Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Ariosto]

From Page 6:

Either the guy with the mount has the choice to go where his mount will be useful or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that choice, the GM is railroading.

Is the DM supposed to run a sub-campaign for this mounted guy while the other PCs are on a boat?

And if he doesn't he's railroading the PC?

My answer: Yes, but sometimes that's the best option. It depends on the people involved.

The Monolithic Party can be even more constraining than the Adventure Path.

 

[Hussar]

Oh ye of short memory:

Example 1

Example 2

 

[The Shaman]

Example 1

Example 2

In Example 1, I pointed out that making up terrain as I go to fit the adventurers would not work in my campaign; that in no way suggests that it doesn't work in someone else's campaign, and in fact I specifically said, "Whatever works for you."

Example 2 is just you contradicting yourself.

So where's the badwrongfun, Hussar? Or perhaps I should ask, what exactly does that phrase mean to you?

 

[Hussar]

I can see that this conversation is just going to go nowhere as usual. You asked a question, I answered it. As far as I'm concerned, what you do with the answer is your problem. I'll bow out now since chasing around in circles, wasting time trying to find acceptable definitions all the while being misquoted is no longer my idea of fun.

Good gaming.

 

[Haltherrion]

You're defending an approach to gaming which is alive and well and arguably far more widespread than the more status quo-setting, player-driven style I prefer, which leads me to wonder exactly from whom you're defending it.Please show me who's tossing stones, and we'll ask them to stop together.

I object if it sounds like one person is telling another person his style is inferior. On the forums, that almost always seems to be someone who prefers sandboxes over story-driven. If story-driven was presented as the only way to do it right, I would defend sandbox.

I'm sure for some posters I read too much into their replies. I think I did so for one of your posts at one point (just went through 8 of the pages on this thread and can't fine it though ) and I apologize if I did so.

To my ear, there are others who seem to imply sandbox is the only one true way to game. I've certainly met some of those folks in person.

I don't think you see this as much for the story-tellers because extreme ref-driven quickly gets ludicrous. Whereas extreme sandbox can still work although when poorly executed, it can get rather dull. So a very sandbox game can seem pure which gets some folks thinking it is more virtuous.

So, if I defend anything, it is my intention to defend the right to choose a style suitable to your circumstances without having someone sniff disparagingly at it. Call it a pet peeve.

 

[Ariosto]

So, if I defend anything, it is my intention to defend the right to choose a style suitable to your circumstances without having someone sniff disparagingly at it. Call it a pet peeve.

OK: It's a pet peeve.

Seriously, that is about as ludicrous a 'right' to claim as I can imagine.

The insistence on tolerance for everyone except those identified as "intolerant" -- or of everything being "morally relative" except the evil of having a morality -- tends toward the trap of all self-righteous crusading of Us against Them.

Taking your "sniff disparagingly" literally is, I am afraid, the logical consequence of such a putative right. You are ultimately opposing freedom of thought, the right of people to hold opinions different from yours. If mere inference is enough, then in short order actual intended implication won't be required to light your fuse. You will find it hard to avoid making pre-emptive strikes against people who in their own minds are "on your side" -- and any survivors still inclined to try shall have a hard time convincing you of the error.

Try instead exercising the right not to take offense at people happening to dislike your favorite game. How does what people think -- even their happening to express what they think -- in any way interfere with your choosing to play whatever you choose to play?

 

[Haltherrion]

OK: It's a pet peeve.

Seriously, that is about as ludicrous a 'right' to claim as I can imagine.

And you are entitled to your view...

 

[Ariosto]

And you are entitled to your view...

Thank you for the dispensation, Your Munificence.

 

[Haltherrion]

Thank you for the dispensation, Your Munificence.

No problem; happy to oblige.

 

[pemerton]

having been told at the very beginning of this thread that if I don't play sandbox games I'm automatically railroading - I'd say that there is some pretty healthy stone throwing. It seems that there are a fair number of gamers out there for whom sandbox or "statuis quo" games can cure the common cold and no other styles of play can possibly be a good.


<snip>

I've made no secret that I don't prefer status quo style campaigns, but, that's just my personal preference.

I object if it sounds like one person is telling another person his style is inferior. On the forums, that almost always seems to be someone who prefers sandboxes over story-driven. If story-driven was presented as the only way to do it right, I would defend sandbox.

It's probably a mistake to keep this thread alive, but nevertheless . . .

This thread has made me interested in what you mean by "story driven" or "non-status quo". And in particular, who drives the story - players or GM?

I've got a couple of players in my current group who seem to enjoy the story, and to enjoy the story elements that I (as GM) introduce into the game (history of wars/empires, demonic pacts that have turned on the civilizations that made them, useful fantasy tropes etc etc) but are not very quick to take up those elements themselves and make them their own. At least to me, it feels like they are (somewhat passively) waiting for me to insert more of that sort of stuff into the next adventure, so they can enjoy seeing the plot built up. I'd rather them participate a bit more in shaping the plot.

The raw material is there - one of the PCs is (as per the background written by the player) one of the last survivors of a city sacked by humanoids, and the other is a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen. So I guess I'm looking for any ideas/experiences about how to tip the balance just a bit towards player protagonism - any techniques you think might work, ideas for encounters/situations that might bring to the surface this thematic stuff that's lurking just below it.