Can the GM cheat?

[Jhaelen]

I've heard about these players who love being railroaded online before but never seen one in real life. They're like bigfoot, everybody has a friend with a cousin whose seen one once...... You never do see people in gaming sites actually saying "i'm always a player and I love having my freedom of choice towards problem solving arbitrarily restricted for the DM's fun"

Well, I should imagine there are plenty of things you've never seen in real life. I daresay it's somewhat strange to disclaim something on that premise alone.

As for animal planet: Tell them, they're invited to our next gaming session! Apparently, we have a couple of bigfoots in disguise in our group. Who'd have thunk?
Actually, apparently one of my ancestors must have been a bigfoot, too. Because, you know, sometimes I enjoy being railroaded, too: It can be relaxing to not be expected to take the lead and press ahead with the action. Instead you can lean back and simply enjoy the ride. Works best with a serving of beer & pretzel. Maybe you should try it some day

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Majoru Oakheart is just using a different approach. I'm pretty confident that when it's not about scene-reframing but actin resolution within a scene, Majoru resolves disintegratioin in a completely orthodox fashion.

This is the key to what I'm talking about stated better than I could. I want the scenes to be framed by the DM both when I'm DMing and when I'm playing.

I want to know that the DM has a plan as to what will happen next and isn't making things up as he's going along unless he/she is REALLY good at it. Basically, I want to know there is an overarching plot to tie the adventure together.

I'm not a fan of meandering through whatever random ideas the players come up with. Doing a random scene in a bar then a random scene with one of the PCs parents, a random scene with a street urchin, etc. without any narrative connection between them is frustrating for me because I can't see why each scene has "meaning" in terms of the overall plot.

I feel it's the DMs job to....act as a director/editor, skipping the unimportant parts of the story in order to move to the scenes meaningful to the plot. I expect the DM to come up with that plot as well. In other words he chooses which scenes we participate in. Although those scenes are often created based on what has happened in previous scenes, and therefore have player input.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Your math on the Pixie Hexblade looks correct, interested in seeing how he get to charge and get combat advantage every attack. The math for the unoptimized character looks to be a bit off though. 16 vs 20 = -2, +2 instead of +3 weapon = -1, for a total of -3 vs regular optimized characters that never get combat advantage.

Well, I believe it was +2 weapon instead of +4...though my memory may be failing me. But, yes, you are essentially correct.

As for the combat advantage. He didn't charge every round. However, he had 2 different encounter powers that could turn him invisible. So, for 3 rounds(the initial charge then 2 following rounds) he was nearly guaranteed Combat Advantage. If he killed a monster, he could then charge another one and get Combat Advantage again.

When I originally complained about how broken his character was, his defense was precisely that: "But, I can only get combat advantage for 3 rounds every combat, after that my attack bonus is high...but I no longer hit on a 2. Most of the time I hit on a 3 or 4." I had to point out that most combats lasted 3 rounds and so it was nearly infinite. Plus, being able to hit consistently on a 4 or higher even against Elites and Solos seemed unbalanced to me to begin with.

When I raised the level of monsters so their defenses were higher, the rest of the group became unable to hit and got frustrated. Then the D&D Next playtests started coming out and I decided it was best to put my 4e game on hold while we tested D&D Next instead.

In theory, we will go back to that 4e game after I'm done running the Isle of Dread from the playtest. I have no idea what my solution will be to his character. I keep putting off the end of Isle of Dread because I really don't want to have to deal with it.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], I'm glad I did a reasonable job of interpreting your posts and didn't put too many words into your mouth!

I think as both GM and player I like a bit more player-driven stuff in the game then you've described in your posts, but I certainly agree with you that the GM has a pretty important role!

Like you, I'm not interested in random hanging-out-in-a-bar stuff: if I want to just hang out in a bar I can do that in real life, I don't need to RPG it!

And if my players have their PCs start talking to random street urchins, I'll pretty quickly make those encounters non-random - one of my priorities as a GM is to try to link story elements back to the main themes and concerns of the players (which in my current campaign is Orcus vs Raven Queen, Gods/Law vs Primordials/Chaos, and cosmological lore vs Vecna/secrets). By linking up the backstory, and setting up secrets to be uncovered, I let the players be surprised by things while still having them help drive the basic themes/focus of the game. And we get to find out the actual plot together, through play.

Anyway, rather than telling each other how we should play, I think it's more interesting to talk about how we do play and then think about what sorts of mechanics, techniques etc work well or poorly for those different appraoches, and learn stuff that we mightn't have come up with on our own!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], I'm glad I did a reasonable job of interpreting your posts and didn't put too many words into your mouth!

No problem, you did a great job. Sometimes I'm not so great at explaining myself.

I think as both GM and player I like a bit more player-driven stuff in the game then you've described in your posts, but I certainly agree with you that the GM has a pretty important role!

I like when players have some input as well. I admit, I am currently playing in a game where the DM certainly seems to want to incorporate our input into the game more than many other DMs I've had and it's been a lot of fun.

It's a 4e game and I decided to play a Ninja(Assassin-Executioner). I don't like my characters to be 2 dimensional so I read the background he wrote up about his world and discussed it briefly. Originally he didn't really think his world had "Ninja" and was a little apprehensive about it. But we came up with the concept of a group of ninja who work similarly to the ones from Wanted, who kill people but only because they believe they are fated to die and we are simply instruments of fate.

That organization has begun to be involved in the plot and it's been a lot of fun to see it happen. In many of my previous games I would have to ask "Where would I have trained to become a ninja and they would explain my character's likely background to me.

And if my players have their PCs start talking to random street urchins, I'll pretty quickly make those encounters non-random - one of my priorities as a GM is to try to link story elements back to the main themes and concerns of the players

I'm kind of torn about this. On one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, I...Hmm, it's hard to put into words. I like knowing that things were planned out in advance as I mentioned above. The idea that a street urchin who had nothing to do with the plot before hand suddenly does because I talked to them...feels wrong to me.

I think it would be fun to play in that game as long as I was unaware that "the plan" was changing on the fly.

I think it's because of my many bad experiences with DMs allowing players with poor creative skills to drive an adventure or with bad improv skills making things up on the fly. I find most people can run a good adventure if they sit down and think about it for a while and the write down: "Mayor is secretly a doppleganger. He is a worshiper of Tharizdun. He wants to drive the entire city insane by poisoning the water supply. So far he's been testing it on a watering hole only used by street urchins."

So, when you talk to a street urchin and they are insane, you feel good that you've made a good decision and you've talked to the right person.

If the poisoning of the street urchins was an idea that the DM came up with on the fly simply because I spoke to a street urchin and the DM felt that this would be a good way to relate it to the plot, then it seems....unfulfilling to me. Instead of getting a clue because I made a good decision, it feels like the DM would have fed us a clue regardless of what we did.

Anyway, rather than telling each other how we should play, I think it's more interesting to talk about how we do play and then think about what sorts of mechanics, techniques etc work well or poorly for those different appraoches, and learn stuff that we mightn't have come up with on our own!

I'm in 100% agreement with this. There's no wrong way to play. I have preferences on what I like or don't like. However, it doesn't help to tell other people they are wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I am currently playing in a game where the DM certainly seems to want to incorporate our input into the game more than many other DMs I've had and it's been a lot of fun.

<snip>

I don't like my characters to be 2 dimensional so I read the background he wrote up about his world and discussed it briefly. Originally he didn't really think his world had "Ninja" and was a little apprehensive about it. But we came up with the concept of a group of ninja

<snip>

That organization has begun to be involved in the plot and it's been a lot of fun to see it happen. In many of my previous games I would have to ask "Where would I have trained to become a ninja and they would explain my character's likely background to me.

I like to run my games in this sort of way, with player input into world building especially via the story elements associated with character creation and advancement.

I'm kind of torn about this.

<snip>

If the poisoning of the street urchins was an idea that the DM came up with on the fly simply because I spoke to a street urchin and the DM felt that this would be a good way to relate it to the plot, then it seems....unfulfilling to me. Instead of getting a clue because I made a good decision, it feels like the DM would have fed us a clue regardless of what we did.

I agree that my style, which is a bit more improv than I think you would like, doesn't really work for mystery-style play.

It can do reveals - the PC does some dramatic thing like pulling of Vader's helmet, and then we all see he's Anikin - but that's a bit different from collecting clues to work something out.

Rather than clues to mysteries, I drop in clues to story/thematic linkages - eg when the PCs fought a chained cambion, it lamented the way it had been treated by its sister. This wasn't a clue in the mystery-game sense - it's not like the players have to work out who the cambion's sister is in order to make progress with the game - but more an opportunity they could pick up on to draw links to other events that had happened, and might happen in the future. As it happened they didn't really follow up on it, and so it's a little bit of colour that's gone nowhere to date, though it's one thing in the back of my mind to bring back out when a future opportunity (you might say, the right street urchin!) presents itself.

If the players do pick up on it, and work out what their relationship is to the sister, and how that fits into their broader PC goals/concerns, then I'll start to drive the whole thing (the relationships, the significance of the chaining, etc) harder.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

 

[Viking Bastard]

My wife prefers railroading. She states this openly and proves it true through play. She has big feet, but is no mythical creature.

Yeah, one of my players clearly prefers it as well, though she probably wouldn't agree with it if you asked her. She even gets frustrated at the other players for going off the rails, ruining "the DM's magnificent plan" (despite having it repeatedly explained to her that I encourage this behavior and that I have no magnificent plan, simply vague ideas that I adapt to the evolving fiction). That the others players are rewarded for this behavior perplexes her.

Incidentally, she is also the only player who shows any ambition for game mastering--to play out her own magnificent plan--and by far the one who pays the most interest and attention to setting stuff.

 

[Mallus]

I've heard about these players who love being railroaded online before but never seen one in real life.

Example #1 - the players who enjoy Pathfinder Adventure Paths. I don't have exact numbers, but Pazio built an entire, successful business around them.

Example #2 - the players who enjoyed the classic TSR-era tournament modules, many of which included micro-level railroading like the puzzle rooms I mentioned. Again, I don't have exact numbers, but these modules aren't considered iconic because of their unpopularity.

So two groups of gamers, neither small. Do you require more?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't know if that makes any sense.

That makes perfect sense. I don't think our methods are ALL that different(though slightly).

I guess to me, I'm worried about a situation like occurred in the new Battlestar Galactica series. The whole thing looked like this huge, planned out story arc with lots of interwoven threads. I was impressed that they planned out the plot so far in advance. I'm not a good enough writer to do something like that, but I love watching shows and playing in games with people who are super organized and can do it.

Then I watched the special before the finale of BSG where they revealed that they had mostly been making the show up on the fly. That they didn't have any idea what was going to happen, they'd just write in vague references to things then figure out what they meant later. That kind of ruined the show for me.

I like large, cool plots that manage to have a lot of foreshadowing. That's why Babylon 5 is my favorite show ever.

 

[billd91]

As I've said, though, the GM being the one who exercises authority over scene-framing has little to do with railroading, because it tells us nothing about outcomes. The issue there, as I've tried to indicate above, is whether or not the scenes that will be resolved are determined in advance, or in the course of play. And while Majoru's preferences in this respect differ from mine, they don't strike me as very radical, or - as I've indicated - even as being that different from what the Alexandrian advocates in his own much-touted, allegedly-non-railroading "node-based design".

Actually, I think it does involve no less of a railroad than the node model because there is at least one outcome you've taken off the table - avoidance of the scene. That's one thing Alexander's node model has over your scene-framing with respect to railroad prevention. PCs can skip nodes.

Ultimately, in either case, you've got a GM prepping and presenting the encounters. In this debate, either you present it as part of scene-framing or, like in Alexander's model, you prep situations and see where they go.