, some are dead ends, some are longer then others or double back. So they need to navigate this maze. What paths they take will determine how much time it takes to get through, so it is important what choice they make.

As for encounters, I have readied 4 big unters, One with Giants, one with a mercenary group sent to stop them, Harpies throughing boulders on them from above and and NPC who is lost and needs their help. Regardless of which paths they take, they will meet all 4 encounters. 

There are some random encounters tossed in there I might roll every second path choice, but these 4 main encounters will happen regardless of their choices.

Since it is time critical and I don't want them to fail completely (get to the battle to find it is over and everyone is dead) after the maximum time that I want them in the pathways they will make the right choice and reach the final path, regardless of which path they take. (if they come here again they will find an avelanche has occured, changing the paths, so there will not be any inconsistancies)

So here 4 encounters and the maximum time spent in the trails is an unavoidable fate, but the rest of their choices are real. They have both real choices and the illusion of a choice.

This is a balance a DM makes between real choices and the illusion of choice. Some things are fated to happen (such as specific encounters)  Events that will ahppen to them regardless of where they are. ie they meet a hermit in the wilderness and it is going to happen, regardless of where they are in the wilderness, it is part of the story.

What are the chances of them crossing paths at random? Astronomical really. But it happens. What if it didn't happen? See above about ending the game after a brief ra-cap of a dull life having been wasted.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:58AM, jplay36 wrote:

all paths could potentially lead there

This? This line right here is rail-roading. All rails lead to the same destination. They are rails.

An illusion of choice is not a choice. Period.

I get it...people make a "My Precious Encounter" and NEED the PCs to get there and interact with it. Why? Because the DM is making it all about them. Improve your other skills...improvise a lot better...randomly generate things in your free time and populate an area with them...expand as necessary. Plant seeds everywhere instead of just cultivating and presenting fully grown plants.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:59AM, Fardiz wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I would say that rolling random encounter is worse behaviour to your players than constructing good ones yourself. 

Why? Because you presume that something you lovingly craft MUST be better than something random generation hands to you and says "Make this work, smart guy!" ? That seems arrogant. That is what the article talks about...DMs thinking they know better. I have gotten AWESOME results from generating encounters and treasure randomly...things I would have NEVER thought of and I am a damn imaginative guy. When you release control, you will find it forces you to increase your creativity because when everything comes from within you are limited to what is on your mind. When something is handed to you and you have to make it work that is when REAL creativity and imagination kicks in...that is when you have to step your game up.

Are you saying that nothing randomly generated and then fitted into the game could be better than something you have made yourself?

Pretty much. You make encounters that will fit your party. If you go completely random, then the encounter is likely to be too hard or too easy or just not fit. If you randomise within constraints, then you may as well have made the choices.

And randomising and then attempting to get it to fit party/story/etc could take as much time (if not more) than just creating the encounters yourself, for no good reason.

Randomised encounters on the fly are likely to be no better than anything you could create out of your head on the fly and won't have the same natural flow. 

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:08AM, Forehead wrote:

If you have a really cool encounter that you think the players will love, there are plenty of ways to lead them to it without shoving it in their faces. Most of them include simply asking the players or the characters if they want to fight your mummified troll and its army of snakes.

I agree with you that you do not need to shove encounters in the PCs faces.  That is why it is extremely important to communicate with your players.  This is something that I advocate for in almost every post I have placed on these boards.  If you communicate well and consistently with your players then you will have an excellent idea of the kinds of things that they are interested in because you hear it directly from them.  You can then tailor the encounters that you create to their tastes.

Once again I am not saying to shove your pre-made encounters in their faces, I am saying that IF you have encounters that you know your players will enjoy you have to give them an "In" to enter that encounter.

MrCustomer's ideas above are an excellent example of that in my opinion.  The PCs in his example have many choices, which I can assume he is fairly confident that these are things his players are interested in.  He has thrown out some hooks to see entice the PCs to eventually go to a certain place.  If they choose to head in that direction they are now presented with several options on how to get there.  No matter which path they choose they will at some point run into one or more of the encounters that he has prepared for them.


Quote from MrCustomer:  "This is a balance a DM makes between real choices and the illusion of choice.  Some things are fated to happen (such as specific encounters)  Events that will happen to them regardless of where they are.  ie they meet a hermit int he wilderness and it is going to happen, regardless of where they are in the wilderness, it is part of the story."

This is very true.  PCs/Players do have a habit of choosing options that a DM may have never thought of, but again if good communication is present in the group then the options that they choose will only enhance the overall experience and with a good DM will give him/her opportunities to insert some of the encounters he's prepared at differing times.

I believe that the game must be collaborative.  Players and DM must work together in order to make it an enjoyable experience for all involved.  However, unless the players idea of an enjoyable experience is the "uneventful life" that MrCustomer presented at the beginning of his post, then a DM should have a general idea of what's going to potentially happen 2 to 3 sessions out. (He/she also needs to be able to adjust things as the story develops and the players make the unexpected choices).

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:28AM, MrCustomer wrote:

YagamiFire, unless your game looks like this:

Ok it's been a week, nothing has happened anywhere to you guys, you should probably start looking for a job, because you are all homeless and unemployed.....fast foreward 40 years, you are sitting on your front porch of the shack you live in, looking at your farm, recalling your dreams of glory in your youth and wishing somethign had happened....

The very existence of the adventure is that fate brought it to them, otherwise see above. Understand that without this illusion they would have probably never have been adventurers.

Untrue. My players are motivated and SEEK adventure. They have characters with personalities, goals, desires and concerns that existed before Session 1. They have NO NEED to be given hooks. Do hooks and events still occur around them in the world? Yes. Do they often choose to ignore them? Yes. That is their right as players. If you have players that NEED something to happen to them to get their characters to do something they are NOT adventurers in the first place...they are reactionaries. I would strongly suggest having your players invest more in their character to give them some goals and personality.

That guy with a map they met in the town? The rogue caught pickpocketing one of them, that traded information in exchange for being let go?  As for their choices making a difference, they still can and do despite fate working to make certain things happen.

There is no fate. There is only the DM and the dice. Without actual fate in the game world, I prefer to leave most things up to the dice rather than me. When they go into a town I am rarely sure of what event might transpire there for them. I roll for what is happening...and let that decide. Usually multiple times depending on the size of the town. My players, however, are never short of adventure or interesting things to do. Hell, they already own a roadside inn and have helped set up a mining operation while managing to battle the undead and abominations from beyond space & time.

For example, they have limited suplies and time. They need to get to a certain place as soon as possible, and the amount they get paid is dependent on this. Or they are sent as reinforcements and the sooner they get there, the better they can help, so there is a sense of urgency.

Need. That is a funny word. Do THEY need to...or does the DM need them to? Honest question for clarification.

As for encounters, I have readied 4 big unters, One with Giants, one with a mercenary group sent to stop them, Harpies throughing boulders on them from above and and NPC who is lost and needs their help. Regardless of which paths they take, they will meet all 4 encounters.

Is "Regardless of which paths they take" also mean "Regardless of what they do" ? And if so, that is railroading.

There are some random encounters tossed in there I might roll every second path choice, but these 4 main encounters will happen regardless of their choices.

Ah. Clarification. Railroading.

Since it is time critical and I don't want them to fail completely (get to the battle to find it is over and everyone is dead) after the maximum time that I want them in the pathways they will make the right choice and reach the final path, regardless of which path they take. (if they come here again they will find an avelanche has occured, changing the paths, so there will not be any inconsistancies)

Thereby robbing their choices of any real importance since they cannot fail because you have decided you don't want them to. Gotcha.

So here 4 encounters and the maximum time spent in the trails is an unavoidable fate, but the rest of their choices are real. They have both real choices and the illusion of a choice.

Well really what they have is a series of choices that don't ultimately matter (they WILL meet all 4 encounters and they WILL succeed and arrive) and illusions of choice. Actually both of those sound like the illusion of choice. All of it sounds like railroading.

This is a balance a DM makes between real choices and the illusion of choice. Some things are fated to happen (such as specific encounters)  Events that will ahppen to them regardless of where they are. ie they meet a hermit in the wilderness and it is going to happen, regardless of where they are in the wilderness, it is part of the story.

And there's that inevitable word "story". Because, ultimately, this is about the DM's story yes? The PCs are just the actors. Railroading.

What are the chances of them crossing paths at random? Astronomical really. But it happens. What if it didn't happen? See above about ending the game after a brief ra-cap of a dull life having been wasted.

Completely fallacy dependent on the DM not having crafted a campaign world...but a novel. What if they meet someone and kill him instead of taking the hook? Oops! Choo choo gotta find a way to get them back on board that storytrain! What if they decide to leave the army forces to die so they can loot the bodies? Oops! Choo choo gotta find a way to get them back on board that storytrain! What if they decide this job is not worth the risk because of the encounters in the mountains? Oops! Choo choo gotta find a way to get them back on board that storytrain!

Sorry, I can't agree with any of this. You are trying to rationalize railroading. Your argument is "It's okay if the PCs don't know, those stupid idiots!" and I can't ever support that. I don't support lying to the players...I don't support deceiving them about the game. Gussy it up however you want but it's still lipstick on a pig..you are rationalizing railroading.

Here's some quotes...

Regardless of which paths they take, they will meet all 4 encounters.

will happen regardless of their choices.

I don't want them to fail completely

they will make the right choice and reach the final path, regardless of which path they take.

it is part of the story.

Look at how much you are predetermining about what WILL happen and what the players WILL do. Railroading. It's a pretty railroad, no doubt, with comfortable seats and a smooth ride...but that doesn't change the fact that CHOO CHOO.

Out of interest, Yagami, have you ever taken part in any organised play, such as LFR?
 

All paths lead to Rome.


A common destination is a wilderness is common as terrain pretty much forces the trails to converge in passible areas. As difficult terrain (swamps, dence areas, cursed areas etc) might force them towards a particular locations. Such as a river ford, a particular light area of the forest that is easy to travel, etc, the terrain will naturally funnel these pathways to converge. Also there could be a magical effect that draws people in that dirrection unknowingly. All are plausible.


As for "railroading" the players into finding the temple, in 1,000s of square miles their chances of finding it is pretty remote otherwise. So really what is your game going to be?

"you grow old and die"?

or

"you come to a clearing, mysterious ruins stand in the middle, nothing grows here and the earth feels unnaturally dead...." 

I think there is a certain preception going into the game that the DM is going to make a story.  

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:54AM, Fardiz wrote:

Out of interest, Yagami, have you ever taken part in any organised play, such as LFR?
 

Nope. Never had the means when I was younger or the time when I was older. Nor do I think I would enjoy it very much as it is not intended to be challenging. I don't really care about experiencing trite fantasy stories via an un-challenging version of a game I like.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:56AM, MrCustomer wrote:

All paths lead to Rome.


A common destination is a wilderness is common as terrain pretty much forces the trails to converge in passible areas. As difficult terrain (swamps, dence areas, cursed areas etc) might force them towards a particular locations. Such as a river ford, a particular light area of the forest that is easy to travel, etc, the terrain will naturally funnel these pathways to converge. Also there could be a magical effect that draws people in that dirrection unknowingly. All are plausible.


As for "railroading" the players into finding the temple, in 1,000s of square miles their chances of finding it is pretty remote otherwise. So really what is your game going to be?

"you grow old and die"?

or

"you come to a clearing, mysterious ruins stand in the middle, nothing grows here and the earth feels unnaturally dead...." 

I think there is a certain preception going into the game that the DM is going to make a story.  

And the existence of my game (and many others) that are neither invalidates your assumption. And it is an assmption. Assuming the DM is going to make a story might well be the most toxic assumption in the entire hobby, empowering countless amateur wannabe novelists to use PCs as their bitplayers and actors instead of letting their players play the game.

To clarify...your argument is that you cannot see an option between A) railroad the players or B) nothing happens? Because I think I have pretty well illustrated how your previous post is loaded with examples of railroading.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:36AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Why? Because you presume that something you lovingly craft MUST be better than something random generation hands to you and says "Make this work, smart guy!" ? That seems arrogant. That is what the article talks about...DMs thinking they know better. I have gotten AWESOME results from generating encounters and treasure randomly...things I would have NEVER thought of and I am a damn imaginative guy. When you release control, you will find it forces you to increase your creativity because when everything comes from within you are limited to what is on your mind. When something is handed to you and you have to make it work that is when REAL creativity and imagination kicks in...that is when you have to step your game up.

Are you saying that nothing randomly generated and then fitted into the game could be better than something you have made yourself?

I myself am definitely NOT saying that the encounters that I make are any better or worse than randomly generated encounters.  I use randomly generated encounters in my games too.  Sometimes they are not the greatest but sometimes they are the most memorable ones we've had.

What I am saying is that in my game the players want to create a story and as they create it, by the choices they make, it becomes important from time to time to have a skeleton frame-work available for them.  This skeleton frame-work will also change dynamically from session to session based on what the PCs have done during the current session.  As I plan for the next session I take stock of what transpired from the previous session(s) and change stuff as necessary to help the Players/PCs to move along on the path that THEY have chosen.

For example:  PCs are heading down a road.  Let's say for this example that the road forks into two paths.  One path leads to a forest.  The other path to the mountains.  Down either path I could place a "hidden fortress" for them to explore.  This is the "In" for them, IF they so choose.  They may elect to sneak past the fortress and never look at what's inside and that is fine.  They might elect to storm the gates, or burn it to the ground, or turn the other way.  They may even decide at the fork in the road to not go down either path.  Whatever choice they make is fine with me and I will be more than willing to improvise, use random encounters or whatever so that they can determine their own destinies.  However, since I know the kinds of things that my players like because I communicate with them often, I chose to create the hidden fortress and put it in front of them so that they can make the choice of whether or not they want to experience it.

I do NOT see this as rail-roading at all.  I see this as working with your players, through communication, to prepare things they will enjoy, and then giving them a way to have at it.

@Yagamifire:  I respect your opinion on this and will enjoy discussing this further, however if you are of the opinion that they way I am doing things is rail-roading then we will probably have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:58AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:54AM, Fardiz wrote:

Out of interest, Yagami, have you ever taken part in any organised play, such as LFR?
 

Nope. Never had the means when I was younger or the time when I was older. Nor do I think I would enjoy it very much as it is not intended to be challenging. I don't really care about experiencing trite fantasy stories via an un-challenging version of a game I like.

I didn't think so. And yet 1000s of players do. They enjoy playing encounters that been worked on hard and thoroughly playtested to be suitable for the any party that might come across them. Yes, some LFR adventures (especially the older ones when the edition was new and PCs had fewer choices) are easy, however scaling them up to be a challenge isn't particularly difficult. Most of the new mods (especially by authors such as Dave Kay and Mickey Tan) are extremely good and quite challenging. Same goes for the EPIC series.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:01AM, jplay36 wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@Yagamifire:  I respect your opinion on this and will enjoy discussing this further, however if you are of the opinion that they way I am doing things is rail-roading then we will probably have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

I respect yours as well jplay. There is nothing wrong with a passionate discussion.

If the quantum-fortress lies at the end of both roads...just make one road. What I find disingenuous is when a DM tries to make it look like their world has more available to do than it really does because of lack of effort on the DMs part. If you have ONE THING do not give an option where both choices lead to the same thing simply because you can't be bothered to stick to placing it on one of the paths.

There are SO MANY things a group can find interesting...so many things that can spark intrigue and adventure...and we are stuck, as a community, in this idea that there is really ONE PATH to get places. Like a damned video game. D&D is not, nor should it ever be, like a video game in that regard. It can be so much more. It SHOULD be more for your players.

Instead of staying in that rut why not try and improve how stuff is done so the choices DO matter? So they DO have impact? So they AREN'T false? If the answer is a lack of desire to do so...then so be it. That is a choice for every individual DM to make. But I refuse to believe the answer is "Because that's the way it is" because that is bullcrap. I do not do it. I have seen examples of plenty of others that don't do that. There is no reason it has to be accepted as the norm.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:05AM, Fardiz wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:58AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:54AM, Fardiz wrote:

Out of interest, Yagami, have you ever taken part in any organised play, such as LFR?
 

Nope. Never had the means when I was younger or the time when I was older. Nor do I think I would enjoy it very much as it is not intended to be challenging. I don't really care about experiencing trite fantasy stories via an un-challenging version of a game I like.

I didn't think so. And yet 1000s of players do. They enjoy playing encounters that been worked on hard and thoroughly playtested to be suitable for the any party that might come across them. Yes, some LFR adventures (especially the older ones when the edition was new and PCs had fewer choices) are easy, however scaling them up to be a challenge isn't particularly difficult. Most of the new mods (especially by authors such as Dave Kay and Mickey Tan) are extremely good and quite challenging. Same goes for the EPIC series.

Are you speaking to mechanical difficulty? Pass.

I want the challenge of a world to explore, tame and master. I do not care about fighting probability.

Yes, you do. You've made this abundantly clear. But you cannot say that doing it another way is ethically wrong. 

If you use the illusion of choice...well illusion is defined as a deception. You are deceiving the players.

Deception is ethically wrong.

You are justifying what you are doing. You believe it to be the "best" way...or the only way...so you justify the deception as necessary. This creates cognitive dissonance because you believe you're doing what is best...while engaging in something less than desirable.  This then becomes righteous indignation that you have no choice.

After all...you're doing your best right?

Query: do you dm to the best of your possible ability?

Except you're not deceiving the players if they have sat down to play an LFR adventure. They know what they have signed up.

I would disagree that lying is always ethically wrong.

I never said my way was the best way (in fact I said your way was the best way in the hypothetical siutation that it would need). I am just saying there are many ways to play and that your relentless bashing of people that don't play your way is not exactly helpful.

I don't DM to the best of my possible ability. Because that would involve dropping my degree and spending every waking moment preparing for my campaign.  

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

If the quantum-fortress lies at the end of both roads...just make one road. What I find disingenuous is when a DM tries to make it look like their world has more available to do than it really does because of lack of effort on the DMs part. If you have ONE THING do not give an option where both choices lead to the same thing simply because you can't be bothered to stick to placing it on one of the paths.

Interesting point here.  Yes I agree I could just make one path.  However, I use opportunities like this to help populate the game world with different things.

For example:  In the choice I previously explained let's say the party takes the path to the mountains.  So I will place the fortress I have made along the parties path so that they have the option to explore it if they so choose.  Now, regardless of whether or not they decide to explore the fortress and experience the encounters I have placed within, the fortress will now and forever be along that path in this world.  It becomes an feature of the world around them.  Perhaps they decide to bypass it for now, but decide that later on they want to go back to it and explore it, (say like 3 levels later or something).  No problem, then now know where it is and I can always scale up the encounters to be a fitting challenge or even change what the encounters are completely, either on the fly or before the sesson, in order to make them more enjoyable to the players.

The other pathway, the one not chosen that leads to the forest, remains for now unexplored.  If at some point in time the party chooses to come back this way and decides to take that path, I can have other encounter(s) available that they will have the option to engage in when they are presented to them.  I can even decide to use randomly generated encounters for this forest path and then incorporate elements from those encounters into the world.  Example:  If I rolled a random encounter for the party when they went down the forest path and it came up as Trolls.  I could then have those Trolls come from a swamp close by.  The Trolls could be trying to expand their territory into the forest which is causing problems for those that live in or around the forest.  Now the PCs show up and they can decide if they want to help fix this situation or avoid it or something else that they have come up with on their own.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Instead of staying in that rut why not try and improve how stuff is done so the choices DO matter? So they DO have impact? So they AREN'T false?

I personally do not think that my style of running a game falls into the "rut" category but I can see the benefits as well to what you say here.  Yes indeed there are other methods and ways of running a game that I am not using and really can make for excellent adventures.  I fully admit that I am not a perfect DM and I make mistakes just like anyone else.  This is one reason I am here is to hear from other DMs so that I can get different points of view on things and try to become a better DM for my players.

In the short time that I have joined this forum I have already heard lots of wonderful advice and have incorporated some of it into the game I am running and have presented some of it to my friend who is running the game that I am a player in.  He as well has chosen to incorporate some of the ideas and methods I have heard/learned here.

So I am more than willing and indeed greatful for all points of view and constructive criticism presented in these threads.  All of that being said I still do believe that communication between players and the DM is the key to all things and that I have had very few problems in recent years in both the game I'm running and the game in which I'm a player.  So while my overall style of DMing may not be best for everyone, it is working wonderfully for my group.  I can say that with confidence because I hear it from my players all the time.

There is middle ground between a whole wide world of random chart and improvisation or railroad stories. It is called "closed locations." You may have hear them refer to as "dungeons." As in "Dungeons & Dragons."

The closed locations can be anything, not just dungeon. And these closed location can exist in the wider world that you make with your players. The closed location can be created by the DM when the players say they want to go there, with prepared encounters like many people like, but with choices that matter in the context of this closed location, especially if the things that live in the closed location are going after their own goals and not wait around for the PCs to come and kill them.

It is best of both worlds. Real choice, with prepared encounters. No story except what you make by playing together. Railroad and illusion of choice are the worst example of DMing.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:01AM, jplay36 wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@Yagamifire:  I respect your opinion on this and will enjoy discussing this further, however if you are of the opinion that they way I am doing things is rail-roading then we will probably have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

I respect yours as well jplay. There is nothing wrong with a passionate discussion.

If the quantum-fortress lies at the end of both roads...just make one road. What I find disingenuous is when a DM tries to make it look like their world has more available to do than it really does because of lack of effort on the DMs part. If you have ONE THING do not give an option where both choices lead to the same thing simply because you can't be bothered to stick to placing it on one of the paths.

There are SO MANY things a group can find interesting...so many things that can spark intrigue and adventure...and we are stuck, as a community, in this idea that there is really ONE PATH to get places. Like a damned video game. D&D is not, nor should it ever be, like a video game in that regard. It can be so much more. It SHOULD be more for your players.

Instead of staying in that rut why not try and improve how stuff is done so the choices DO matter? So they DO have impact? So they AREN'T false? If the answer is a lack of desire to do so...then so be it. That is a choice for every individual DM to make. But I refuse to believe the answer is "Because that's the way it is" because that is bullcrap. I do not do it. I have seen examples of plenty of others that don't do that. There is no reason it has to be accepted as the norm.

If you have an interesting site for adventure and the choice of which fork in the road is irrelevant... is it really so bad to add the interesting stuff you already made up at the end of the road the characters choose? After all, you can go back and add more interesting stuff to the other road later.

By the way, YES something I lovingly craft is going to be better than something I randomly generated. The random table is useful to generate ideas. I even use random tables to create unexpected results which inspires ideas. But organizing the random chaos into something coherent is what creativity IS.

If both roads are equally travelled, there isn't much difference.

As far as the ethics of deception there is a huge difference in bearing false witness (telling a parable or story, for instance) and bearing false witness AGAINST someone. A comedian making up a story or a magician with an extra card up his sleeve or a singer singing a ballad are not engaging in unethical activities any more than a dungeonmaster who describes two paths and then puts the RUINED TOWER OF AWESOME ADVENTURES adventure at the end of the path so chosen.

Just my 2cp.

YagamiFire, if deception is so ethically wrong that this is an ethical issue, then so is violence for entertainment and thus the players are even worse then the DM. This is a falasy or reasoning to consider this an ethical reason.

The DM controls fate, so it is not deception. If somethign is fated to happen, it will happen. Fate is even a common fantasy theme.

Extraneous paths can be used as fluff, just as in describing trees and other objects they pass, which emmerses the characters rather then saying "you pick your way through winding pathways"

I am not advocating that this is the only way that a DM writes a game, but the bottom line is that the players want a game, not aimless wondering. EVERYTHING the DM puts in that game is made up, you do understand that, right?

Open sandbox games are fine, but if you want an actual adventure (such as exploring an anceint temple) you are going to have to accept Fate's intervention. 

Sure you could run a game entirely on Random Encounters, but you know what that game lacks? A real story. Nothing is going to happen unless you accept the premise of fate's intervention via the DM.

That NPC you meet, in the forest, tavern, street etc? Ya that's rigged. That poster you notice walking past? How come noone else has applied and done the job and it is waiting for you? Rigged.  Adventure hook? Nope it is all rigged my friend. The King hires you instead of sending his own men? BS! The basic precept of absolute honesty dictates that logically nothing interesting will ever happen because the game itself is rigged in the first place.

There is a difference between railroading the players (forcing them on a single path) and manipulating fate to ensure they actually have an adventure.   

Players going through a forest to travel someplace and you know they need to level up and get better gear, so you toss in an old temple to explore on the way, and oops they they turned left instead of right? well ok guess they don't get an interesting adventure today? Thats just being idiotic.  

After the game say to the players "I decided to put a temple in your path" and the asnwer won't be (except from apparently you) "What so no matter which was I went I would have found it? You lied to me man, Lied! I can't trust you again!" That's a crazy person off their meds kind of response.

Tell them that instead of fighting a bear that   they could have had an interesting and epic adventure exploring an anceint temple, but too bad you turned left, and they will rightfully think you are an idiot and consider getting a DM that actually does interesting things.

Want to be absolutely ethical? Then don't glorify violence by playing D&D.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:18AM, jplay36 wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

If the quantum-fortress lies at the end of both roads...just make one road. What I find disingenuous is when a DM tries to make it look like their world has more available to do than it really does because of lack of effort on the DMs part. If you have ONE THING do not give an option where both choices lead to the same thing simply because you can't be bothered to stick to placing it on one of the paths.

Interesting point here.  Yes I agree I could just make one path.  However, I use opportunities like this to help populate the game world with different things.

For example:  In the choice I previously explained let's say the party takes the path to the mountains.  So I will place the fortress I have made along the parties path so that they have the option to explore it if they so choose.  Now, regardless of whether or not they decide to explore the fortress and experience the encounters I have placed within, the fortress will now and forever be along that path in this world.  It becomes an feature of the world around them.  Perhaps they decide to bypass it for now, but decide that later on they want to go back to it and explore it, (say like 3 levels later or something).  No problem, then now know where it is and I can always scale up the encounters to be a fitting challenge or even change what the encounters are completely, either on the fly or before the sesson, in order to make them more enjoyable to the players.

The other pathway, the one not chosen that leads to the forest, remains for now unexplored.  If at some point in time the party chooses to come back this way and decides to take that path, I can have other encounter(s) available that they will have the option to engage in when they are presented to them.  I can even decide to use randomly generated encounters for this forest path and then incorporate elements from those encounters into the world.  Example:  If I rolled a random encounter for the party when they went down the forest path and it came up as Trolls.  I could then have those Trolls come from a swamp close by.  The Trolls could be trying to expand their territory into the forest which is causing problems for those that live in or around the forest.  Now the PCs show up and they can decide if they want to help fix this situation or avoid it or something else that they have come up with on their own.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Instead of staying in that rut why not try and improve how stuff is done so the choices DO matter? So they DO have impact? So they AREN'T false?

I personally do not think that my style of running a game falls into the "rut" category but I can see the benefits as well to what you say here.  Yes indeed there are other methods and ways of running a game that I am not using and really can make for excellent adventures.  I fully admit that I am not a perfect DM and I make mistakes just like anyone else.  This is one reason I am here is to hear from other DMs so that I can get different points of view on things and try to become a better DM for my players.

In the short time that I have joined this forum I have already heard lots of wonderful advice and have incorporated some of it into the game I am running and have presented some of it to my friend who is running the game that I am a player in.  He as well has chosen to incorporate some of the ideas and methods I have heard/learned here.

So I am more than willing and indeed greatful for all points of view and constructive criticism presented in these threads.  All of that being said I still do believe that communication between players and the DM is the key to all things and that I have had very few problems in recent years in both the game I'm running and the game in which I'm a player.  So while my overall style of DMing may not be best for everyone, it is working wonderfully for my group.  I can say that with confidence because I hear it from my players all the time.

This is a +5 sword!

Feb 1, 2013 -- 10:00AM, YagamiFire wrote:

If you use the illusion of choice...well illusion is defined as a deception. You are deceiving the players. Deception is ethically wrong. You are justifying what you are doing. You believe it to be the "best" way...or the only way...so you justify the deception as necessary. This creates cognitive dissonance because you believe you're doing what is best...while engaging in something less than desirable. This then becomes righteous indignation that you have no choice. After all...you're doing your best right? Query: do you dm to the best of your possible ability?

Eh...I dunno.

I think it's ethically wrong of my players wanting to journey ten+ miles in the opposite direction of the one they were told to go in when they asked the witch where the quest object they were looking for is.

So, I'll be damned if I don't just use what I already have and dropping it in their path instead of having to make up ten miles worth of terrain on the spot. 

Social contract and all that.

Yagami,

This is the way they've always played.  They've never had to defend it before.  Let it be.

Wow, condescending much? 

You get what you earn, Fardiz.  You've made a fine show of dismissing most everything I've said or most everything Yagami has said.  You've obfuscated, side-stepped, reinterpreted, redefined, inserted arguments and straw men into your replies and done your outstanding best to justify your position with the the worst sort of rhetoric.  Which, it is plainly clear, you will continue doing.

This is not a debate.  I have heard little, if any argument.  It is clear that people here feel precisely the way I said people would feel when I wrote the original post that was linked at the beginning of this thread.  Quote,

It says that as the DM, "I am entitled to make use of whatever adventure I have conceived, for the good of the players and for my own convenience."  Many DMs will defend it ethically on that specific basis.  They will argue, "A good, interesting story is GOOD for the players ... and the more work I have done on that story, the better it will be, because it will be a deeper, more meaningful experience."

This is precisely what the people have been doing in this thread, exactly as described and for the reasons I described, in the post I wrote before any of you began speaking.  So you're not only in denial about your motivations, you're predictable as well.

The quality of the campaign has been repeatedly brought up as an argument.  Yet I said, quote,

It is a common argument in other fields, and is refuted directly by the axiom that Home Rule is better than 'good' government.

That is not up for debate.  It has been proven, over and over, by colonialists who failed to maintain their colonial rule because the people under their authority refused to submit to their 'moral' superiority.

All I see here is a lot of DMs demonstrating what they believe is their moral superiority.

There is no debate here.  The lot of you have rarely, if ever, been challenged on this point before.  You don't want to change how you play.  Very well.  DON'T.

No one cares if you do or don't.

On the other hand, if you are offering your position as a prescriptive for how to DM, you're 40 years too late.  You're playing the way DMs have always played, which is why there are so many crummy, cruddy games.  Maybe your campaign isn't.  But the prescription you're offering to DMs who are not as brilliant as all of you makes for crummy crappiness.

It always has.  Everyone knows it.  No one knows of a better way.  No one has thought of a better way.  And this is the way it has always been.

Some of you are going to jump on this comment.  You're going to pull it apart and debate it point by point and in so doing, you will change the meaning of the individual sentences in order to create your own straw men to argue against.  This reply is not a collection of points.  This is ONE reply.

Most of you are skilled at pulling apart replies, because the style of debate on the Net encourages this.  By all means, do so.  By all means, make yourselves feel better.  That is what people on the net do.

But understand.  I don't care how you play.  I don't care what you believe.  I don't care what your players think is best.  I don't care.  I wrote my condescending comment to get my compatriot Yagami down off the ledge, because he's fighting this firefight brilliantly, but he's wasting his time.  You're not listening.  You don't want to listen.

And why should you?  This is why you come on these forums.  To speak.  Not to listen.

It isn't how we've always played, or even a "we" it is a simple matter that in order for something like "you stumble upon a clearing with an anceint temple in the center" you either have to put it there or play some huge odds in hops that they travel there. What are the chances that can happen in 1,000,000 acres of forest? Pretty damned remote. 

Which do you prefer? Exploring an anceint temple or a random encounter with 1d3 wolves?

My god! an anceint temple? How dare the DM railroad us!

That could be a DM's plot for a game, the PCs are traveling though a dark, haunted woods and stumble of an ancient temple, somehow we are told that this is unethical.

The interjection of an alternative of your conception, Mr. Customer, is an obfuscation.  I prefer to run my world in a way you have yet to describe.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:27PM, tao_alexis wrote:

You get what you earn, Fardiz.  You've made a fine show of dismissing most everything I've said or most everything Yagami has said.  You've obfuscated, side-stepped, reinterpreted, redefined, inserted arguments and straw men into your replies and done your outstanding best to justify your position with the the worst sort of rhetoric.  Which, it is plainly clear, you will continue doing.

This is not a debate.  I have heard little, if any argument.  It is clear that people here feel precisely the way I said people would feel when I wrote the original post that was linked at the beginning of this thread.  Quote,

It says that as the DM, "I am entitled to make use of whatever adventure I have conceived, for the good of the players and for my own convenience."  Many DMs will defend it ethically on that specific basis.  They will argue, "A good, interesting story is GOOD for the players ... and the more work I have done on that story, the better it will be, because it will be a deeper, more meaningful experience."

This is precisely what the people have been doing in this thread, exactly as described and for the reasons I described, in the post I wrote before any of you began speaking.  So you're not only in denial about your motivations, you're predictable as well.

The quality of the campaign has been repeatedly brought up as an argument.  Yet I said, quote,

It is a common argument in other fields, and is refuted directly by the axiom that Home Rule is better than 'good' government.

That is not up for debate.  It has been proven, over and over, by colonialists who failed to maintain their colonial rule because the people under their authority refused to submit to their 'moral' superiority.

All I see here is a lot of DMs demonstrating what they believe is their moral superiority.

There is no debate here.  The lot of you have rarely, if ever, been challenged on this point before.  You don't want to change how you play.  Very well.  DON'T.

No one cares if you do or don't.

On the other hand, if you are offering your position as a prescriptive for how to DM, you're 40 years too late.  You're playing the way DMs have always played, which is why there are so many crummy, cruddy games.  Maybe your campaign isn't.  But the prescription you're offering to DMs who are not as brilliant as all of you makes for crummy crappiness.

It always has.  Everyone knows it.  No one knows of a better way.  No one has thought of a better way.  And this is the way it has always been.

Some of you are going to jump on this comment.  You're going to pull it apart and debate it point by point and in so doing, you will change the meaning of the individual sentences in order to create your own straw men to argue against.  This reply is not a collection of points.  This is ONE reply.

Most of you are skilled at pulling apart replies, because the style of debate on the Net encourages this.  By all means, do so.  By all means, make yourselves feel better.  That is what people on the net do.

But understand.  I don't care how you play.  I don't care what you believe.  I don't care what your players think is best.  I don't care.  I wrote my condescending comment to get my compatriot Yagami down off the ledge, because he's fighting this firefight brilliantly, but he's wasting his time.  You're not listening.  You don't want to listen.

And why should you?  This is why you come on these forums.  To speak.  Not to listen.

Nice sidestep.

Quoting the original link and pointing out that the material therein is not being addressed, but is being demonstrated, is not a sidestep.  That is a false reinterpretation.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:27PM, tao_alexis wrote:

But understand.  I don't care how you play.  I don't care what you believe.  I don't care what your players think is best.  I don't care.  I wrote my condescending comment to get my compatriot Yagami down off the ledge, because he's fighting this firefight brilliantly, but he's wasting his time.  You're not listening.  You don't want to listen.

Tao I understand your point of view.  And I as well do not truly care how other people play their individual games.  How and what they do within their own groups is something that nobody but them can change.

Yagami has made some excellent points as well and I agree that his arguments for his point of view are well thought out and delivered well.

I do not take offense to anyone thinking of the way I run my games as good, bad, wonderful, horrible or anything else, or even calling it as such.

As I have stated in previous posts I am by no means a perfect DM (such a thing does not exist IMO).  The way I do things, the "overall" method that I use is ever changing.  As I learn new things and hear different points of view I am more than willing to try them within my group to see how they can be used to work for us and to improve the overall experience of our games.  Some things that I have tried have not worked out while others have added immensely.

I hope that everyone can use these threads in a manner such as I am trying to do.  Trying to use them as a place for growth by discussing openly and honestly about our own experiences and handling any criticism in a mature manner.

Tao is not wrong in basically stating that people will stick to what they know and that there are many games that suffer for it.  This is only because those that ONLY stick to what they know AND are NOT willing to hear others opinions on ways they can improve are limiting themselves and their players.  Some groups just work that way and they do manage to have enjoyable adventures together.  Others work that way but have great difficulties.

I will say that I as well do stick to a lot of the things that I am familiar with.  However, I have also been incorporating new methods and ideas that I've been hearing from the posters on this forum.  And while I do not currently use the methods that Yagami has been discussing I am more than willing to try his methods and see how they work within my group, while at the same time I will also discuss my opinions on the matter from my own personal experience with the groups I have and am currently gaming with.  If any new ideas and methods I incorporate work within my group and improve the overall experience in it I will gladly continue to utilize them and if they do not I will not continue to use them, but I will not deride those methods either as they may work with other groups.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 4:40PM, SwampDog wrote:

I'm on the fence on this idea.

Taken to it's extreme, it would imply that prewritten modules are all bad because they are prewritten.

If the DM prepares the Tomb of Horrors and then the party decides at the last minute, "Nah, we'd rather go to the giant caves", then that's simply unfair to the DM.

Many dumb ideas are good ones taken to the extreme.

If the DM decides that the players meet in town, some armchair philosopher is going to cry RAILROAD! BLOCKING! STRAWMAN! (Insert obstinate meaningless phrase here)!

I would happily rip that reply into several pieces but if you want to make it one responce, I am happy to do that.

You can have your way I will have mine. You will set up your way as the paragon of virue for DMs every. I disagree that your way would improve most games and so I gave counter points and reasoning behind my arguments.

Hypothetical arguments are perfectly fine in the realms of philosophy but when you are actually giving information to an audience who you hope will take it on board, your argument would be better off grounded in the real world.

tao_alexis, your premise however is flawed, because as I have stated before the logical opposite of this is as best only random encounters and at worse nothing happens at all. Everythign that a DM puts into a game is tainted in this manner, even using random encounter tables unless random encounter is used for random levels. (ie the Players at level 1 find a cave that could contain goblins or an anceitn red dragon) On some level the Dm is artificially predetermining events no matter what.

The Colonists example you give is also flawed, history shows this and you only need to look at Canada vs the US to see that, As both existed under the same colonial rulers at the same era, and despite an attempt by one to "liberate" the other. Not only did the colonists submit to the "moral" authority of colonial rule, but they faught like hell against overwhelming force to defend it in the war of 1812 and 200 years later Canada's head of state is the Queen of England.

The very existance of the fork in the road is put there specifically by the DM, so is no different then an encounter put somewhere specifically be the DM, so the premise of the ethical debate is flawed from the start,

Jplay, you're a good guy. Gonna send you a friend request if I haven't already.  I hope to be able to discuss more with you. I'll be putting up a thread a little later and hope you take part.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:54PM, Fardiz wrote:

I would happily rip that reply into several pieces but if you want to make it one responce, I am happy to do that.

You can have your way I will have mine. You will set up your way as the paragon of virue for DMs every. I disagree that your way would improve most games and so I gave counter points and reasoning behind my arguments.

Hypothetical arguments are perfectly fine in the realms of philosophy but when you are actually giving information to an audience who you hope will take it on board, your argument would be better off grounded in the real world.

Very nicely put.

D&D is like potato salad. Everyone has their own recipe.

Mr. Customer,

Your first paragraph makes a proposition - "logical opposite" - that is not self evident.

Your second paragraph has cited a single example, interpreted by you, in a manner that is oversimplified and incomplete.  Furthermore, it fails to refute the axiom.

Your third paragraph makes a statement that, again, is not self evident.  A thing is not a thing because you say it is a thing.

You have failed to convince me.

@YagamiFire:  Thank you, I try to keep an open mind and realize that people aren't out to get you even if they are defending a position that is opposite from your own, and are very "Passionate" in their discussion.

I look forward to seeing the new thread and the friend request.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 11:30AM, tao_alexis wrote:

Yagami,

This is the way they've always played.  They've never had to defend it before.  Let it be.

I just wanted to state clearly, that I didn't really bother reading the whole thread. I just jumped into one of the latest posts I saw.

As for the options, I prefer to give true and totally different paths, but there are times where the players start to do some really stupid **** and I'll be damned if I let that ruin my work or the fun. 

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:42PM, tao_alexis wrote:

Quoting the original link and pointing out that the material therein is not being addressed, but is being demonstrated, is not a sidestep.  That is a false reinterpretation.

Quite the contrary. The question was, "Condescending much?".

A simple yes would have sufficed.

You get what you earn, as well, tao.  You've made a fine show of dismissing most everything anyone has said.  You've obfuscated, side-stepped, reinterpreted, redefined, inserted arguments and straw men into your replies and done your outstanding best to justify your position with the the worst sort of rhetoric.  Which, it is plainly clear, you will continue doing.

And this might get your goat a bit, but I can be condescending, too. It's a personal flaw, I am sad to admit, but I'm working on it. 1st step - Admit you have a problem.

At any rate, I read the article. Thought-provoking. Never knew that making a game interesting for my players was so controversial, even unethical.

I feel like a rebel! A real Bad boy!

I know disingenuous when I see it, tao. I don't need to resort to the rhetoric of logic to know b.s. when I see it.

Joseph.

Your entire reply is rhetoric.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 1:31PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:42PM, tao_alexis wrote:

Quoting the original link and pointing out that the material therein is not being addressed, but is being demonstrated, is not a sidestep.  That is a false reinterpretation.

Quite the contrary. The question was, "Condescending much?".

A simple yes would have sufficed.

You get what you earn, as well, tao.  You've made a fine show of dismissing most everything anyone has said.  You've obfuscated, side-stepped, reinterpreted, redefined, inserted arguments and straw men into your replies and done your outstanding best to justify your position with the the worst sort of rhetoric.  Which, it is plainly clear, you will continue doing.

And this might get your goat a bit, but I can be condescending, too. It's a personal flaw, I am sad to admit, but I'm working on it. 1st step - Admit you have a problem.

At any rate, I read the article. Thought-provoking. Never knew that making a game interesting for my players was so controversial, even unethical.

I feel like a rebel! A real Bad boy!

I know disingenuous when I see it, tao. I don't need to resort to the rhetoric of logic to know b.s. when I see it.

+1.

I don't need to devolve into a condescending, insulting ramble just to get views on my website.  I don't need to insult the reader when I try to forward my thoughts or opinions.

I find your "way" to be lazy.  I find it lazy to only be able to make people react by insulting them, by attacking them.  Instead of being a positive influence in someones daily life, you chose to be a negative one.  Yagami is fond of saying there's a desease on these boards ever since he first started posting.  I firmly believe the only desease are people like Yagami and Tao who broad stroke hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people into one group and call them ethical failures (among other slander).  That's the real problem.  When a thread is created and the OP is full of negativity and attacks against anyone who believes differently...  It's no wonder that it then devolves into flame wars.  These threads should be stopped as soon as they pop up.  If you can't even be pro-active enough to make that small effort, then you shouldn't get to spew it and spread that negativity to other members of the boards.

I find that people are only insulted when a statement is true.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 3:16PM, tao_alexis wrote:

I find that people are only insulted when a statement is true.

More broad stroke logic I see.  Everyone who feels insulted by your tone, words and so on must always be insulted because what you say is "true" (how close minded!).  They have no other possible reason or merit for their indignation.  Yagami uses this kind of logic as well, most of the time to his own detriment since his ideas get lost within the jarble.

The problem is he would never admit that he was insulted, because that would be showing weakness in an internet battle.

Also, because he's convinced he's right and therefore everyone else is wrong, he probably wouldn't believe you anyway.

Exactly, the very base of his reasoning is completely ludicrous and if he adheres to it, there's no possible way to make him change his mind.  Which btw, is a huge personal failure for him since only the insane never change their minds.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:01AM, tao_alexis wrote:

My, aren't we patronizing?

"Polite" ... translated as, "Something we can ignore."

We wouldn't even be discussing this if I hadn't written the original article in the aggravating manner that I have.  Nor does this superior condescending moralizing change the fact that my readership has bumped up by three hundred unique users since yesterday at noon (above my daily complement of 600), and they're not all here nodding their heads in synch.

You are in the minority.  Far more than you know.

Tao, I should clarify that I did not find your initial post (the one linked in the OP of this thread) to be that insulting.  My note on tone that I posted was really aimed more towards the general note of tone in conversation that you and wrecan were having.  Discussing the issue "in a vacuum" as it were.

Your second one, however, where you sink to personal attacks on tnstaafl and myself, shows only that you are a weak debater incapable of any criticism of your views without sinking to personal attacks on those involved.

And, if you really believe what you claimed to wrecan about tone, then you have NO RIGHT to call my post "patronizing".  Because either my "patronizing" tone is a necesary part of communicating in this media and you should not be personally offended, or you are culpable for your tone.  It's all or nothing.  For you to claim what you have about the condescending way you post and then take offense to someone speaking to you in the EXACT SAME WAY, would make you a narcissist and a hypocrite.  So which is it?  Do you not object to my "patronizing" tone?  Do you rescind what you said about your condescending one?  Or are you a narcissist and a hypocrite?

Oh, that's right, you said people are only offended by something said when it's true.  So...everything I said about your denial of culpability must mean you really are juvenile and immature.  By your own words, even.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 7:40AM, YagamiFire wrote:

The illusion of choice is not choice. That is what the article argues is wrong to do in the game. I agree.

Do you believe your players would be pleased to find out that you have invalidated a number of their choices in the game that you asked them to make? To effectively tell them "Yeah it didn't matter what you did. Either way would have been the same". Would that make them more or less happy as players?

Why in God's name would I ever tell them that?  And if they never get told that, they still feel like their choices mattered, right?  They have no way of knowing that Path A an Path B both led to Fortress C.  They had a fork in the road and chose Path A, hoping to get to Fortress C.  When they arrived, they felt like they had achieved some modicrum of success because they chose the "right path".

In the real world, if you go see an illusionist, do you come to him after the show and demand to know how every trick was done?  Is the details of each trick what was important?  Is that why you went to the show?  Or did you go to be entertained and have a good time?

D&D is a game that we all play.  Yes, it's a hobby that can involve many hours of work, but it's also fun.  And fore many of us, it's time spent with friends.  Do you think your players really care about the mechanics and the strings of what goes on "behind the screen"?  No, they're playing a game, too, and they want to have fun.  I'd wager that 9/10 players don't care about what strings the DM i pulling behind the screen.
Let's say you rolled a massive crit on a low-level character (let's say level 6 in a 3.5e game) on a random encounter not related to the story, and just by chance it was exactly enough damage to outright kill him.  Not wanting to make the player re-roll a new character (since Raise Dead is out of the question at that level), or de-rail the story any more than you already have, you instead fudge the damage by one point, so that the party has a chance, through their own action, to save their comrade.  What do you think the players care about more after the session?  That one guy "almost died", but was saved in an amazing feat of dash-and-cure by the party cleric in a dramatic moment that will live on in their memories for...at least a few weeks?  That situation led to some amazing party roleplay and togetherness, as said character now feels extremely grateful and close to the cleric.  Or, do you think they'd rather have that acomplishment-that bond that came from that-cheapened by you telling them "oh, yeah, I fudged that die roll, you were supposed to be dead"?  Which do you honestly think a player would prefer?

I understand your point, Yagami.  I simply disagree.  You seem to be convinced that the points posited in this article hold some universal truth and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand them.  You need to accept that your opinion on this matter is simply your opinion, and that others prefer other methods.

As for the "ethics" of illusion-of-choice-railroading...in a vacuum, yes, you're right.  If we are discussing only hypothetical and absolutes, it is unethical, as a DM, to take away the substance of a player's choice, especially when they think they are making a meaningful one.  But we don't play D&D in a vacuum with hypotheticals, where all players are privvy to all things the DM does "behind the screen".  We play with people.  And as DMs, we have some information that is not for players to know.  And the story of the game is really told from the player perspective.  If they genuinely that their choices are meaningful, then to them, they are.  Like the audience member at the illusionist's show, they don't need to know how the machinations work behind the scenes, as long as the experience is fun and enjoyable, then it's a Good Thing.

As an example, the players have a multitude of options for the next leg of the game...they can go along Road A to City A, or Road B to Town B.  I have Road Encounters prepared for both options.  Obviously, the players can only take one at a time, let's say A, and they have Road Encounter A.  However, I spent some time developing Road Encounter B, and when the players next leave City A to go to Adventure Site C, they get Road Encounter B.  In the realm of pure hypotheticals and absolutes, this is dishonest and "railroading", because the players got in encounter initially slated for Road B.  But once we're actually discussing events of an ACTUAL game session and not hypotheticals...does it really matter?

I have a big problem with one of your points, Yagami.  That is, that you equate any DMs who do things like this as a "lack of skill development" as opposed to recognizing that for many of us it is a conscious choice.  You posit that it's so bad that you are making a value judgement, coached in absolutes, that you pass on to all those who are doing things differently from you.  To put this in perspective: In our many alignment discussions, we have encountered detractors of the system who posit that "anyone who uses alignment is incapable of handing moral complexity".  By your stance about "lack of skills", you are saying THE EXACT SAME THING as thoe guys.  I know you are reasonable, and would not appreciate being put into that kind of category, which is why I say it.  I do not think you are aware that this is how you are coming across.

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that railroading to the point that players feel like their choices don't matter is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of Good DM Skills to be able to construct a game where the players feel like their choices are rewarded, regardless of what is actually going on in a meta-game sense behind the screen.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:33AM, YagamiFire wrote:

An illusion of choice is not a choice. Period.

I get it...people make a "My Precious Encounter" and NEED the PCs to get there and interact with it. Why? Because the DM is making it all about them. Improve your other skills...improvise a lot better...randomly generate things in your free time and populate an area with them...expand as necessary. Plant seeds everywhere instead of just cultivating and presenting fully grown plants.

I already made my main point, but to use this example to put my point in perspective...
By planting seeds everywhere instead of cultivating fully grown plants, the players are only being presented with saplings instead of any fully grown plants.  It doesn't matter if you devised 8 encounters for the 8 directions they could go, if they are only going to encounter one.  Because the DM is not making it about them, he's making it about the players.  To the contrary, I would hold that maintaining the ethical standards you are suggesting at all times, then the DM is making it all about himself, because he's more concerned with the ethical superiority of his methods, than with the finished product.  And the product that the players recieve is what actually matters, in the end.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:50AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:28AM, MrCustomer wrote:

As for encounters, I have readied 4 big unters, One with Giants, one with a mercenary group sent to stop them, Harpies throughing boulders on them from above and and NPC who is lost and needs their help. Regardless of which paths they take, they will meet all 4 encounters.

Is "Regardless of which paths they take" also mean "Regardless of what they do" ? And if so, that is railroading.

There are some random encounters tossed in there I might roll every second path choice, but these 4 main encounters will happen regardless of their choices.

Ah. Clarification. Railroading.

Not so, especially if one of those 4 is critical to the plot.  Let's not forget that one of the meta-game considerations of "random encounters" is to give the players sufficient XP and loot to level and keep within the WBL guidelines.  Maybe the players still don't have enough magic items.  I make sure that one of the encounters on the road they travel consists of a bandit group, and leader has a +1 rapier.  Not only that, but he specified that the mercs were "sent to stop them", perhaps that have a letter on them giving them orders to stop the PCs, so the PCs now know that even in-game, this encounter was not random at all, and they have stumbled onto a plot against them, directly.  This is engaging to the stroy and to the game world.  With NPCs out there targetting them, specifically, they have enemies.  Which means that their characters really are a part of the world the DM is describing and running.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:50AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:28AM, MrCustomer wrote:

This is a balance a DM makes between real choices and the illusion of choice. Some things are fated to happen (such as specific encounters)  Events that will ahppen to them regardless of where they are. ie they meet a hermit in the wilderness and it is going to happen, regardless of where they are in the wilderness, it is part of the story.

And there's that inevitable word "story". Because, ultimately, this is about the DM's story yes? The PCs are just the actors. Railroading.

The DM's world, the Player's Story.  And the player's really can't make an impact on the world if the DM doesn't do the work to make them a part of it.  Yes, the players still need to make the choices that will ingrain them in the story, but if the DM never gives them the opportunity, how can they?

Feb 1, 2013 -- 8:50AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Completely fallacy dependent on the DM not having crafted a campaign world...but a novel. What if they meet someone and kill him instead of taking the hook? Oops! Choo choo gotta find a way to get them back on board that storytrain! What if they decide to leave the army forces to die so they can loot the bodies? Oops! Choo choo gotta find a way to get them back on board that storytrain! What if they decide this job is not worth the risk because of the encounters in the mountains? Oops! Choo choo gotta find a way to get them back on board that storytrain!

I hate to say this to you, Yagami, but this is a strawman.  You are going way too far.  What you describe is the kind of railroading that the players can feel.  If the players want to leave the army forces to die, then their choice should have consequence.  But that is not the same thing as having a few off the encounters on the way to their destination be predetermined.  Your argumentum ad ridiculum involves taking ALL choice away from the players, "hard railroading", if you will.  Having a few things appear to be coincidental when they are not, is not the same thing at all.  It's "soft railroading" at worst, and only if we're discussing the ethics of D&D in a vacuum, like I said before.  Being able to craft "coincidences" and "random chance" is a mark of someone WITH good DM skills, not a symptom of their lack.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:01AM, jplay36 wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@Yagamifire:  I respect your opinion on this and will enjoy discussing this further, however if you are of the opinion that they way I am doing things is rail-roading then we will probably have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

I respect yours as well jplay. There is nothing wrong with a passionate discussion.

If the quantum-fortress lies at the end of both roads...just make one road. What I find disingenuous is when a DM tries to make it look like their world has more available to do than it really does because of lack of effort on the DMs part. If you have ONE THING do not give an option where both choices lead to the same thing simply because you can't be bothered to stick to placing it on one of the paths.

Counter-point: By crafting the illusion that there is more than one way to get there, the world seems more open and real to the players.  After all who's going to believe that there is a location in the world with i]literally[/i] only one way to get to?  The illusion of choice (as opposed to one road) rewards the players with the belief that they chose correctly, and arrived at their destination.  The truth of the matter, and the ethics behind it only matter when discussing these issues in a vacuum.  The story is about the players' characters, and their perspective matters more than the objective truth.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 9:11AM, YagamiFire wrote:

There are SO MANY things a group can find interesting...so many things that can spark intrigue and adventure...and we are stuck, as a community, in this idea that there is really ONE PATH to get places. Like a damned video game. D&D is not, nor should it ever be, like a video game in that regard. It can be so much more. It SHOULD be more for your players.

Ironically, I have a video game analogy that fits in with this point.  I recently downloaded one of my old favorite PS1 video games to my Xbox, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, often hailed as one of the greatest Castlevania games ever (and I agree).  The game is a side-scroller, but the whole castle eventually becomes open to the player, who is free to go wherever he wants.  HOWEVER, there is a strong degree of linear play, if one thinks about it.  Here's what I mean: when you play through and are exploring the castle, the player (Alucard) discovers that Richter Belmont is, for some reason the lord of the castle.  It is actually impossible to go and fight Richter before witnessing the scene in the Coliseum where Alucard discovers this.  Why?  Because the collapsed stairs in front of Richter's Keep mean one needs Bat Form to get there.  And to acquie Bat Form, one must have Mist Form, which is obtained as a reward for beating the boss of the Coliseum (and that's where the cutscene takes place).  So it's linear, but it doesn't feel that way, because you can explore everywhere.  You see an area you can't get to yet?  Okay, you need to come back once you have the means to get past that obstacle.  There are "mist-gates" all over the castle that one needs the Form of Mist to get through, so once that is aquired, you can go back to all of them and get the goodies behind them.  Soul of Bat is behind one such gate.

So, the game has some very strong linear aspects, but really feels like you have complete freedom.  I've been a big fan of the castlevania series since the original NES ones.  And I've got some friends who share that interest.  No one complains that SotN is a linear game, because it doesn't feel that way at all.  In fact, its open-world gameplay is hailed as one of its assets as a game.  The original Castlevania was literally linear.  You progressed along one path though the castle, and had no options or choices at all.

Back to D&D, if I create a dungeon(a closed scenario, as Yokel put it), and in that dungeon the door to the next level down requires Lever A to be pulled to open, is that railroading?  Probably not.  But if Lever A is in a room locked with Key B, and Key B can only be found in a monster's treasure pile in Room #8, that's railroading by your definition.  Even though the players, when they enter the dungeon, can choose to go along any other path they want.  Maybe they kill the monster in Room #8 on the way to Door B, and already have the key.  But maybe they skipped that room and find Door A and Door B, and can't progress until they solves the puzzle.  So they decide to explore other areas, hoping for a way past at least one of those Doors.  The players feel like they are deciding where they go, and they are.  BUT, behind the screen, from the DM's point of view, it's a linear progression: Room #8 comes before entering Room B, which is how they open Door A to get to the lower levels of the dungeon.  The rest of the dungeon is completely open to the players to decide where to go, and he has every room's encounter planned out, so he knows what is in the room once the players decide to enter it.

I don't see that kind of thing as unethical or railroading at all, and yet that is exactly what you are decrying.  Because NO MATTER WHAT, the part cannot open Door A until they get Key B from the monster in Room #8.  I say, "so what?".  The dungeon is open to exploration, excepting those 2 doors, and of the players just get sick of the dungeon and leave without exploring Room #8, then oh, well, I figure something else out for them to do.  Forcing them to stay in the dungeon until they follow the exact prescribed path is the kind of "hard railroading" that I would agree is wrong.  Unethical even.  because then the players don't have any choices.

I have skimmed over many of the posts due to time but I find the link in the original post flawed on its face. It assumes all railroading is deceptive and wrong. That is not true. Indeed, many of the options it seems to agonize over are better left as background clutter that the Players are free to imagine as they wish (or even allow them to create for you).

If players are offerred a land based travel route and  a sea borne one and you use the same encounter flavoured one way as bandits and another as pirates, you have not decieved your players so it is not unethical. It can be considered railroading as they will encounter the same mechanical monsters either way but it is not badwrongfun.

Therefore, Alex and Yagami's arguement is based on an untruth and fails by their  own reasoning.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 5:06PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Why in God's name would I ever tell them that?  And if they never get told that, they still feel like their choices mattered, right?  They have no way of knowing that Path A an Path B both led to Fortress C.  They had a fork in the road and chose Path A, hoping to get to Fortress C.  When they arrived, they felt like they had achieved some modicrum of success because they chose the "right path".

In the real world, if you go see an illusionist, do you come to him after the show and demand to know how every trick was done?  Is the details of each trick what was important?  Is that why you went to the show?  Or did you go to be entertained and have a good time?

The illusionist is called an illusionist. I am not impressed by him because I believe it is magic...I am impressed because I do not know how it was achieved. That is the difference between a performer and a charlatan.

Also why would you tell your players that? Again, you would only if you wanted to be honest...which I do. Since it would make them unhappy for me to tell them that AND I want to be honest I am left with the option of not providing false choices.

Do you think your players really care about the mechanics and the strings of what goes on "behind the screen"?  No, they're playing a game, too, and they want to have fun.  I'd wager that 9/10 players don't care about what strings the DM i pulling behind the screen.

Impossible to determine. You are pulling numbers from nowhere.

And yes my players DO ABSOLUTELY care about what is going on behind the screen. They rely on me to be both fair and to be without prejudice towards their actions.

Let's say you rolled a massive crit on a low-level character (let's say level 6 in a 3.5e game) on a random encounter not related to the story, and just by chance it was exactly enough damage to outright kill him.  Not wanting to make the player re-roll a new character (since Raise Dead is out of the question at that level), or de-rail the story any more than you already have, you instead fudge the damage by one point, so that the party has a chance, through their own action, to save their comrade.  What do you think the players care about more after the session?  That one guy "almost died", but was saved in an amazing feat of dash-and-cure by the party cleric in a dramatic moment that will live on in their memories for...at least a few weeks?  That situation led to some amazing party roleplay and togetherness, as said character now feels extremely grateful and close to the cleric.  Or, do you think they'd rather have that acomplishment-that bond that came from that-cheapened by you telling them "oh, yeah, I fudged that die roll, you were supposed to be dead"?  Which do you honestly think a player would prefer?

My players would prefer their accomplishments to be actual accomplishments. My players would prefer I neither lie NOR deceive them.

I understand your point, Yagami.  I simply disagree.  You seem to be convinced that the points posited in this article hold some universal truth and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand them.  You need to accept that your opinion on this matter is simply your opinion, and that others prefer other methods.

I'm about to flip the situation that is going to pull the rug out...

As for the "ethics" of illusion-of-choice-railroading...in a vacuum, yes, you're right.  If we are discussing only hypothetical and absolutes, it is unethical, as a DM, to take away the substance of a player's choice, especially when they think they are making a meaningful one.  But we don't play D&D in a vacuum with hypotheticals, where all players are privvy to all things the DM does "behind the screen".  We play with people.  And as DMs, we have some information that is not for players to know.  And the story of the game is really told from the player perspective.  If they genuinely that their choices are meaningful, then to them, they are.  Like the audience member at the illusionist's show, they don't need to know how the machinations work behind the scenes, as long as the experience is fun and enjoyable, then it's a Good Thing.

So you advocate the stance that "Lie to your players but tell them you aren't. Tell them their accomplishments are legitimate. They want to legitimately achieve things so this will make them happy!" ... Now, reverse positions. One of your players is beginning to DM...you are playing. Now, you must give the new DM advice...do you tell them to lie and deceive and to fool the players into thinking they are legitimately achieving everything? Wait...doesn't that reveal to that player-turned-DM the sham? Oops... And even if you don't, now they are without the advice...and suffer for it because things don't go as "smooth" as they do for you? Does that make you feel ashamed for having to hide that info from them...or does it make you feel good because you will look like a better DM? And how would you, as a player, feel if you DID give that info...and now as DM-turned-player, you know that many of your achievements might be nothing but DM-fiat? What are you achieving? You don't know. Quite possibly nothing.

How does all of that reconcile?

What they know can't hurt them! Except...when they become you and you become them...then what?

I have a big problem with one of your points, Yagami.  That is, that you equate any DMs who do things like this as a "lack of skill development" as opposed to recognizing that for many of us it is a conscious choice.  You posit that it's so bad that you are making a value judgement, coached in absolutes, that you pass on to all those who are doing things differently from you.  To put this in perspective: In our many alignment discussions, we have encountered detractors of the system who posit that "anyone who uses alignment is incapable of handing moral complexity".  By your stance about "lack of skills", you are saying THE EXACT SAME THING as thoe guys.  I know you are reasonable, and would not appreciate being put into that kind of category, which is why I say it.  I do not think you are aware that this is how you are coming across.

I am merely saying that your decision might be incorrect. Your conscious choice might be a wrong one. You may be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (I am reminded of a South Park episode).  It is possible you have NOT made a choice about developing those skills because you do not see it as worthwhile. You see your way as better. I am challenging that decision.

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that railroading to the point that players feel like their choices don't matter is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of Good DM Skills to be able to construct a game where the players feel like their choices are rewarded, regardless of what is actually going on in a meta-game sense behind the screen.

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that scamming to the point that customers feel like they have been taken advantage of is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of good scam-artist to be able to lie to a person to make them feel like their choices are rewarded, regardless of what is actually going on in the business situation.

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that malpractice to the point that patients feel like their medicines don't matter is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of Good Snakeoil Salesman Skills to be able to instruct a patient where the patients feel like your medicines are working, regardless of what is actually going on in their body.

:/

I already made my main point, but to use this example to put my point in perspective...
By planting seeds everywhere instead of cultivating fully grown plants, the players are only being presented with saplings instead of any fully grown plants.  It doesn't matter if you devised 8 encounters for the 8 directions they could go, if they are only going to encounter one.  Because the DM is not making it about them, he's making it about the players.  To the contrary, I would hold that maintaining the ethical standards you are suggesting at all times, then the DM is making it all about himself, because he's more concerned with the ethical superiority of his methods, than with the finished product.  And the product that the players recieve is what actually matters, in the end.

No, in the end what is most important is that the weight of player choices are respected. I have the skill to grow seedlings into full plants in very short order...even in real-time as I speak. How does that reconcile?

Not so, especially if one of those 4 is critical to the plot.  Let's not forget that one of the meta-game considerations of "random encounters" is to give the players sufficient XP and loot to level and keep within the WBL guidelines.  Maybe the players still don't have enough magic items.  I make sure that one of the encounters on the road they travel consists of a bandit group, and leader has a +1 rapier.  Not only that, but he specified that the mercs were "sent to stop them", perhaps that have a letter on them giving them orders to stop the PCs, so the PCs now know that even in-game, this encounter was not random at all, and they have stumbled onto a plot against them, directly.  This is engaging to the stroy and to the game world.  With NPCs out there targetting them, specifically, they have enemies.  Which means that their characters really are a part of the world the DM is describing and running.

WBL guidelines are idiotic. I also think having something "critical to the plot" is idiotic.

The DM's world, the Player's Story.  And the player's really can't make an impact on the world if the DM doesn't do the work to make them a part of it.  Yes, the players still need to make the choices that will ingrain them in the story, but if the DM never gives them the opportunity, how can they?

The DM's world, the DM's Story. After all, any of those choices they make to ingrain themselves in the story may have already been preordained by the DM yes? In fact, ALL of them might be if the DM is crafty enough. Just so long as they don't catch on right? Gotta love stupid players. They make DMing so easy...apparently.

I hate to say this to you, Yagami, but this is a strawman.  You are going way too far.  What you describe is the kind of railroading that the players can feel.

Hence, you can keep doing it so long as you don't get caught. What happens when you do? What arrogance to assume you can lie to your players for an entire campaign, never come clean, and never get caught. I don't think you think highly of your players.

If the players want to leave the army forces to die, then their choice should have consequence.  But that is not the same thing as having a few off the encounters on the way to their destination be predetermined.  Your argumentum ad ridiculum involves taking ALL choice away from the players, "hard railroading", if you will.  Having a few things appear to be coincidental when they are not, is not the same thing at all.  It's "soft railroading" at worst, and only if we're discussing the ethics of D&D in a vacuum, like I said before.  Being able to craft "coincidences" and "random chance" is a mark of someone WITH good DM skills, not a symptom of their lack.

I leave coincidence and random chance up to random chance and coincidence. Dice are wonderful for that...they generate random things. It's awesome.

I like this though...now we have "hard railroading" which is bad...and "soft railroading" which is okay. Interesting.

Yagamifire:  I respect your opinion on this and will enjoy discussing this further, however if you are of the opinion that they way I am doing things is rail-roading then we will probably have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

It seems to be your opinion that what you're doing is rail-roading as well. "Soft" railroading maybe...but you did say it's railroading.

What you seem to be saying is railroading is okay as long as you don't get caught doing it, yes? I am confused as to your stance.

Counter-point: By crafting the illusion that there is more than one way to get there, the world seems more open and real to the players.  After all who's going to believe that there is a location in the world with i]literally[/i] only one way to get to?  The illusion of choice (as opposed to one road) rewards the players with the belief that they chose correctly, and arrived at their destination.  The truth of the matter, and the ethics behind it only matter when discussing these issues in a vacuum.  The story is about the players' characters, and their perspective matters more than the objective truth.

"Rewarding" people with something that is a lie is an...interesting notion. I also love that we're now into subjective truth...this is getting more and more awesome.

Castlevania-stuff

The joy, of course, being that in a game of D&D someone might very well find ways around the mist gates. Hell, I got to bat areas and double-jump areas AS MIST by leveling my MP so high that I could continuously transform back and forth into mist (before the Extended Mist upgrade). Mist-ing in this manner allowed Alucard to slowly gain elevation...but with determination you could gain between two to three pixels of elevation per mist (0 or -1 if you were unlucky or too slow). Now, apply that determination to a player that believes they are playing in a world with codified rules, logic at work, and a fair DM...I don't think those Mist Gates are gonna work too well.

I don't see that kind of thing as unethical or railroading at all, and yet that is exactly what you are decrying.  Because NO MATTER WHAT, the part cannot open Door A until they get Key B from the monster in Room #8.  I say, "so what?".  The dungeon is open to exploration, excepting those 2 doors, and of the players just get sick of the dungeon and leave without exploring Room #8, then oh, well, I figure something else out for them to do.  Forcing them to stay in the dungeon until they follow the exact prescribed path is the kind of "hard railroading" that I would agree is wrong.  Unethical even.  because then the players don't have any choices.

And if the players think of a clever way that you had not previously thought of (so that you could pre-create a way to block it) to get around that door and into the room? Do you prevent them from doing so? Insta-wall-of-force? Insta-anti-magic-zone? Insta-whatevernecessarytomakesureitdoesn'thappen? Then again, this is predicated on the players potentially doing something clever and/or determined...and if we're assuming stupid players that won't be an issue.

NO MATTER WHAT is about the ugliest phrase a DM can utter. Dangerous too. Very very dangerous.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 5:06PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

D&D is a game that we all play.  Yes, it's a hobby that can involve many hours of work, but it's also fun.  And fore many of us, it's time spent with friends.  Do you think your players really care about the mechanics and the strings of what goes on "behind the screen"?  No, they're playing a game, too, and they want to have fun.  I'd wager that 9/10 players don't care about what strings the DM i pulling behind the screen.

Chiba: Excellent post.

Yaga:  I respect your opinion.  However, as per the quote above, I think you grossly overestimate how important it is to most players that play D&D that total and utter freedom is paramount.  Many, many players will go to a D&D game knowing in advance that they characters are going to be visit Gnarl the giant in his castle keep.   They know it.  The DM knows it.   And they are HAPPY to do so.

If the way you play works for you, great!   But you really should be far less certain in your conviction that not doing it the way you like is utterly guaranteeing the players a lesser game.   I refute your notion that your method is the superior method for all DMs and all players, even those that are aware that your method exists.    Simply put, some (nay, many) players prefer a somewhat guided experience over a total free form one, and the game is none the lesser for it.

I only have a few things to say about the article and the comments posted on this thread:

1. My opinion is that I think I  understand what the article was attempting to teach.
2. It is also my opinion is that although I feel that I understand the reason for the language used,I felt the vulgar and negative language unecessary.  Not all of Alex's posts have such vulgarity in them and are just as clear in what they attempt to teach.
3. I agree that a DM makes a world for the characters, but I feel that its the characters stories that drive the game, not the DM's.
4. In my opinon, in the end the result of playing Dungeons and Dragons is not about a DM's strategies, or how it is run.

It's about the players enjoying themselves.

If your a DM your enjoyment should be about ensuring that the players are enjoying themselves.

If the players are not enjoying themselves then the issue needs to be resolved.

Opening myself up to a firestorm here but I see way too much Gamer Mentality in this thread.

If you are of the opinion that you're a better DM then somebody else on these forums. That is your opinion, but I wouldn't expect anybody on these forums to agree with that opinion.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 5:06PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Why in God's name would I ever tell them that?  And if they never get told that, they still feel like their choices mattered, right?  They have no way of knowing that Path A an Path B both led to Fortress C.  They had a fork in the road and chose Path A, hoping to get to Fortress C.  When they arrived, they felt like they had achieved some modicrum of success because they chose the "right path".

In the real world, if you go see an illusionist, do you come to him after the show and demand to know how every trick was done?  Is the details of each trick what was important?  Is that why you went to the show?  Or did you go to be entertained and have a good time?

The illusionist is called an illusionist. I am not impressed by him because I believe it is magic...I am impressed because I do not know how it was achieved. That is the difference between a performer and a charlatan.

Also why would you tell your players that? Again, you would only if you wanted to be honest...which I do. Since it would make them unhappy for me to tell them that AND I want to be honest I am left with the option of not providing false choices.

Why does honesty in this regard even matter?  I am a fair arbiter of the rules, that is what my players know they can expect of me.  I am a writer and a crafter of stories, they know and expect this of me, too.  A DM's job is 3fold: 1-To be a fair arbiter of the rules. 2-To voice and control all non-PC actions (be they monsters, NPCs or environmental). 3-Ensure that the people playing the game are having fun.

Reason 3 is the reason I don't-for example-allow evil PCs in a party of Good and Neutral ones.  Party conflict leads to player conflict, and that takes away from the fun everyone is having.

The best DM advice I ever heard given was this: "Remember that is both a game and a story.  If the two ever conflict, err on the side of COOL.  Your players will thank you for it.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Do you think your players really care about the mechanics and the strings of what goes on "behind the screen"?  No, they're playing a game, too, and they want to have fun.  I'd wager that 9/10 players don't care about what strings the DM i pulling behind the screen.

Impossible to determine. You are pulling numbers from nowhere.

And yes my players DO ABSOLUTELY care about what is going on behind the screen. They rely on me to be both fair and to be without prejudice towards their actions.

Of course I'm pulling those numbers from nowhere.  I didn't couch that statistics in the terms of absolute fact.  I said "I'd wager", which is akin to "it's my guess".
Ok, your players want to know the details of how you run the encounters you do, and how you plan for your sessions, even during the game?  I find that hard to believe.
I'm not advocating being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions.  That's a really ugly way to frame what I'm trying to say.  You make it sounds as if I'm advocating making the entire run of the game one big lie that I am perpetuating to make the player's "choices" serve ends that I have already decided.  If that's what you are saying, stop.  Stop trying to read into what I write and extrapolate something else.  i mean what I said.  Taking it any farther is unnecessary and borderline strawman.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Let's say you rolled a massive crit on a low-level character (let's say level 6 in a 3.5e game) on a random encounter not related to the story, and just by chance it was exactly enough damage to outright kill him.  Not wanting to make the player re-roll a new character (since Raise Dead is out of the question at that level), or de-rail the story any more than you already have, you instead fudge the damage by one point, so that the party has a chance, through their own action, to save their comrade.  What do you think the players care about more after the session?  That one guy "almost died", but was saved in an amazing feat of dash-and-cure by the party cleric in a dramatic moment that will live on in their memories for...at least a few weeks?  That situation led to some amazing party roleplay and togetherness, as said character now feels extremely grateful and close to the cleric.  Or, do you think they'd rather have that acomplishment-that bond that came from that-cheapened by you telling them "oh, yeah, I fudged that die roll, you were supposed to be dead"?  Which do you honestly think a player would prefer?

My players would prefer their accomplishments to be actual accomplishments. My players would prefer I neither lie NOR deceive them.

If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy.  And I try and be subtle about it.  For example:
DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage.
Player: Aww...exactly @ -10!
DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12...
Another Player: That's only 27.
DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28
First Player: I'm at -9 then!  Medic!

I agree that making it blatant can be terrible.  Last time I got to be a player, we were in a FR game.  If you don't know already, FR has some deities that are REALLY involved with the setting.  But this DM was ridiculous.  Any time you died, there was a 50% chance (rolled behind his screen) that your deity just spontaneously kept you from dying and stabilized you @-1 hp.  It got really contrived and ridiculous.

I won't go that far, and I'll usually only pull punches at all if it's some piddly crap, and not ever after a certain point (usually around level 9).  My default rule for non-PHB spells is that they have to go through me.  The Spell Compendium is full of crap I just don't allow, but if it previously appeared in a "Complete X" book, I'll at least consider it.  One of my players found a spell, Close Wounds, that can be cast as an immediate action (like Feather Fall), and even specifies in the spell that if cast on a hit that dropped a player in the negatves, and the damage+the healing kept him above 0, he does not fall.  I allowed it, and haven't had to fudge anything since.  We have had some player deaths, they were in a coliseum, and 2 of the party members died in a fight with a gargantuan froghemoth.  The party cleric keeps Revify memorized, and they have the money to make it a full-on Raise Dead.

Stuff happens.  Sometimes characters die.  most players can deal with it, especially if a Raise Dead is a possibility.  If their death is going to be anticlimactic and stupid, and just the cause of some bad luck (I've got some dice that roll really well, my players would love to see them permanently buried in concrete), I my fudge something.  But i don't do it too often, or the players expect it, or worse, it turns into the example I mentioned above, with the FR game.  Knowing when it's okay to fudge a die roll is an important part of being a good DM.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I understand your point, Yagami.  I simply disagree.  You seem to be convinced that the points posited in this article hold some universal truth and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand them.  You need to accept that your opinion on this matter is simply your opinion, and that others prefer other methods.

I'm about to flip the situation that is going to pull the rug out...

As for the "ethics" of illusion-of-choice-railroading...in a vacuum, yes, you're right.  If we are discussing only hypothetical and absolutes, it is unethical, as a DM, to take away the substance of a player's choice, especially when they think they are making a meaningful one.  But we don't play D&D in a vacuum with hypotheticals, where all players are privvy to all things the DM does "behind the screen".  We play with people.  And as DMs, we have some information that is not for players to know.  And the story of the game is really told from the player perspective.  If they genuinely that their choices are meaningful, then to them, they are.  Like the audience member at the illusionist's show, they don't need to know how the machinations work behind the scenes, as long as the experience is fun and enjoyable, then it's a Good Thing.

So you advocate the stance that "Lie to your players but tell them you aren't. Tell them their accomplishments are legitimate. They want to legitimately achieve things so this will make them happy!" ... Now, reverse positions. One of your players is beginning to DM...you are playing. Now, you must give the new DM advice...do you tell them to lie and deceive and to fool the players into thinking they are legitimately achieving everything? Wait...doesn't that reveal to that player-turned-DM the sham? Oops... And even if you don't, now they are without the advice...and suffer for it because things don't go as "smooth" as they do for you? Does that make you feel ashamed for having to hide that info from them...or does it make you feel good because you will look like a better DM? And how would you, as a player, feel if you DID give that info...and now as DM-turned-player, you know that many of your achievements might be nothing but DM-fiat? What are you achieving? You don't know. Quite possibly nothing.

How does all of that reconcile?

What they know can't hurt them! Except...when they become you and you become them...then what?

I'm going to flip the rug on you...
Yes, I tell them.  Over the course of my time as a DM, I have had 4 players express a desire to run a game of their own, because they had great ideas for a story for a game and wanted to make it happen.  And yes, I absolutely told them about "soft railroading", to use the newly coined phrase.  I emphasize the importance of letting the PCs be the stars of the show, and letting them have an impact, and making their decisions matter.  I impart as much of my wisdom as I can, but for the most part, that kind of stuff has to be learned.  Knowing when it's okay to make a houserule, or give a player a discrete "DM bonus" to a skill check for good roleplaying, or turn what should have been a crit by a monster into a regular hit...most of these kinds of things can only truly be learned through trial and error, but I tell them all I can.  And that certainly involved "DM tricks" that take place "behind the screen".  Keeping it "behind the screen" is important, because otherwise, you endanger the trust your players put in you.  Even if most all of those tricks are for their benefit, you don't want them thinking you're a pushover DM.

However, I think calling it "lying to them" is a bit excessive.  The whole game is fantasy, roleplay, and essentially "pretend".  I tend to play it straight 90% of the time, if not more.  I just don't condemn the occasional fudging, as it becomes necesary.  Being adaptable to player choices, and, once again, keeping things fun for everyone, is important.
There was a 4e book, don't remember if it was the DMG2 or the Player's Strategy Guide that discused the concept of "Cooperative Storytelling", where the players help shape the world through meta-game discussion, even as they play in-game.  The book even suggests when one player makes it so the area to the north is frequented by tribes of birdmen, that the DM modify his existing goblin encounter to re-fluff them as birds.  According to you and tao, that is reprehensible railroading.

I always stress that advice I mentioned earlier.  It really is the best advice for a DM that can be squashed into 2 sentences.

Oh, and in 3/4 of those cases, I did end up as a player in those games.  I had few issues as a player, and any I did I discussed with him after the session, after everyone else had left, when he usually wanted to talk to me anyway to get feedback about how he did.  The only one I didn't play in was a guy who left my group because he got stationed somewhere else (myself and most of my players are in the Navy), and he called me because he wanted me to help him get started as a DM.  Called me lots of times, actually.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I have a big problem with one of your points, Yagami.  That is, that you equate any DMs who do things like this as a "lack of skill development" as opposed to recognizing that for many of us it is a conscious choice.  You posit that it's so bad that you are making a value judgement, coached in absolutes, that you pass on to all those who are doing things differently from you.  To put this in perspective: In our many alignment discussions, we have encountered detractors of the system who posit that "anyone who uses alignment is incapable of handing moral complexity".  By your stance about "lack of skills", you are saying THE EXACT SAME THING as thoe guys.  I know you are reasonable, and would not appreciate being put into that kind of category, which is why I say it.  I do not think you are aware that this is how you are coming across.

I am merely saying that your decision might be incorrect. Your conscious choice might be a wrong one. You may be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (I am reminded of a South Park episode).  It is possible you have NOT made a choice about developing those skills because you do not see it as worthwhile. You see your way as better. I am challenging that decision.

That's not what you're doing.  At the very least, it is not at all how you're coming across.  You posit that anyone who does other than you suggest should "develop their skills" and "improve as a DM", thus implying that any way of DMing other than your way is a defeciency.  You go on to accuse anyone who does not do this of laziness.  So now every DM who does things different than you do is both inferior AND lazy.  You do not allow for the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, this subject isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.  It's your opinion, and not some kind of objective truth.  Even in the above statement of ours, you CONTINUE to be guilty of the same talk.  "Wrong choice" "wrong thing for the right reasons" "developing those skills".  Its not your place to make a value judgement on the way I run things in my game.  Feel free to discuss hypotheticals and your opinions about what's better.  But don't tell me, or anyone else that I am somehow your lesser because of it.

You seem pretty well versed in philosophy from our previous discussions.  Perhaps you are aware of one of the greatest failures in Western thinking that is best emphaized in Taoism.  The idea that things that are different are not necessarily seperate, and not always opposites.  Most westerners, for example, depict a Yin-Yang symbol as black and white, because we think of black and white as opposites.  In China, yoou won't ever see a black and white yin-yang in any Taoist monastery.  They're almost always depicted in black and red.  Not because they are opposite, but because black is the absence of color, and red is the totality of only one color.

To apply here, you fail to understand that just because your way is right for you, it does not represent an absolute scenario of Right/Wrong.  There is no universaly truth in this matter.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that railroading to the point that players feel like their choices don't matter is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of Good DM Skills to be able to construct a game where the players feel like their choices are rewarded, regardless of what is actually going on in a meta-game sense behind the screen.

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that scamming to the point that customers feel like they have been taken advantage of is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of good scam-artist to be able to lie to a person to make them feel like their choices are rewarded, regardless of what is actually going on in the business situation.

I contest your point greatly.  While I will agree that malpractice to the point that patients feel like their medicines don't matter is a Very Bad Thing, I posit that it's actually the mark of Good Snakeoil Salesman Skills to be able to instruct a patient where the patients feel like your medicines are working, regardless of what is actually going on in their body.

This isn't medicine, or conning people out of money, it's a game.  And the measure of success is the enjoyment of the people playing it.  Your analogy fails because you are conflating something as vital and important as someone's health with a game.  I can't stress enough how much of a difference that makes.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I already made my main point, but to use this example to put my point in perspective...
By planting seeds everywhere instead of cultivating fully grown plants, the players are only being presented with saplings instead of any fully grown plants.  It doesn't matter if you devised 8 encounters for the 8 directions they could go, if they are only going to encounter one.  Because the DM is not making it about them, he's making it about the players.  To the contrary, I would hold that maintaining the ethical standards you are suggesting at all times, then the DM is making it all about himself, because he's more concerned with the ethical superiority of his methods, than with the finished product.  And the product that the players recieve is what actually matters, in the end.

No, in the end what is most important is that the weight of player choices are respected. I have the skill to grow seedlings into full plants in very short order...even in real-time as I speak. How does that reconcile?

Are we...still talking about encounters?  Or "medicinal plants"? J/K, please don't answer that, I don't want a CoC violation for either of us.
But anyways...what does planning encounters have to do with respecting player choices?  If I can work the encounters I've worked on into a scenario that grows from player choices, how is that any different than planning for all eventualities, save that I don't end up with a bunch of stuff that never gets used?

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Not so, especially if one of those 4 is critical to the plot.  Let's not forget that one of the meta-game considerations of "random encounters" is to give the players sufficient XP and loot to level and keep within the WBL guidelines.  Maybe the players still don't have enough magic items.  I make sure that one of the encounters on the road they travel consists of a bandit group, and leader has a +1 rapier.  Not only that, but he specified that the mercs were "sent to stop them", perhaps that have a letter on them giving them orders to stop the PCs, so the PCs now know that even in-game, this encounter was not random at all, and they have stumbled onto a plot against them, directly.  This is engaging to the stroy and to the game world.  With NPCs out there targetting them, specifically, they have enemies.  Which means that their characters really are a part of the world the DM is describing and running.

WBL guidelines are idiotic. I also think having something "critical to the plot" is idiotic.

Those are opinions, not facts.
And, to boot, opinions contested with the design of some editions of D&D.  In 4e, if the players don't have level-appropriate equipment, they will be utterly ineffective in combat.  3e was not as drastic, but was still key.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

The DM's world, the Player's Story.  And the player's really can't make an impact on the world if the DM doesn't do the work to make them a part of it.  Yes, the players still need to make the choices that will ingrain them in the story, but if the DM never gives them the opportunity, how can they?

The DM's world, the DM's Story. After all, any of those choices they make to ingrain themselves in the story may have already been preordained by the DM yes? In fact, ALL of them might be if the DM is crafty enough. Just so long as they don't catch on right? Gotta love stupid players. They make DMing so easy...apparently.

I don't know how you get that from what I said, other than being incapable of seeing outside your own bias.  really, I thought you were better than that.
I have explicitly said that the players' choices shoul have an impact and be able to make them a part of the world.  I have never advocated the players just be there rolling dice for a story that the DM writes all the scenes for.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I hate to say this to you, Yagami, but this is a strawman.  You are going way too far.  What you describe is the kind of railroading that the players can feel.

Hence, you can keep doing it so long as you don't get caught. What happens when you do? What arrogance to assume you can lie to your players for an entire campaign, never come clean, and never get caught. I don't think you think highly of your players.

You sidestepped the point entirely.  You strawmanned the scenario in question.  He was discusing only having some of the encounters along the route be pre-planned.  Obviously, one of those was something that was NPCs actively seeking out the PCs.  And you turned that into the kind of "hard railroading", where the DM forces the players back into a plotline that they have no interest in continuing.
I don't think YOU think very highly of players, to be honest.  Other than ones who behave exactly like the ones you're used to.  You're so convinced of the superiority of your own method and your own group, that you sneer derisivley at every DM or player who is different.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

If the players want to leave the army forces to die, then their choice should have consequence.  But that is not the same thing as having a few off the encounters on the way to their destination be predetermined.  Your argumentum ad ridiculum involves taking ALL choice away from the players, "hard railroading", if you will.  Having a few things appear to be coincidental when they are not, is not the same thing at all.  It's "soft railroading" at worst, and only if we're discussing the ethics of D&D in a vacuum, like I said before.  Being able to craft "coincidences" and "random chance" is a mark of someone WITH good DM skills, not a symptom of their lack.

I leave coincidence and random chance up to random chance and coincidence. Dice are wonderful for that...they generate random things. It's awesome.

And quite often, not at all engaging.  I used to create Random Encounter Tables for every time my players entered a new wilderness area.  Honestly, I did it all the way up until the advent of 4e.  There's nothing sacred about random encounter tables, and nothing especially enriching to a game in which they are used.  If I want a "random encounter", I'll take the time to craft a level-appropriate encounter that is fun and engaing.  What makes it "random" is that there is no connection to nything that is going on with the players or the story, other than geographical location.  Example: party was trekking through the mountains, hunting for lycanthropes (the Silver Hunt I mentioned earlier).  I made an encounter with 3 harpies and 2 griffons on a rather narrow bit of cliff.  This was a subset of the Skill Challenge which involved tracking signs of the pack of wereboars they were following.  To the players, this felt exactly identical to an encounter I could have rolled up on a chart.  What's the difference?  To the players - none.  That's all that matters.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I like this though...now we have "hard railroading" which is bad...and "soft railroading" which is okay. Interesting.

I rather like it.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Yagamifire:  I respect your opinion on this and will enjoy discussing this further, however if you are of the opinion that they way I am doing things is rail-roading then we will probably have to agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

It seems to be your opinion that what you're doing is rail-roading as well. "Soft" railroading maybe...but you did say it's railroading.

What you seem to be saying is railroading is okay as long as you don't get caught doing it, yes? I am confused as to your stance.

You quoted jplay, not me.  I coined the term "soft railroading" as an "at worst" way to view it when one creates the illusion of randomness in a planned encounter (like the harpy thing I mentioned above).  That was me framing the point from your POV that it's still some form of railroading.
By the definition you espouse, any kind of planning of plot, events, or encounters is some form of railroading, or at least 9to use your term) "laying down the rails".  It doesn't matter if I "lay down the rails" and the players choose, or their own free will, to follow them.  In fact, it's worse if they do, according to you.  Because according to you, I am now railroading them.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Castlevania-stuff

The joy, of course, being that in a game of D&D someone might very well find ways around the mist gates. Hell, I got to bat areas and double-jump areas AS MIST by leveling my MP so high that I could continuously transform back and forth into mist (before the Extended Mist upgrade). Mist-ing in this manner allowed Alucard to slowly gain elevation...but with determination you could gain between two to three pixels of elevation per mist (0 or -1 if you were unlucky or too slow). Now, apply that determination to a player that believes they are playing in a world with codified rules, logic at work, and a fair DM...I don't think those Mist Gates are gonna work too well.

That's not actually possible.  You need the Double-Jump to reach Olrox's quarters, and, by extension, the Coliseum.  So you must have already HAD the double-jump.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I don't see that kind of thing as unethical or railroading at all, and yet that is exactly what you are decrying.  Because NO MATTER WHAT, the part cannot open Door A until they get Key B from the monster in Room #8.  I say, "so what?".  The dungeon is open to exploration, excepting those 2 doors, and of the players just get sick of the dungeon and leave without exploring Room #8, then oh, well, I figure something else out for them to do.  Forcing them to stay in the dungeon until they follow the exact prescribed path is the kind of "hard railroading" that I would agree is wrong.  Unethical even.  because then the players don't have any choices.

And if the players think of a clever way that you had not previously thought of (so that you could pre-create a way to block it) to get around that door and into the room? Do you prevent them from doing so? Insta-wall-of-force? Insta-anti-magic-zone? Insta-whatevernecessarytomakesureitdoesn'thappen? Then again, this is predicated on the players potentially doing something clever and/or determined...and if we're assuming stupid players that won't be an issue.

Of course not.  player ingenuity should always be rewarded.  If the players want to spend a spell slot to cast Passwall or something to bypass the door, more power to them.  I have crafted ONE way of getting through the doors.  I have never, and would never done or advocated the insta-wall of force thing, because once again, you are describing "hard railroading".  And thus you are creating a strawman.  Once again.  You seem incapable of responding only to what I am posting and describing and not reading into it, to extraoplate it into something worse.  Why is it that you can't just respond to the scenario "as-is"?  I don't advocate slamming players with a "No! Do it my way!" kind of thing.  In fact, I have said numerous times that I don't.  And yet, your only method of responding seems to be to assume that such is exactly what I would do, and that's what you respond to.

STOP IT.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:13PM, YagamiFire wrote:

NO MATTER WHAT is about the ugliest phrase a DM can utter. Dangerous too. Very very dangerous.

Fair enough, but I was crafting a hypothetical situation, and asking you to look at it under the pretenses that I prescribed.  You failed to do that.

Yes, saying "there's only one way" immediately invalidates any possible alternatives, some of which might even be more fun than the one thought of initially.  But I haven't been advocating that in actualy play.  If you recall my earlier example a few posts ago, I mentioned how, towards the end of my long-running 3.5 game, I gave my players a destination and let them figure it out.  Granted, in that instance, they hired a guide and put it back in my hands, but it was their choice to do so.

Stop accusing me of things I have already expressed as verboten in the way I run things. 

SwampDog, Grimli...
+1, both of you. 

The most important thing is that everyone at the table is glad to be there and is looking forward to coming back again and again.

Both of these methods of running games, completely free-form and pre-planned, can and do work within groups all over the place.  For some groups one method works better than others, for some they work equally well and for some only one works for the way THEY LIKE to play.

I think the important thing is to be open to either method and work with your players and experiment with different methods of play in order to find out what is THE MOST ENJOYABLE method for your group.

Yagami's method is NOT a bad method at all and from his description works wonderfully for his group.  However it is not the end all be all of how to DM.  The same goes for pre-planning.  It can work wonderfully and be great for a group that likes to play that way, but it is not the only way to go.

I will say that I prefer to plan ahead on some things.  Now before anyone says that doing so is limiting player choice and not a good gaming style, I want to put out an example of how pre-planning CAN be done for the best interest of players.  (And yes, I do expect a rebuttal, but that is what good discussion is all about).

Example:

On character creation one or more of the players decide to write up a good backstory for their character and show it to me.  Let's say that one of them has a sibling that felt like the player's character was always treated better than them and resented the player's character for it.  Now I could completely ignore things like this or I could incorporate it into the game.

So, let's say I incorporate this into the game by deciding that the PCs sibling turns out to be the BBEG and is secretly working behind the scenes to foil all of the PCs goals.  So now the PC and their sibling are at odds.

Because I communicate constantly with my players I find out that this is something that would be very interesting to the player as this is why he/she wrote that in their backstory.  So I go ahead and get more info from the player about their background and what they imagine their sibling to be like.  I then use that information and go ahead and create the sibling as an NPC.  I also, embellish and change a little bit here and there since the PC and their sibling haven't been in direct contact for several years.  Maybe the sibling has become a fairly powerful sorcere or warrior or something, and has gathered some minions and followers to their side.

Now during the course of the adventures I will throw out some hints every once in a while that some of the "trouble in the region" or whatever the PCs are currently working to solve, is being instigated by the PCs sibling.  If this is something that the PC and the rest of the party show an interest in pursuing I will most definitely let them.  If they are not I move on to something that they are more interested in.  However, based on communication with the players let's say they decide to pursue this.

So the party starts to hunt down where this BBEG is.  At this point I'm going to pre-plan out what kind of NPCs/monsters/etc that the sibling may have at his/her command and come up with a location of some type for their base of operations.  Now at no time will I force my players to continue to pursue this, but if this is where their interests lie then I will continue myself to build upon it based on the party's actions and decisions.

Let's say that the party eventually gets some information that the base of operations for the sibling is in a cave hidden in the mountains.  Now as the party starts to trek towards the mountains let's say that they're still a little bit low level-wise to take on the sibling and his minions in their home base.  In this case I could throw some random encounters their way or take some time before that session and plan out a couple encounters that they have on their journey to the mountains.

No matter which way they decide to go to get to the mountains I can use the encounters that I've created and insert them in locations that seem appropriate as they make their way.  I can also make some adjustments on the fly to the encounters to flavor them more towards what is happening with the PCs and the decisions they've made.

Now I know people will say that this is absolutely railroading because I said that no matter which path they choose to get to their destination they will have these encounters.  However, I want to point out that the PCs at this point have chosen to head to the mountain.  That is their wish.  They want to get to the mountains and find the hideout and put an end to the BBEG.  Because I would like them to have the opportunity to level up some before the "final battle" I provide them with these encounters.  They have the option of doing whatever it is that they want.  They could potentially notice the encounter creature(s) before being seen and decide to sneak around.  They could charge headlong into the fray.  They could try to be diplomatic.  They can do whatever they want to with these encounters and I will not only roll with it, but I will reward them for "Overcomming" the encounter in whatever way they choose to overcome it.



Now, Chiba_Monkey, you stated the following:

"There's nothing sacred about random encounter tables, and nothing especially enriching to a game in which they are used.  If I want a "random encounter", I'll take the time to craft a level-appropriate encounter that is fun and engaing.  What makes it "random" is that there is no connection to nything that is going on with the players or the story, other than geographical location."

I agree that there is nothing sacred about random encounter tables, but a random encounter can indeed have a connection to what is going on with the players and the story.

For example:  IF the party I spoke about above was on their way to the mountains hunting for the BBEGs lair and I rolled a random encounter with a pack of wolves.  At the time it may just seem that the pack of wolves happened to be hunting in that area and the party and the pack intersected paths.  However, that could easily be incorporated into the game by the PCs finding out later down the line that the BBEG (who is a wizard, or has a wizard cohort, or something like that)  has packs of wolves like that roaming the plains and forests as look-outs for him/her.  There are thousands of ways in which it is possible to incorporate a random encounter into the events of the game.  So random encounters CAN be just as engaging and a part of things as pre-planned encounters.


All of that being said the main point I am trying to make is what I said in the beginning.  Both methods CAN be used effectively depending upon what the Group (DM and Players) want and what works best within THAT specific group.  I lean towards my methods while others lean towards a different method and neither method is a complete answer for everything, it all depends on the group, and whatever is the most fun for them is what's important. 

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:00AM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why does honesty in this regard even matter?  I am a fair arbiter of the rules, that is what my players know they can expect of me.  I am a writer and a crafter of stories, they know and expect this of me, too.  A DM's job is 3fold: 1-To be a fair arbiter of the rules. 2-To voice and control all non-PC actions (be they monsters, NPCs or environmental). 3-Ensure that the people playing the game are having fun.

Nowhere in your 3 rules does it mention writing a story for your players. That strikes me as odd when you say before that it is "expected" of you. Yes, it may be expected of you but it should not be expected of a DM.

I also do not agree with your third rule. Why is it the DMs job to ensure people are having fun? I am not their parent. I am not their guardian. I am not their jester. We are all taking part in a game. A DM's job for "fun" is only to ensure that what they are doing is fun for themselves and, in being so, doesn't interfere with 1 and 2, which take precedence over 3. Players should be responsible for their own fun. I find the notion of 3 (that DMs are responsible for peoples fun) to be a ridiculous notion because it is impossible to maintain. No one can ensure someone else is having fun. It is a useless responsibility to force onto DMs and is most likely one of the things holding back the creation of DMs....new DMs that have to worry about making the game fun for everyone when they should be focused on running well. Ruining fun and ensuring fun are two very different things. Players should strive to make the game fun for themselves...and to work towards not ruining anyone elses fun in doing so. Having them rely on the DM for that is not only silly, it's an immature gaming attitude. Everyone at the table is ultimately responsible to themselves but also has a responsibility to their fellow players. It does not rest on the DMs shoulders.

Reason 3 is the reason I don't-for example-allow evil PCs in a party of Good and Neutral ones.  Party conflict leads to player conflict, and that takes away from the fun everyone is having.

And what if that person playing an Evil PC can do so without infringing on anyone elses fun? What if they can create only interesting conflicts or none at all while still being Evil?

The best DM advice I ever heard given was this: "Remember that is both a game and a story.  If the two ever conflict, err on the side of COOL.  Your players will thank you for it.

That sounds like awful advice that advises nothing really. What is "cool"? This seems closer to "Remember that this is both a game and your story. If the two ever conflict, err on the side of what you think is COOL. Your players will thank you for it." Even if not phrased that way, it is arrogant and presumptuous...it presumes the DM knows better than the players because the DM is using their authority to, effectively, change and veto what they think is "not cool".

Of course I'm pulling those numbers from nowhere.  I didn't couch that statistics in the terms of absolute fact.  I said "I'd wager", which is akin to "it's my guess".
Ok, your players want to know the details of how you run the encounters you do, and how you plan for your sessions, even during the game?  I find that hard to believe.

They want to know that what I am presenting to them is done so fairly. They want to know that when they do something they actually accomplish or fail it on their own merits and never because I deem something "cool" one way or the other. If they win what could have been a huge epic battle in a single round, then that is what happens because that is what happened...if they lose the battle they so because they actually lost the battle.

They rely on me to be honest. They rely on me to neutral. And I rely on them to make the game fun for themselves...while they rely on me to stay out of the proverbial way while adhering to honesty and neutrality.

I'm not advocating being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions.  That's a really ugly way to frame what I'm trying to say.

It is an ugly way to say it but you are being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions. Entering into combat and failing IS an action by the players. Fudging the outcome of that decision based on your own assessment of what is better is being prejudiced. There's no two ways about it.

You make it sounds as if I'm advocating making the entire run of the game one big lie that I am perpetuating to make the player's "choices" serve ends that I have already decided.  If that's what you are saying, stop.  Stop trying to read into what I write and extrapolate something else.  i mean what I said.  Taking it any farther is unnecessary and borderline strawman.

You said yourself that there is nothing wrong with invalidating choices as long as the players do not know it. This could easily be extrapolated to mean that the players could NEVER make a meaningful decision and that is okay as long as the DM can artfully and masterfully keep them from ever realizing it. If not, why not? Is the player experience not the same if they are ignorant of what is happening behind the curtain? Where does the difference lie?

If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy.  And I try and be subtle about it.  For example:
DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage.
Player: Aww...exactly @ -10!
DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12...
Another Player: That's only 27.
DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28
First Player: I'm at -9 then!  Medic!

If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy.  And I try and be subtle about it.  For example:
DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage.
Player: Aww...exactly @ -10!
DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12...
Another Player: That's only 27.
DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28
First Player: *does math* Oh...actually I'm still at -10. I would have been at -11 if it was 28 damage. Did my own math wrong too.

Tell me...how does that resolve for the DM?

I agree that making it blatant can be terrible.  Last time I got to be a player, we were in a FR game.  If you don't know already, FR has some deities that are REALLY involved with the setting.  But this DM was ridiculous.  Any time you died, there was a 50% chance (rolled behind his screen) that your deity just spontaneously kept you from dying and stabilized you @-1 hp.  It got really contrived and ridiculous.

So again, if you notice it it is bad. If you don't, it's okay. I can't subscribe to that because it relies on the DM constantly being smarter than the players and the players being, in effect, rubes for the DMs shell-game. It requires dumber players...at least dumber than the DM at any given time because it requires them to not catch on. In this case, you saw through the DMs charade, that he was just smooshing you and then fudging all the rolls to always get the "heads you live" result. You were smarter than he thought. He underestimated you...he patronized you...and failed.

I won't go that far, and I'll usually only pull punches at all if it's some piddly crap, and not ever after a certain point (usually around level 9).  My default rule for non-PHB spells is that they have to go through me.  The Spell Compendium is full of crap I just don't allow, but if it previously appeared in a "Complete X" book, I'll at least consider it.  One of my players found a spell, Close Wounds, that can be cast as an immediate action (like Feather Fall), and even specifies in the spell that if cast on a hit that dropped a player in the negatves, and the damage+the healing kept him above 0, he does not fall.  I allowed it, and haven't had to fudge anything since.  We have had some player deaths, they were in a coliseum, and 2 of the party members died in a fight with a gargantuan froghemoth.  The party cleric keeps Revify memorized, and they have the money to make it a full-on Raise Dead.

"Piddly crap" in your opinion. Because, as DM, you know better, yes? That is why the article speaks of "arrogance" on the part of the DM. It is the DM asuming they always know what is best.

Stuff happens.  Sometimes characters die.  most players can deal with it, especially if a Raise Dead is a possibility.  If their death is going to be anticlimactic and stupid, and just the cause of some bad luck (I've got some dice that roll really well, my players would love to see them permanently buried in concrete), I my fudge something.  But i don't do it too often, or the players expect it, or worse, it turns into the example I mentioned above, with the FR game.  Knowing when it's okay to fudge a die roll is an important part of being a good DM.

Again, all this boils down to "Knowing what is best for your players is the most important part of being a DM" which is, again, arrogant. I let my players know what is best for themselves. That includes taking risks. "The players expect it"...in other words, they catch onto the sham. And you can't allow that. You have to remain smarter than them...you have to remain a step ahead. Again, that sounds like arrogance. In fact, I sensed a tone of superiority in regards to that FR DM you were speaking of...actually I don't need to say "sense" because you called him outright ridiculous. And why do you feel this way? Because in the arms race you're positing, you proved to be smarter than him. You caught him. Ha ha, he sucks and is ridiculous. He doesn't know how to fool players well enough, yes?

I'm going to flip the rug on you...
Yes, I tell them.  Over the course of my time as a DM, I have had 4 players express a desire to run a game of their own, because they had great ideas for a story for a game and wanted to make it happen.  And yes, I absolutely told them about "soft railroading", to use the newly coined phrase.  I emphasize the importance of letting the PCs be the stars of the show, and letting them have an impact, and making their decisions matter.  I impart as much of my wisdom as I can, but for the most part, that kind of stuff has to be learned.  Knowing when it's okay to make a houserule, or give a player a discrete "DM bonus" to a skill check for good roleplaying, or turn what should have been a crit by a monster into a regular hit...most of these kinds of things can only truly be learned through trial and error, but I tell them all I can.  And that certainly involved "DM tricks" that take place "behind the screen".  Keeping it "behind the screen" is important, because otherwise, you endanger the trust your players put in you.  Even if most all of those tricks are for their benefit, you don't want them thinking you're a pushover DM.

"Endanger the trust your players put in you" is funny. I could do everything in front of my players and never betray any trust...because I am not violating their trust behind the screen. If you were being fair you would not be endangering that trust behind the screen either. You know why I use a screen? I keep notes and short-hand stuff on it...that and it hides rolls the players would not otherwise be privy to that could ruin the moment for them (for example knowing what I rolled for a Perception check, etc). Nothing I does endanger players trust...because, again, I never violate it behind the screen. I think it is unethical to violate a trust placed in me. You seem to think it is okay to violate that trust as long as the players don't realize it, yes?

However, I think calling it "lying to them" is a bit excessive.  The whole game is fantasy, roleplay, and essentially "pretend".  I tend to play it straight 90% of the time, if not more.  I just don't condemn the occasional fudging, as it becomes necesary.  Being adaptable to player choices, and, once again, keeping things fun for everyone, is important.

"Fun for everyone" in your opinion as DM...thus making your judgement regarding what is best more important. Again, that seems arrogant. In one paragraph you mention that you take actions that, if the players were aware of them, would endanger the trust they have placed in you...but that "lying to them" is an excessive way to phrase it. How does that reconcile? It seems contradictory. The players are having their trust potentially violated...but you are giving them the appearance that it is not. That...seems like lying to me.

There was a 4e book, don't remember if it was the DMG2 or the Player's Strategy Guide that discused the concept of "Cooperative Storytelling", where the players help shape the world through meta-game discussion, even as they play in-game.  The book even suggests when one player makes it so the area to the north is frequented by tribes of birdmen, that the DM modify his existing goblin encounter to re-fluff them as birds.  According to you and tao, that is reprehensible railroading.

Incorrect. That is a misrepresentation. What would be railroading was if you had planned for them to encounter those goblins...and when they decide to go north instead of whatever direction the goblins were you just go "F it! Feathery goblins then!" and throw the same encounter at them...but with feathers attached. It is lazy...however, the ultimate question that has to be asked of yourself as a DM is "No matter what they did, would I have thrown that goblin encounter at them because it is the most fun?" If so...is that true? Or are you sparing yourself the truth of the matter that you are throwing the goblin encounter at them because you worked on it and they are damn well going to experience it regardless of what they do because I know what's fun! Or does it lay somewhere in the middle?

Oh, and in 3/4 of those cases, I did end up as a player in those games.  I had few issues as a player, and any I did I discussed with him after the session, after everyone else had left, when he usually wanted to talk to me anyway to get feedback about how he did.  The only one I didn't play in was a guy who left my group because he got stationed somewhere else (myself and most of my players are in the Navy), and he called me because he wanted me to help him get started as a DM.  Called me lots of times, actually.

Were you happy knowing that anything you might have accomplished as a player in those games was entirely at the whim and discretion of the DM? That, potentially nothing you did, ranging from hitting with an attack to freeing a kingdom from tyranny, might have been legitimately accomplished because the DM was deciding what was "best" for you? And worst of all...maybe you didn't even realize it because your DM was really good at maintaining your trust while invalidating your choices without you being aware?

That's not what you're doing.  At the very least, it is not at all how you're coming across.  You posit that anyone who does other than you suggest should "develop their skills" and "improve as a DM", thus implying that any way of DMing other than your way is a defeciency.  You go on to accuse anyone who does not do this of laziness.

That is because the majority of the response have been that "not everyone has that sort of time" or "it is easier". I find the first argument there to be totally false while the second is potentially true. I was replying to those that made the claim that they "don't have the time"...I do not believe that that is true. It's an excuse. Those people do have the time, they just choose not to spend it on improving as a DM. They do not have the desire to do so. Oddly, that is a more valid answer than saying "I don't have the time" but saying "I don't have the time" spares their own ego from having to say "I don't have the desire to do that much". People rarely want to admit they don't have the desire to be better at something they take fairly seriously...because they do not respect that it is a spectrum rather than something digital.

After all, I certainly have the time to get better at Street Fighter 4. I have PLENTY of time to do it in. It would require sacrificing other leisure activites though that I also like...it would also involve more work. I simply lack the desire to do so. I have no qualms about that...I do not need to spare my own ego about that reality. I accept it. There are people that are better at Street Fighter than myself and they are better because they have the desire and have put in the work. I do not begrudge them that...I do not find it to be a criticism of me. It is simply reality. Do I envy their skill? Absolutely. Do I envy their dedication to their craft? No because I have that level of dedication in other fields of my life...like DMing.

So now every DM who does things different than you do is both inferior AND lazy.  You do not allow for the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, this subject isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.  It's your opinion, and not some kind of objective truth.  Even in the above statement of ours, you CONTINUE to be guilty of the same talk.  "Wrong choice" "wrong thing for the right reasons" "developing those skills".  Its not your place to make a value judgement on the way I run things in my game.  Feel free to discuss hypotheticals and your opinions about what's better.  But don't tell me, or anyone else that I am somehow your lesser because of it.

The biggest difference I see here is that I have run things the way you run them now (from what I understand of how you run games)...I have done so at length. For years...all the while working to get better, to improve. I have embraced and believed what you are stating now. Years ago I would have agreed. I have walked in your shoes. I have worked to get to the point I am at now through a lot of reading and a lot of trial and error with games. I have moved beyond the familiar. I have tried new things. I have failed at them. What you are talking about is a very common style of DMing...it might, realistically, be THE most common in the current game culture. The way I DM is NOT the zeitgeist...I realize that. I accept it. However, have you embraced my style? Have you tried it? Have you tested it? I have done what you have done...I do what I do...have you done what I do?

You seem pretty well versed in philosophy from our previous discussions.  Perhaps you are aware of one of the greatest failures in Western thinking that is best emphaized in Taoism.  The idea that things that are different are not necessarily seperate, and not always opposites.  Most westerners, for example, depict a Yin-Yang symbol as black and white, because we think of black and white as opposites.  In China, yoou won't ever see a black and white yin-yang in any Taoist monastery.  They're almost always depicted in black and red.  Not because they are opposite, but because black is the absence of color, and red is the totality of only one color.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />To apply here, you fail to understand that just because your way is right for you, it does not represent an absolute scenario of Right/Wrong.  There is no universaly truth in this matter.

And I would counter with "One does not know until one does."

This isn't medicine, or conning people out of money, it's a game.  And the measure of success is the enjoyment of the people playing it.  Your analogy fails because you are conflating something as vital and important as someone's health with a game.  I can't stress enough how much of a difference that makes.

Games are as important as someone's health. Perhaps more so. Without joy, no man would suffer to live. How we have fun...THAT we have fun through games is one of the defining points of humanity.

Are we...still talking about encounters?  Or "medicinal plants"? J/K, please don't answer that, I don't want a CoC violation for either of us.

lolwut?

Look just because there's a lot of snacks when we play, don't start jumping to conclusions...

But anyways...what does planning encounters have to do with respecting player choices?  If I can work the encounters I've worked on into a scenario that grows from player choices, how is that any different than planning for all eventualities, save that I don't end up with a bunch of stuff that never gets used?

You are positing an either-or. I do not plan every encounter...I do not plan none either.

Note your reluctant to make things that "never gets used". This is classic justification at work. As was stated on the great Hack & Slash blog...the act of being creative does not impede further creativity...it exercises it. A DM worrying about making something and having to discard it is tantamount to an artist worrying about never showcasing pieces of art he's done. If you are worried about that as an artist you are not an artist...you are an egotist that needs to present everything he does for adulation & adoration from your audience. I have made plenty of encounters, NPCs, and even settings that I have NEVER used...and it does not diminish their creation because it helped me continue to learn and flex my imagination. The act of creation was its own reward...not presenting it.

Those are opinions, not facts. And, to boot, opinions contested with the design of some editions of D&D.  In 4e, if the players don't have level-appropriate equipment, they will be utterly ineffective in combat.  3e was not as drastic, but was still key.

I could never see the odious phrase "level-appropriate" for the rest of my life and be quite happy. My players have "wealth by action" not "wealth by level".

I don't know how you get that from what I said, other than being incapable of seeing outside your own bias.  really, I thought you were better than that. I have explicitly said that the players' choices shoul have an impact and be able to make them a part of the world.  I have never advocated the players just be there rolling dice for a story that the DM writes all the scenes for.

But ultimately the DM can and will overrule those actions or invalidate them through fudging or whatnot...and that is okay so long as the players are not smart enough to catch on?

You sidestepped the point entirely.  You strawmanned the scenario in question.  He was discusing only having some of the encounters along the route be pre-planned.  Obviously, one of those was something that was NPCs actively seeking out the PCs.  And you turned that into the kind of "hard railroading", where the DM forces the players back into a plotline that they have no interest in continuing.

I have issues saying something definitively as a DM because it posits that there is nothing that the players can do. Or at least implies it. Dangerous thinking there.

I don't think YOU think very highly of players, to be honest.  Other than ones who behave exactly like the ones you're used to.  You're so convinced of the superiority of your own method and your own group, that you sneer derisivley at every DM or player who is different.

I think more highly of players that are self-motivated, do not rely on their DM to provide them with fun, and look to have a fair game where they can make choices and thrive & survive by those decisions, some effort and, perhaps, a bit of luck. In the same way, I think more highly of Street Fighter players that put in more time to be better at the game and seek to improve in it. That goes for myself as well. I think more highly of DMs that put in more time for their game and work harder at it than I do...because I respect their efforts. I also have no ego about saying that it is ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE that what they do might very well be better because of those efforts and their work. It is why I look to them for advice and put weight in their words. I do not need to shout them down...I do not need to argue with them that my way is superior. Will I challenge them on things? Yes. Will I think less of them if they cannot give an adequate explaination for the superiority of something that I have challenged? Yes. Do I still scrutinize what they say? Of course.

I do not, however, say that my way must be superior for myself and my group simply because it is what we are currently doing and what we are currently doing is working for us...because that would be arrogant. It would be me assuming I always know what is best for myself and for my group...and I will not make that assumption. I work off experience...not assumptions. And that experience includes speaking out against things I have tried and rejected...and I am not afraid to point to WHY I feel what I do now is superior. That some people cannot stand to hear someone speak that way is more telling than anything else. They cannot broach the subject that what someone is doing might be superior to their way...why? Arrogance. That seems to be the reoccuring theme. The DM "knows better"...the DM "knows what is more fun"...and that is all wrapped up in justifying why they can fudge and invalidate...because they "know better" because they "know what is more fun"...it is arrogance. Those two things seem heavily entwined. A DM should never have to hide what they are doing from their players out of a fear that it will endanger the trust their players have put in them because it necessarily means the DM is violating that trust. I will repeat..

A DM should never have to hide what they are doing from their players out of a fear that it will endanger the trust their players have put in them because it necessarily means the DM is violating that trust.

And quite often, not at all engaging.  I used to create Random Encounter Tables for every time my players entered a new wilderness area.  Honestly, I did it all the way up until the advent of 4e.  There's nothing sacred about random encounter tables, and nothing especially enriching to a game in which they are used.  If I want a "random encounter", I'll take the time to craft a level-appropriate encounter that is fun and engaing.  What makes it "random" is that there is no connection to nything that is going on with the players or the story, other than geographical location.  Example: party was trekking through the mountains, hunting for lycanthropes (the Silver Hunt I mentioned earlier).  I made an encounter with 3 harpies and 2 griffons on a rather narrow bit of cliff.  This was a subset of the Skill Challenge which involved tracking signs of the pack of wereboars they were following.  To the players, this felt exactly identical to an encounter I could have rolled up on a chart.  What's the difference?  To the players - none.  That's all that matters.

Encounter tables are a minor part of what I do and how I do it.

You quoted jplay, not me.  I coined the term "soft railroading" as an "at worst" way to view it when one creates the illusion of randomness in a planned encounter (like the harpy thing I mentioned above).  That was me framing the point from your POV that it's still some form of railroading.
By the definition you espouse, any kind of planning of plot, events, or encounters is some form of railroading, or at least 9to use your term) "laying down the rails".  It doesn't matter if I "lay down the rails" and the players choose, or their own free will, to follow them.  In fact, it's worse if they do, according to you.  Because according to you, I am now railroading them.

Incorrect. Planning events is just fine...in fact, I know an event that has already occured in the world that my players are not aware of. However, I do not presume to know how my players will react to it...nor would I invalidate the choices they make in dealing with an event. When a DM does that it is railroading because you have actively decided that what you believe is better than what the PCs did. Arrogance.

That's not actually possible.  You need the Double-Jump to reach Olrox's quarters, and, by extension, the Coliseum.  So you must have already HAD the double-jump.

Yes I think what I am referencing is using the double-jump WITH the mist form to reach a few ledges that are normally only reachable with bat-form. You'll forgive me, I haven't played Symphony of the Night entirely through since it came out.

Of course not.  player ingenuity should always be rewarded.  If the players want to spend a spell slot to cast Passwall or something to bypass the door, more power to them.  I have crafted ONE way of getting through the doors.  I have never, and would never done or advocated the insta-wall of force thing, because once again, you are describing "hard railroading".  And thus you are creating a strawman.  Once again.  You seem incapable of responding only to what I am posting and describing and not reading into it, to extraoplate it into something worse.  Why is it that you can't just respond to the scenario "as-is"?  I don't advocate slamming players with a "No! Do it my way!" kind of thing.  In fact, I have said numerous times that I don't.  And yet, your only method of responding seems to be to assume that such is exactly what I would do, and that's what you respond to.

STOP IT.

You are repeatedly taking things I ask with ?s at the end as statements. I am asking you questions. if your answer is NO simply say No and I will have a better understanding of what you are talking about. Stop assuming and invoking this "strawman" bullcrap. It is lazy in the extreme and reactionary. I am asking you honest to god questions, Chiba. Relax, take a breath and realize I am not attacking you...I am attacking your position. I like you, man. Calm down. You put forth a situation...I extrapolate and clearly ask questions. Do not read into those questions...you need only answer them.

Fair enough, but I was crafting a hypothetical situation, and asking you to look at it under the pretenses that I prescribed.  You failed to do that.

Because I noted something in your wording of the situation that red-flagged me so I asked for understanding. When you say there is one way into something I think it is reasonable, since you are the DM in the situation, to clarify to what extent you will enforce the "only one way" you yourself stated. Fair?

Yes, saying "there's only one way" immediately invalidates any possible alternatives, some of which might even be more fun than the one thought of initially.  But I haven't been advocating that in actualy play.  If you recall my earlier example a few posts ago, I mentioned how, towards the end of my long-running 3.5 game, I gave my players a destination and let them figure it out.  Granted, in that instance, they hired a guide and put it back in my hands, but it was their choice to do so.

Stop accusing me of things I have already expressed as verboten in the way I run things. 

When you put forth hypotheticals I cannot be sure you are necessarily discussing an approach you yourself adhere to entirely or if you are simply crafting a hypothetical to make a point. Hence my asking for clarification. Again...fair?

I've removed content from this thread. Forum disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Feb 3, 2013 -- 10:13AM, jplay36 wrote:

Now, Chiba_Monkey, you stated the following:

"There's nothing sacred about random encounter tables, and nothing especially enriching to a game in which they are used.  If I want a "random encounter", I'll take the time to craft a level-appropriate encounter that is fun and engaing.  What makes it "random" is that there is no connection to nything that is going on with the players or the story, other than geographical location."

I agree that there is nothing sacred about random encounter tables, but a random encounter can indeed have a connection to what is going on with the players and the story.

For example:  IF the party I spoke about above was on their way to the mountains hunting for the BBEGs lair and I rolled a random encounter with a pack of wolves.  At the time it may just seem that the pack of wolves happened to be hunting in that area and the party and the pack intersected paths.  However, that could easily be incorporated into the game by the PCs finding out later down the line that the BBEG (who is a wizard, or has a wizard cohort, or something like that)  has packs of wolves like that roaming the plains and forests as look-outs for him/her.  There are thousands of ways in which it is possible to incorporate a random encounter into the events of the game.  So random encounters CAN be just as engaging and a part of things as pre-planned encounters.


All of that being said the main point I am trying to make is what I said in the beginning.  Both methods CAN be used effectively depending upon what the Group (DM and Players) want and what works best within THAT specific group.  I lean towards my methods while others lean towards a different method and neither method is a complete answer for everything, it all depends on the group, and whatever is the most fun for them is what's important. 

Okay, but that's finding a connection AFTER the fact of the encounter.
My whole point was that there's nothing about rolling on a table for an encounter that is, in any way, superior to a DM crafting an encounter.  Nothing about rolling on a table is makes player choice MORE valid, nothing makes the game richer and more engaging, nothing makes the games a better experience.
If the players decide to travel through the Happy Sunny Forest of Grisly Demise, I could either roll on a "Woodland Encounters" table, or I could pick a monster that dwells in forests, and make an encounter myself.

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Okay, but that's finding a connection AFTER the fact of the encounter.

My whole point was that there's nothing about rolling on a table for an encounter that is, in any way, superior to a DM crafting an encounter.  Nothing about rolling on a table is makes player choice MORE valid, nothing makes the game richer and more engaging, nothing makes the games a better experience. If the players decide to travel through the Happy Sunny Forest of Grisly Demise, I could either roll on a "Woodland Encounters" table, or I could pick a monster that dwells in forests, and make an encounter myself.

There is no way to say any of that. It is solely your opinion.

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Okay, but that's finding a connection AFTER the fact of the encounter.
My whole point was that there's nothing about rolling on a table for an encounter that is, in any way, superior to a DM crafting an encounter.  Nothing about rolling on a table is makes player choice MORE valid, nothing makes the game richer and more engaging, nothing makes the games a better experience.
If the players decide to travel through the Happy Sunny Forest of Grisly Demise, I could either roll on a "Woodland Encounters" table, or I could pick a monster that dwells in forests, and make an encounter myself.

I agree with that point.  A random encounter is neither superior nor inferior to a pre-generated encounter.  It is just an encounter.  Either type of encounter whether determined by a random table or thought out ahead of time has the potential to be either a flop or one of the most memorable encounters the party has ever had.

I also agree with you that just because you choose to use a random encounter, that does not make a players choices MORE or LESS valid.  I prefer to make my plans ahead of each session.  I base those plans on what occurred during the session that was just completed.  I also have a general idea of what MAY happen 2 to 3 sessions out.  However, the "general idea" is an ever-changing things as each session that we have can add or subtract ideas from the general idea.  So for example if my players want to hunt down a mummy that's been screwing with a local village.  For that next session I go ahead and make up an idea for how the mummy encounter might go.  I come up with ideas on what information will help them to locate the mummy, among other things. 

Then I think to myself...."What would happen if the mummy gets away? would he/could he become a recurring problem?  What if the PCs find a way to negotiate with the mummy?  Is it now an ally?  Does it stop terrorizing people if the party agrees to retrieve its lost pet mumified dog rover?"  I think up lots of different ideas on what the party might do and how that could affect the game world around them.  What if they find and kill the mummy.  Was the mummy some wizards little experiment he was performing and now that it's gone he has to find a new project to occupy him and what will that be.  It could be something that actually is worse for the small local village than the mummy ever was.  Basically I come up with an loose idea based on the players actions that I what they do during the current game session.  Prepare stuff that will MOST LIKELY happen during the next, and come up with a basic idea of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN in the future, and change plans and ideas as I go.

Some call this railroading, I call it building off of what the players have shown you they are interested in and adapting as you go along to be prepared how THEY are building THEIR story.

On the topic of the quantium fortress and weather there should be two paths or just one to the single destination.  Has anyone thought of the idea that while the destination might be the same the paths taken might make it totally different?

Lets take a theoretical quantium fortress, the PCs will end up there no matter what direction they ever go.  Lets say in 3 levels they will arrive at this place for the level 4 showdown.

Lets say PC group one goes south and finds the mountains and has an adventure in the dwarven mines before escaping by the skin of their teeth to end up on the doorstep of the quantium fortress.

PC group two heads north and finds a desert and spends the next three levels fighting bandits and gets away from a genie to end up at the quantium fortress.

In both cases the quantium fortress is an enivitable outcome but the journey was completely different for each group.  

I have no qualms with quantium fortresses or schrodingers doorways as long as in between those points the journey can be a unique one.

I agree that the journey should be unique.  Even if you are running an adventure that came out of a box it should be different for every party that runs through it.  Yes the basics of the adventure are already all laid out.  Who the bad guy is, what town/city/location the group starts in, who the major NPCs are, and yes there is even a plot to the adventure that is already written out for you to use.  (Many may call a pre-written adventure like this a complete railroad in itself).  But every party that runs through it is made up of different people playing the game and a different combination of PCs that have different personality types.  So how they get from one pre-written plot point to the next will be different.

The DM should be able to use that pre-written adventure, allow the players to make whatever choices they want to make, yet still provide enough information/hooks/etc as necessary so that the PCs will always have the opportunity to progress through the pre-written adventure.

I have played several pre-written adventures and had a great time even though I knew that because it was pre-written there were goals/plot points/rails/whatever you want to call them, that would lead on to the next part of the adventure.  I've also run a few as DM and my players had a wonderful time.

Planning ahead in your own homebrewed adventures can be just as entertaining for players as a pre-written adventure module.  I do understand that some people do not like adventure modules and that's fine, but there are plenty that do.

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:20PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Okay, but that's finding a connection AFTER the fact of the encounter.

My whole point was that there's nothing about rolling on a table for an encounter that is, in any way, superior to a DM crafting an encounter.  Nothing about rolling on a table is makes player choice MORE valid, nothing makes the game richer and more engaging, nothing makes the games a better experience. If the players decide to travel through the Happy Sunny Forest of Grisly Demise, I could either roll on a "Woodland Encounters" table, or I could pick a monster that dwells in forests, and make an encounter myself.

There is no way to say any of that. It is solely your opinion.

I didn't say planning one was better, either.  I just said rolling randomly is not, IN ANY WAY, superior.
What possible evidence could you supply that could "prove", beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is a FACT that randomly rolling for encounters validates player choices or makes a game more enriching?

Like jplay said, they're equal, as far as the value they contribute to the game. 

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:35PM, jplay36 wrote:

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Okay, but that's finding a connection AFTER the fact of the encounter.
My whole point was that there's nothing about rolling on a table for an encounter that is, in any way, superior to a DM crafting an encounter.  Nothing about rolling on a table is makes player choice MORE valid, nothing makes the game richer and more engaging, nothing makes the games a better experience.
If the players decide to travel through the Happy Sunny Forest of Grisly Demise, I could either roll on a "Woodland Encounters" table, or I could pick a monster that dwells in forests, and make an encounter myself.

I agree with that point.  A random encounter is neither superior nor inferior to a pre-generated encounter.  It is just an encounter.  Either type of encounter whether determined by a random table or thought out ahead of time has the potential to be either a flop or one of the most memorable encounters the party has ever had.

I also agree with you that just because you choose to use a random encounter, that does not make a players choices MORE or LESS valid.  I prefer to make my plans ahead of each session.  I base those plans on what occurred during the session that was just completed.  I also have a general idea of what MAY happen 2 to 3 sessions out.  However, the "general idea" is an ever-changing things as each session that we have can add or subtract ideas from the general idea.  So for example if my players want to hunt down a mummy that's been screwing with a local village.  For that next session I go ahead and make up an idea for how the mummy encounter might go.  I come up with ideas on what information will help them to locate the mummy, among other things. 

Then I think to myself...."What would happen if the mummy gets away? would he/could he become a recurring problem?  What if the PCs find a way to negotiate with the mummy?  Is it now an ally?  Does it stop terrorizing people if the party agrees to retrieve its lost pet mumified dog rover?"  I think up lots of different ideas on what the party might do and how that could affect the game world around them.  What if they find and kill the mummy.  Was the mummy some wizards little experiment he was performing and now that it's gone he has to find a new project to occupy him and what will that be.  It could be something that actually is worse for the small local village than the mummy ever was.  Basically I come up with an loose idea based on the players actions that I what they do during the current game session.  Prepare stuff that will MOST LIKELY happen during the next, and come up with a basic idea of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN in the future, and change plans and ideas as I go.

Some call this railroading, I call it building off of what the players have shown you they are interested in and adapting as you go along to be prepared how THEY are building THEIR story.

This, this, SO MUCH THIS.
This is what I have been trying to say.  For some reason, Yagami hears "my players have to do what I want, regardless". 

Actualy, choice only matters if the players have a reasonable idea of the consequences of the choices involved. If the players have no clue what lies along either path, they might as well throw a dice to determine what path to take and they honestly would not care whether you designed one or two encounters. For them the end result is exactly the same. There is not even an illusion of choice. In other words, the quantum fortress example is a theoretical example that is going to place the pro-illusion-of-choice people in a negative light from the outset; as an example it is skewed. If this ever happens at your table, your DM needs to work on his descriptive skills*, not on the way how he runs his adventures.

* Roads always have forks at some point and you can certainly add them to add depth and life to the setting, but unless you want players to spend some time on picking the right path, you keep those description short and simple so that the players know it is just boxed text.

In reality, the few times I ran across such an "illusion" of choice, the DM gave the PCs clues on what they would find alongside either path and adjust that quantum fortress' description and a few mechanical details based on those clues even going so far as changing environmental hazards and terrain. If the choice was between a path through the mountains or the forest, the forest path would take more time and lead through gnoll territority and the mountain path be more straneous and lead through orc territory. The fortress would look different even though the layout might be the same. Its inhabitants would likely look different as well, but their behavior would be slightly different, especially if the PCs would take the time to talk with them. In the grand of things the choice is an illusion. The encounters are the same, but for appearances it differs and the players are going to remember how they foolishly took the mountain path because they feared gnolls but forgot they sucked at climbing and their wizard suffered mountain sickness.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:00AM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why does honesty in this regard even matter?  I am a fair arbiter of the rules, that is what my players know they can expect of me.  I am a writer and a crafter of stories, they know and expect this of me, too.  A DM's job is 3fold: 1-To be a fair arbiter of the rules. 2-To voice and control all non-PC actions (be they monsters, NPCs or environmental). 3-Ensure that the people playing the game are having fun.

Nowhere in your 3 rules does it mention writing a story for your players. That strikes me as odd when you say before that it is "expected" of you. Yes, it may be expected of you but it should not be expected of a DM.

That's why it wasnt in my 3 rules.  Those 3 rules should be expected of any good DM, even one who exclusively runs pre-published modules.  Hell, I've even used them from time to time.  My last 3.5 game was running Paizo's Age of Worms Adventure Path.  Because it was a great story, and I wanted to actually run it (the magazines have been sitting on my shelf for years) and see how a party played through that stuff.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I also do not agree with your third rule. Why is it the DMs job to ensure people are having fun? I am not their parent. I am not their guardian. I am not their jester. We are all taking part in a game. A DM's job for "fun" is only to ensure that what they are doing is fun for themselves and, in being so, doesn't interfere with 1 and 2, which take precedence over 3. Players should be responsible for their own fun. I find the notion of 3 (that DMs are responsible for peoples fun) to be a ridiculous notion because it is impossible to maintain. No one can ensure someone else is having fun. It is a useless responsibility to force onto DMs and is most likely one of the things holding back the creation of DMs....new DMs that have to worry about making the game fun for everyone when they should be focused on running well. Ruining fun and ensuring fun are two very different things. Players should strive to make the game fun for themselves...and to work towards not ruining anyone elses fun in doing so. Having them rely on the DM for that is not only silly, it's an immature gaming attitude. Everyone at the table is ultimately responsible to themselves but also has a responsibility to their fellow players. It does not rest on the DMs shoulders.

I'm talking about a meta-game consideration here.  What I meant by that is making sure other players aren't ruining fun for other players, and taking steps to stop it if they are.  Also, letting everyone have some spotlight time, that's something that the DM can affect.  A game is not fun for everyone if the rest of the party are just sidekicks to one guy.  This is what I meant.  That the DM needs to tay aware of what's going on at the table from a meta-game perspective, and keep the atmosphere of the game from deteriorating.  This is advice in every editions DMG I've read, because this also includes keeping sideline conversations limited, prohibiting tangents of more than a few minutes.  If 2 people strike up a side conversation that slows down the game, the fun of the other 3 (or however many) is affected negatively.  While the whole group should keep itself on track, it's the DM's job, officially, if the other players don't say anything.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Reason 3 is the reason I don't-for example-allow evil PCs in a party of Good and Neutral ones.  Party conflict leads to player conflict, and that takes away from the fun everyone is having.

And what if that person playing an Evil PC can do so without infringing on anyone elses fun? What if they can create only interesting conflicts or none at all while still being Evil?

Given that this was MY example, from MY table and the way I run things...no.  I prefer to run heroic stories.  I am willing to run Evil games.  But when I do, I have a Session Zero with everyone in which they discuss making characters that will be a fit for what they're doing.

You know what?  Evil games are a way I run things that you would like.  Since heroes are-ultimately-reactionary, when the PCs are villains, they push the story more than heroes do.  Session Zero involves not only character creation, but plot discussion.  The players discuss what kind of evil machinations they want to make happen, and make characters that would be a part of that plot.  From there, it's just up to me to devise the obstacles and encounters (combat or no) that are a part of moving that plot of theirs forward.
Example: Last time I ran an evil game, the party wanted to make a show of conquering a major city-while their real goal was to take over the paladin order motherhouse inside the city, and desecrate the altar (the PC necromancer had everything he needed to become a lich, he was going to perform the ritual on their altar).  After making their characters (I gave them 16th level characters, based on the scope of what they wanted to do), they decided that to conquer the city, they'd need an army.  So they went dragon hunting to get enough capital to hire out ogres, orcs, and the like, in addition to all the undead troops the cleric and necromancer could field.  So I grabbed the draconomicon, and quickly had a dragon lair and dragon encounter (Brass dragon) for them to go against.  The negotiations with the tribal leaders was mostly roleplay, and involved some fairly grisly threats.  The actual assault on the city went fairly well (involved some infiltration from the inside as well).  And the real fun came, when a party of Good adventurers came to fight off the evil that had infected their city.  Amusingly, this was when the gae fell apart, as after 2 of the party members died, the rest of them decided to save their own skins and fled.  Good lesson for anyone wanting to play a lich: Clerics with the Sun domain are your worst nightmare.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

The best DM advice I ever heard given was this: "Remember that is both a game and a story.  If the two ever conflict, err on the side of COOL.  Your players will thank you for it."

That sounds like awful advice that advises nothing really. What is "cool"? This seems closer to "Remember that this is both a game and your story. If the two ever conflict, err on the side of what you think is COOL. Your players will thank you for it." Even if not phrased that way, it is arrogant and presumptuous...it presumes the DM knows better than the players because the DM is using their authority to, effectively, change and veto what they think is "not cool".

The DM is in a position of authority, like it or not.  Call it arrogance if you will.  But the DM is invested with a level of authority over the events of the game that players are not.  The advice hinges on not being a slave to mechanics and dice rolls.  Sometimes, a player will come up with a really creative way to do something, something that even wows the DM, and a poor roll on a skill check that the player should have passed easily (maybe he rolls a 2), makes what should have been a really fun and engaging moment sort of anticlimactic and disappointing for everyone.  This helps nothing.  The RAW do, in at least some editions, support overriding mechanics in some cases (see "Avoiding Dead Branches", 4e DMG2, page 9).

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Of course I'm pulling those numbers from nowhere.  I didn't couch that statistics in the terms of absolute fact.  I said "I'd wager", which is akin to "it's my guess".
Ok, your players want to know the details of how you run the encounters you do, and how you plan for your sessions, even during the game?  I find that hard to believe.

They want to know that what I am presenting to them is done so fairly. They want to know that when they do something they actually accomplish or fail it on their own merits and never because I deem something "cool" one way or the other. If they win what could have been a huge epic battle in a single round, then that is what happens because that is what happened...if they lose the battle they so because they actually lost the battle.

They rely on me to be honest. They rely on me to neutral. And I rely on them to make the game fun for themselves...while they rely on me to stay out of the proverbial way while adhering to honesty and neutrality.

And mine rely on me to adjudicate the rules fairly, and neither pamper them nor try my best to kill them.  I rely on them to roleplay well, and solve problems creatively for themselves, rather than wait for me to fix it for them.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I'm not advocating being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions.  That's a really ugly way to frame what I'm trying to say.

It is an ugly way to say it but you are being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions. Entering into combat and failing IS an action by the players. Fudging the outcome of that decision based on your own assessment of what is better is being prejudiced. There's no two ways about it.

Again, I have emphasized that diice fudging is something I do very rarely.  I do have one exception.  Far too many times, by sheer luck, a monster will get knocked down to exactly one hp.  Especially when it was a big hit or big spell that brought it down so low, I'll just call the monster dropped.  It's just anticlimactic for monsters to hang around at one hp all the time.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

You make it sounds as if I'm advocating making the entire run of the game one big lie that I am perpetuating to make the player's "choices" serve ends that I have already decided.  If that's what you are saying, stop.  Stop trying to read into what I write and extrapolate something else.  i mean what I said.  Taking it any farther is unnecessary and borderline strawman.

You said yourself that there is nothing wrong with invalidating choices as long as the players do not know it. This could easily be extrapolated to mean that the players could NEVER make a meaningful decision and that is okay as long as the DM can artfully and masterfully keep them from ever realizing it. If not, why not? Is the player experience not the same if they are ignorant of what is happening behind the curtain? Where does the difference lie?

The problem is that you extrapolated AT ALL.  I let the players make their choices, and I adapt to the choices they make.  Having some things prepared a session or so in advance, in expectation of certain decisions, is not demeaning any of their choices.  If they go completely off the map from what I had expected, I can work on the fly, but planning for reasonable decisions the players might make is something I do.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy.  And I try and be subtle about it.  For example:
DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage.
Player: Aww...exactly @ -10!
DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12...
Another Player: That's only 27.
DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28
First Player: *does math* Oh...actually I'm still at -10. I would have been at -11 if it was 28 damage. Did my own math wrong too.

Tell me...how does that resolve for the DM?

*shurg* Guess you're dead, then.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I agree that making it blatant can be terrible.  Last time I got to be a player, we were in a FR game.  If you don't know already, FR has some deities that are REALLY involved with the setting.  But this DM was ridiculous.  Any time you died, there was a 50% chance (rolled behind his screen) that your deity just spontaneously kept you from dying and stabilized you @-1 hp.  It got really contrived and ridiculous.

So again, if you notice it it is bad. If you don't, it's okay. I can't subscribe to that because it relies on the DM constantly being smarter than the players and the players being, in effect, rubes for the DMs shell-game. It requires dumber players...at least dumber than the DM at any given time because it requires them to not catch on. In this case, you saw through the DMs charade, that he was just smooshing you and then fudging all the rolls to always get the "heads you live" result. You were smarter than he thought. He underestimated you...he patronized you...and failed.

No, that was just his policy, it was something he was trying out.  From the negative feedback he got on that, he decided to abandon the policy.  You're too quick to assume everyone is as judgemental as you, and makes immediate judgement calls on the intelligence of those involved.
I simply said it was a bad policy, the meta-gamey-ness of the policy was jarring.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I won't go that far, and I'll usually only pull punches at all if it's some piddly crap, and not ever after a certain point (usually around level 9).  My default rule for non-PHB spells is that they have to go through me.  The Spell Compendium is full of crap I just don't allow, but if it previously appeared in a "Complete X" book, I'll at least consider it.  One of my players found a spell, Close Wounds, that can be cast as an immediate action (like Feather Fall), and even specifies in the spell that if cast on a hit that dropped a player in the negatves, and the damage+the healing kept him above 0, he does not fall.  I allowed it, and haven't had to fudge anything since.  We have had some player deaths, they were in a coliseum, and 2 of the party members died in a fight with a gargantuan froghemoth.  The party cleric keeps Revify memorized, and they have the money to make it a full-on Raise Dead.

"Piddly crap" in your opinion. Because, as DM, you know better, yes? That is why the article speaks of "arrogance" on the part of the DM. It is the DM asuming they always know what is best.

I decide what material is allowed and what is not at my table.  I decide how monsters behave in combat (I use the Tactics section in the monster entry as a guide, yes, as well as taking monster intelligence into account, but it's still my call).  When there's a major story arc, some encounters are simply not a part of that story.  If the party is on a mission to reach Blackwall Keep before a massive army of lizardfolk invade, and they encounter a wanderin war party of orcs...yes, that is "piddly crap".

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Stuff happens.  Sometimes characters die.  most players can deal with it, especially if a Raise Dead is a possibility.  If their death is going to be anticlimactic and stupid, and just the cause of some bad luck (I've got some dice that roll really well, my players would love to see them permanently buried in concrete), I my fudge something.  But i don't do it too often, or the players expect it, or worse, it turns into the example I mentioned above, with the FR game.  Knowing when it's okay to fudge a die roll is an important part of being a good DM.

Again, all this boils down to "Knowing what is best for your players is the most important part of being a DM" which is, again, arrogant. I let my players know what is best for themselves. That includes taking risks. "The players expect it"...in other words, they catch onto the sham. And you can't allow that. You have to remain smarter than them...you have to remain a step ahead. Again, that sounds like arrogance. In fact, I sensed a tone of superiority in regards to that FR DM you were speaking of...actually I don't need to say "sense" because you called him outright ridiculous. And why do you feel this way? Because in the arms race you're positing, you proved to be smarter than him. You caught him. Ha ha, he sucks and is ridiculous. He doesn't know how to fool players well enough, yes?

I called his policy ridiculous.  He's actually a friend of mine.  And he's quite intelligent, thank you.  Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are incapable of making bad calls.
And yes, I do try and stay one step ahead of my players.  This means adapting to their choices, because such choices matter.  But I feel that it is my responsibility to be at least one step ahead of the players.  But not too far.  Getting too far ahead of them means losing sight of what is going on with them right now.  One needs to stay in the moment and in the present, while looking a step or two ahead, and know what's coming next.  That's all I was saying.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

There was a 4e book, don't remember if it was the DMG2 or the Player's Strategy Guide that discused the concept of "Cooperative Storytelling", where the players help shape the world through meta-game discussion, even as they play in-game.  The book even suggests when one player makes it so the area to the north is frequented by tribes of birdmen, that the DM modify his existing goblin encounter to re-fluff them as birds.  According to you and tao, that is reprehensible railroading.

Incorrect. That is a misrepresentation. What would be railroading was if you had planned for them to encounter those goblins...and when they decide to go north instead of whatever direction the goblins were you just go "F it! Feathery goblins then!" and throw the same encounter at them...but with feathers attached. It is lazy...however, the ultimate question that has to be asked of yourself as a DM is "No matter what they did, would I have thrown that goblin encounter at them because it is the most fun?" If so...is that true? Or are you sparing yourself the truth of the matter that you are throwing the goblin encounter at them because you worked on it and they are damn well going to experience it regardless of what they do because I know what's fun! Or does it lay somewhere in the middle?

That is not at all what you've been saying.  First off, I checked the book, (4e DMG2, page 17), and it does indeed say that the goblin encounter gets reskinned" as feathery goblins, if the players go east.
Now, I never advocated "no mtter what I'm throwing the goblin encounter at them", as if the goblins were somehow everywhere.  So the remainder of your follow up questions are irrelevant.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

That's not what you're doing.  At the very least, it is not at all how you're coming across.  You posit that anyone who does other than you suggest should "develop their skills" and "improve as a DM", thus implying that any way of DMing other than your way is a defeciency.  You go on to accuse anyone who does not do this of laziness.

So now every DM who does things different than you do is both inferior AND lazy.  You do not allow for the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, this subject isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.  It's your opinion, and not some kind of objective truth.  Even in the above statement of ours, you CONTINUE to be guilty of the same talk.  "Wrong choice" "wrong thing for the right reasons" "developing those skills".  Its not your place to make a value judgement on the way I run things in my game.  Feel free to discuss hypotheticals and your opinions about what's better.  But don't tell me, or anyone else that I am somehow your lesser because of it.

The biggest difference I see here is that I have run things the way you run them now (from what I understand of how you run games)...I have done so at length. For years...all the while working to get better, to improve. I have embraced and believed what you are stating now. Years ago I would have agreed. I have walked in your shoes. I have worked to get to the point I am at now through a lot of reading and a lot of trial and error with games. I have moved beyond the familiar. I have tried new things. I have failed at them. What you are talking about is a very common style of DMing...it might, realistically, be THE most common in the current game culture. The way I DM is NOT the zeitgeist...I realize that. I accept it. However, have you embraced my style? Have you tried it? Have you tested it? I have done what you have done...I do what I do...have you done what I do?

That's a sidestep.  It's completely irrelevant to the part you were responding to. Unless you are somehow using this as a justification for saying "every DM who doesn't do it my way is inferior and lazy".  I told you that this is how you are coming acros, an I take isssue with it, and you come back with an anecdote about how your playstyle has evolved.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

And I would counter with "One does not know until one does."

 Again, does that justify you saying your personal opinion is so vital and universal that it makes all other ways inferior and lazy.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

This isn't medicine, or conning people out of money, it's a game.  And the measure of success is the enjoyment of the people playing it.  Your analogy fails because you are conflating something as vital and important as someone's health with a game.  I can't stress enough how much of a difference that makes.

Games are as important as someone's health. Perhaps more so. Without joy, no man would suffer to live. How we have fun...THAT we have fun through games is one of the defining points of humanity.

I...I can't take this line of thought seriously.  I'm sorry, I have a life with too many things in it that are more important than games.  I'm in the Navy.  The work I do on a plane could potentially affect a pilot's LIFE.  My family, maintainin my house...all these things are far more important than gaming.  I love D&D, but it's a hobby.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

But anyways...what does planning encounters have to do with respecting player choices?  If I can work the encounters I've worked on into a scenario that grows from player choices, how is that any different than planning for all eventualities, save that I don't end up with a bunch of stuff that never gets used?

 

You are positing an either-or. I do not plan every encounter...I do not plan none either.

Note your reluctant to make things that "never gets used". This is classic justification at work. As was stated on the great Hack & Slash blog...the act of being creative does not impede further creativity...it exercises it. A DM worrying about making something and having to discard it is tantamount to an artist worrying about never showcasing pieces of art he's done. If you are worried about that as an artist you are not an artist...you are an egotist that needs to present everything he does for adulation & adoration from your audience. I have made plenty of encounters, NPCs, and even settings that I have NEVER used...and it does not diminish their creation because it helped me continue to learn and flex my imagination. The act of creation was its own reward...not presenting it.

It's not just "reluctance to make things that don't get used", because that can always happen if the players do something you hadn't planned for, which is fine.  And you say you plan some encounters...isn't that restricitng player choices, according to you and tao?

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

I don't know how you get that from what I said, other than being incapable of seeing outside your own bias.  really, I thought you were better than that. I have explicitly said that the players' choices shoul have an impact and be able to make them a part of the world.  I have never advocated the players just be there rolling dice for a story that the DM writes all the scenes for.

But ultimately the DM can and will overrule those actions or invalidate them through fudging or whatnot...and that is okay so long as the players are not smart enough to catch on?

No.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

You sidestepped the point entirely.  You strawmanned the scenario in question.  He was discusing only having some of the encounters along the route be pre-planned.  Obviously, one of those was something that was NPCs actively seeking out the PCs.  And you turned that into the kind of "hard railroading", where the DM forces the players back into a plotline that they have no interest in continuing.

I have issues saying something definitively as a DM because it posits that there is nothing that the players can do. Or at least implies it. Dangerous thinking there.

Again, sidestepping.  The original point, which MrCustomer was making, was about having some of the encounters along a travel route being pre-planned.  You responded by strawmanning it into your littleschpiel about "oh no, get the players back on the choo choo if they try and do anything different".  This is a strawman.  Plain and simple.  This particular point was a strawman, and you are guilty of it.  Accept it and move on.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

A DM should never have to hide what they are doing from their players out of a fear that it will endanger the trust their players have put in them because it necessarily means the DM is violating that trust.

And that's your opinion.  I run most of my game straight, but am not above pulling a string here or there.  What "master D&D moral authority" am I culpable to?

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Encounter tables are a minor part of what I do and how I do it.

You make it sound like that's the only way to make travel encounters without violating some kind of sacred bond of trust between DMs and players.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

You quoted jplay, not me.  I coined the term "soft railroading" as an "at worst" way to view it when one creates the illusion of randomness in a planned encounter (like the harpy thing I mentioned above).  That was me framing the point from your POV that it's still some form of railroading.
By the definition you espouse, any kind of planning of plot, events, or encounters is some form of railroading, or at least 9to use your term) "laying down the rails".  It doesn't matter if I "lay down the rails" and the players choose, or their own free will, to follow them.  In fact, it's worse if they do, according to you.  Because according to you, I am now railroading them.

Incorrect. Planning events is just fine...in fact, I know an event that has already occured in the world that my players are not aware of. However, I do not presume to know how my players will react to it...nor would I invalidate the choices they make in dealing with an event. When a DM does that it is railroading because you have actively decided that what you believe is better than what the PCs did. Arrogance.

I said nothign about "presuming to know how my players will react", or invalidating their choices.  I have advocated planing for some choices you forsee the players possibly making, and having some things ready.  Bu if players do something completely cross to that, then adapt.  Again, you're strawmanning my position.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Of course not.  player ingenuity should always be rewarded.  If the players want to spend a spell slot to cast Passwall or something to bypass the door, more power to them.  I have crafted ONE way of getting through the doors.  I have never, and would never done or advocated the insta-wall of force thing, because once again, you are describing "hard railroading".  And thus you are creating a strawman.  Once again.  You seem incapable of responding only to what I am posting and describing and not reading into it, to extraoplate it into something worse.  Why is it that you can't just respond to the scenario "as-is"?  I don't advocate slamming players with a "No! Do it my way!" kind of thing.  In fact, I have said numerous times that I don't.  And yet, your only method of responding seems to be to assume that such is exactly what I would do, and that's what you respond to.

STOP IT.

You are repeatedly taking things I ask with ?s at the end as statements. I am asking you questions. if your answer is NO simply say No and I will have a better understanding of what you are talking about. Stop assuming and invoking this "strawman" bullcrap. It is lazy in the extreme and reactionary. I am asking you honest to god questions, Chiba. Relax, take a breath and realize I am not attacking you...I am attacking your position. I like you, man. Calm down. You put forth a situation...I extrapolate and clearly ask questions. Do not read into those questions...you need only answer them.

You don't respond honestly to the situation at all, though.  You extrapolate first, and THEN respond.  Which is strawman, like it or not.  Don't defend your extrapolation, just don't do it.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:31PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Fair enough, but I was crafting a hypothetical situation, and asking you to look at it under the pretenses that I prescribed.  You failed to do that.

Because I noted something in your wording of the situation that red-flagged me so I asked for understanding. When you say there is one way into something I think it is reasonable, since you are the DM in the situation, to clarify to what extent you will enforce the "only one way" you yourself stated. Fair?

Who said anything about "only" enforcing anything?  I crafted a puzzle.  I also created one possible solution.  I said nothign about being closed to the idea of alternte solutions.  In fact, I even said earlier, that I'd allow it.  Why even ask this question?

Yes, saying "there's only one way" immediately invalidates any possible alternatives, some of which might even be more fun than the one thought of initially.  But I haven't been advocating that in actualy play.  If you recall my earlier example a few posts ago, I mentioned how, towards the end of my long-running 3.5 game, I gave my players a destination and let them figure it out.  Granted, in that instance, they hired a guide and put it back in my hands, but it was their choice to do so.

Stop accusing me of things I have already expressed as verboten in the way I run things. 

When you put forth hypotheticals I cannot be sure you are necessarily discussing an approach you yourself adhere to entirely or if you are simply crafting a hypothetical to make a point. Hence my asking for clarification. Again...fair?

Fair.
But I pose hypothetical situations the way I would-hypothetically-run them. My point is that you stop returning to this assumption that any "railroading" (as defined by you and tao) equates immediately to "hard railroading", and forcing the players down one path they don't want to go on.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

I'm talking about a meta-game consideration here.  What I meant by that is making sure other players aren't ruining fun for other players, and taking steps to stop it if they are.  Also, letting everyone have some spotlight time, that's something that the DM can affect.  A game is not fun for everyone if the rest of the party are just sidekicks to one guy.  This is what I meant.  That the DM needs to tay aware of what's going on at the table from a meta-game perspective, and keep the atmosphere of the game from deteriorating.  This is advice in every editions DMG I've read, because this also includes keeping sideline conversations limited, prohibiting tangents of more than a few minutes.  If 2 people strike up a side conversation that slows down the game, the fun of the other 3 (or however many) is affected negatively.  While the whole group should keep itself on track, it's the DM's job, officially, if the other players don't say anything.

I would prefer to leave it out of "rules" then if it requires this much explaination. The flip-side, is that there are situations with less-serious games where tangents or side conversations might be entirely enjoyable by the group. So it's not hard or fast. I do not like using the word "fun" in rules in general...because there is no way to determine it. These pseudo-truisms, even if taken at face value, do not communicate anything of import...and when looked into more critically, they require too much further explaining to fully get across what they mean. They need too much clarification. "Fun" is useless terminology for rules. That's what I mean.

Given that this was MY example, from MY table and the way I run things...no.  I prefer to run heroic stories.  I am willing to run Evil games.  But when I do, I have a Session Zero with everyone in which they discuss making characters that will be a fit for what they're doing.

You know what?  Evil games are a way I run things that you would like.  Since heroes are-ultimately-reactionary, when the PCs are villains, they push the story more than heroes do.  Session Zero involves not only character creation, but plot discussion.  The players discuss what kind of evil machinations they want to make happen, and make characters that would be a part of that plot.  From there, it's just up to me to devise the obstacles and encounters (combat or no) that are a part of moving that plot of theirs forward.
Example: Last time I ran an evil game, the party wanted to make a show of conquering a major city-while their real goal was to take over the paladin order motherhouse inside the city, and desecrate the altar (the PC necromancer had everything he needed to become a lich, he was going to perform the ritual on their altar).  After making their characters (I gave them 16th level characters, based on the scope of what they wanted to do), they decided that to conquer the city, they'd need an army.  So they went dragon hunting to get enough capital to hire out ogres, orcs, and the like, in addition to all the undead troops the cleric and necromancer could field.  So I grabbed the draconomicon, and quickly had a dragon lair and dragon encounter (Brass dragon) for them to go against.  The negotiations with the tribal leaders was mostly roleplay, and involved some fairly grisly threats.  The actual assault on the city went fairly well (involved some infiltration from the inside as well).  And the real fun came, when a party of Good adventurers came to fight off the evil that had infected their city.  Amusingly, this was when the gae fell apart, as after 2 of the party members died, the rest of them decided to save their own skins and fled.  Good lesson for anyone wanting to play a lich: Clerics with the Sun domain are your worst nightmare.

Sounds pretty cool. And liches never learn...always make sure to subvert the church FIRST so you can undermine their clerics of the Sun. Silly liches.

The DM is in a position of authority, like it or not.  Call it arrogance if you will.  But the DM is invested with a level of authority over the events of the game that players are not.  The advice hinges on not being a slave to mechanics and dice rolls.  Sometimes, a player will come up with a really creative way to do something, something that even wows the DM, and a poor roll on a skill check that the player should have passed easily (maybe he rolls a 2), makes what should have been a really fun and engaging moment sort of anticlimactic and disappointing for everyone.  This helps nothing.  The RAW do, in at least some editions, support overriding mechanics in some cases (see "Avoiding Dead Branches", 4e DMG2, page 9).

If someone has a creative solution to a problem that should work...why roll the dice? That seems like the ultimate kind of slavishness. If a solution would work and you can avoid rolling the dice, I would always suggest doing so.

And mine rely on me to adjudicate the rules fairly, and neither pamper them nor try my best to kill them.  I rely on them to roleplay well, and solve problems creatively for themselves, rather than wait for me to fix it for them.

But you have to hide certain things from your players because you are not adjudicating the rules 100% fairly, yes?

Again, I have emphasized that diice fudging is something I do very rarely.  I do have one exception.  Far too many times, by sheer luck, a monster will get knocked down to exactly one hp.  Especially when it was a big hit or big spell that brought it down so low, I'll just call the monster dropped.  It's just anticlimactic for monsters to hang around at one hp all the time.

Very rarely is still not zero. I do not fudge dice rolls. Period. That is what I am advocating.

Also why not leave it with 1 HP? It is an awesome time for the creature to drop down, try to escape and or plead for mercy or whatever. It can lead to great moments. I've done it plenty of times. Seriously give it a try. It's what lets players get in those awesome movie-style one-liners before executing an enemy. Seriously, try it! I mean this in all seriousness too and I know that a lot of people fudge that last die roll but that's because they assume the monster should keep acting the same way it has been when it had more HP...but creatures and people are aware of their general well-being (so they're pretty aware of their HP) and it gives you great opportunities to have them react to their impending doom.

The problem is that you extrapolated AT ALL.  I let the players make their choices, and I adapt to the choices they make.  Having some things prepared a session or so in advance, in expectation of certain decisions, is not demeaning any of their choices.  If they go completely off the map from what I had expected, I can work on the fly, but planning for reasonable decisions the players might make is something I do.

I have never spoken against have pre-planned material. I use quite a bit of pre-planned material...I just know what it is pre-planned for and I stick to that. If the game deviates, I do not use the material as I pre-planned it. Nor do I simply reskin it to give my players the same experience regardless of the deviation they made. You are reading into my own statements. Can we agree that this might be inevitable and both work towards understanding one another better? I will start by clarifying...

I am not against pre-planning things. I pre-plan quite a bit in that I prepare materials for the game. However, I do not force those materials into the game. I discard them if they are not relevant...and I save them for later if they are still "true" in the game but not topical. For instance, I prepared a crypt the other day for the players because they were nearing it and were considering investigating. They ended up investigating. If they had not the crypt would have remained there, unused for now...I would not have changed that dungeon to the next dungeon they went into.

*shurg* Guess you're dead, then.

Why? You still have the same exact situation on hand but now you are siding with what you previously thought was a negative outcome? Why keep it intact if you actively believe it is negative? Only to save face to keep from getting caught fudging? :/
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

No, that was just his policy, it was something he was trying out.  From the negative feedback he got on that, he decided to abandon the policy.  You're too quick to assume everyone is as judgemental as you, and makes immediate judgement calls on the intelligence of those involved.
I simply said it was a bad policy, the meta-gamey-ness of the policy was jarring.

I'll point out that calling me judgemental is, in fact, the act of judging me. Hmm.

I decide what material is allowed and what is not at my table.  I decide how monsters behave in combat (I use the Tactics section in the monster entry as a guide, yes, as well as taking monster intelligence into account, but it's still my call).  When there's a major story arc, some encounters are simply not a part of that story.  If the party is on a mission to reach Blackwall Keep before a massive army of lizardfolk invade, and they encounter a wanderin war party of orcs...yes, that is "piddly crap".

Robbing the players the chance to, perhaps, try and sway the orcs to try and help them rout the mutual lizardfolk enemies. Or any number of interesting things the players might come up with.

I called his policy ridiculous.  He's actually a friend of mine.  And he's quite intelligent, thank you.  Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are incapable of making bad calls.

Gonna call you out on this one.

Here is your quote.

"But this DM was ridiculous."

You outright called him ridiculous.

And yes, I do try and stay one step ahead of my players.  This means adapting to their choices, because such choices matter.  But I feel that it is my responsibility to be at least one step ahead of the players.  But not too far.  Getting too far ahead of them means losing sight of what is going on with them right now.  One needs to stay in the moment and in the present, while looking a step or two ahead, and know what's coming next.  That's all I was saying.

Which makes sense. However is part of that "staying ahead" also to include keeping them in the dark regarding things you do that might (in your words) "endanger the trust" they have put in you?

That is not at all what you've been saying.  First off, I checked the book, (4e DMG2, page 17), and it does indeed say that the goblin encounter gets reskinned" as feathery goblins, if the players go east.
Now, I never advocated "no mtter what I'm throwing the goblin encounter at them", as if the goblins were somehow everywhere.  So the remainder of your follow up questions are irrelevant.

My statement was merely that IF you re-skinned the encounter and threw it at them no matter what that is bad. So, basically, thank you for answering the question.  It does indeed render the follow-up questions moot. Thank you. Again, you're reading into the statement. I am asking for clarification. In fact, I even outright stated that what I was putting forth in that statement was HOW that would be bad because what you stated was, in and of itself, not bad. Again...please calm down. I think you're getting a bit too fired up and eager to read into things. When I ask a series of questions it is to provide the opportunity for clarification...if one gets answered, it might invalidate the rest of the chain of questioning and that is just fine.

That's a sidestep.  It's completely irrelevant to the part you were responding to. Unless you are somehow using this as a justification for saying "every DM who doesn't do it my way is inferior and lazy".  I told you that this is how you are coming acros, an I take isssue with it, and you come back with an anecdote about how your playstyle has evolved.

No, I am outright saying what I do is superior. What I do tomorrow will be superior to what I do today. It is what I strive for. Again, I have done what you do...have you done what I do? If so, I believe I have a better basis for saying what may or may not be superior to the other. I think that is a fair line of reasoning.

Again, does that justify you saying your personal opinion is so vital and universal that it makes all other ways inferior and lazy.

Justify it? Not 100% no. It does lend me more weight and credibility, however. One knows by doing...or at least is closer to knowing. I do not put much stock in those that tell me how something they have never eaten tastes. Do you?

I...I can't take this line of thought seriously.  I'm sorry, I have a life with too many things in it that are more important than games.  I'm in the Navy.  The work I do on a plane could potentially affect a pilot's LIFE.  My family, maintainin my house...all these things are far more important than gaming.  I love D&D, but it's a hobby.

You are conflating "taking seriously" with "important". Several things in my life have to be taken very seriously...that does not make them more important to my life. I am defined by what I choose to do...not by what I have to do. I have to work...I do not let my work define me. I do not have to play D&D...I do so because it is something that defines me as a person. I did not need to get married...I chose to because the person I share my life with helps define me and my life.

Games are my life. I went to school for them. I study them. That you seek to diminish my interests by stating that you cannot take that seriously is...sad. You have nothing to tell me you are sorry for otherwise...that you have things in your life you consider more important than D&D is irrelevant to me. I do as well. However, I still consider it very important to me. Games define humanity...I consider them a defining part of culture, history and the very nature of human beings. It always disappoints me a bit to see people try to dismiss them and diminish them.

It's not just "reluctance to make things that don't get used", because that can always happen if the players do something you hadn't planned for, which is fine.  And you say you plan some encounters...isn't that restricitng player choices, according to you and tao?

Not if I am willing to discard those plans at the drop of a hat. Which I am.

Again, sidestepping.  The original point, which MrCustomer was making, was about having some of the encounters along a travel route being pre-planned.  You responded by strawmanning it into your littleschpiel about "oh no, get the players back on the choo choo if they try and do anything different".  This is a strawman.  Plain and simple.  This particular point was a strawman, and you are guilty of it.  Accept it and move on.

Pre-prepared is far different from inevitable. Again, I was extrapolating and asking questions. That it becomes ugly is the point...it is stress-testing the situation and line of thinking.

And that's your opinion.  I run most of my game straight, but am not above pulling a string here or there.  What "master D&D moral authority" am I culpable to?

Only the "moral authority" that I do not pull strings. I do not do anything behind my screen that endangers the trust my players have put in me. If you are endangering trust that suggests, at least to me, that something unethical is happening behind the screen. Again, "endangering trust" was your wording...not mine.

You make it sound like that's the only way to make travel encounters without violating some kind of sacred bond of trust between DMs and players.

It can be part of it, yes. Not the end all be all however.

I said nothign about "presuming to know how my players will react", or invalidating their choices.  I have advocated planing for some choices you forsee the players possibly making, and having some things ready.  Bu if players do something completely cross to that, then adapt.  Again, you're strawmanning my position.

Again, you are far too quick to run to the teddy-bear that is apparently this invocation of "ZOMG STRAWMAN". Let it go. Please for the sake of everyones sanity.

I am stating WHEN IT WOULD BE BAD. I AM STATING TO WHAT EXTENT IT BECOMES A PROBLEM. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT SOMEONE DOES, I AM SAYING THESE THINGS ARE WHAT WOULD BE BAD.

I do not even disagree with what I just quoted from you...I agree with it. Pre-plan and prepare some things and adapt and improvise if unexpected things occur. Can you please stop crying wolf at me whenever I try to actually explain what WOULD be bad?

You don't respond honestly to the situation at all, though.  You extrapolate first, and THEN respond.  Which is strawman, like it or not.  Don't defend your extrapolation, just don't do it.

Here I will reply to this...

You are strawmaning my position. I do not do that. It is a strawman to say I make strawman arguments when I don't strawman with a strawman. Please do not strawman me by saying I strawman your strawman with a strawman. Straw. Man.

That enough strawmen?

You are reading into what is or is not "honest"...I am GENUINELY ASKING ABOUT or GENUINELY OFFERING hypotheticals or questions to be answered or addressed.

I have never once stated YOU DO something in that manner. You have put forth situations and I have ASKED questions about them. Again, if the first answer is a "No, this is how it would work" it could render the rest of the questions meaningless and that is just fine. I asked you once, quite politely, not to keep reading intent into simple questions...you insist on doing so. Again...can you stop? Seriously, this will be the second time I have asked nicely.

Who said anything about "only" enforcing anything?  I crafted a puzzle.  I also created one possible solution.  I said nothign about being closed to the idea of alternte solutions.  In fact, I even said earlier, that I'd allow it.  Why even ask this question?

Because I was not sure about the intent of the example and was asking for simple clarification. Something red-flagged me so I asked about it. Something was stated definitively...so I asked about it. Full. STOP. That's all.

Fair.
But I pose hypothetical situations the way I would-hypothetically-run them. My point is that you stop returning to this assumption that any "railroading" (as defined by you and tao) equates immediately to "hard railroading", and forcing the players down one path they don't want to go on.

Then we are back to one of the cruxes of the situation...it is railroading when a choice is invalidated. Well, less railroading and more an act that is "unethical" on the part of the DM...one that has violated or threatens to violate player trust. If the only thing seperating the action from that violation is the DM's screen and the DM's ability to keep the players in the dark, that is what I have an issue with. I do not advocate doing things that endanger/violate player trust...whether the players know it or not.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 7:17AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Actualy, choice only matters if the players have a reasonable idea of the consequences of the choices involved. If the players have no clue what lies along either path, they might as well throw a dice to determine what path to take and they honestly would not care whether you designed one or two encounters...
...In reality, the few times I ran across such an "illusion" of choice, the DM gave the PCs clues on what they would find alongside either path and adjust that quantum fortress' description and a few mechanical details based on those clues even going so far as changing environmental hazards and terrain. If the choice was between a path through the mountains or the forest, the forest path would take more time and lead through gnoll territority and the mountain path be more straneous and lead through orc territory.

This is what I agree with. The "Quantum Fortress" is ultimately what the players want, so making sure they "stumble" upon it is an important part of the adventure, fate as some would call it. The adventure getting there howevre is the subject of their choice. The PCs are choosing their peril in the journey to wherever it is they are going. The fortress becomes a premade encounter that can be interjected into the game at any point, it doesn't change the destination of where they were ultimately choosing to go.
  

YagamiFire said this...

"Also why not leave it with 1 HP? It is an awesome time for the creature to drop down, try to escape and or plead for mercy or whatever. It can lead to great moments. I've done it plenty of times. Seriously give it a try. It's what lets players get in those awesome movie-style one-liners before executing an enemy. Seriously, try it! I mean this in all seriousness too and I know that a lot of people fudge that last die roll but that's because they assume the monster should keep acting the same way it has been when it had more HP...but creatures and people are aware of their general well-being (so they're pretty aware of their HP) and it gives you great opportunities to have them react to their impending doom."

I just wanted to comment on this statement.  I agree with this.  Yes, sometimes it may be better to just down that enemy for them, however, I think it is better to let the chips fall where they may.  Opportunities like these are indeed EXCELLENT for the party as the enemy may surrender and become captured and a source of information for them.  The enemy could even plead for their lives and it could become something where the PCs find out that this particular enemy has been fooled all along into thinking he/she was fighting for the good of all, or that someone they love is being held captive and they have no choice.  So this could lead to the enemy becoming a friend and lead down another adventure path.

Also, I roll out in front of my players.  Sometimes this can end up bad for the players and sometimes for me.  However, since many of my "failure" options are not necessarily PC death then it can really add to the overall game.  And it usually works out for the PCs/players in the end.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 1:06PM, tao_alexis wrote:

Mr. Customer,

Your first paragraph makes a proposition - "logical opposite" - that is not self evident.

Your second paragraph has cited a single example, interpreted by you, in a manner that is oversimplified and incomplete.  Furthermore, it fails to refute the axiom.

Your third paragraph makes a statement that, again, is not self evident.  A thing is not a thing because you say it is a thing.

You have failed to convince me.

tao_alexis, I wouldn't give a damn about convincing you, dimestore philosophy is worthless in my opinion, as are flawed and inacurate historical references that you made. I rebuke your flawed position for the benifit of less foolish minds, not you.

It is impossible for the DM not to predestiny events for the PCs, as even level appropriate content is ultimately meta-gaming and controling the chalenges. As well the offering of any plot requires the DM to introduce the hand of fate in ensuring it lands on the PC's lap.

Are they on a quest? Ok you railroaded them on some level by your definition, because there is no way they started such a quest without the DM making it happen to them.

Ok, as a very simple example, they've created their characters, and just started the game, have somehow managed to get together as a group (probably in a tavern), when a wounded knight stumbles in and collapses, his hand wrapped around a scroll....

Right there, the DM made that happen, you've just railroaded the players. The premise is flawed because it's logical extension defines Anything that happens to  the player beyond random chance as being railroading. Lets face it nothing happens unless the DM puts it there.

The only way the Players can stumble on a lost temple is by the DM placing it in their path, so it's existance is a railroad by this definition regardless of where placed.

And Fate is a common fantasy and heroic theme, the hero always happens to be in the right place at the right time for the event to occur, because it was fated to happen. Gollum drops his ring once, just once, and Bilbo just happens to trip and find it, it was fated to happen. It happens to the hero because there wouldn't be a story otherwise. fate is a legitimate tool to use in the game, happening on a lost temple is good oportunity to give them something interesting to explore, it's fate that they stumble upon it, and so doesn't matter where the DM places it.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 9:52PM, SwampDog wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 5:06PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

D&D is a game that we all play.  Yes, it's a hobby that can involve many hours of work, but it's also fun.  And fore many of us, it's time spent with friends.  Do you think your players really care about the mechanics and the strings of what goes on "behind the screen"?  No, they're playing a game, too, and they want to have fun.  I'd wager that 9/10 players don't care about what strings the DM i pulling behind the screen.

Chiba: Excellent post.

Yaga:  I respect your opinion.  However, as per the quote above, I think you grossly overestimate how important it is to most players that play D&D that total and utter freedom is paramount.  Many, many players will go to a D&D game knowing in advance that they characters are going to be visit Gnarl the giant in his castle keep.   They know it.  The DM knows it.   And they are HAPPY to do so.

If the way you play works for you, great!   But you really should be far less certain in your conviction that not doing it the way you like is utterly guaranteeing the players a lesser game.   I refute your notion that your method is the superior method for all DMs and all players, even those that are aware that your method exists.    Simply put, some (nay, many) players prefer a somewhat guided experience over a total free form one, and the game is none the lesser for it.

Some of my players DEFINITELY prefer a guided experience. I began my current 'Marth' campaign with nothing more than 4 land masses with water between them and this sentence:
It is the first day of the year 1200 in the land of Marth.

I then took the compiled backgrounds of the player characters and mashed them together to get them in the same place at the same time but left the rest of the world as wide open as can be imagined. They all were in a coastal trade city 'looking for adventure'.

I had nothing prepared, but had many years of DM experience to draw from... three previous campaigns with years of notes on them, old Dungeon and Dragon magazines, piles of modules, and so on... and pretty good 'winging it' skills. My goal was to be as player-driven as possible, thinking that as a player I would like to have a DM with good improv skills, so my players would probably like that too.

Some did. Others definitely did not.

If I didn't have some NPC 'railroading' them into an interaction, they seemed to instantly convert from heroes into a craftman's guild, plying their trade (Craft Skills, Profession Skills) for profit or hikers wandering through the terrain with no goal in mind in hopes that they accidentally run into a prepared adventure or a chance to grind for experience with a random encounter of varying levels of meaninglessness.

Improvised encounters are fun too and the serendipity of improvisation often leads to great things. Prepared encounters do not diminish the ability to improvise, however... in fact, the preparation can make it easier to improvise because you have more to work with.

At any rate, making stuff up on the spot is nothing more than preparing them on the spot. The difference is... players are getting a rough draft instead of a more polished second or third draft that has the added benefit of there being a 'big picture' in mind because the DM already knows some of what lies at the end of the road and can foreshadow events accordingly.

Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.

DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.

Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.

DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.

Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.

Feb 5, 2013 -- 11:10AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.

DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.

Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.

DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.

Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.

When did people become so nancy pantsed, fragile minded, and weak willed?

Feb 5, 2013 -- 11:21AM, LunarSavage wrote:

Feb 5, 2013 -- 11:10AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.

DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.

Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.

DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.

Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.

When did people become so nancy pantsed, fragile minded, and weak willed?

I would say April 6, 1992, with the first episode of Barney & Friends, which features the title character Barney, a purple anthropomorphic Tyrannosaurus rex who conveys educational messages through songs and small dance routines with a friendly, optimistic attitude.

Feb 5, 2013 -- 11:38AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Feb 5, 2013 -- 11:21AM, LunarSavage wrote:

Feb 5, 2013 -- 11:10AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.

DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.

Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.

DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.

Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.

When did people become so nancy pantsed, fragile minded, and weak willed?

I would say April 6, 1992, with the first episode of Barney & Friends, which features the title character Barney, a purple anthropomorphic Tyrannosaurus rex who conveys educational messages through songs and small dance routines with a friendly, optimistic attitude.

I always knew that giant purple bastard was up to no good. *slams fist on desk*

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

The DM is in a position of authority, like it or not.  Call it arrogance if you will.  But the DM is invested with a level of authority over the events of the game that players are not.  The advice hinges on not being a slave to mechanics and dice rolls.  Sometimes, a player will come up with a really creative way to do something, something that even wows the DM, and a poor roll on a skill check that the player should have passed easily (maybe he rolls a 2), makes what should have been a really fun and engaging moment sort of anticlimactic and disappointing for everyone.  This helps nothing.  The RAW do, in at least some editions, support overriding mechanics in some cases (see "Avoiding Dead Branches", 4e DMG2, page 9).

If someone has a creative solution to a problem that should work...why roll the dice? That seems like the ultimate kind of slavishness. If a solution would work and you can avoid rolling the dice, I would always suggest doing so.

I thought you were advocating making the player's choices matter and letting them succeed on their own merits?  Isn't letting something auto-suceed just because you like thier creative solution "railroading" by your own definition?  The 4e DMG2 quote I cited mentions discreetly lowering the DC of the skill check as one possible solution.  That works, as well as does discreetly giving the player extra bonuses for their creative solution.  Letting the player still roll the skill check lets them feel like they still have some measure of control or input in the mechanics.

For example, whenever my players decide that they doubt or mistrust an NPC and declare that they want to make a Sense Motive check (or Insight in 4e), I allow them to make such a check, and, regardless of whether to NPC is lying or not, I roll a Bluff check behind the screen.  It's my personal rule that anyone telling the truth has a +30 circumstance bonus to Bluff checks.  So when a player announces a desire to make a skill check that the DC is always an opposed roll (like Sense Motive), they always have something to roll against.  Not rolling and telling the player they believe the NPC would simply be a meta-game clue to the player that the NPC is automatically telling the truth.  By using my method, the players (in this case, distinguished from the character), don't automatically know if the NPC was telling the truth, or just a really good liar.  But their character responds in-game the same way.  The only difference is the meta-game consideration that the player derives from the scenario.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

And mine rely on me to adjudicate the rules fairly, and neither pamper them nor try my best to kill them.  I rely on them to roleplay well, and solve problems creatively for themselves, rather than wait for me to fix it for them.

But you have to hide certain things from your players because you are not adjudicating the rules 100% fairly, yes?

I use my judgement where that's concerned and don't abuse the power I've been invested with.  That's a key distinction.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Again, I have emphasized that diice fudging is something I do very rarely.  I do have one exception.  Far too many times, by sheer luck, a monster will get knocked down to exactly one hp.  Especially when it was a big hit or big spell that brought it down so low, I'll just call the monster dropped.  It's just anticlimactic for monsters to hang around at one hp all the time.

Very rarely is still not zero. I do not fudge dice rolls. Period. That is what I am advocating.

Bully for you.
But isn't that making it more about you, the DM, then it is about the player's?  You've been so critical about DMs "making it about themselves", but you place your own moral superiority at a higher level of consideration than you do the product you present to your players?  How is that an less self-absorbed, even if it is well-intentioned?

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Also why not leave it with 1 HP? It is an awesome time for the creature to drop down, try to escape and or plead for mercy or whatever. It can lead to great moments. I've done it plenty of times. Seriously give it a try. It's what lets players get in those awesome movie-style one-liners before executing an enemy. Seriously, try it! I mean this in all seriousness too and I know that a lot of people fudge that last die roll but that's because they assume the monster should keep acting the same way it has been when it had more HP...but creatures and people are aware of their general well-being (so they're pretty aware of their HP) and it gives you great opportunities to have them react to their impending doom.

Sometimes, yes, and I did not say I do that EVERY TIME it happens.  What I was trying to convey is that, for some reason, this seriously happens all the time.  If it seriously happens to at least one enemy almost every game session, then after awhile, those "great moments" become much less great.  And so, SOMETIMES, I just let the monster be dropped.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

The problem is that you extrapolated AT ALL.  I let the players make their choices, and I adapt to the choices they make.  Having some things prepared a session or so in advance, in expectation of certain decisions, is not demeaning any of their choices.  If they go completely off the map from what I had expected, I can work on the fly, but planning for reasonable decisions the players might make is something I do.

I have never spoken against have pre-planned material. I use quite a bit of pre-planned material...I just know what it is pre-planned for and I stick to that. If the game deviates, I do not use the material as I pre-planned it. Nor do I simply reskin it to give my players the same experience regardless of the deviation they made. You are reading into my own statements. Can we agree that this might be inevitable and both work towards understanding one another better? I will start by clarifying...

I am not against pre-planning things. I pre-plan quite a bit in that I prepare materials for the game. However, I do not force those materials into the game. I discard them if they are not relevant...and I save them for later if they are still "true" in the game but not topical. For instance, I prepared a crypt the other day for the players because they were nearing it and were considering investigating. They ended up investigating. If they had not the crypt would have remained there, unused for now...I would not have changed that dungeon to the next dungeon they went into.

Why does it matter?  If the next dungeon (or the one after) is similarly a crypt?

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

No, that was just his policy, it was something he was trying out.  From the negative feedback he got on that, he decided to abandon the policy.  You're too quick to assume everyone is as judgemental as you, and makes immediate judgement calls on the intelligence of those involved.
I simply said it was a bad policy, the meta-gamey-ness of the policy was jarring.

I'll point out that calling me judgemental is, in fact, the act of judging me. Hmm.

Do I judge you as "less intelligent"?  No.  I do not immediately judge those who think, feel, and act in ways that I do not.  Just because somehing or someone is different does not necessitate a value judgement.  Some people I work with in the Navy, for exampe, do not have the same kind of values that I do when it comes to behavior when in port.  I dont judge.  My way is better for me.  Doesn't make it better, objectively, than the way they choose to act.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

I decide what material is allowed and what is not at my table.  I decide how monsters behave in combat (I use the Tactics section in the monster entry as a guide, yes, as well as taking monster intelligence into account, but it's still my call).  When there's a major story arc, some encounters are simply not a part of that story.  If the party is on a mission to reach Blackwall Keep before a massive army of lizardfolk invade, and they encounter a wanderin war party of orcs...yes, that is "piddly crap".

Robbing the players the chance to, perhaps, try and sway the orcs to try and help them rout the mutual lizardfolk enemies. Or any number of interesting things the players might come up with.

This is non-sequitr.  You were criticising my adjudication of what was "piddly crap" in the game, and criticising me for deciding what is and is not importnt to the stroy, calling it "arrogant".  I was talking about a random combat encounter, the PCs are already in combat with said orcs, and you counter with "what if they creatively decided to do something else?"  Well, they didn't.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

I called his policy ridiculous.  He's actually a friend of mine.  And he's quite intelligent, thank you.  Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are incapable of making bad calls.

Gonna call you out on this one.

Here is your quote.

"But this DM was ridiculous."

You outright called him ridiculous.

All right, fair enough.  Doesn't mean I think he's stupid.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

And yes, I do try and stay one step ahead of my players.  This means adapting to their choices, because such choices matter.  But I feel that it is my responsibility to be at least one step ahead of the players.  But not too far.  Getting too far ahead of them means losing sight of what is going on with them right now.  One needs to stay in the moment and in the present, while looking a step or two ahead, and know what's coming next.  That's all I was saying.

Which makes sense. However is part of that "staying ahead" also to include keeping them in the dark regarding things you do that might (in your words) "endanger the trust" they have put in you?

Sometimes.  Usually no.  I don't care if my players know I'm not actually rolling on a random encounter table.  And most of them would prefer if I planned "random encounters" anyway, since they'll have more thought put into them.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

That's a sidestep.  It's completely irrelevant to the part you were responding to. Unless you are somehow using this as a justification for saying "every DM who doesn't do it my way is inferior and lazy".  I told you that this is how you are coming acros, an I take isssue with it, and you come back with an anecdote about how your playstyle has evolved.

No, I am outright saying what I do is superior. What I do tomorrow will be superior to what I do today. It is what I strive for. Again, I have done what you do...have you done what I do? If so, I believe I have a better basis for saying what may or may not be superior to the other. I think that is a fair line of reasoning.

It's not, though.  It's fair for you say "what I do is superior for me and my group", but-especially since you're trying to make a moral argument here and take the high ground-you have ZERO RIGHT to denounce everyone else as "inferior and lazy".  By doing so, you undermine any moral superiority you might claim, because it's hypocrisy.  Either you advocate morality in a moral way, or you're just talking about your opinion.  It's one or the other.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Again, does that justify you saying your personal opinion is so vital and universal that it makes all other ways inferior and lazy.

Justify it? Not 100% no.

Good.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

I...I can't take this line of thought seriously.  I'm sorry, I have a life with too many things in it that are more important than games.  I'm in the Navy.  The work I do on a plane could potentially affect a pilot's LIFE.  My family, maintainin my house...all these things are far more important than gaming.  I love D&D, but it's a hobby.

You are conflating "taking seriously" with "important". Several things in my life have to be taken very seriously...that does not make them more important to my life. I am defined by what I choose to do...not by what I have to do. I have to work...I do not let my work define me. I do not have to play D&D...I do so because it is something that defines me as a person. I did not need to get married...I chose to because the person I share my life with helps define me and my life.

Games are my life. I went to school for them. I study them. That you seek to diminish my interests by stating that you cannot take that seriously is...sad. You have nothing to tell me you are sorry for otherwise...that you have things in your life you consider more important than D&D is irrelevant to me. I do as well. However, I still consider it very important to me. Games define humanity...I consider them a defining part of culture, history and the very nature of human beings. It always disappoints me a bit to see people try to dismiss them and diminish them.

You said that games are more important than physical health.  If one's health deteriorates too far, they can't well play games, can they?  I can't take that kind of reasoning seriously.
I enjoy gaming.  D&D is by far my favorite hobby.  It's my favorite social engagement.  I do place some priority on gaming, but it stays in context.  I didn't have to join the military.  I take a great deal of pride in serving my country and defending freedoms.  I've been a part of some world-shaping events.  I was aboard the USS Ronald Reagan in 2011 when the Tsunami hit Japan.  We were the first responders to provide aid to them in their crisis.  WWe spent over a month on short rations, donating most of our food to the people hurt by that disaster.  Some of us donated our own clothes to the people who had lost everything.  What we did made a HUGE difference and saved lives.  While I love D&D, I cannot place it in a higher priority context than the real world.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

It's not just "reluctance to make things that don't get used", because that can always happen if the players do something you hadn't planned for, which is fine.  And you say you plan some encounters...isn't that restricitng player choices, according to you and tao?

Not if I am willing to discard those plans at the drop of a hat. Which I am.

so?  I'm not advocating forcing the players to experience what I have planned no matter what, either.  If neither extreme is the case, why discuss the extremes?

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Again, sidestepping.  The original point, which MrCustomer was making, was about having some of the encounters along a travel route being pre-planned.  You responded by strawmanning it into your littleschpiel about "oh no, get the players back on the choo choo if they try and do anything different".  This is a strawman.  Plain and simple.  This particular point was a strawman, and you are guilty of it.  Accept it and move on.

 

Pre-prepared is far different from inevitable. Again, I was extrapolating and asking questions. That it becomes ugly is the point...it is stress-testing the situation and line of thinking.

But you did not address the original point.  You extrapolated (thus saying something other than he was advocating), and only asked questions based on your extrapolated example.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

And that's your opinion.  I run most of my game straight, but am not above pulling a string here or there.  What "master D&D moral authority" am I culpable to?

Only the "moral authority" that I do not pull strings. I do not do anything behind my screen that endangers the trust my players have put in me. If you are endangering trust that suggests, at least to me, that something unethical is happening behind the screen. Again, "endangering trust" was your wording...not mine.

Again, I refer to my above statements regarding placing your priority on your moral stance as prioritizing your own moral/ethical standards over what you're presenting to players.
My own ethics don't enter in to this issue.  To me, it's an amoral decision.  Your insistence on attaching a moral/ethical value to this issue is, to me, akin to how some religious devotees insist that some issues are moral/ethical ones, while secular people disagree, focusing more on the rights of inidividuals to decide for themselves.

DMing is creativity.  As such, the only ethics that enter into it for me are the ethics of aesthetics.  To me, it is more unethical to present something sloppy and unfinished to my players than any concern for maintaining a moral superiority that matters to no one but me.

As I said before...if we are discussing the ethics of this matter in a vacuum, with pure hypotheticals, then yes, you are right about railroading and so on.  But once we're talking about actual games and involving actual people, a lot of those high ideals bcome irrelevant, because the experience of the players  matters way more, in terms of aesthetic ethics.  Which is where I place my values.

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

You make it sound like that's the only way to make travel encounters without violating some kind of sacred bond of trust between DMs and players.

It can be part of it, yes. Not the end all be all however.

And I have been positing that it's not a part of it at all, and jplay36 has said the same thing.  Nothing about rolling on a random encounter table even relates to the issues of railroading or violating player trust at all.  If your players and my players say "we go through the forest", there is no moral difference between you rolling on a "Forest Encounters" table, and me pulling out a Monster Manual, finding a forest based creature, and picking it for an encounter.  4e MMs are great for "random encounters", by the way, because I can find the entry fro a forest creature, and grab one of the pre-collected "encounter groups". For example, I look up Gnolls, and I get a level 7 ecounter with 1 gnoll demonic scourge, 2 gnoll clawfighters, 2 gnoll huntmasters, and 1 cacklefiend hyena.  I didn't pre-plan the gnoll encounter, I picked a forest-dwelling creature because the players decided to go through a forest, and selected an appropriate encounter.  Let's say on your "forest encounters" table, you also rolled for gnolls.  What is different, morally, about the two ways that was done?  Nothing.  Not one iota of difference.

Now lets say our players both ended that session still in the forest, still travelling.  So, either way, for both groups, the next session will start with travel through the forest.  Between sessions, I now PLAN another travel encounter in the forest, deciding to make this one more detailed, and maybe hinting at something more.  To continue using the examples, I decide on a group of trolls, who all have a strange symbol painted on their hides, and one of which wears that same symbol.  When they see the party, they attack, and the leader says "kill them!  Redtooth will reward us for bringing their treasure!".  Now I have done this because I happen to know that one of my players' character speaks Giant.  And it's a hook.  If they decide to go on a little sidetrek, I have decided that Redtooth is a Green Dragon in these woods, who has many subject creatures enslaved, inluding these trolls.  If they decide to stay in these woods and invesigate further, then I have an idea for what other kinds of creatures they coud find, and I could whip up a quick Skill Challenge for tracking the rolls to where they came from (I have a few basic, multipurpose  Skill Challenges pre-writen).  And, of course, Redtooth himself.  If they don't care to investigate...then they don't.  Oh well.
You, on the other hand, next session, roll again for their next travel encounter.  Just for the sake of showing similarities, you also roll a troll encounter.
What, morally, is the difference?
Both parties decided to enter a forest with no urging from the DM.  Both had a gnoll encounter, and the next session, had a troll encounter.  If the same player was in both games, his experiences would have been nearly identical.  Nothing about his choices were more valid in one than the other.
Now, you say, it is "ethically reprehensible" for me to have pre-determined what the party was going to encounter in those woods.
I think it is less ethical (by aesthetic ethics) to present a random encounter-that I put no more work into than rolling dice and consulting a pregenerated table-when I did, indeed, have the opportunity to make it better by planning.
The only difference, in this discussion?  I don't criticize and judge those who don't choose to use my method as "inferior" or "lazy"

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

I said nothign about "presuming to know how my players will react", or invalidating their choices.  I have advocated planing for some choices you forsee the players possibly making, and having some things ready.  Bu if players do something completely cross to that, then adapt.  Again, you're strawmanning my position.

Again, you are far too quick to run to the teddy-bear that is apparently this invocation of "ZOMG STRAWMAN". Let it go. Please for the sake of everyones sanity.

I am stating WHEN IT WOULD BE BAD. I AM STATING TO WHAT EXTENT IT BECOMES A PROBLEM. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT SOMEONE DOES, I AM SAYING THESE THINGS ARE WHAT WOULD BE BAD.

I do not even disagree with what I just quoted from you...I agree with it. Pre-plan and prepare some things and adapt and improvise if unexpected things occur. Can you please stop crying wolf at me whenever I try to actually explain what WOULD be bad?

I already know what WOULD be bad.  I've said as much a dozen times already.  If ou don't want me to interpret what you say as your response to my post, why franme it as such?

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

You don't respond honestly to the situation at all, though.  You extrapolate first, and THEN respond.  Which is strawman, like it or not.  Don't defend your extrapolation, just don't do it.

Here I will reply to this...

You are strawmaning my position. I do not do that. It is a strawman to say I make strawman arguments when I don't strawman with a strawman. Please do not strawman me by saying I strawman your strawman with a strawman. Straw. Man.

That enough strawmen?

You are reading into what is or is not "honest"...I am GENUINELY ASKING ABOUT or GENUINELY OFFERING hypotheticals or questions to be answered or addressed.

I have never once stated YOU DO something in that manner. You have put forth situations and I have ASKED questions about them. Again, if the first answer is a "No, this is how it would work" it could render the rest of the questions meaningless and that is just fine. I asked you once, quite politely, not to keep reading intent into simple questions...you insist on doing so. Again...can you stop? Seriously, this will be the second time I have asked nicely.

And I have asked nicely for you to stop extrapolating AT ALL, and just respond to what is said and presented AS IS.
Yes, we know that taking things to the far extreme right is a Very Bad Thing, but that's not what anyone here is advocating, ertainly not me.  So top discussing only the far extreme right.  Discuss what's presented.  Because when you ALWAYS extrapolate, and reply ONLY in regards to that extrapolated extreme example-whether it is couched as a question or no-you are strawmanning.  Or at least, giving the appearance of strawmanning.

Why is it so hard to NOT extrapolate and discuss only what is being presented.  WHY do you have to take it to the far extreme in order to construct a response?

Feb 4, 2013 -- 3:08PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Feb 4, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Fair.
But I pose hypothetical situations the way I would-hypothetically-run them. My point is that you stop returning to this assumption that any "railroading" (as defined by you and tao) equates immediately to "hard railroading", and forcing the players down one path they don't want to go on.

Then we are back to one of the cruxes of the situation...it is railroading when a choice is invalidated. Well, less railroading and more an act that is "unethical" on the part of the DM...one that has violated or threatens to violate player trust. If the only thing seperating the action from that violation is the DM's screen and the DM's ability to keep the players in the dark, that is what I have an issue with. I do not advocate doing things that endanger/violate player trust...whether the players know it or not.

So, anything that looks like it MIGHT, one day, "threaten" the player's trust, needs to be decried as railroading and shut down before it becomes a problem, right?  Because that's the only possible outcome, and it is a certainty that any such situation will turn into the kind of threat that completely violates player trust and their own ability to make choices, right?
Does that about sum it up?
DISCLAIMER: The author takes no responsibility for any failure of Irony Detectors that may have occurred while reading that last pararaph.