Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Numidius" data-source="post: 7759037" data-attributes="member: 6972053">In my experience, a major sin of GMs I played with, has been to negate the players having a proper background, or goal, to start with, going also against the rules, for the purpose of railroad: in plain sight, or carefully hidden in a sandbox style game, negating players' agency all the way along.We played an early version of Godbound, the gm forbid the use of background for the PCs (bg gives a straight +4 to rolls, when appropriate) and the campaign went really bad. Not only the railroad was evident, it became embarassing by the end of the first (and only) narrative arc. I've been told: &quot;No, you can't do that in my game&quot; (trying to influence Nobles NPCs considered 'evil', but actually just no more useful to the DM's plans) In a recent Symbaroum game, another gm forbid goals for the PCs and the party as a whole, in the very char-gen, against RAW as well. When I diverged from the main storyline, btw following his own clues on a major event going to happen, NPCs simply started to become generally unfriendly or uninterested in anything I had to say or do. The answer to that behaviour involved some kind of &quot;realism&quot; in the game, on his behalf, like some sort of distorted philosophy in making a proper sandbox. Moreover, those games were really boring, after all.As a corollary sin of the original one, I'd say the incapacity of considering advice, suggestion or critique from the people around the table</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Numidius, post: 7759037, member: 6972053"] In my experience, a major sin of GMs I played with, has been to negate the players having a proper background, or goal, to start with, going also against the rules, for the purpose of railroad: in plain sight, or carefully hidden in a sandbox style game, negating players' agency all the way along. We played an early version of Godbound, the gm forbid the use of background for the PCs (bg gives a straight +4 to rolls, when appropriate) and the campaign went really bad. Not only the railroad was evident, it became embarassing by the end of the first (and only) narrative arc. I've been told: "No, you can't do that in my game" (trying to influence Nobles NPCs considered 'evil', but actually just no more useful to the DM's plans) In a recent Symbaroum game, another gm forbid goals for the PCs and the party as a whole, in the very char-gen, against RAW as well. When I diverged from the main storyline, btw following his own clues on a major event going to happen, NPCs simply started to become generally unfriendly or uninterested in anything I had to say or do. The answer to that behaviour involved some kind of "realism" in the game, on his behalf, like some sort of distorted philosophy in making a proper sandbox. Moreover, those games were really boring, after all. As a corollary sin of the original one, I'd say the incapacity of considering advice, suggestion or critique from the people around the table [/QUOTE]

Verification