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.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam"
"I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
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.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam"
"I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
..."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.
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.
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.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
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:
My opinion is that I think I understand what the article was attempting to teach.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
J/K, please don't answer that, I don't want a CoC violation for either of us.