Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Can the GM cheat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6134203" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Says who? There are whole RPGs, after all, built around the assumption that the players <em>will</em> have authorship of the geography of the campaign world and/or of the major NPCs who live in it - Burning Wheel is one well-known example.</p><p></p><p>My own approach is something of a middle path - I told my players that I wanted to run a core 4e game; they built PCs which related to various pre-authored story elements, like the Raven Queen, and the dwarves who freed themselves from the giants, and Corellon and the Feywild; and they also authored some important elements of the campaign, like secret societies, and dwarven culture, and towns destroyed by humanoids. And when I have framed scenes for them, the backstory I have drawn is the backstory that <em>they</em> chose to make relevant in the game. So, for instance, in my game Avandra, for practical purposes, barely exists as a god - perhaps her name has been mentioned once or twice during play. Whereas the Raven Queen - who is worshipped and served by three of the PCs - comes up multiple times in every session.</p><p></p><p>My own approach would certainly be to change the dragon to an aboleth, based on player interest as expressed via metagame talk plus PC background and play at the table.</p><p></p><p>When I use modules, I use particular encounter areas or vignettes rather than the whole module from go to woe, and I either choose a module whose theme and story elements fit what my players are interested in, or I revise and repurpose what is there.</p><p></p><p>Your comment about "any adventure with background info on who done it could be considered a railroad" is interesting. As I think I mentioned upthread, my preferred approach makes mystery gaming hard - because I am constantly toying with backstory and its realisation in play to respond to the expressed interests of the players, and to maintain pressure on the things they care about. Whereas a traditional mystery RPG more-or-less presupposes a stable backstory.</p><p></p><p>What is striking to <em>me</em> about this is that "freedom of choice" is being expressed purely in ingame terms - the PCs can go where they like - but has no metagame meaning, because what the PCs will encounter is being decided by the GM based, presumably, on some pre-given background. And then when the PCs "come back" the situation they encounter has also been pre-determined by the GM based on a pre-given timeline.</p><p></p><p>For me that is not really a player driven game. It's a predominantly GM-driven one.</p><p></p><p>For me, I want to know where the "dragon problem" came from.</p><p></p><p>If the player have built dragon-slayer PCs, or paladins of Bahamut, etc, then I would think that evil dragon tyrants are fair game (like undead and Orcus to my Raven Queen-focused players). Or if everyone agrees that the dragon tyrant game sounds like fun, then that is not a railroad. (One variant of this - the "Burning THACO" approach - involves the GM going through his/her stack of old D&D modules, reading out the back blurbs and the intro blurbs to everyone until they agree on one that looks like fun, and then having everyone build PCs with Beliefs, Relationships etc tailored to that module.)</p><p></p><p>If the players just turn up and get told by the GM, "OK, this game is going to be about the dragon tyrant and your potential struggle with it - otherwise sorry, we haven't got a game" then I personally think that's closer to a railorad.</p><p></p><p>For me that's not enough. I mean, if my friend wanted to run an AP and I though I could have fun dicing and talking my way through it, I might sign up even though I know in advance it's going to be a railroad.</p><p></p><p>The thing I'm interested in is not whether the players choose to participate in the game. It's who gets to author the dominant story elements, and determine the plot, of the game. Hence I'm not especially attracted to the traditional sandbox either, because it is still the GM who determines the bulk of the story elements, and the significance they have within the fiction.</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] noted upthread, [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]'s players didn't ask about every conceivable way to destroy the thing from outside.</p><p></p><p>As far as whether or not Majoru Oakheart is misdescribing his own game, I trust him more than you as a witness of what is happening at his table.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6134203, member: 42582"] Says who? There are whole RPGs, after all, built around the assumption that the players [I]will[/I] have authorship of the geography of the campaign world and/or of the major NPCs who live in it - Burning Wheel is one well-known example. My own approach is something of a middle path - I told my players that I wanted to run a core 4e game; they built PCs which related to various pre-authored story elements, like the Raven Queen, and the dwarves who freed themselves from the giants, and Corellon and the Feywild; and they also authored some important elements of the campaign, like secret societies, and dwarven culture, and towns destroyed by humanoids. And when I have framed scenes for them, the backstory I have drawn is the backstory that [I]they[/I] chose to make relevant in the game. So, for instance, in my game Avandra, for practical purposes, barely exists as a god - perhaps her name has been mentioned once or twice during play. Whereas the Raven Queen - who is worshipped and served by three of the PCs - comes up multiple times in every session. My own approach would certainly be to change the dragon to an aboleth, based on player interest as expressed via metagame talk plus PC background and play at the table. When I use modules, I use particular encounter areas or vignettes rather than the whole module from go to woe, and I either choose a module whose theme and story elements fit what my players are interested in, or I revise and repurpose what is there. Your comment about "any adventure with background info on who done it could be considered a railroad" is interesting. As I think I mentioned upthread, my preferred approach makes mystery gaming hard - because I am constantly toying with backstory and its realisation in play to respond to the expressed interests of the players, and to maintain pressure on the things they care about. Whereas a traditional mystery RPG more-or-less presupposes a stable backstory. What is striking to [I]me[/I] about this is that "freedom of choice" is being expressed purely in ingame terms - the PCs can go where they like - but has no metagame meaning, because what the PCs will encounter is being decided by the GM based, presumably, on some pre-given background. And then when the PCs "come back" the situation they encounter has also been pre-determined by the GM based on a pre-given timeline. For me that is not really a player driven game. It's a predominantly GM-driven one. For me, I want to know where the "dragon problem" came from. If the player have built dragon-slayer PCs, or paladins of Bahamut, etc, then I would think that evil dragon tyrants are fair game (like undead and Orcus to my Raven Queen-focused players). Or if everyone agrees that the dragon tyrant game sounds like fun, then that is not a railroad. (One variant of this - the "Burning THACO" approach - involves the GM going through his/her stack of old D&D modules, reading out the back blurbs and the intro blurbs to everyone until they agree on one that looks like fun, and then having everyone build PCs with Beliefs, Relationships etc tailored to that module.) If the players just turn up and get told by the GM, "OK, this game is going to be about the dragon tyrant and your potential struggle with it - otherwise sorry, we haven't got a game" then I personally think that's closer to a railorad. For me that's not enough. I mean, if my friend wanted to run an AP and I though I could have fun dicing and talking my way through it, I might sign up even though I know in advance it's going to be a railroad. The thing I'm interested in is not whether the players choose to participate in the game. It's who gets to author the dominant story elements, and determine the plot, of the game. Hence I'm not especially attracted to the traditional sandbox either, because it is still the GM who determines the bulk of the story elements, and the significance they have within the fiction. As [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] noted upthread, [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]'s players didn't ask about every conceivable way to destroy the thing from outside. As far as whether or not Majoru Oakheart is misdescribing his own game, I trust him more than you as a witness of what is happening at his table. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Can the GM cheat?
Top