Can the GM cheat?

[Viking Bastard]

I haven't played or read any of PF's APs--so I cannot speak of their quality--but I know I'd generally pick any 1e module over anything produced by WotC.

White Plume Mountain has definitely been the high point of our 4e game, and none of us were even born when it came out.

 

[S'mon]

No. He never said that his players didn't like the dungeons he designed. In fact [MENTION=
You may have misread the post you quoted - it is only when Majoru Oakheart starts improvising that his playes complain about boring games.[/QUOTE]

That's what I meant - if he prepares
(a) ahead - what will happen after the current adventure and
(b) laterally - something to use if the players deviate from expected actions
Then the players will have freedom of choice, without the game becoming boring due to poor GMing.
It doesn't take a lot of extra prep, just enough that he doesn't get the deer-in-headlights look whenever they go off-script.

 

[SkidAce]

AP's depend on the players consenting to be railroading along the AP's given meta-plot. How are you not seeing this?

Railroading = being forced, in my definition. If the players choose to follow a storyline plot, its not railroading.

I believe I understand your point, predetermined locations, predetermined foes, etc. But that would mean any advanture with any background info on who done it, could be considered a railroad.

There are in my opinion three major "angles".

1. railroading, forced into a path.
2. freeform, make it up as you go along based on PC actions.

Between those two extremes lies most adventures...i.e option 3. framework, interacting as the players choose with the plot.


Bottomline; its not a railroad to say, the evil dragon is trying to take over the globe and you must stop him, thats a fact of the world in play. How you do it is up to the PCs. APs show the most common method or logical solution based on the background facts.

Or should I change the foe to an aboleth based on the PCs interest, and if I don't would keeping it as the dragon be railroading. I would think not, but this is an honest question searching for understanding of your views.

 

[Mark Chance]

Bottomline; its not a railroad to say, the evil dragon is trying to take over the globe and you must stop him....

The word "must" makes the statement a railroad.

 

[timASW]

No. He never said that his players didn't like the dungeons he designed. In fact [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] said his players prefer engaging the dungeon to blowing it up with disintegrate, and are therefore happy when he (as GM) informs them that their PCs attempts to circumvent it via disintegrate fails.

According to him.. but thats crap. If the players are asking about every way conceivable to destroy the thing from outside rather then going into it its because they dont want to go in it. If they did they would have just walked up to the door and gone in without all the hallabaloo about destroying the tower.

Mod Note: Please see my note below. ~Umbran

For me, what I notice is that the locations are pre-specified. The NPCs are all pre-specified. The players have basically no authorship role

Thats like saying everything in Eberron is a railroad because the book for it has maps, NPC's and city descriptions. Its absurd. Players dont need authorship in the Geography of the campaign world or the major NPCS's who live in it.


,

and if they try to choose their loyalties or response to situations then the whole package more-or-less falls apart.

This is just completely false.

You may have misread the post you quoted - it is only when Majoru Oakheart starts improvising that his playes complain about boring games.

yeah.... according to him. But I dont ever remember seeing a railroading GM say "my players hate when I railroad but I do it anyway". Thats just not how it works. The railroader convinces himself that its better for everyone as an excuse for his poor behavior. You have to talk to the actual players in that game to see what they really think about this.

 

[timASW]

The word "must" makes the statement a railroad.

I would say it has an implied assumption that you dont want to live in a world the evil dragon runs. If you dont care, well then you dont have to stop him obviously.

 

[timASW]

stuff about AP's.

AP's dont in any way collapse if you go off them. Take the shackled campaign you were talking about for instance. It doesnt in any way collapse if the players sail away, or not any more then any other location based adventure does. Because thats really what your complaining about. If they decide to just leave the location then no location based adventure is gonna work. thats not railroading. They can still go away and do other things, they have full freedom of choice. That particular plot just doesnt advance without them engaging with it.

If they sail away, they sail away. You still have some very well written location and NPC material to use for that part of the world if they come back. And you probably have a timeline for whats going to happen in their absence (i havent played that one).

So say for instance they want to go pirate hunting instead with their ship, or be pirates. Either way. So what? Throw a quick session of pirate based fun at them and then when they come back to claim their rewards or sell their loot you let them know whats happened in the meantime and see if they want to check it out and get back on the AP.

And if not, then you can reliably run any sort of adventures out of those locations and with those rich NPC's as your backdrop.

 

[Manbearcat]

The word "must" makes the statement a railroad.

I don't think that is correct. All that is happening in the above statement is an "if, then, therefore" surmise related to the stakes and whether the outcome is logically tenable for party that would have to endure it. "If" the dragon takes over the <city, nation, world> "then" you will suffer <all of these losses that are invariably untenable>, "therefore" its reasonably assumed that you will (eg must) act to prevent it.

GMs make these sorts of deductions from player queues (backstory, build choices - distinctions, beliefs, aspects, etc - or overt actions in game or dialogue out of game) all the time and attempt to create content by putting the PCs in situations or pressuring them with adversity that will challenge those GM surmises born of player queues. Presumably, these situations will oftentimes lead to foreseeable player action and outcomes (but not always).

A railroad is an "All Roads Lead to Rome" scenario whereby no matter the player micro (or macro) choice, no matter the outcome of the mechanical resolution, these events will unfold...these situations, content, rising conflict will manifest...and then inevitably resolve themselves in this fashion.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

yeah.... according to him. But I dont ever remember seeing a railroading GM say "my players hate when I railroad but I do it anyway". Thats just not how it works. The railroader convinces himself that its better for everyone as an excuse for his poor behavior. You have to talk to the actual players in that game to see what they really think about this.

You do have an interesting way about you. We are not allowed to question whether or not you've been to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, but it's okay for you to show absolutely no respect for Majoru's opinion or experiences.

Railroading, especially as Majoru portrayed it in his game, can't be tolerated and is a true sign that Majoru is a corrupt tyrant who tortures his group and cannot be believed or trusted. His group must be freed from his influence and the only way to see through Majoru's wicked lies is to ask his players.

There are other things implied by your last few posts, but I'm just going to ignore those things.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No. He never said that his players didn't like the dungeons he designed. In fact @Majoru Oakheart said his players prefer engaging the dungeon to blowing it up with disintegrate, and are therefore happy when he (as GM) informs them that their PCs attempts to circumvent it via disintegrate fails.

According to him.. but thats crap.

Well, you're wrong. It's pretty obvious that he knows his group better than you do.

If the players are asking about every way conceivable to destroy the thing from outside rather then going into it its because they dont want to go in it.

As pemerton pointed out, they didn't do that. They said:

Players: "Ahh, crap, he must have some sort of protection. Wouldn't it have been hilarious if we bypassed the entire adventure by using a barrel of gunpowder? I guess we go inside. I was kind of hoping that wouldn't work so I'd have an opportunity to beat that wizard's face in personally."

They didn't try everything they could to destroy it, and not go inside. They tried one thing, and then went inside, and were glad they got to.

If they did they would have just walked up to the door and gone in without all the hallabaloo about destroying the tower.

Except, of course, what you're describing isn't what happened at his table.

Its absurd. Players dont need authorship in the Geography of the campaign world or the major NPCS's who live in it.

I totally agree with you, here.

yeah.... according to him.

Right? But, you saying railroads are bad is only according to you. Should we discount that, or should we all take one another at each other's word as far as our own tables and are own preferences go?

But I dont ever remember seeing a railroading GM say "my players hate when I railroad but I do it anyway". Thats just not how it works. The railroader convinces himself that its better for everyone as an excuse for his poor behavior. You have to talk to the actual players in that game to see what they really think about this.

Yeah... according to you. As always, play what you like

I don't think that is correct. All that is happening in the above statement is an "if, then, therefore" surmise related to the stakes and whether the outcome is logically tenable for party that would have to endure it. "If" the dragon takes over the <city, nation, world> "then" you will suffer <all of these losses that are invariably untenable>, "therefore" its reasonably assumed that you will (eg must) act to prevent it..

I know that if my GM told me that this was the case for the campaign, I'd certainly see that as a railroad. The plot has been chosen, and now I must follow this course of action. It's not "there's a bad dragon, and there are consequences; how do you respond?" It's "and you respond by defeat the dragon." And that's certainly a railroad in my book. Mind you, I'd probably buy-in if the GM told me that from the start; I recently started a brief campaign as a player with the up-front knowledge that I'd have to protect a single individual (NPC) with the other PCs, while we fought against the emperor. I'm okay being railroaded, as long as I buy into it. But, it's definitely a railroad.

A railroad is an "All Roads Lead to Rome" scenario whereby no matter the player micro (or macro) choice, no matter the outcome of the mechanical resolution, these events will unfold...these situations, content, rising conflict will manifest...and then inevitably resolve themselves in this fashion.

I agree with this to a large extent. I just consider "you must fight the dragon" as a required course of action to be part of that. As always, play what you like