One needn't have either a sandbox world or an overarching plot planned out. It's surprising how much can be collaboratively created on the fly, and it's a surprisingly fun approach.
And it works with every group every time in all settings everywhere...
True, but it works best with open-minded, trustworthy people.
That was sarcasm... It actually doesn't work with all people everywhere all the time. I know several of my past groups where that just wouldn't fly at all and the game would be a standstill.
I like how you then go to imply that if it doesn't work it is because the players are somehow not trustworthy and closeminded. Your method is so awesome it even weeds out liars and bigots.
And it works with every group every time in all settings everywhere...[/quote]True, but it works best with open-minded, trustworthy people.[/quote]That was sarcasm... It actually doesn't work with all people everywhere all the time. I know several o
Your method is so awesome it even weeds out liars and bigots.
I'm blushing from all these compliments!
I know right? They should use your method of playing DnD as the second interview step to getting into federal office. Would clean up all these problems with politicians in 1 4 hour gaming session.
I'm blushing from all these compliments![/quote]I know right? They should use your method of playing DnD as the second interview step to getting into federal office. Would clean up all these problems with politicians in 1 4 hour gaming session.
I have a big wide open world, with things going on around the PC, not because of the PC. I let them do pretty much what they want. Sure I throw them bones now and them. Like right now in game they are taking jobs from a Guild. In the second game session they happened to stumble upon the precursor to a huge war, that is going to happen. The PC think they know what is going on, and I have been keeping track of what my NPC are doing as they go about their business. It is possible to have both an open world with a big under story to it. As a DM all I have to do is think ahead a week or two and know where my NPCs are. Not that big a deal.
To say one playstyle over the other is wrong ... well is just wrong. It should be about what the PC wants. My PC like that their are bigger things goin on around them, and that they aren't the most important people in the world.
So am I wrong for giving my PC what they want?
So saying something works everytime with every group is not correct. A DM should, with in reason, give the PC what they want. A smart DM wouldn't start off a level 1 PC with a Vorpral Sword, as an example of something that would be in the with in reason thing.
With the case that I stated to open this thread ...
The PC killed off someone they could have gotten information out of to know what is going on in the world around them. Since they didn't they don't know anything first hand. Since they killed off someone big and bad, when they came across a Death Knight, the went right at him. That was my initial problem. And since then I have solved that problem.
Since this is the thread I started ...My world is a combo of both. I have a big wide open world, with things going on around the PC, not because of the PC. I let them do pretty much what they want. Sure I throw them bones now and them. Like right now
The PC killed off someone they could have gotten information out of to know what is going on in the world around them. Since they didn't they don't know anything first hand. Since they killed off someone big and bad, when they came across a Death Knight, the went right at him. That was my initial problem. And since then I have solved that problem.
"My group wants to have fun, but also we are told this is not the point of D&D. I am very confuse."
You rolled very well on your diplomacy check, and I'd like to give you bonus XP for this sentence.
Having fun is why people sit down to play D&D, but it is not the mechanical point of the game of D&D. Two seperate things. Yokel is taking what I have said out of context.
Having fun is why people sit down to play D&D, but it is not the mechanical point of the game of D&D. Two seperate things. Yokel is taking what I have said out of context.
I know right? They should use your method of playing DnD as the second interview step to getting into federal office. Would clean up all these problems with politicians in 1 4 hour gaming session.
And yes, Matyr you've uncovered the great toxicity of the mind-set you've lampooned: thinking a system is awesome and good for everyone except for those people that are bigots, jerks or close-minded.
Basically a way of saying "My way is best unless you're a jerk".
It's complete BS but it's BS wrapped up in a shiney, buzz-wordy bow and sometimes people just eat that up.
And yes, Matyr you've uncovered the great toxicity of the mind-set you've lampooned: thinking a system is awesome and good for everyone except for those people that are bigots, jerks or close-minded. Basically a way of saying "My way is best unless y
"Gaming the system to make something happen". Making something happen is the DM's role. If he/she can make a much better experience for their players by being able to accurately use the materials they have prepared then I agree. You are gaming the system to make a better game for the players. You cheater you.
No. The DM's role is not to make something happen. The DM's role is to arbitrate, impartially. DMs should not be pushing for any specific outcome.
Your logic is that lack of choice is bad, thus anything that gives them lack of choice is also bad.
Not quite so much. Lack of player agency is bad. When the player's influence is no longer the chief influence in the game, you're indeed looking at a problem.
The PCs walk up to the village of Brin. They want that village to be the village of Eastwick, it isn't its the village of Brin. But they want to choose to say that village is Eastwick, but its your world so you say "sorry thats the village of Brin. If you want Eastwick you have to do XYZ in order to get there." Or better yet the PCs want to go to Brin, however since they last heard of Brin there has been a meteor that hit that area. They are unable to choose to go to Brin (although they can dance in the craetor where it used to be). Is this also bad since you are limiting their choices by destroying Brin in the world?
You're misunderstanding, in a big way. When anyone says players should have choice, they don't mean the players are gods that get to shape the world. It means that the PCs are free to do as they please, without interference from the DM.
I didn't say that. I said the lack of choice happens because of cheating, and illusion of choice serves to mask the lack of choice.No. The DM's role is not to make something happen. The DM's role is to arbitrate, impartially. DMs should not be pushin
I've realized that there is no middle ground here we can make it to. This is another edition war or alignment problem. We aren't going to agree in any way. My only hope is that people would choose to respect that their way of doing it isn't the only way to do it. That won't happen, but its a hope at least.
I've realized that there is no middle ground here we can make it to. This is another edition war or alignment problem. We aren't going to agree in any way. My only hope is that people would choose to respect that their way of doing it isn't the on
I've realized that there is no middle ground here we can make it to.
A married couple has a problem. Their house is beset by termites. The husband says, "kill the termites." The wife says, "life is sacred, let them live." Eventually, they reach a middle ground and kill exactly half of the termites. They have now taken life, and their house is still being eaten. This is quite literally the textbook example of something known as "Golden Mean Fallacy." When one party is correct, and the other is incorrect, it is fallacious to assume that the middle ground is best simply because it is the middle ground.
In the words of Ayn Rand, "In everything there is a right way, and a wrong way, but the middle way is always evil."
My only hope is that people would choose to respect that their way of doing it isn't the only way to do it.
Recognize, yes. Respect, no. This is where Murphy's Law comes in. "If there are two ways of doing something, the incorrect way will always be done first."
I won't respect something that doesn't warrant it.
If you want to take choice away from the players, just create a party of characters on your own, and run a glorified playtest. The gaming table is not the DM's personal stage to act on. The DM is in fact the man behind the curtain. You know, the one that you're supposed to pay no attention to.
A married couple has a problem. Their house is beset by termites. The husband says, "kill the termites." The wife says, "life is sacred, let them live." Eventually, they reach a middle ground and kill exactly half of the termites. They have now taken
I've realized that there is no middle ground here we can make it to. This is another edition war or alignment problem. We aren't going to agree in any way. My only hope is that people would choose to respect that their way of doing it isn't the only way to do it. That won't happen, but its a hope at least.
I think there really wouldn't be any "middle ground" or "respect [your] way of doing it" because illusion of choice (iChoice) -- especially when the illusion is lifted -- can either be a great way of circumventing the circumstances that you're stuck with, a.k.a. you only considered one path, coerce the players into that path regardless of choice, and then when asked what the alternatives really were you just end up being as poker-faced as possible, which some may call lazy DMing; or just plain cheating the players out of actual choice (aChoice) a.k.a. railroading.
iChoice is the easier path, but must be used sparingly if at all, and just like any lie must be constantly maintained if it were to remain acceptable. The moment the illusion is broken, don't expect players to trust you so readily afterwards. If at all.
aChoice for me is the better path, because even though it puts more pressure on the DM, even if the DM fails to effectively improvise himself, all the DM has to do is remember that this is a group activity: if he can't make up stuff for himself, he can ask for ideas directly, then later on as he learns what sort of plot hooks and motivation cues the PCs (and players) have, he can then pick up from there.
I think there really wouldn't be any "middle ground" or "respect [your] way of doing it" because illusion of choice (iChoice) -- especially when the illusion is lifted -- can either be a great way of circumventing the circumstances that you're stuck
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this :-P.
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing the players to actually influence events, then more power to you. Just don't ever let them know there's something high quality out there than mayo, because once they get a taste, they won't want what you're offering then anymore, and you won't have any actors to order around.
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing th
"My group wants to have fun, but also we are told this is not the point of D&D. I am very confuse."
You rolled very well on your diplomacy check, and I'd like to give you bonus XP for this sentence.
Having fun is why people sit down to play D&D, but it is not the mechanical point of the game of D&D. Two seperate things. Yokel is taking what I have said out of context.
My subtle joke being "You did well on that dice roll, which was part of the rules. Here's bonus experience, which isn't part of the rules". =)
Having fun is why people sit down to play D&D, but it is not the mechanical point of the game of D&D. Two seperate things. Yokel is taking what I have said out of context.[/quote]My subtle joke being "You did well on that dice roll, which was part of
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
I wouldn't use termites as an example. If you don't do anything about them the house will collapse regardless of what you do. In case of a D&D campaign though the house will only collapse if your players start poking at it. I know from experience that there are ample of players out there who really don't care too much about proactive gaming or even about having big choices as long as they are having fun fights, get to feel like the hero and are given the illusion of choice. In fact, my current Saturday specifically asked me NOT to go for a sandbox game and to entertain them with my story (we did discuss at session 0 what kind of story they wanted). I am sure they would balk if I would truly railroad stuff, but they would never poke at the foundations if I did gave them an ichoice and tend to follow the tracks, happy as long as I give them the occassional choice in tracks.
I wouldn't use termites as an example. If you don't do anything about them the house will collapse regardless of what you do. In case of a D&D campaign though the house will only collapse if your players start poking at it. I know from experience tha
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing the players to actually influence events, then more power to you. Just don't ever let them know there's something high quality out there than mayo, because once they get a taste, they won't want what you're offering then anymore, and you won't have any actors to order around.
Nonsense. Not everybody likes the same things. There are certainly types of food liked by more people than other types of food, and some stuff you could eat is pretty lethal*, but you can eat mayonnnaise just fine.
* And the lethal stuff in D&D really has more to do with jerk and immature behavior.
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing th
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing the players to actually influence events, then more power to you. Just don't ever let them know there's something high quality out there than mayo, because once they get a taste, they won't want what you're offering then anymore, and you won't have any actors to order around.
Nonsense. Not everybody likes the same things. There are certainly types of food liked by more people than other types of food, and some stuff you could eat is pretty lethal*, but you can eat mayonnnaise just fine.
* And the lethal stuff in D&D really has more to do with jerk and immature behavior.
I think Zaramon's point is more that if you continue to eat what you are used to eating you may think it is of the finest quality when really it's just what you're used to.
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing th
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing the players to actually influence events, then more power to you. Just don't ever let them know there's something high quality out there than mayo, because once they get a taste, they won't want what you're offering then anymore, and you won't have any actors to order around.
Nonsense. Not everybody likes the same things. There are certainly types of food liked by more people than other types of food, and some stuff you could eat is pretty lethal*, but you can eat mayonnnaise just fine.
* And the lethal stuff in D&D really has more to do with jerk and immature behavior.
I think Zaramon's point is more that if you continue to eat what you are used to eating you may think it is of the finest quality when really it's just what you're used to.
Which ignores the possibility that after sampling other things you would still find the thing you were eating was your favorite food.
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing th
The best thing about ichoice is you can choose from three different plates of food and always get the same thing no matter what you choose!
"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?" "Pork!" "Chicken it is! Because it is all I prepare!"
Mmm... ichoice is delicious!
The best thing about ichoice is you can choose from three different plates of food and always get the same thing no matter what you choose!"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?""Pork!""Chicken it is! Because it is all I prepare!"Mmm... ichoice is del
The best thing about ichoice is you can choose from three different plates of food and always get the same thing no matter what you choose!
"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?" "Pork!" "Chicken it is! Because it is all I prepare!"
Mmm... ichoice is delicious!
except that isn't ichoice at all...
iChoice would be something like
"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?" "Pork!" "Pork it is!" (uses vegan meat regardless of what the players said, uses pork flavoring to make sure it tastes like pork)
except that isn't ichoice at all...[/quote]iChoice would be something like"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?""Pork!""Pork it is!" (uses vegan meat regardless of what the players said, uses pork flavoring to make sure it tastes like pork)
The best thing about ichoice is you can choose from three different plates of food and always get the same thing no matter what you choose!
"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?" "Pork!" "Chicken it is! Because it is all I prepare!"
Mmm... ichoice is delicious!
except that isn't ichoice at all...
iChoice would be something like
"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?" "Pork!" "Pork it is!" (uses vegan meat regardless of what the players said, uses pork flavoring to make sure it tastes like pork)
Closer. Only the food analogy also breaks down a lot if you go any further than just taste. If you limit it to just taste then that works fine.
DM has tofu.
Asks party: "What do you want to eat? Party: "Pork" DM: *Makes tofu identical to pork and serves pork.
Again, it assumes you are only talking about taste.
except that isn't ichoice at all...[/quote]iChoice would be something like"Do you want steak, chicken, or pork?""Pork!""Pork it is!" (uses vegan meat regardless of what the players said, uses pork flavoring to make sure it tastes like pork) [/quote]C
Guess I'll continue running successful multi-year campaigns full of termites then. Since clearly my way is the wrong way and everyone else is better at all of this .
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing the players to actually influence events, then more power to you. Just don't ever let them know there's something high quality out there than mayo, because once they get a taste, they won't want what you're offering then anymore, and you won't have any actors to order around.
Nonsense. Not everybody likes the same things. There are certainly types of food liked by more people than other types of food, and some stuff you could eat is pretty lethal*, but you can eat mayonnnaise just fine.
* And the lethal stuff in D&D really has more to do with jerk and immature behavior.
I think Zaramon's point is more that if you continue to eat what you are used to eating you may think it is of the finest quality when really it's just what you're used to.
Pretty much. And if people are honest with themselves, there is no such thing as a favorite food. Tastes change over time, and they are more likely to fluctuate given exposure to different things. Just because someone likes something, doesn't mean there isn't something of much, much higher quality out there. Personal preference also doesn't much speak to the quality of any food, especially if you have nothing else to compare it to. That was Lafy's point as well.
By successful, I'm guessing you mean everyone had fun. Well, in the words of Lafayette, "You can like it all you want, that doesn't mean it's not still mayonnaise." If your players like getting railroaded while you tell your story without allowing th
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Closer. Only the food analogy also breaks down a lot if you go any further than just taste. If you limit it to just taste then that works fine.
DM has tofu.
Asks party: "What do you want to eat? Party: "Pork" DM: *Makes tofu identical to pork and serves pork.
Again, it assumes you are only talking about taste.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Closer. Only the food analogy also breaks down a lot if you go any further than just taste. If you limit it to just taste then that works fine.
DM has tofu.
Asks party: "What do you want to eat? Party: "Pork" DM: *Makes tofu identical to pork and serves pork.
Again, it assumes you are only talking about taste.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.
Which is the illusion part. You don't say its pork. You call it dinner and hand it to them.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.[/quote]Which is the illusion part. You don't say its pork. You call it dinner and hand it to them.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Closer. Only the food analogy also breaks down a lot if you go any further than just taste. If you limit it to just taste then that works fine.
DM has tofu.
Asks party: "What do you want to eat? Party: "Pork" DM: *Makes tofu identical to pork and serves pork.
Again, it assumes you are only talking about taste.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.
Which is the illusion part. You don't say its pork. You call it dinner and hand it to them.
Except you told them they could go left or right. In reality, there was NO left or right. There was "the DM's way". You are lying to them. Period.
Is it valid? Sure if you're happy with that I suppose...but it does nothing to create trust between players & DMs. Illusion is deception. Deception is lying.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.[/quote]Which is the illusion part. You don't say its pork. You call it dinner and hand it to them.[/quote]Except you told them they could go left or right
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Closer. Only the food analogy also breaks down a lot if you go any further than just taste. If you limit it to just taste then that works fine.
DM has tofu.
Asks party: "What do you want to eat? Party: "Pork" DM: *Makes tofu identical to pork and serves pork.
Again, it assumes you are only talking about taste.
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.
Which is the illusion part. You don't say its pork. You call it dinner and hand it to them.
Except you told them they could go left or right. In reality, there was NO left or right. There was "the DM's way". You are lying to them. Period.
Is it valid? Sure if you're happy with that I suppose...but it does nothing to create trust between players & DMs. Illusion is deception. Deception is lying.
Except the players did go right or left, but what was in right or left was different based on what they chose to do.
"Illusion is deception. Deception is lying." - No wonder you are one of the people having the eternal alignment argument...
And if you tell them you're serving them pork you're still lying regardless of how it tastes.[/quote]Which is the illusion part. You don't say its pork. You call it dinner and hand it to them.[/quote]Except you told them they could go left or right
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Except the players did go right or left, but what was in right or left was different based on what they chose to do.
"Illusion is deception. Deception is lying." - No wonder you are one of the people having the eternal alignment argument...
Uh...because I know the definition of words?
Noun
A false idea or belief: "he had no illusions about her".
A deceptive appearance or impression: "the illusion of togetherness".
Hmm...false idea...deceptive...yeah seems like lying to me.
Uh...because I know the definition of words? Noun A false idea or belief: "he had no illusions about her". A deceptive appearance or impression: "the illusion of togetherness". Hmm...false idea...deceptive...yeah seems like lying to m
See, I have been wondering for a while now why there are some players on these boards who are scared of these phantom DMs who railroad them, rule against them when in doubt, and are just generally out to get players. Now I know why. DMs advocating decieving their players is sickening.
See, I have been wondering for a while now why there are some players on these boards who are scared of these phantom DMs who railroad them, rule against them when in doubt, and are just generally out to get players. Now I know why. DMs advocating de
I'm a fairly new DM, only about 2 years now. I'm not comfortable with my improvisational skills and letting players have a completely open sandbox, where they can go wherever they want to and go on whatever adventure they'd like. Frankly, I'm not sure I can whip up good encounters (combat or skill challenge) on the fly.
As a DM, I'd like to run a game that has a story thread, not one that I've specifically designed, but one that the players add to and branch off where they'd prefer to go. I don't get the point of a completely open sandbox, beause it seems aimless to me. Players would go on random adventure after rndom adventure, levelling up just seem pointless. It doesn't seem like there's a goal. Now, if players let me know what their goals are, I'd love to craft some basic adventures that cater to the character's story.
I don't want to run a game on tight rails- where I have the player's destinies written out and they have to follow along where I tell them to. I don't think ANYONE is advocating a game like that. So what then, constitutes railroading?
What I aim for is a series of interconnected adventures within certain boundaries. Is it wrong for me to offer several options for adventures, letting the players choose which one sounds most fun to them? This would be done with hooks, based on their character's history and how the player has said they'd like the character to play out. If I have players who seem like they are just along for the ride, whose characters don't have any real motivation, even after prodding in character and away from the table, is it alright to give the party an adventure with guidelines, some wide rails?
I have a general outline for where I'd like the campaign to go. It's short, so I'll post it here. Set in Eberron. Heroic tier- palyers are hired to complete the Seekers of the Ashen Crown module. This is modified to tie in better with later points. Once that module is done, player may go on to return the crown to the Goblins or the Elves. They may be hired to search for a hidden Creation Forge in the Mournland. A recurring theme is the return of the Goblin nation and aberrants reappearing. Depending on who gets the Ashen Crown, the Last War may be restarted. May end heroic tier with a fight against a reincarnated/warforged Dragon. Paragon tier- hints of a Lord of Dust trying to return to this plane. Players may search out the pieces of an eldritch machine that would re-bind the creature, thus saving the world. It's a re-vamp of Against the Giants, with far less Giants.
Is this outline a campaign on rails? Note that, if the players and characters aren't interested, we drop it and move on to something else, something that hopefully the players are interested in.
I have a questions about sandbox vs Railroad.I'm a fairly new DM, only about 2 years now. I'm not comfortable with my improvisational skills and letting players have a completely open sandbox, where they can go wherever they want to and go on whatev
I'm a fairly new DM, only about 2 years now. I'm not comfortable with my improvisational skills and letting players have a completely open sandbox, where they can go wherever they want to and go on whatever adventure they'd like. Frankly, I'm not sure I can whip up good encounters (combat or skill challenge) on the fly.
When I began DMing, I was DMing a couple of LFR campaigns, which is a pretty safe thing to do since these are pre-made adventures, with a bit of railroading from time to time.
My biggest eye-opener for DMing would be The Night I Called the Undead Out, as one of my friends had the party split, which made me panick quite a lot especially because the module said that I could/should allow party-splitting. In my panick I forgot the LFR rule that said that I should be taking NPCs/monsters from the module when in doubt, but thankfully the DMG's rules helped me out with the custom monster creation rules, so I was able to think up a bunch of monsters on the fly for that encounter, which to this day is fondly remembered by my players.
When I think back to it, it was a very lousy improv, but it was exciting and everyone had fun. And that's the most important thing, and why iChoice (and sometimes bad DMing in general) works: having fun is why we play games in the first place, so any "secret formula" that would make our games "fun" -- regardless if it involves rollplay, roleplay, regular TPKs, story-focused gaming, sandbox, or anything and everything in-between and beyond -- we'd recognize as a winning formula, regardless if we've been told that it's bad DMing or not.
As a DM, I'd like to run a game that has a story thread, not one that I've specifically designed, but one that the players add to and branch off where they'd prefer to go. I don't get the point of a completely open sandbox, beause it seems aimless to me. Players would go on random adventure after rndom adventure, levelling up just seem pointless. It doesn't seem like there's a goal. Now, if players let me know what their goals are, I'd love to craft some basic adventures that cater to the character's story.
I can understand if you're hesitant about the sandbox approach but there's one thing you seemed to have overlooked: sandbox doesn't necessarily have to be storyless (unless you want computer-style sandbox). In fact, you can achieve exactly what you want within a sandbox environment.
Think of it this way: if you or your players have this certain BBEG in mind that's affecting the world, in a sandbox environment that BBEG will have a set of goals himself, which he will try to accomplish regardless of who or what is in his way. Unless the players intentionally steer away from this BBEG and his plans -- in which case, you might want to just make the BBEG accomplish his goals and A) have the players live with the consequences of the BBEG's actions, and B) redesign your entire campaign to fit what the players really want -- they'll likely bump into him or his lackeys, and there'll likely be friction, especially if/when abused townfolk seek the PCs' aid.
13th Age** does it better: the leveling system involves "DM determines when you level up", and you're not required to hand out gold and gear like crazy, and the system does equip you with the tools needed to cater to the character's story and enrich the character's story by a LOT. This is done by providing you with predetermined Icons (whose name you can and should change to fit the campaign), that each has his and her own agenda, and represents a certain aspect of a campaign; e.g. the Orc Lord is the epitome of violence, the Crusader is the champion of the dark gods, the Emperor is the representative of civilization. In addition to those Icons, players gain "relationship dice" that allows their PCs to not only be associated with the organizations that these Icons represent (if not the Icons themselves), but also utilize favors from these organizations and even alter the campaign in rather unusual ways: from invoking supernatural events when needed the most, to creating entire campaigns on the fly! And finally, each PC gets this Unique Thing that is truly unique (no duplications allowed for each campaign, not even monsters get to duplicate what the PCs' Unique Things are). Bringing it all together, and combine it with their backgrounds, and it's a crazy wonderful concoction
The important thing about the sandbox approach isn't in creating the world and filling it with the most minute of details, then throwing PCs in it. The important thing about the sandbox approach is that the world is alive; constantly being rendered from the pixels that fill your currently-blank mind perhaps, but alive nevertheless. When PCs kill, scavengers eat the carcasses. When PCs get caught for criminal activities, word gets around. When PCs abandon a dungeon (regardless if it's because there's nothing else to do, or if they decided to take extended rests prematurely), something happens to that dungeon between the time they leave and the time they return. When PCs return to their regular inn, the bartender might actually start introducing himself and maybe chit chat with the PCs, then after a few times if the city is struck hard economically the inn might be closed and abandoned, or a brigand raid might have the bartender injured or killed. None of that actually requires a pre-built sandbox world, just the imagination and logic needed to (eventually) recreate the world.
Of course, admitting that you could make mistakes and that the players have the right to help correct those mistakes also goes a long way, especially in building player trust.
I don't want to run a game on tight rails- where I have the player's destinies written out and they have to follow along where I tell them to. I don't think ANYONE is advocating a game like that. So what then, constitutes railroading?
Think of a railroad and compare a car to a train: a train can get you to places faster and without fail, yet a car can get you to places where the rails don't pass through. It's hard to get lost when you've got tracks to follow, but for those whose destination isn't along those rails, being able to drive around is much better.
Railroading works almost exactly as trains and railroads: the objective of railroading is to just keep the players on the tracks. Regardless if it's by laying out new tracks, deception/illusion or by outright manhandling of the PCs (the "you go to this place, no questions asked" method), the important thing is that the PCs reach the destination you've determined. They actually released an article here in WotC on the subject, teaching DMs how to properly railroad (hint: it's the laying of new tracks to ensure that they eventually reach their goal).
What I aim for is a series of interconnected adventures within certain boundaries. Is it wrong for me to offer several options for adventures, letting the players choose which one sounds most fun to them? This would be done with hooks, based on their character's history and how the player has said they'd like the character to play out. If I have players who seem like they are just along for the ride, whose characters don't have any real motivation, even after prodding in character and away from the table, is it alright to give the party an adventure with guidelines, some wide rails?
First off, you need to ask the group, "what would be fun for you?" Designing for combat when the players want socializing can easily result in none of your hooks actually mattering.
Second, the best advice given to me by one of the more veteran DMs in my group is this: always prepare for at mostone session ahead, only one session ahead.
Finally, the only thing you really need in this case would be the plot hooks, as sometimes the plot itself -- and in the case of 13th Age, the campaign itself -- can be done impromptu, depending on what the PCs and players do.
I have a general outline for where I'd like the campaign to go. It's short, so I'll post it here. Set in Eberron. Heroic tier- palyers are hired to complete the Seekers of the Ashen Crown module. This is modified to tie in better with later points. Once that module is done, player may go on to return the crown to the Goblins or the Elves. They may be hired to search for a hidden Creation Forge in the Mournland. A recurring theme is the return of the Goblin nation and aberrants reappearing. Depending on who gets the Ashen Crown, the Last War may be restarted. May end heroic tier with a fight against a reincarnated/warforged Dragon. Paragon tier- hints of a Lord of Dust trying to return to this plane. Players may search out the pieces of an eldritch machine that would re-bind the creature, thus saving the world. It's a re-vamp of Against the Giants, with far less Giants.
Is this outline a campaign on rails? Note that, if the players and characters aren't interested, we drop it and move on to something else, something that hopefully the players are interested in.
The outline is a decent framework to start with, and the fact that you're willing to drop the campaign in favor of something more interesting means that you're not really running the thing on rails. Just within a rough, flexible framework (which is how TRPG systems in general should be designed IMHO). Given how you're heavily using modules like I used to do, it's a pretty decent way of running things.
On my part, I plan to revisit Eberron, take the most iconic groups/foes and possibly make Icons of them, have everyone's characters converted from 4E to 13th Age, and continue my campaign from there. We're no longer using modules anyway, and we're currently exploring the stories of each of the characters, currently the half-elf storm sorcerer who is a member of House Lyrandar and is currently having talks with House Orien's representative regarding a series of unusual hijinks that have been occurring since the Mark of Creation (mentioned in the Eberron Campaign Guide) was found. A bit of Icon-related campaign randomizing where my job would be more to string all the elements together into a coherent shouldn't hurt much, seeing as that's how I'm going about my other 13th Age campaign [ the Final Fantasy-style "you're the (children of the) holy warriors of light and must save the world" bit's been done to death I think, might as well try something else... ]
** no I'm not their spokesperson, just someone genuinely excited about the system
Before I continue, I'd like to inform you that I've been DMing for around... 3 years now, so we're not so far apart in terms of experience.When I began DMing, I was DMing a couple of LFR campaigns, which is a pretty safe thing to do since these are p
Railroading is when you force them down a paricular path and don't allow deviation. If you are allowing your characters to make choices that effect things, pick different paths and take the adventure they want to you aren't railroading.
I'm a fairly new DM, only about 2 years now. I'm not comfortable with my improvisational skills and letting players have a completely open sandbox, where they can go wherever they want to and go on whatever adventure they'd like. Frankly, I'm not sure I can whip up good encounters (combat or skill challenge) on the fly.
As discussed on here a lot of times, although I seem to be in the minority here, Ichoice can help with this problem. If you have especially interesting encounters or ones you think the players will enjoy you can leave the encounter vague except for the interesting points and then let the encounter stay in limbo until the characters meet certain conditions rather than go to only one place. The example I used earlier, which is intended to be basic, is that of the goblin patrol. The goblin patrols are in the mountains to the east somewhere. If the players go through the pass to the north they will encounter a goblin patrol, if they go through the pass to the south same goblin patrol, if they go under the mountain - Same goblin patrol. After they have encountered the patrol in one of the routes, it is set there. They won't encounter it anywhere else and you should adapt the encounter to meet the circumstances. Its a little bit of improv, but leans harder on planning ahead of time.
As a DM, I'd like to run a game that has a story thread, not one that I've specifically designed, but one that the players add to and branch off where they'd prefer to go. I don't get the point of a completely open sandbox, beause it seems aimless to me. Players would go on random adventure after rndom adventure, levelling up just seem pointless. It doesn't seem like there's a goal. Now, if players let me know what their goals are, I'd love to craft some basic adventures that cater to the character's story.
Having your players tell you their goals and working with them so that you can create together a story that will go after those goals is an excellent plan. There are some things I would recommend keeping behind the screen (more than others here would likely suggest), but yeah make a story for them. The only part that is important is to make the story simple and fluid enough to adapt to the situation. Don't have thing X as the only way to get to Y which they will need for Z. That way has rails and can be frustrating for players. Now, you can take what they want to do and make stories from it, but keep in mind that their goals might change. Or, even after talking at length, you two are not on the same page as to what the character wants to do. Basically be mindful of your player's inputs on things and don't try to shove a quest hook down their throat.
Is it wrong for me to offer several options for adventures, letting the players choose which one sounds most fun to them? This would be done with hooks, based on their character's history and how the player has said they'd like the character to play out.
No, that is an excellent plan. But if you give the characters the choice of up or down be ready and don't get mad or try to throw them back on the path if they choose left.
If I have players who seem like they are just along for the ride, whose characters don't have any real motivation, even after prodding in character and away from the table, is it alright to give the party an adventure with guidelines, some wide rails?
Yep. Some groups even like a more structured path. These tend to be newer players, people who are big readers/console gamers rather than big roleplayers. See the different player Archetypes in the DMG2 (I think).
I have a general outline for where I'd like the campaign to go. It's short, so I'll post it here. Set in Eberron. Heroic tier- palyers are hired to complete the Seekers of the Ashen Crown module. This is modified to tie in better with later points. Once that module is done, player may go on to return the crown to the Goblins or the Elves. They may be hired to search for a hidden Creation Forge in the Mournland. A recurring theme is the return of the Goblin nation and aberrants reappearing. Depending on who gets the Ashen Crown, the Last War may be restarted. May end heroic tier with a fight against a reincarnated/warforged Dragon. Paragon tier- hints of a Lord of Dust trying to return to this plane. Players may search out the pieces of an eldritch machine that would re-bind the creature, thus saving the world. It's a re-vamp of Against the Giants, with far less Giants.
Is this outline a campaign on rails? Note that, if the players and characters aren't interested, we drop it and move on to something else, something that hopefully the players are interested in.
Here is what I would avoid "The players are hired". Contrast it to "the players are offered a job doing X". If they don't take the job have things happen and change. Maybe another group took the job and died in the process prompting another chain of events.
"recurring theme" - great. Specific enough to be useful, vague enough to be applied all over.
Hope I helped .
Railroading is when you force them down a paricular path and don't allow deviation. If you are allowing your characters to make choices that effect things, pick different paths and take the adventure they want to you aren't railroading.As discussed
As discussed on here a lot of times, although I seem to be in the minority here, Ichoice can help with this problem. If you have especially interesting encounters or ones you think the players will enjoy you can leave the encounter vague except for the interesting points and then let the encounter stay in limbo until the characters meet certain conditions rather than go to only one place. The example I used earlier, which is intended to be basic, is that of the goblin patrol. The goblin patrols are in the mountains to the east somewhere. If the players go through the pass to the north they will encounter a goblin patrol, if they go through the pass to the south same goblin patrol, if they go under the mountain - Same goblin patrol. After they have encountered the patrol in one of the routes, it is set there. They won't encounter it anywhere else and you should adapt the encounter to meet the circumstances. Its a little bit of improv, but leans harder on planning ahead of time.
Personally I see no reason as to why you couldn't take full advantage of 4E's custom monster system in this regard. Have the monsters utilize the exact same basic stats, with a "goblin" template", a "kobold" template, and an "orc" template. If they go north they encounter goblins (use the goblin template, otherwise exactly the same powers), if they go south they encounter kobolds (use the kobold template, otherwise exactly the same powers), and if they go anywhere else they'd encounter orcs (use the orc template, otherwise exactly the same powers). You'd need a slightly greater amount of preparation, but at least you'd ensure that your illusion of choice is well-maintained, because even if you're using the same stats, you give the nameless faceless opponent enough features to make them recognizably goblin, orc or kobold or whatever other monster you could think of.
[ In the case of 4E, goblins shift when an attack misses them, kobolds shift as a minor action, and orcs get a free basic attack when they die (plus charging-related bonuses). Anything else is up to you. ]
If you're going to give the illusion of choice, make sure that the illusion is perceptively real enough. Especially if the party decides to split and you'd have to run both the north and south pass.
Personally I see no reason as to why you couldn't take full advantage of 4E's custom monster system in this regard. Have the monsters utilize the exact same basic stats, with a "goblin" template", a "kobold" template, and an "orc" template. If they
As discussed on here a lot of times, although I seem to be in the minority here, Ichoice can help with this problem. If you have especially interesting encounters or ones you think the players will enjoy you can leave the encounter vague except for the interesting points and then let the encounter stay in limbo until the characters meet certain conditions rather than go to only one place. The example I used earlier, which is intended to be basic, is that of the goblin patrol. The goblin patrols are in the mountains to the east somewhere. If the players go through the pass to the north they will encounter a goblin patrol, if they go through the pass to the south same goblin patrol, if they go under the mountain - Same goblin patrol. After they have encountered the patrol in one of the routes, it is set there. They won't encounter it anywhere else and you should adapt the encounter to meet the circumstances. Its a little bit of improv, but leans harder on planning ahead of time.
Personally I see no reason as to why you couldn't take full advantage of 4E's custom monster system in this regard. Have the monsters utilize the exact same basic stats, with a "goblin" template", a "kobold" template, and an "orc" template. If they go north they encounter goblins (use the goblin template, otherwise exactly the same powers), if they go south they encounter kobolds (use the kobold template, otherwise exactly the same powers), and if they go anywhere else they'd encounter orcs (use the orc template, otherwise exactly the same powers). You'd need a slightly greater amount of preparation, but at least you'd ensure that your illusion of choice is well-maintained, because even if you're using the same stats, you give the nameless faceless opponent enough features to make them recognizably goblin, orc or kobold or whatever other monster you could think of.
[ In the case of 4E, goblins shift when an attack misses them, kobolds shift as a minor action, and orcs get a free basic attack when they die (plus charging-related bonuses). Anything else is up to you. ]
If you're going to give the illusion of choice, make sure that the illusion is perceptively real enough. Especially if the party decides to split and you'd have to run both the north and south pass.
Yep, that sounds like a perfectly good plan to me. Granted the party splitting up might mean you have to change everything as either one of those encounters should stomp half a party on their own, but thats another matter entirely.
Personally I see no reason as to why you couldn't take full advantage of 4E's custom monster system in this regard. Have the monsters utilize the exact same basic stats, with a "goblin" template", a "kobold" template, and an "orc" template. If they
@Matyr, @Chaosfang- Thank you both for your advice, I think it helps immensely.
I'm now thinking that a better term for the game I'm trying to run is one on the Highways. There's different places you can go, using Interstates, regular highways and backroads to get there. Players are driving the car, I just give them information about what cities/towns are out there and they choose how to get there. There are boundaries, as in, you can't go off the map, but not specifically only one way to get there. Players are driving the car, we find new roads as we go along.
As for dropping hints and having themes, I already know that what what I think is easy to see may be unrecognizable by the players. Subtlety doesn't always work, and there will not be a companion character to give them hints about where I want them to go. Between sessions, I'll be asking palyers where they want to go and what they want to do, then work on stuff for the next session or two.
I've ditched XP as a levelling measurement, and letting the PC's level up at appropriate times. Sometimes after completing a tough adventure, sometimes after 2 shorter ones. It depends on where it seems to fit the most.
Speaking of Splitting the Party: I have done it once before in an encounter series that I planned, but ended up abandoning much of. I purposely split the party, without their permission, in what should be seen as a horrible instance of railroading. Players were split into 2 groups of 3, and I split them according to role, so it wouldn't be too imbalanced. For the combat encounters, I created level-appropriate encounters for each group, and let Party 1 influence the outcome of Party 2's combat, and vice versa. They were split into mirror realms in a Feywild/Shadowfell tower. Magic runes allowed them to make a skill check in the Feywild, to have a corresponding rune do something in the Shadowfell, and vice versa. At first, the players weren't too thrilled with being split, but it ended up being a successful encounter, as they had fun. Months later they still talked about it. It was horrible railroading, but it ended up fun.
For now, I've got a little setup that will let me create enemies on the fly. I'm trying to keep it very simple. 1 or 2 attacks, and some iconic feature. I don't want them all to be meatbag #1-4, because that's no fun.
EDIT: As for "players are hired" That was the one and only "players must do this" that I've set up so far. And that was partially in response to the Session Zero question of "Why are you guys working together? Will this work for you?"
@Matyr, @Chaosfang- Thank you both for your advice, I think it helps immensely.I'm now thinking that a better term for the game I'm trying to run is one on the Highways.There's different places you can go, using Interstates, regular highways and bac
EDIT: As for "players are hired" That was the one and only "players must do this" that I've set up so far. And that was partially in response to the Session Zero question of "Why are you guys working together? Will this work for you?"
After reading through it and typing most of my response I realized that was probably the root of it, but all the stuff I said still follows through anyways. Have fun with your adventure .
On a small note there is an example of "splitting the party into two worlds" that exists in the form of the final encounter in the Battle Interactive from this year. The only difference was that it was possible to jump from one side to the other by switching places with one of the other players.
After reading through it and typing most of my response I realized that was probably the root of it, but all the stuff I said still follows through anyways. Have fun with your adventure :-D.On a small note there is an example of "splitting the party
I'm a fairly new DM, only about 2 years now. I'm not comfortable with my improvisational skills and letting players have a completely open sandbox, where they can go wherever they want to and go on whatever adventure they'd like. Frankly, I'm not sure I can whip up good encounters (combat or skill challenge) on the fly.
As a DM, I'd like to run a game that has a story thread, not one that I've specifically designed, but one that the players add to and branch off where they'd prefer to go. I don't get the point of a completely open sandbox, beause it seems aimless to me. Players would go on random adventure after rndom adventure, levelling up just seem pointless. It doesn't seem like there's a goal. Now, if players let me know what their goals are, I'd love to craft some basic adventures that cater to the character's story.
First of all, good on you for sticking to it for 2 years now.
There is nothing "random" or "aimless" about a properly run sandbox because the players will pursue the goals most valid to them. So long as the world is logical and reasonable enough, it can support this. In fact it requires less actual work to do a proper sandbox than it does to run a "story" that accounts for all possible branches a player could take.
I don't want to run a game on tight rails- where I have the player's destinies written out and they have to follow along where I tell them to. I don't think ANYONE is advocating a game like that. So what then, constitutes railroading?
Railroading is the process of removing agency (the ability to make meaningful choices) from your players. For instance, if you, as DM, have decided the players are going to fight some goblins that are on a left path, but they take the right path you are railroading them if the goblins are "magically" now on the right path. You have invalidated their choice. Effectively, you could have just said "You fight some gobilns now" and the net effect is the same except without the illusion of choice and without wasting the time of everyone around the table by deceiving them.
What I aim for is a series of interconnected adventures within certain boundaries. Is it wrong for me to offer several options for adventures, letting the players choose which one sounds most fun to them? This would be done with hooks, based on their character's history and how the player has said they'd like the character to play out.
No. Why? This is what DMs seek to do. My world is made to encompass a world of fantasy where PCs can become involved in any number of things and, just as easily, disengage from those things just as one could do in real life. All these things have consequences.
If I have players who seem like they are just along for the ride, whose characters don't have any real motivation, even after prodding in character and away from the table, is it alright to give the party an adventure with guidelines, some wide rails?
If someone is playing an "adventurer" without any motivations then they have not really crafted a character...they have a statblock. Work with them to help them get some goals and flesh out their character. As for your question...it's okay so long as, just in real life, the PCs can step away from said adventure and go do what they want at any given point.
What you will find is that many players are not actually used to having agency...they have grown up being spoon-fed stories and gameplay from video games (believe me, I've designed them) or watching narratives. Actually coming up with motivations and going about intelligently pursuing those goals is not immediately within everyones wheelhouse because it's totally new to them. Pretty much universally, however, when they realize they CAN do anything, players will quickly embrace it and see what they can do.
I have a general outline for where I'd like the campaign to go. It's short, so I'll post it here. Set in Eberron. Heroic tier- palyers are hired to complete the Seekers of the Ashen Crown module. This is modified to tie in better with later points. Once that module is done, player may go on to return the crown to the Goblins or the Elves. They may be hired to search for a hidden Creation Forge in the Mournland. A recurring theme is the return of the Goblin nation and aberrants reappearing. Depending on who gets the Ashen Crown, the Last War may be restarted. May end heroic tier with a fight against a reincarnated/warforged Dragon. Paragon tier- hints of a Lord of Dust trying to return to this plane. Players may search out the pieces of an eldritch machine that would re-bind the creature, thus saving the world. It's a re-vamp of Against the Giants, with far less Giants.
Is this outline a campaign on rails? Note that, if the players and characters aren't interested, we drop it and move on to something else, something that hopefully the players are interested in.
This is rail-work. You're doing self-defeating labor here. You are wasting effort. So the players get the crown...then decide not to return it to either the Goblins or the Elves. They keep it. Or sell it. Or destroy it. Or any other number of things.
Essentially, you have put a lot of thought into a house of cards. Like a player without a PC that has no motivation, your campaign outline is entirely story points and narrative. It does not talk about PEOPLE or motivations or factions or anything like that. Think of a campaign outline as a slice of "now" of your campaign. Take that "Now" and look it over. Who is there? What are they doing? Why? Where? For what purpose? To what end? Etc. Etc.
It is all these things that allow you to build a world for your players to interact with that is meaningful. As DM you need not obsess over the movement of the clock-hands, you need to crack the clock open and put the gears in place. Then let them start turning and see where your players start putting in monkey wrenches. Work smarter, not harder.
First of all, good on you for sticking to it for 2 years now.There is nothing "random" or "aimless" about a properly run sandbox because the players will pursue the goals most valid to them. So long as the world is logical and reasonable enough, it c
^. See what I meant about Ichoice being unpopular around these parts? Offhandedly throwing it away as a useful option andgiving it as a definition of railroading. How quaint.
^. See what I meant about Ichoice being unpopular around these parts? Offhandedly throwing it away as a useful option and giving it as a definition of railroading. How quaint.
^. See what I meant about Ichoice being unpopular around these parts? Offhandedly throwing it away as a useful option andgiving it as a definition of railroading. How quaint.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.
After all, it's lying to the players.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.After all, it's lying to the players.
^. See what I meant about Ichoice being unpopular around these parts? Offhandedly throwing it away as a useful option andgiving it as a definition of railroading. How quaint.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.
After all, it's lying to the players.
Of course it is! How did I not see this before? My life is full of happiness and sunflowers now that I have come around to your way of thinking...
Oh, wait no I'm still going with "there are lots of ways to play and run the game, run the game that is fun for your players as priority #1 and fun for you as priority #2".
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.After all, it's lying to the players.[/quote]Of course it is! How did I not see this before? My life is full of happiness and sunflowers now that I have come around to y
^. See what I meant about Ichoice being unpopular around these parts? Offhandedly throwing it away as a useful option andgiving it as a definition of railroading. How quaint.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.
After all, it's lying to the players.
Of course it is! How did I not see this before? My life is full of happiness and sunflowers now that I have come around to your way of thinking...
Oh, wait no I'm still going with "there are lots of ways to play and run the game, run the game that is fun for your players as priority #1 and fun for you as priority #2".
Sure. If you have the most fun crafting an illusion of your players having full agency while you play magician-switch with them then more power to you.
If/When that illusion is broken, however, things might not be so peachy.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.After all, it's lying to the players.[/quote]Of course it is! How did I not see this before? My life is full of happiness and sunflowers now that I have come around to y
^. See what I meant about Ichoice being unpopular around these parts? Offhandedly throwing it away as a useful option andgiving it as a definition of railroading. How quaint.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.
After all, it's lying to the players.
Of course it is! How did I not see this before? My life is full of happiness and sunflowers now that I have come around to your way of thinking...
Oh, wait no I'm still going with "there are lots of ways to play and run the game, run the game that is fun for your players as priority #1 and fun for you as priority #2".
Sure. If you have the most fun crafting an illusion of your players having full agency while you play magician-switch with them then more power to you.
If/When that illusion is broken, however, things might not be so peachy.
Man that would be a huge problem if my players didn't already know about me using Ichoice on an occaisonal basis... oh wait no they actually know and think it works well. Hmm.. well there goes that idea.
I've never advocated for taking agency away from the players on a large scale. Just making encounters / props / elements you want your players to interact with mutable to the point where they will get the chance to see things in the gameplay. I don't use it for every encounter, every session or even every level of play. Its just a tool to help incorporate things from the world into the PC's path.
Considering it IS a definition of railroading...well...it kinda does it itself.After all, it's lying to the players.[/quote]Of course it is! How did I not see this before? My life is full of happiness and sunflowers now that I have come around to y
Man that would be a huge problem if my players didn't already know about me using Ichoice on an occaisonal basis... oh wait no they actually know and think it works well. Hmm.. well there goes that idea.
I've never advocated for taking agency away from the players on a large scale. Just making encounters / props / elements you want your players to interact with mutable to the point where they will get the chance to see things in the gameplay. I don't use it for every encounter, every session or even every level of play. Its just a tool to help incorporate things from the world into the PC's path.
Crutch. The word you're looking for is "crutch". It is more precise than saying "tool".
What your post boils down to is that sometimes your players are going to damn well see what you lovingly expertly crafted and come hell or high water, regardless what they choose, they're going to damn well get to that point to experience it.
Railroading.
Gotcha. I understand.
I also understand it makes you feel "dirty" to realize that or to have it put in plain language...but it is what it is. You use the illusion of choice to have your players run into something you have "scripted". That is a textbook example of railroading.
Crutch. The word you're looking for is "crutch". It is more precise than saying "tool".What your post boils down to is that sometimes your players are going to damn well see what you lovingly expertly crafted and come hell or high water, regardless w
Yes, that is true. Railroading has negative sense about it so the people that like to do railroading dont want to call it this! iChoice make it sounds like an Apple product, more cooler. Like people wait in line for it for days.
Yes, that is true. Railroading has negative sense about it so the people that like to do railroading dont want to call it this! iChoice make it sounds like an Apple product, more cooler. Like people wait in line for it for days.
What your post boils down to is that sometimes your players are going to damn well see what you lovingly expertly crafted and come hell or high water, regardless what they choose, they're going to damn well get to that point to experience it.
Railroading.
Gotcha. I understand.
I also understand it makes you feel "dirty" to realize that or to have it put in plain language...but it is what it is. You use the illusion of choice to have your players run into something you have "scripted". That is a textbook example of railroading.
Which would be a great example if the players were forced through encounters /set pieces and information instead of merely introduced to them. It would also make LOADS of sense of I didn't build these set pieces (after the first level or two) completely around what the players want to see.
You are right, I want the players to be able to interact with the encounter that I built to further their objectives for their PC. Now, whether they choose to do it or not is entirely up to them, but where the encounter actually is in the game world / storyline is the Illusion.
I'd give an example of good vs bad Ichoice if I thought anyone wouldn't both label them as bad without giving thought either way .
Which would be a great example if the players were forced through encounters /set pieces and information instead of merely introduced to them. It would also make LOADS of sense of I didn't build these set pieces (after the first level or two) comple
Yes, that is true. Railroading has negative sense about it so the people that like to do railroading dont want to call it this! iChoice make it sounds like an Apple product, more cooler. Like people wait in line for it for days.
You are right. Railroading is PC and Ichoice is Apple. So they aren't at all the same thing?
You are right. Railroading is PC and Ichoice is Apple. So they aren't at all the same thing?
What your post boils down to is that sometimes your players are going to damn well see what you lovingly expertly crafted and come hell or high water, regardless what they choose, they're going to damn well get to that point to experience it.
Railroading.
Gotcha. I understand.
I also understand it makes you feel "dirty" to realize that or to have it put in plain language...but it is what it is. You use the illusion of choice to have your players run into something you have "scripted". That is a textbook example of railroading.
Which would be a great example if the players were forced through encounters /set pieces and information instead of merely introduced to them. It would also make LOADS of sense of I didn't build these set pieces (after the first level or two) completely around what the players want to see.
You are right, I want the players to be able to interact with the encounter that I built to further their objectives for their PC. Now, whether they choose to do it or not is entirely up to them, but where the encounter actually is in the game world / storyline is the Illusion.
I'd give an example of good vs bad Ichoice if I thought anyone wouldn't both label them as bad without giving thought either way .
If at any point, a choice presented to me doesn't actually matter, then it's bad. Since that is the nature of railroading (iChoice) then yes it's inherently bad.
Which would be a great example if the players were forced through encounters /set pieces and information instead of merely introduced to them. It would also make LOADS of sense of I didn't build these set pieces (after the first level or two) comple
The vast majority of choices that a player makes during a campaign don't actually matter.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then
Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.
The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then[/quote]Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing.
The vast majority of choices that a player makes during a campaign don't actually matter.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then
Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.
The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing.
And if you make square A or B only have something if they step in A or B then you are doing it wrong too. It must be in either A or B, but there is never any reason to have it not decided until the player acts.... /sarcasm
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then[/quote]Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing. [/
What your post boils down to is that sometimes your players are going to damn well see what you lovingly expertly crafted and come hell or high water, regardless what they choose, they're going to damn well get to that point to experience it.
Railroading.
Gotcha. I understand.
I also understand it makes you feel "dirty" to realize that or to have it put in plain language...but it is what it is. You use the illusion of choice to have your players run into something you have "scripted". That is a textbook example of railroading.
Which would be a great example if the players were forced through encounters /set pieces and information instead of merely introduced to them. It would also make LOADS of sense of I didn't build these set pieces (after the first level or two) completely around what the players want to see.
You are right, I want the players to be able to interact with the encounter that I built to further their objectives for their PC. Now, whether they choose to do it or not is entirely up to them, but where the encounter actually is in the game world / storyline is the Illusion.
I'd give an example of good vs bad Ichoice if I thought anyone wouldn't both label them as bad without giving thought either way .
If at any point, a choice presented to me doesn't actually matter, then it's bad. Since that is the nature of railroading (iChoice) then yes it's inherently bad.
Also, who said the choice didn't matter? Your choice sets a lot of things in place. For instance there should be adifference between encounter the goblin patrol in the north pass as opposed to the south pass. If they get GP North it is returning from looting a town they recently hit, if they get GP South it is on the way to scout a town they are about to hit or some such thing.
Which would be a great example if the players were forced through encounters /set pieces and information instead of merely introduced to them. It would also make LOADS of sense of I didn't build these set pieces (after the first level or two) comple
The vast majority of choices that a player makes during a campaign don't actually matter.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then
Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.
The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing.
Wow. How telling is it that you immediately default to speaking about roleplaying purely in combat terms? You've completely missed the point.
Also those aren't choices. There are statistically optimal tactics in combat. It can ALL be boiled down to numbers, placement, probability and other known quantities. Hence, those sort of things in combat are NOT choices...they are strategic decisions based on the skill level of the person playing. It is not a "choice" for a character.
EDIT: I'll also add that even a decision made in combat has IMMEDIATE repercussions that matter. I mean that is painfully obvious. If you move to target A and attack Target A then you do not do damage to Target B. That is immediate, proveable consequences.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then[/quote]Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing. [/
Also, who said the choice didn't matter? Your choice sets a lot of things in place. For instance there should be adifference between encounter the goblin patrol in the north pass as opposed to the south pass. If they get GP North it is returning from looting a town they recently hit, if they get GP South it is on the way to scout a town they are about to hit or some such thing.
Those are two different things and therefore not magician-switch.
Those are two different things and therefore not magician-switch.
Except that is the example of Ichoice. They will encounter a Goblin Patrol either way and not both. The encounter mutates to match what the players pick. That is the Ichoice I've been discussing this entire time.
Except that is the example of Ichoice. They will encounter a Goblin Patrol either way and not both. The encounter mutates to match what the players pick. That is the Ichoice I've been discussing this entire time.
The most simple answer is just make another NPC. They got lucky, they kill it, big deal.
Big bad evil dudes never do that!
I mean you don't just replace Darth Maul with Darth Tyranus I mean General Grievous I mean Darth Vader I mean Executor Sedriss I mean...oh wait...
Big bad evil dudes never do that!I mean you don't just replace Darth Maul with Darth Tyranus I mean General Grievous I mean Darth Vader I mean Executor Sedriss I mean...oh wait...
Except that is the example of Ichoice. They will encounter a Goblin Patrol either way and not both. The encounter mutates to match what the players pick. That is the Ichoice I've been discussing this entire time.
Did you arbitrarily DECIDE what they run into? Or was it already in place? If it is in place then it is not iChoice because options have outcomes. However, you COULD still be railroading by setting up identical encounters that cannot be avoided.
If the players are able to make decisions and actually impact what they run into and how they run into it then that is neither iChoice nor railroading.
Did you arbitrarily DECIDE what they run into? Or was it already in place? If it is in place then it is not iChoice because options have outcomes. However, you COULD still be railroading by setting up identical encounters that cannot be avoided.If th
Except that is the example of Ichoice. They will encounter a Goblin Patrol either way and not both. The encounter mutates to match what the players pick. That is the Ichoice I've been discussing this entire time.
Did you arbitrarily DECIDE what they run into? Or was it already in place? If it is in place then it is not iChoice because options have outcomes. However, you COULD still be railroading by setting up identical encounters that cannot be avoided.
If the players are able to make decisions and actually impact what they run into and how they run into it then that is neither iChoice nor railroading.
OK, lets get to a more detailed example.
My campaign begins in a small town where there is a great storm and everyone has to seek shelter. They players have lots of options, but that isn't relevant.
What is relevant is that after the storm passes the players have some hooks from the cave (which they can go with or not), have some quest hooks from background (same) and have the area changed by the storm to explore.
Nouns changed because they aren't actually Velocirators, but the important part is that they are smart pack hunters. I picked Velociraptor to make it close enough but obviously not what I was using.
4x Velociraptor 1x Injured Velociraptor
Setup: The raptors use one of their members injured by the storm as bait to attract something larger to themselves so they pack can take it down. They know there are creatures on the road (travelers) and other large scavengers (creatures in the nearby jungle) who might be fooled into lowering their guard around the injured raptor.
The Injured raptor is in the middle of the path with a piece of corrupted mithril imbedded in his side. The other raptors are hidden off the side of the road. The injured raptor has been hurt because a nearby mithril vein exploded through the ground into the cave they were using to hide from the storm.
Now there are 3 major roads and a well-traveled path all leading away from the town. Should the PCs choose to leave through any of these methods, or encounter part of the path/road near town they will see the injured raptor. Which path the raptor is on has nothing to do with anything except for which path the PCs chose to take. The piece of mithral embedded in the creature's side is a very valuable piece for one of the plotlines should they choose to go that route.
Now if the PCs select the north road the hidden raptors will be half on one side of the road, half on the other. One side is tall grass, the other is wooded. The creatures in the wooded side have the advantage of having better cover unless the characters approach from the woods.
If they PCs choose the well-traveled path to the NE both sides are wooded. The raptors have a better chance at avoiding detection.
If the PCs choose the eastern road, the encounter is basically the North Road but reversed.
If the PCs choose the south road, both sides are tall grass and it is easier to spot the creatures.
Now the PCs may decide to follow something else and head into a cave system. They won't encounter this fight that way. Or take a boat West. They won't encounter this fight that way.
The PCs may choose to see this as a threat best left avoided and go around it. They may catch on very quickly or slowly to what is going on. They may take note of the creature that was injured at the start of the battle and acting oddly or they may not. THAT part is up to the players. WHERE the encounter is, or whether they get to see it or not isn't part of the deal. They went down a road, they can choose to interact with this.
Edit:
The point is All roads lead to this encounter. Now, encounter doesn't mean fight necessarily. I've run this campaign 8 times so far. 6 times groups have gone to this encounter, 4 times they have fought it. Once they killed the injured from a distance and waited and the pack left. Once they treated the wounded and calmed the animals to make friends. Twice the group got the jump, twice the creatures got the jump.
Did you arbitrarily DECIDE what they run into? Or was it already in place? If it is in place then it is not iChoice because options have outcomes. However, you COULD still be railroading by setting up identical encounters that cannot be avoided.If th
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />OK, lets get to a more detailed example.
My campaign begins in a small town where there is a great storm and everyone has to seek shelter. They players have lots of options, but that isn't relevant.
What is relevant is that after the storm passes the players have some hooks from the cave (which they can go with or not), have some quest hooks from background (same) and have the area changed by the storm to explore.
Now, I want for them to this encounter:
First red light. You WANT something. A DM should not want when it comes to the events of the game itself. It is not their place to want. That is the path to laying tracks.
Nouns changed because they aren't actually Velocirators, but the important part is that they are smart pack hunters. I picked Velociraptor to make it close enough but obviously not what I was using.
4x Velociraptor 1x Injured Velociraptor
Setup: The raptors use one of their members injured by the storm as bait to attract something larger to themselves so they pack can take it down. They know there are creatures on the road (travelers) and other large scavengers (creatures in the nearby jungle) who might be fooled into lowering their guard around the injured raptor.
The Injured raptor is in the middle of the path with a piece of corrupted mithril imbedded in his side. The other raptors are hidden off the side of the road. The injured raptor has been hurt because a nearby mithril vein exploded through the ground into the cave they were using to hide from the storm.
Now there are 3 major roads and a well-traveled path all leading away from the town. Should the PCs choose to leave through any of these methods, or encounter part of the path/road near town they will see the injured raptor. Which path the raptor is on has nothing to do with anything except for which path the PCs chose to take. The piece of mithral embedded in the creature's side is a very valuable piece for one of the plotlines should they choose to go that route.
Now if the PCs select the north road the hidden raptors will be half on one side of the road, half on the other. One side is tall grass, the other is wooded. The creatures in the wooded side have the advantage of having better cover unless the characters approach from the woods.
If they PCs choose the well-traveled path to the NE both sides are wooded. The raptors have a better chance at avoiding detection.
If the PCs choose the eastern road, the encounter is basically the North Road but reversed.
If the PCs choose the south road, both sides are tall grass and it is easier to spot the creatures.
Now the PCs may decide to follow something else and head into a cave system. They won't encounter this fight that way. Or take a boat West. They won't encounter this fight that way.
The PCs may choose to see this as a threat best left avoided and go around it. They may catch on very quickly or slowly to what is going on. They may take note of the creature that was injured at the start of the battle and acting oddly or they may not. THAT part is up to the players. WHERE the encounter is, or whether they get to see it or not isn't part of the deal. They went down a road, they can choose to interact with this.
What is up to the players? Door 1, 2 or 3? What does it matter. Why give them the choice? Just tell them "There is one road out" in the first place? Because really there IS only one road.
Edit:
The point is All roads lead to this encounter. Now, encounter doesn't mean fight necessarily. I've run this campaign 8 times so far. 6 times groups have gone to this encounter, 4 times they have fought it. Once they killed the injured from a distance and waited and the pack left. Once they treated the wounded and calmed the animals to make friends. Twice the group got the jump, twice the creatures got the jump.
What did the other 2 do? Why did they not get to this encounter?
First red light. You WANT something. A DM should not want when it comes to the events of the game itself. It is not their place to want. That is the path to laying tracks.What is up to the players? Door 1, 2 or 3? What does it matter. Why give them t
First red light. You WANT something. A DM should not want when it comes to the events of the game itself. It is not their place to want. That is the path to laying tracks.
Yes, I want to give them quest hooks that they can choose whether to take, ignore or incorporate into their current way of playing. Me wanting to make the game interesting and varied for my players is nothing I'm going to deny or apologize for.
What is up to the players? Door 1, 2 or 3? What does it matter. Why give them the choice? Just tell them "There is one road out" in the first place? Because really there IS only one road.
Except there isn't one road, there are 4. And what matters is how things get effected by what happens later on down the line. The mithral is something they can use on the first leg of their journey wherever they may go, or keep it, or use it, or never find it at all.
What did the other 2 do? Why did they not get to this encounter?
One group took the boat west and came back to this area much later and the last group took a romp through the cave system, didn't go through any of the paths and went on to do other things.
G1 in this case came back to the town much later and someone from town had found the raptor and been killed, it just added fluff for the town. They decided the other things they were doing were more important and left that one alone.
G2 never went back to the town and only used the road much later down the line to a point where the conditions (they take a road soon after the storm passes) was no longer true.
Yes, I want to give them quest hooks that they can choose whether to take, ignore or incorporate into their current way of playing. Me wanting to make the game interesting and varied for my players is nothing I'm going to deny or apologize for.Excep
Yes, I want to give them quest hooks that they can choose whether to take, ignore or incorporate into their current way of playing. Me wanting to make the game interesting and varied for my players is nothing I'm going to deny or apologize for.
Hahah.
Except there isn't one road, there are 4. And what matters is how things get effected by what happens later on down the line. The mithral is something they can use on the first leg of their journey wherever they may go, or keep it, or use it, or never find it at all.
The quantum-mithral that is ALWAYS exactly where they go huh? That is some really magical mithral able to be in multiple places at once yet at none of those places. Wait does that make it Schrodinger's Mithral? If they never NEED to find it at all, why have it be quantum mithral?
One group took the boat west and came back to this area much later and the last group took a romp through the cave system, didn't go through any of the paths and went on to do other things.
G1 in this case came back to the town much later and someone from town had found the raptor and been killed, it just added fluff for the town. They decided the other things they were doing were more important and left that one alone.
G2 never went back to the town and only used the road much later down the line to a point where the conditions (they take a road soon after the storm passes) was no longer true.
So if has no negative impact for those that don't find it, why keep it as quantum mithral? Why not have something different at each road?
Hahah.The quantum-mithral that is ALWAYS exactly where they go huh? That is some really magical mithral able to be in multiple places at once yet at none of those places. Wait does that make it Schrodinger's Mithral? If they never NEED to find it at
First red light. You WANT something. A DM should not want when it comes to the events of the game itself. It is not their place to want. That is the path to laying tracks.
Yes, I want to give them quest hooks that they can choose whether to take, ignore or incorporate into their current way of playing. Me wanting to make the game interesting and varied for my players is nothing I'm going to deny or apologize for.
Except there isn't any real variety. Just the illusion of variety.
You kill for sport, you kill for honor, you kill for money. None of them change the fact that you kill.
What is up to the players? Door 1, 2 or 3? What does it matter. Why give them the choice? Just tell them "There is one road out" in the first place? Because really there IS only one road.
Except there isn't one road, there are 4. And what matters is how things get effected by what happens later on down the line. The mithral is something they can use on the first leg of their journey wherever they may go, or keep it, or use it, or never find it at all.
In other words, "I wouldn't want all these stats to have gone to waste because they chose a different path, but to compensate for their choices I'll tweak up the encounters a bit so it'll seem different."
I think I used to suggest stuff like this before, but I don't really see the point nowadays. It's just like how WotC suggested as the "right" way of railroading -- as you're setting new tracks for the players to tread, although the encounters and the destination are still the same -- and I do believe I kinda got dissed at that article myself. Pre-planning stuff is fine, but you should always be prepared to throw all the plans aside and run everything free style, because players will always (accidentally or intentionally) end up doing stuff that isn't expected.
What did the other 2 do? Why did they not get to this encounter?
One group took the boat west and came back to this area much later and the last group took a romp through the cave system, didn't go through any of the paths and went on to do other things.
G1 in this case came back to the town much later and someone from town had found the raptor and been killed, it just added fluff for the town. They decided the other things they were doing were more important and left that one alone.
G2 never went back to the town and only used the road much later down the line to a point where the conditions (they take a road soon after the storm passes) was no longer true.
In other words, iChoice was subverted? I think that should be a sign that they're prolly not always satisified with the lack of real choices you're giving them, so they end up creating their own choices.
Yes, I want to give them quest hooks that they can choose whether to take, ignore or incorporate into their current way of playing. Me wanting to make the game interesting and varied for my players is nothing I'm going to deny or apologize for.[/quo
As far as the quantum metal goes here is the deal:
Whether or not they encounter the metal is not the part I want to know. It is what they do with it if they find it. So where/why/how/who was carrying etc will all change that answer, but the core question remains the same.
No negative impact? It killed a villager and they were out a good chunk of money and some other stuff.
Why not have something different on each road? That hurts the underlying question for one. But more importantly it is much simpler and easier to build one encounter rather than 4. Edit: I believe you said above at one point "work smart, not hard".
As far as the quantum metal goes here is the deal:Whether or not they encounter the metal is not the part I want to know. It is what they do with it if they find it. So where/why/how/who was carrying etc will all change that answer, but the core qu
I dont think I have enough english to explain this, maybe someone else can do it. The things you are doing Matyr are extra work plus illusions for no good reasons. You can change all of that style, give less work to yourself, and better choices for your players another way. Yagamifire talks about building a world which is okay but a lot of work. You can do it a lot smaller with same style and have all choices matter and game more exciting. I would tell more but I am no good with english.
I dont think I have enough english to explain this, maybe someone else can do it. The things you are doing Matyr are extra work plus illusions for no good reasons. You can change all of that style, give less work to yourself, and better choices for y
The vast majority of choices that a player makes during a campaign don't actually matter.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then
Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.
The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing.
Wow. How telling is it that you immediately default to speaking about roleplaying purely in combat terms? You've completely missed the point.
Also those aren't choices. There are statistically optimal tactics in combat. It can ALL be boiled down to numbers, placement, probability and other known quantities. Hence, those sort of things in combat are NOT choices...they are strategic decisions based on the skill level of the person playing. It is not a "choice" for a character.
EDIT: I'll also add that even a decision made in combat has IMMEDIATE repercussions that matter. I mean that is painfully obvious. If you move to target A and attack Target A then you do not do damage to Target B. That is immediate, proveable consequences.
Ok, a more roleplaying example (of course you were the one to separate roleplaying and combat, clearly the two are never amalgimated...).
The PCs go into a pub. The barman asks what they want to drink. It makes no difference if they order ale or wine or water or the blood of a thousand virgins (given the right campaign).
Player decisions only get the weight that you give to them.
Holy crap that's a bad campaign then[/quote]Because choosing to move to square A to attack an enemy monster makes such a differrence compared to moving to square B, one square to the north of A.The vast majority of decisions are not plot-changing. [/
Except there isn't any real variety. Just the illusion of variety.
You kill for sport, you kill for honor, you kill for money. None of them change the fact that you kill.
Except there is variety there. Why you kill should be extremely important to the game.
In other words, iChoice was subverted? I think that should be a sign that they're prolly not always satisified with the lack of real choices you're giving them, so they end up creating their own choices.
If by subverted you mean they went outside of the reasonable perameters for them to engage in the Ichoice, then yes. But that also means they had something they really wanted to do going on, so it doesn't matter what side stuff I have for them to explore because they have something they want to do that is independent of it.
Except there is variety there. Why you kill should be extremely important to the game.If by subverted you mean they went outside of the reasonable perameters for them to engage in the Ichoice, then yes. But that also means they had something they r
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Ok, a more roleplaying example (of course you were the one to separate roleplaying and combat, clearly the two are never amalgimated...).
Of course they are. Focus on one over the other in this example is silly, however.
The PCs go into a pub. The barman asks what they want to drink. It makes no difference if they order ale or wine or water or the blood of a thousand virgins (given the right campaign).
Player decisions only get the weight that you give to them.
One of my players, Walter, ALWAYS tries to order Daktar (Hobgoblin) wine at bars because when he met and befriended a group of hobgoblins in game he drank with them and my description of wine apparently sounded delicious to the player so he decided his character really liked it. Kinda funny considering I've never had alcohol but apparently I can describe a yummy wine. Go figure.
So yes, his decision about what to order is VERY important to him because it has to do with his character and his characters preferences.
Also, I can disprove that even more simply: All those things might cost different amounts. Hence the choice matters to their pocketbook.
Man, these are softball lobs over the plate...keep 'em coming!
Of course they are. Focus on one over the other in this example is silly, however.One of my players, Walter, ALWAYS tries to order Daktar (Hobgoblin) wine at bars because when he met and befriended a group of hobgoblins in game he drank with them and
As far as the quantum metal goes here is the deal:
Whether or not they encounter the metal is not the part I want to know. It is what they do with it if they find it. So where/why/how/who was carrying etc will all change that answer, but the core question remains the same.
You want to know? Again, you seem to WANT a lot.
No negative impact? It killed a villager and they were out a good chunk of money and some other stuff.
They might not care about the villager and in the same amount of time they may have earned just as much or more money doing something else.
Why not have something different on each road? That hurts the underlying question for one. But more importantly it is much simpler and easier to build one encounter rather than 4. Edit: I believe you said above at one point "work smart, not hard".
Underlying question? Ah the one you WANT them to answer?
And simpler & easier? Yes, crutches are. It IS simpler and easier to railroad your players. I agree. Never disagreed with that one. It is definitely easier.
You want to know? Again, you seem to WANT a lot.They might not care about the villager and in the same amount of time they may have earned just as much or more money doing something else.Underlying question? Ah the one you WANT them to answer?And sim
One of my players, Walter, ALWAYS tries to order Daktar (Hobgoblin) wine at bars because when he met and befriended a group of hobgoblins in game he drank with them and my description of wine apparently sounded delicious to the player so he decided his character really liked it. Kinda funny considering I've never had alcohol but apparently I can describe a yummy wine. Go figure.
So yes, his decision about what to order is VERY important to him because it has to do with his character and his characters preferences.
So it's important to him. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference to the plot unless you make it do so. For example if the barman's daughter had just been kidnapped by hobgoblins, such a request might start a tavern brawl. But usually, it will make no real difference; either he will get his preferred drink of choice or he will be told that they don't serve it. Tough cookies. Player decisions only matter if you make them matter, as I said before but not every decisions has to effect the plot of any given session, let alone the whole campaign.
Also, I can disprove that even more simply: All those things might cost different amounts. Hence the choice matters to their pocketbook.
After level one such payment are rediculously small (as in talking copper and silver pieces). Forcing players to keep track of such demoninations is bordering on asinine.
Man, these are softball lobs over the plate...keep 'em coming!
I assume this is some American referrence, I could not possibly comment.
So it's important to him. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference to the plot unless you make it do so. For example if the barman's daughter had just been kidnapped by hobgoblins, such a request might start a tavern brawl. But usually, i
Underlying question? Ah the one you WANT them to answer?
And simpler & easier? Yes, crutches are. It IS simpler and easier to railroad your players. I agree. Never disagreed with that one. It is definitely easier.
Yes, as the DM of the game I am interested in seeing the decisions of my players. I would like to see how they react to my prompts and prompts they supply. It is what makes DMing fun.
Railroad them into what I want: Easy Use Ichoice to introduce them to things from their background / things in the world / Extra points where Im curious what they will do: Medium Let them go anywhere and adjust to everything on the fly: Hard.
Can you make a perfectly balanced, seat of your chair, mechanically full fight on the fly? Yes. Should you have to do that every time (and then watch it fall flat if you do it poorly, or have to mcguffin them out of there should they fall flat)? Nope.
What you call a crutch, I call a tool. Sorry you don't like how my game is run .
Yes, as the DM of the game I am interested in seeing the decisions of my players. I would like to see how they react to my prompts and prompts they supply. It is what makes DMing fun.Railroad them into what I want: EasyUse Ichoice to introduce them
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So it's important to him. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference to the plot unless you make it do so. For example if the barman's daughter had just been kidnapped by hobgoblins, such a request might start a tavern brawl. But usually, it will make no real difference; either he will get his preferred drink of choice or he will be told that they don't serve it. Tough cookies. Player decisions only matter if you make them matter, as I said before but not every decisions has to effect the plot of any given session, let alone the whole campaign.
In the grand scheme of things your plot is better left in a novel especially if the players don't care.
Player choice ALWAYS matters. Your obsession with a 'plot' you are creating is the only way it wouldn't. Stop worrying about plot. It is not YOUR plot. It is the players story.
After level one such payment are rediculously small (as in talking copper and silver pieces). Forcing players to keep track of such demoninations is bordering on asinine.
In the grand scheme of things your plot is better left in a novel especially if the players don't care.Player choice ALWAYS matters. Your obsession with a 'plot' you are creating is the only way it wouldn't. Stop worrying about plot. It is not YOUR p
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Yes, as the DM of the game I am interested in seeing the decisions of my players. I would like to see how they react to my prompts and prompts they supply. It is what makes DMing fun.
The decisions relevant to you. The things you care about. The stops on the railroad. Choo choo. Gotcha.
Railroad them into what I want: Easy
Just do this then.
Use Ichoice to introduce them to things from their background / things in the world / Extra points where Im curious what they will do: Medium
So...still railroad them but lie to them about railroading them. Okay.
Let them go anywhere and adjust to everything on the fly: Hard.
Unless you develop a skill and tool set that lets you do this instead of the skillset of deception and railroading.
Can you make a perfectly balanced, seat of your chair, mechanically full fight on the fly? Yes. Should you have to do that every time (and then watch it fall flat if you do it poorly, or have to mcguffin them out of there should they fall flat)? Nope.
Why should I obsesss over perfect mechanical balance?
What you call a crutch, I call a tool. Sorry you don't like how my game is run .
It's okay. I'm not playing in it.
I just call out railroading when I see it.
The decisions relevant to you. The things you care about. The stops on the railroad. Choo choo. Gotcha.Just do this then.So...still railroad them but lie to them about railroading them. Okay.Unless you develop a skill and tool set that lets you do th
If by subverted you mean they went outside of the reasonable perameters for them to engage in the Ichoice, then yes. But that also means they had something they really wanted to do going on, so it doesn't matter what side stuff I have for them to explore because they have something they want to do that is independent of it.
So... why haven't you been catering to them from the start, then?
In the grand scheme of things your plot is better left in a novel especially if the players don't care.
Player choice ALWAYS matters. Your obsession with a 'plot' you are creating is the only way it wouldn't. Stop worrying about plot. It is not YOUR plot. It is the players story.
This, people, is the main reason why we're having this debate in the first place. What we perceive as the "right" way of DMing is that even though the DM is the narrator, he's not supposed to be narrating what he wants, but rather what his players want. Now if it just so happens that his players want him to narrate his story then all the better, but the default assumption should be that this is false.
Yes, as the DM of the game I am interested in seeing the decisions of my players. I would like to see how they react to my prompts and prompts they supply. It is what makes DMing fun.
Railroad them into what I want: Easy Use Ichoice to introduce them to things from their background / things in the world / Extra points where Im curious what they will do: Medium Let them go anywhere and adjust to everything on the fly: Hard.
Strangely, I find that, as a DM, I enjoy what you consider "hard" as the most enjoyable and the most rewarding. Is that because I'm masochistic, or is it because I find it exciting to actually look forward to what the players do next?
Can you make a perfectly balanced, seat of your chair, mechanically full fight on the fly? Yes. Should you have to do that every time (and then watch it fall flat if you do it poorly, or have to mcguffin them out of there should they fall flat)? Nope.
I fail to see how you can repeatedly make perfect fights and then suddenly fail at it. You set about the definition of the "perfect" fight and then it gets destroyed because of... poor performance? DM fiat? If that was the case, then the first run of the fight would've ended up with poor performance or forcing the DM to pull a deus ex machina, with the next fights actually improving in chances for the PCs to win because the players would now know what you regularly pull off and how to do it.
Personally as a player if a DM outright told me that all the options I had were virtually the same but with tiny yet (supposedly significant) differences, I'd eventually try my best to create a scenario where the DM had no choice but to change the story significantly enough. Not because I dislike the DM's story per se, but frankly I already have computer RPGs that give me that experience. I play because I want a more organic sort of story development, where my character's story actually matters.
Heck, that's kinda why I'm sad nobody's DMing 13th Age for me
EDIT: I suppose it's my experiences with Living Forgotten Realms (both good and bad) that makes me really dislike railroading (regardless of name). It's a "safe" way of doing things yes, but it's... I dunno, amateurish? Unprofessional? Too computer-RPG-like? Dishonest? In any case, I've done my railroading before, and I'm kinda forced to continue railroading a bit with the Epic LFR group I'm DMing, but in all honesty I dislike railroading, and if it were only possible to go MYRE at Epic I would've done so. Then again, 13th Age gives me something to look forward to whenever I DM it
So... why haven't you been catering to them from the start, then?This, people, is the main reason why we're having this debate in the first place. What we perceive as the "right" way of DMing is that even though the DM is the narrator, he's not supp
For every DM that advocates removal or decrease of player agency, there is one more reason for all of the players that have posted about DMs taking away their ability to play the game to be worried. I would respond to the last few posts, but Yagami and Chaosfang both have said what I would, either just as good or better. It wasn't too long ago that I thought rail-roading DMs where more or less a myth.
For every DM that advocates removal or decrease of player agency, there is one more reason for all of the players that have posted about DMs taking away their ability to play the game to be worried. I would respond to the last few posts, but Yagami a
I don't understand how it is that people equate "railroading" or "illusion of choice" to "sin". It astounds me. If the players are aware and everybody in the group agrees to using these methods, then what is so wrong?
Also, I don't get how Matyr's example scenario is "railroading". Let's have a look at the bigger picture here:
There are 6 paths to choose from, all leading to different destinations. In 4 of them, the PCs encounter creatures, which appear in either path (the one the PCs choose, invariably), but not the others (the ones the PCs did not choose). I don't think it has been said, but I can safely assume that all four of those paths lead to different places. One might lead to a city, another to a forest, for example. It just so happens that no matter which one the players take, they will encounter creatures. Yet, in the end, it doesn't really matter.
What really matters is what the players did choose: the destination. The players didn't make their decision based on what they'd encounter. They said "We want to explore the forest!" or "We should check out the city, maybe buy some stuff!" The creature encounter is more or less filler (for lack of a better word), with a plot hook (which the players may choose to ignore), situated between places.
So we can then say that player agency was not removed simply because Matyr decided that an encounter would invariably happen at certain points; more often not, players don't get to choose when or if they encounter anything. He did present them with the choice of multiple destinations, which is something players can and should choose. What happens between those places is not up to them to decide. On top of that, he also lets the players choose how they approach the encounter, with the possibility of cleverly avoiding it. I have no idea how one could interpret this as "railroading".
Heck were it up to me, I might have put those velociraptors in every path. "What are velociraptors doing in a boat?" "Whoa, there's some mithral in this cave, but packs of velociraptors live here!" Both are potentially interesting starting points for adventures.
What would have constituted railroading? Well, if the players, before the game started, explicitly stated they didn't want to fight velociraptors, but Matyr had them fight some anyways, that would be railroading. If the players wanted to go into the cave, but Matyr flat out said "No, you must go to the forest!", that would be as well. I saw none of that. To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced he (or anybody so far, for that matter) is using the term "illusion of choice" in the proper context (no offence meant).
It seems to me like some people are taking offence to his style of play and trying to discredit it through association with something that has a negative connotation, by cherry-picking a specific instance and ignoring the bigger picture. Let's not forget that different playstyles cater to different players. There is no reasonable argument or debate to be had by continuing this line of thought; only emotions running wild and not thinking things through properly.
I don't understand how it is that people equate "railroading" or "illusion of choice" to "sin". It astounds me. If the players are aware and everybody in the group agrees to using these methods, then what is so wrong?Also, I don't get how Matyr's exa
Ty Shire, I was starting to think Fardiz and I might actually just be loopy.
The other big bit is assuming the players don't have input or agency in what they are doing. Like you said, there are different things at the ends of those roads. Maybe the group has decided they want some political intrigue and are headed for Knine to jump into the Game of Houses. Maybe they want to get into the seedy underbelly of Osrin and see how far down the rabbit hole goes. Maybe their minds are full questions as to what lays in the deep parts of the dreaded Hylar jungle. But down each of those paths lies one other thing, a wounded creature. A wounded creature with a particularly valuable wound that they may be able to use, to one end or another, in their quest for glory / honor / fame / fortune or infamy.
Ty Shire, I was starting to think Fardiz and I might actually just be loopy.The other big bit is assuming the players don't have input or agency in what they are doing. Like you said, there are different things at the ends of those roads. Maybe the
I agree that railroad and illusions are bad way to DM for many reason. But I don't agree with blogger about the reason is that players will resent the DM when they find out the decepcion. That is just a guess from him. Many player don't know or don't care even if they know.
The real reason from DM perspective is because it is backwards and actually more work for DM with this methods. It is also because the point of playing is to make stories together out of things PCs do when they interact with DM's preparations (like a dungeon or ghost swamp or maybe a whole world), not to play to experience stories the DM make up. I still think to build the whole world is not necessary but is okay.
I agree that railroad and illusions are bad way to DM for many reason. But I don't agree with blogger about the reason is that players will resent the DM when they find out the decepcion. That is just a guess from him. Many player don't know or don't
So most of what I'm talking about is closest to Palette Shifting according to that article, but not exactly. And he goes out of the way to say that having pregenerated material to put in blank spots on the map isn't an example of that (which I can assume means not even he thinks it is bad).
I don't agree with a lot of what that guy says. At the bottom when he talks about what is really fun he lists 3 scenes that can all easily go in campaigns using my methods. That and to this day the most talked about encounters without fail at the climactic ones where the players and I worked together to create something. The players and I. Meaning they told me what they basically wanted to do, and I built an encounter for them, placed it in "quantum flux" somewhere on their path and allowed them to discover it.
He also talks about the idea that you will force players to not be able to discern anything about the encounter before hand in order to keep the illusion to the last possible second. That is horrible DMing, I agree. It is also something that isn't important to this point. If the Quantum Ogre is somewhere and they scry someplace where it would be reasonable that the Ogre is they are observing the Ogre. Which means the Ogre's location collapses from all the possibles to where it actually is. That is how Quantum observation works. Finding distinct tracks or other signs is still an observation of the Ogre, so it will collapse when the players encounter it. The purpose I am using for the Quantum factor of the Ogre is to let the players know there is an Ogre somewhere. If they find the Ogre is in the woods and don't want to go that way, no worries. But the Ogre is now there and that might effect things later on.
Now, to be fair to the article, there were a lot of links to other places that might explain his point of view further, and I didn't click them. I just don't care enough to do that much reading.
The author gets upset about the forest village encounter and goes "why the hell did you build a random village?!?" and goes on to say that it would be better if you had tools to randomize it for you on the spot. But why bother randomizing on the spot when you can spend more time customizing the village you think the players want to go to. If the players are interested in big-city politics building a random forest village is probably useless. If the players are interested in visiting one of the bordertowns to learn how the peasants are coping with the frequent goblin raids, it would probably be nice to have a fleshed out village for them to visit. You can bring all the tools you want to randomize, or you could just bring the village.
So most of what I'm talking about is closest to Palette Shifting according to that article, but not exactly. And he goes out of the way to say that having pregenerated material to put in blank spots on the map isn't an example of that (which I can a
considering I've never had alcohol but apparently I can describe a yummy wine. Go figure.
And there's the problem with Yagamifire... no alcohol. Just kidding.
Yagami, you've got some good advice on campaign building. I used to think you just trolled everyone, but I've seen that's not true. At this point, I'm reading through what you have to say and sifting out what I think it important from how you say it.
However I think a lot of this is intellectual argument, that doesn't always pan out in the real world. Sure, it'd be nice if every DM was able to come up with exciting challenges at the players' whims, but not everyone can do that and do it well. I also think players should have a fair amount of input in world-building, and DM's shoudl have some small control over a Character, with the understanding that neither party will intentionally screw over the other.
If Matyr and his group are having fun playing D&D, then that's great. Based on what I've read of a LOT of poster's games, I would not have fun playing in their worlds/games. When LunarSavage was still posting, there was NO way I would have played in one of his games, but it sure sounded like he and his players had a blast with it.
There isn't one right way to play D&D. There is a wrong way, and that's for DM's to lay out specific tracks and tell players this is what's going to happen today and I'll have my super-powerful DMPC save the day. I think we can all agree on that.
Not all DM's are good at improvising and coming up with new encounters on the fly. It's a skill that needs to be learned, and more DM's need to try it. I have a session tomorrow that I'm planning for. So far I have: they can continue in to the cave looking for the merchant that they were asked to find, or they can skip it and move on. I've got stuff in my head as to what will happen if they DO continue in the cave, and some alternate idea if they continue on. And I've got a basic monster template to try and make stuff up on the fly. I hope it's a fun day for the players.
And there's the problem with Yagamifire... no alcohol. Just kidding. Yagami, you've got some good advice on campaign building. I used to think you just trolled everyone, but I've seen that's not true. At this point, I'm reading through what you
Not all DM's are good at improvising and coming up with new encounters on the fly. It's a skill that needs to be learned, and more DM's need to try it.
And I think that railroading outright robs DMs of the opportunities to study, practice and master improvisation. iChoice is a somewhat-decent in-between, but it requires the DM to still be willing to throw away anything and everything he's prepared should his players prefer anything other than what he's prepared... and in that regard, iChoice still somewhat robs DMs of the opportunity to learn and master improvisation because it's almost like you're placing players on rails around 50% of the time or more, depending on how railroaded the campaign is.
Between iChoice and outright railroading though, I'd choose iChoice. Because at least with iChoice as how Martyr describes his actual play (which is better at explaining his position than how he actually explains the theory behind iChoice as far as I can tell), players are still given the option and ability to bypass the railroading. And of all the types of railroading that can be done, the type which encourages the DM to place new tracks based on player input (rather than giving just the illusion of choice) that eventually leads to the desired destination is probably what I'd prefer the most.
But honestly, after being exposed to 13th Age, and after running 13th Age as done by Rob Heinsoo (see here), and with my improvisation being placed under the microscope over and over again (especially in this campaign), I really can't bring myself to wholeheartedly run predetermined adventures anymore, be it via adventure modules or by serious campaign pre-generating. The fact that 13th Age gives such simple yet flexible tools for improvisation, combined with how I only need minimum prepping with the system -- in fact I only bring an Excel sheet with the monster creation formula, as well as a few other PDFs as well as dice nowadays (I sometimes improv magic items too, using player powers as a rough gauge on how powerful the magic item's effect should be) -- it's an exhiliarating experience that makes me much more excited about 13th Age than D&D Next.
And while I think iChoice as described by Martyr's actual gameplay is a decent compromise between railroad and improv, I'd say that DMs should still be encouraged to improv much more often and learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others, because the more time spent on the "safe" way, the less likely you'll be able to smoothly adapt to those unusual circumstances that can and eventually will come up.
Here's how I'd go about iChoice by the way:
just like I mentioned earlier, prepare stat-less custom monsters with various templates for various regions.
if there's a range of levels involved, stat up a minion, a standard, an elite, and a solo, then make template powers and traits
design the session with generic steps, rather than very detailed information on the matter
even a simple "get quest -> fight battle(s) -> gain reward" type plot would be fine, then forks in the decision portions in the plot line involve less of specific monsters in various locations and more of "please choose what fight you're getting" sort of decision-making (if you go south you'll fight a squad, if you go north you fight a solo, if you're meant to find orcs then going south means an orc army and north means an ogre or an orc chieftain, if you're meant to find dragons then going south means a kobold army and north means a dragon)
always prepare to throw away all your notes the moment players choose option W instead of A, B, C or D (this is the main if not only saving grace of Martyr's iChoice; without it I'm sure even more people would dislike iChoice)
And I think that railroading outright robs DMs of the opportunities to study, practice and master improvisation. iChoice is a somewhat-decent in-between, but it requires the DM to still be willing to throw away anything and everything he's prepared s
I think I notice a connecion between the people who use illusions or railroads and published adventures or organization play like LFR. I think this is because both of them provide the DM with the wrong kind of prep. This prep means the DMs must to railroad or use illusions. To stay on the prep, which is not good prep to begin.
So my question for curious: Are you who likes railroads or illusion of choices introduced to DM-ing with publish adventures or also LFR? This is observation to understand better not accusation...
I think I notice a connecion between the people who use illusions or railroads and published adventures or organization play like LFR. I think this is because both of them provide the DM with the wrong kind of prep. This prep means the DMs must to ra
I think I notice a connecion between the people who use illusions or railroads and published adventures or organization play like LFR. I think this is because both of them provide the DM with the wrong kind of prep. This prep means the DMs must to railroad or use illusions. To stay on the prep, which is not good prep to begin.
So my question for curious: Are you who likes railroads or illusion of choices introduced to DM-ing with publish adventures or also LFR? This is observation to understand better not accusation...
Actually I ended up disliking prep due to LFR, especially Epic tier LFR. Perhaps in Living Greyhawk, Pathfinder Society or other adventures that are generally considered as superior in quality...
Actually I ended up disliking prep due to LFR, especially Epic tier LFR. Perhaps in Living Greyhawk, Pathfinder Society or other adventures that are generally considered as superior in quality...
What I mean (damn english!) is LFR or publish adventures have a particular kind of prep that require you to use railroad and illusions a lot of the times. Obviously chaosfang you were expose to different game or way to prepare adventures. Some other people are not and so they use that model for their own preparations. So I wonder if these are connected. If you learn to DM with publish adventures or LFR or have no played any other way, maybe this makes people think that way is good. When the reality is you can run games with very little prep and also not a lot of experience in improvisation another way.
What I mean (damn english!) is LFR or publish adventures have a particular kind of prep that require you to use railroad and illusions a lot of the times. Obviously chaosfang you were expose to different game or way to prepare adventures. Some other
What I mean (damn english!) is LFR or publish adventures have a particular kind of prep that require you to use railroad and illusions a lot of the times. Obviously chaosfang you were expose to different game or way to prepare adventures. Some other people are not and so they use that model for their own preparations. So I wonder if these are connected. If you learn to DM with publish adventures or LFR or have no played any other way, maybe this makes people think that way is good. When the reality is you can run games with very little prep and also not a lot of experience in improvisation another way.
Actually LFR was the first set of adventures that I ran, and for awhile I thought that it was how you were supposed to run games (everything pre-written, different ways of saying how you ended up in the next encounter, everything laid out in a neat way with only a few adventures providing different paths, and most of those paths still end up re-merging down the main path).
The main things that contributed to the change of heart started with LFR's The Glorious Hunt I think, where you were stripped of gear and hunted down by werewolves (my LFR rogue-ish Fighter ended the adventure driven insane by the disease in that adventure and had to invoke the Charity Clause to be played again). Then there's the time I played LFR under a certain DM, where his MYRE adventures had a number of heavy-handed railroading. Then there were the EPIC adventures of LFR, where there's a lot of heavy-handed railroading (some made sense, some didn't), which left some of my players dissatisfied. But the main thing that changed it all was that article by Wade Rockett about how Rob Heinsoo ran his 13th Age demos... and using that method for the first time.
If you have to prepare, prepare for only one adventure ahead at most. That was the advice given to me by one AD&D 2E player/DM, and even when actually preparing adventures and campaigns, I find that this is an excellent piece of advice.
Actually LFR was the first set of adventures that I ran, and for awhile I thought that it was how you were supposed to run games (everything pre-written, different ways of saying how you ended up in the next encounter, everything laid out in a neat w
I think I notice a connecion between the people who use illusions or railroads and published adventures or organization play like LFR. I think this is because both of them provide the DM with the wrong kind of prep. This prep means the DMs must to railroad or use illusions. To stay on the prep, which is not good prep to begin.
So my question for curious: Are you who likes railroads or illusion of choices introduced to DM-ing with publish adventures or also LFR? This is observation to understand better not accusation...
LFR is unfortunately, almost by definition, on-rails. You play the adventure proposed, or you go home because the DM won't have anything prepped if you decide 'screw it I wanna go to a different city'. There's often a choice within the adventure, and a lot of them, particularly the investigation ones, excel at being a lot more sandboxy than most, but in the end, they're designed around a storyline which the players follow, rather than giving the players the option of where to go.
It's a shame, but they're really there to give people who don't have the time to prep and worldbuild, the ability to play.
LFR is unfortunately, almost by definition, on-rails. You play the adventure proposed, or you go home because the DM won't have anything prepped if you decide 'screw it I wanna go to a different city'. There's often a choice within the adventure, a
In my homebrew world that I have been running for a couple months now I have run to a small problem that I need advice on how to stop.
The party, unknown to them, killed off a major part of the story I was constructing. Basically in some instances my party has out smarted me. They came across an old run down fort that a group of orcs was using as a staging ground. The group saw a horse tied up outside of the main gates. The cleric would not let them outright kill the horse. So the thief, who was a halfling, got under the horse and unbuckled the saddle before they went inside.
After a clearing out the inner workings of the fort and chasing the "boss" outisde as he was fleeing. He fell off the horse and was knocked out. The party then killed him off. He was a level 6 half orc warrior, the party was at the time level 1, almost level 2.
So I reworte a few things in my story, it is an odd complicated story. Basically a lich is tricking the orcs into going to war with the elves. The lich just wants a select few elves dead as they were the ones that killed him when he was alive. But over time he has grown to hate all elves. That is the short version.
Anyways, I decided to show a little more of my hand, and had a Death Knight attack a cleric that the party was guarding on his way back to the capital city. The party ignored the skeletons and undead troll the Death Knight had with him, and went right at the knight. Thankfully none of them hit him so he basically ignored them as he pushed forward towards the cleric.
So what would be a good way to discourage these player from attacking people and things they has no business in doing so without out right telling them, you can't kill him, you should run in terror ... or at most try and talk to him.
This is how i would have done it, and is in line with the guy who says you don't treat it like an encounter.
You break your game up -Introduce the scene without rolls. When they exit the fort, this happens.
"The orc mounts up and kicks the horses thighs. It bucks up and runs off, bucking the orc and his saddle. The orc turns around and whistles. 6 orcs appear. The orc begins to run, leaving you to his friends. Roll initiative."
Then you have the death knight.
"A darkly shrouded figure approaches wearing a skull mask; he points at your cleric and 3 skeletons rise around your group. He speaks arcane words and an undead troll rises amidst you. roll initiative".
You've got to engage them, and don't EVER say "The wizard casts fireball, brad make a reflex..." Instead say "Brad, reflex check. Wow, good. The dark wizard throws a fireball at you, however you dodge it."
Use dialogue to present danger, and enforce it. Your players have evolved and learned to go straight for the death knight. They will be surprised when "Your sword like a beesting bounces from his armor. He smiles." This provokes the player into finding a different way to kill him. Alert the player. But you don't wat the player to fight this guy.
You need to evolve with the players, and have a trick in every sleeve. Make sure you know what your characters abilities are and incorporate the usage of those abilities into the game, so when they finally see this guy they don't want to waste the resources if they don't have to. One thing you can do is let them fight. You know what kind of a hit your players can take. how about...
"The dark wizard angrily clinches his fist and shouts a word of power. Everybody takes 20 damage and makes a save vs paralyze."
Impose your enemies. It sounds like your players know you and your DM habits, so you need to develop new ones. Maybe your players feel safe? maybe they don't know who they should attack? Players need to be given a context of reference that sets the pace, which in turn can be offered as advice.
simply say at the begining of battle with the priest/death knight "The death knight may not be harmed until his troll is killed. Keep the cleric safe!" You might have him send rotating waves of skelletons the players have to control while fending off the troll.
This is how i would have done it, and is in line with the guy who says you don't treat it like an encounter.You break your game up -Introduce the scene without rolls. When they exit the fort, this happens."The orc mounts up and kicks the horses thigh
The fact that LFR is kinda railroady has very little bearing on how good a DM is. If anything, LFR mods have taught me more about not railroading than anything, because they've taught me how boring it can be.
The fact that LFR is kinda railroady has very little bearing on how good a DM is. If anything, LFR mods have taught me more about not railroading than anything, because they've taught me how boring it can be.
Were you expose to other methods or games before you decide there was a better way?
I want to know if the people who like illusions and railroads have only learned to DM from LFR or published mod.
Were you expose to other methods or games before you decide there was a better way?I want to know if the people who like illusions and railroads have only learned to DM from LFR or published mod.
Okay, so chaosfang first ran LFR. Spaceinvader say it is railroads too.
Matyr? Nerradetrok? Did you learn to DM with publish adventures or LFR too?
No, I did not start with LFR modules, or any premade modules. I started DMing in a game where there really was no system and we just made up everything (game world, rules, characters) on the fly. My first campaign as DM was in high school and we were all interested in the improv and none of us even had the actual books for 3e (which is what we were supposedly playing). It was... Odd.
LFR is a little railroady, but that is because doing it any other way would be a really bad plan (at least at cons). At most LFR stuff you have a great variance between DMs and the mods are supposed to be roughly the same for each playthrough and have a defined difficulty for them. That being said, I rarely stick with the script and instead change the mod quite a bit to adjust to the player's skill level / interests.
No, I did not start with LFR modules, or any premade modules. I started DMing in a game where there really was no system and we just made up everything (game world, rules, characters) on the fly. My first campaign as DM was in high school and we we
Were you expose to other methods or games before you decide there was a better way?
I want to know if the people who like illusions and railroads have only learned to DM from LFR or published mod.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be relevant, to be honest.
And I really don't dig the comment about there being a "better way than illusions and railroads". The better way is whichever one works best for you and your group, be it railroading or sandbox, or anything in between. And even then, a group may shift between styles during a campaign.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be relevant, to be honest.And I really don't dig the comment about there being a "better way than illusions and railroads". The better way is whichever one works best for you and your group, be it railroadin
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And there's the problem with Yagamifire... no alcohol. Just kidding.
Yagami, you've got some good advice on campaign building. I used to think you just trolled everyone, but I've seen that's not true. At this point, I'm reading through what you have to say and sifting out what I think it important from how you say it.
Thank you for the compliment. It's appreciated.
However I think a lot of this is intellectual argument, that doesn't always pan out in the real world. Sure, it'd be nice if every DM was able to come up with exciting challenges at the players' whims, but not everyone can do that and do it well. I also think players should have a fair amount of input in world-building, and DM's shoudl have some small control over a Character, with the understanding that neither party will intentionally screw over the other.
I think worrying about what "pans out in the real world" is foolishness. The airsoft team I play on has the motto "Perfection Tomorrow, Improvement Today" with the understanding that tomorrow will never come. We seek to constantly improve. DMs (or anyone playing a game really) should always seek to do the same or give up on criticising or playing the game. I also totally disagree that DMs should have ANY amount of control over a character if you are refering to actions or such. The PC is ENTIRELY the domain of the player. It is the PLAYERS character. It is their property. If one is worrying about an unspoken rule not to "screw over the other" then something is already wrong. This shouldn't even enter into the equation.
This is all part of the notion that one needs to balance against bad players or DMs...you can't do that. It is a design impossibility. As I said in another thread, you can't make something fool proof because they'll simply make a better fool. Instead, the game needs to be designed to operate as well as possible. Part of that is discussing the game and the approach to the game in a way that represents it being played as well as possible. Anything else is designing towards mediocrity.
I do not believe that every DM can do everything on a whim. I could not do that when I started. However, it is more important to give them tools to improve (which includes this forum and its advice) than it is to support them playing at a lower level. Can they get along at that level and improve as they go? Yes absolutely because that is reality. Should the game and other members of the game community seek to help that person improve? Yes absolutely. Instead of handing out participation trophies, we should be seeking to help everyone become an MVP. Is it possible? Of course not, there's only ever one MVP to a team...but that doesn't matter. The journey is what matters, not an impossible destination (perfection).
After all, would you want to sit down to play with a DM who outright states "Hey so you know, I've got no interest in improving how I do things."? I would hope the answer would be "of course not".
If Matyr and his group are having fun playing D&D, then that's great. Based on what I've read of a LOT of poster's games, I would not have fun playing in their worlds/games. When LunarSavage was still posting, there was NO way I would have played in one of his games, but it sure sounded like he and his players had a blast with it.
I would say this is impossible to know until you play it (that type of game that is). I can describe various food to you all day and part of it may disgust you...however description is a poor substitute for experience.
There isn't one right way to play D&D. There is a wrong way, and that's for DM's to lay out specific tracks and tell players this is what's going to happen today and I'll have my super-powerful DMPC save the day. I think we can all agree on that.
There are many wrong ways to play D&D. In fact, I'm going to have a post challenging that very soon.
Not all DM's are good at improvising and coming up with new encounters on the fly. It's a skill that needs to be learned, and more DM's need to try it. I have a session tomorrow that I'm planning for. So far I have: they can continue in to the cave looking for the merchant that they were asked to find, or they can skip it and move on. I've got stuff in my head as to what will happen if they DO continue in the cave, and some alternate idea if they continue on. And I've got a basic monster template to try and make stuff up on the fly. I hope it's a fun day for the players.
I entirely agree with the first sentence of that quote. However, it (improvisation) IS the most important skill a DM can have while balancing that improvisation with fairness. Because of this, the game and its community should seek to help players reach a perfect level of improvisation...seeking less is to reinforce something less than ideal and there's no point to that.
Thank you for the compliment. It's appreciated.I think worrying about what "pans out in the real world" is foolishness. The airsoft team I play on has the motto "Perfection Tomorrow, Improvement Today" with the understanding that tomorrow will never
Okay, so chaosfang first ran LFR. Spaceinvader say it is railroads too.
Matyr? Nerradetrok? Did you learn to DM with publish adventures or LFR too?
I've never ran LFR before, or even looked at any of the modules sicne I have no interest in the Forgotten Realms. I have run through a few modules, and they've all seemed pretty forced and on specific rails. I don't like that. What I'm doing now is taking ideas from modules and trying to incorporate them in to the current game. If the players aren't interested, I leave it at that. I have a couple of ideas in my head that haven't been planned, in which I lay out hints to see if the players are interested. If they aren't, I let it go and go on towards something they are more interested in.
I'm going to keep trying to improv what's going on, giving players hooks and then prepare minimally for which ones they bite. If I fail at improv, then I'll have something to look back on and see where I've failed.
@YagamiFire - When I say the DM has some control over the character, I definitely do NOT advocate that a DM should ever say what a character does. Never the actions. What I mean is that the DM may insert some NPC with a connection to the PC's background, depending on what that background is. And it's always something that can be tossed aside if the PC doesn't want to use it. Usually things like old friends, relatives, etc. Someone the PC may have a strong feeling towards, but maybe not. If the PC doesn't care, then it's likely just a case of Mistaken Identity and we move on to something else.
What I'm seeing so far, with just a few sessions with this new game, is that the PC's don't seem to have any plans for what they want to do. They have some history of who the character was, and some idea of who they want the character to become, but nothing in the way of how the character changes, where they will go and what they will do to get there. So, I'm providing a little direction for them by having adventures/quests offered to them.
I've never ran LFR before, or even looked at any of the modules sicne I have no interest in the Forgotten Realms.I have run through a few modules, and they've all seemed pretty forced and on specific rails. I don't like that.What I'm doing now is ta
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@YagamiFire - When I say the DM has some control over the character, I definitely do NOT advocate that a DM should ever say what a character does. Never the actions. What I mean is that the DM may insert some NPC with a connection to the PC's background, depending on what that background is. And it's always something that can be tossed aside if the PC doesn't want to use it. Usually things like old friends, relatives, etc. Someone the PC may have a strong feeling towards, but maybe not. If the PC doesn't care, then it's likely just a case of Mistaken Identity and we move on to something else.
Ah I understand now.
What I'm seeing so far, with just a few sessions with this new game, is that the PC's don't seem to have any plans for what they want to do. They have some history of who the character was, and some idea of who they want the character to become, but nothing in the way of how the character changes, where they will go and what they will do to get there. So, I'm providing a little direction for them by having adventures/quests offered to them.
I think you are treating a symptom then rather than the problem. If your players start aimless it will be very easy for them to remain aimless. I find that often because of too much focus on character builds, mechanics and optimization etc that the actual CHARACTER part of "character sheet" falls through. The PCs are adventurers...them having no plans means they either do not understand the world thoroughly enough or that they do not understand their characters well enough. From your description it seems like the former. Players are generally either paralyzed by infinite choice (when they do not understand their character well enough to decide where or what to do given unlimited options) or are paralyzed by the mistaken belief that they have no choice and that something is being presented to them. Either is highly problematic. The first may lead to random acting out...and the second may lead to complete and total lack of motivation requiring the DM to essentially narrate the players actions.
I think your players need to know more about the world so that they can try and figure out how they fit into it and how they want to tackle it.
Ah I understand now.I think you are treating a symptom then rather than the problem. If your players start aimless it will be very easy for them to remain aimless. I find that often because of too much focus on character builds, mechanics and optimiz
Oh, that's too good.
.
.
