D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[bloodtide]

The immediacy of the task at hand is important to me. Remember, we're talking about a situation where the GM has a prepped adventure ready. If that's the case, why dilly dally? Jump to the beginning of the actual adventure. Put the characters in some kind of situation that demands action.

I think this is a good point.

Everyone comes over to play the game, quite often an action/adventure game. The idea that the players just want to sit around and do the random sandbox free form role play just does not fit.

I've had players complain they want to do random sandbox free form role play more before the game. As DM I say no, but "the game starts at 6pm, so if you all want to come over and role play among yourselves, you can". Amazingly no player wants to come over "early" just to sit around and do random sandbox free form role play. They only want to waste game time doing it...

GM should not prepare adventures that the PCs do not care about and then expect players to play through them. And of course the players tend to be willing to go along in such situations, you just need to give them some somewhat adequately presented reasons and they are likely to be willing to be persuaded by some of them. It is like in improv acting, being willing to go with the flow, but there still needs to be some input from the GM the players can react to.

This only sounds good on paper. The idea that the players must "feel good" and "care" about the adventure is often a non starter. The DM can do the "d20 pitch" and toss out 20 adventure ideas. The players will then drink some Mt. Dew and pick one. At random. At best they will pick the one that "sounds cool". But it is not like you can detail every tiny part of the adventure. It's like asking someone what new movie they want to watch. You can't describe the whole movie from start to finish and then say "ok, you want to watch that?"

It is established, in a sense that the player, as playing the character feels in some way about the situation they are in. If you later introduce additional emotional context, that feeling is likely to change. But as it is a flashback, then logically they should have felt that way from the get go. Like if I first played my character as having more callous and mercenary attitude about the quest, but then was really moved by the king's plight in the flashback scene (and the other characters were there to see it) then my feelings and behaviour in the beginning of the game were inconsistent with this.

For my more advanced good players I like to do flashback 'mini games' over post or discord. It's a great way to fill in things for a character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then, in my opinion, they can never be more than mediocre GM at best. It is such a crucial aspect of the GM that I do not think you can neglect it.

First, I’m not saying to neglect it. I’m saying that it has a time and place.

Second, I believe it can be done with less time and effort than you believe.

For reason to have real emotional weight, it need to be backed by something. It is unlikely that this can be done in a sentence.

And I am not saying you can never summarise things, for expediency you sometimes need to. The backstory of a big adventure is not where I would do it though, it is too important. I just strongly feel that emotional connections with NPCs tend to be better if they are actually played at least somewhat. It simply is differnt for the GM to say "your old friend Idris is in peril," and this to be the first time we hear of Idris, than Idris to be an actual NPC that has been encountered and interacted several times previously. Yes, players can pretend to care about Idris either way, but in the latter case they are far more likely to genuinely care.

If the adventure is an expected thing… if we’re going to be playing a specific adventure because that’s what the GM has prepared… then I think it’s better to get to it. Let whatever emotion I hope the players to have develop over the course of play.

GM should not prepare adventures that the PCs do not care about and then expect players to play through them.

But to me this seems like exactly what you are advocating for. You don’t expect the players to care until you give some performance that you think will make them care.

And of course the players tend to be willing to go along in such situations, you just need to give them some somewhat adequately presented reasons and they are likely to be willing to be persuaded by some of them. It is like in improv acting, being willing to go with the flow, but there still needs to be some input from the GM the players can react to.

I remember the first time I played The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. The GM started us outside the steading and explained that we’d been hired by the human kingdom (of Furyondy, I believe, but perhaps that was just the GM’s personal choice) to deal with the problem.

And then we played. And it worked spectacularly.

I’m trying to imagine a situation where playing out the scene where the king or one of his agents hired the PCs would really enhance play. Is it possible such a scene would add some weight or pathos to play? Yes, it’s possible. Is it necessary as you describe? No.

Especially not when the intention, no matter how the scene goes, is for the PCs to accept the job. Given that key factor, I would say it’s better to simply ascribe a motive to the PCs and then get right to the actual adventure.

It is established, in a sense that the player, as playing the character feels in some way about the situation they are in. If you later introduce additional emotional context, that feeling is likely to change. But as it is a flashback, then logically they should have felt that way from the get go. Like if I first played my character as having more callous and mercenary attitude about the quest, but then was really moved by the king's plight in the flashback scene (and the other characters were there to see it) then my feelings and behaviour in the beginning of the game were inconsistent with this.

I don’t really think this is concerning at all. Players can change their minds, the characters’ feelings can shift over time. I don’t really think it’s a case of changing so much as establishing, but even if it is changing, I don’t really see an issue.

It means fully, as in fully roleplayed rather than just discussed OOC. I did not mean "proper" as opposed to "improper" or "wrong."

And why do you assume that this performance will elicit the response you want?

Well, there of course can be different preferences, but I think it is a bit weird to not want to roleplay characters and NPCs in a roleplaying game. To me that is the literal core of the activity, the reason why I am doing it, and if it is not happening, then I really do not want to participate.

But if that's not why you play, what is then? What is is you feel is the important part of the game?

It is one prt of things. But I don’t really think that part of play is best served by performance so much as consideration. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t expect some performative elements here and there… but as with anything I may do as a GM, it is a tool that I’ll select when I think it will best serve.

I don’t think that the example you gave would be one of those times.