D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Maxperson]

I don’t think you’ve taken the comment in the context of the conversation. It’s not an argument against roleplaying.

I’d express similar surprise as you… but it really isn’t that surprising that you’d ignore context.

If you're chuckling at the DM's teary eyed king, you aren't invested in roleplaying. Those sorts of things are about roleplaying and shouldn't be avoided just because someone in the table isn't invested in roleplaying.

What I said applies just fine. It would be a far poorer game if the DM had to avoid types of RP over an uninvested player.

 

[Maxperson]

And this is purely mercenary motivation, and I agree there is no pressing need to roleplay to establish such. But if it is something more personal, then I think some roleplay will definitely enhance it. And I think it is usually better if the characters have motivations beyond XP and gold.

I'd hate that as a both a player and a DM. I'd want to roleplay being approached by the King's representatives, engage in the negotiation for compensation, and then play out the journey there.

If the DM skipped all of that, I hope kingdom prepared to just give us whatever we demand as compensation for going on an extremely dangerous mission, because it already agreed to it.

I just do not really get the whole "skip the RP and get to the good stuff" attitude. The RP is the good stuff! And yeah, RPGs have other elements too, and it is more interesting if you vary things, but it just felt fundamentally wrong to me to describe such interactions somewhat pointless or inconsequential. They are not, they are the heart and soul of the game. Doesn't mean you could never start with action and have RP to establish the emotional context later, but then I'd definitely prefer it to go in that order in the world too. Like if the PCs arrive at "the adventure site" on purely mercenary reasons, but once there encounter people affected by the situation and then it becomes more personal.

 

[kermit4karate]

If you're chuckling at the DM's teary eyed king, you aren't invested in roleplaying. Those sorts of things are about roleplaying and shouldn't be avoided just because someone in the table isn't invested in roleplaying.

What I said applies just fine. It would be a far poorer game if the DM had to avoid types of RP over an uninvested player.

I normally agree with you @Maxperson...but I'm on the fence about this one. Or I don't understand it well enough yet. I know in my case there are aspects of DMing that I feel more confident in than others. My strengths are fast pacing, fast action, combat and realistic dialogue, but my weaknesses are intricate worldbuilding, complex NPC backgrounds, and detailed descriptions. I'm better when the game is moving quickly, almost real time, than when it slows down, so I try to involve as many of my strengths as possible while avoiding my weaknesses.

I've been doing this for 40 years and feel like I've gotten about as good at the slow parts as I'm ever gonna get. More practice is unlikely to produce a significant improvement, but I'm 100% OK with that because I like my strengths.

I've seen DMs who clearly struggle with certain things, like for instance running quick combat, but they'll run full-tilt into it over and over anyway, and I'll be thinking, "Buddy, why are you doing this to yourself? You're so much better at worldbuilding. Lead with that!"

 

[Maxperson]

I normally agree with you @Maxperson...but I'm on the fence about this one. Or I don't understand it well enough yet. I know in my case there are aspects of DMing that I feel more confident in than others. My strengths are fast pacing, fast action, combat and realistic dialogue, but my weaknesses are intricate worldbuilding, complex NPC backgrounds, and detailed descriptions. I'm better when the game is moving quickly, almost real time, than when it slows down, so I try to involve as many of my strengths as possible while avoiding my weaknesses.

I've been doing this for 40 years and feel like I've gotten about as good at the slow parts as I'm ever gonna get. More practice is unlikely to produce a significant improvement, but I'm 100% OK with that because I like my strengths.

I've seen DMs who clearly struggle with certain things, like for instance running quick combat, but they'll run full-tilt into it over and over anyway, and I'll be thinking, "Buddy, why are you doing this to yourself? You're so much better at worldbuilding. Lead with that!"

I get what you are saying, so maybe it's just the particular example.

With roleplaying, you don't have to be an actor who has his voice choke up as tears run down your face. You can just describe the king as being teary eyed, with his voice choking up for a few seconds before he can continue on. And then speak with a relatively normal voice as you roleplay the king asking the group to rescue his daughter's best friend's cat.

The idea that if you aren't a DM who is capable of an Oscar winning performance and can evoke the strong emotion involved in order to roleplay a teary eyed king scene is ridiculous. You don't need to have a great strength in that sort of RP to do scenes like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think I have gone into much detail about how much time I expect to spend on this beyond "some."

Well, certainly you're saying it needs more than what I've claimed it needs.

Yes. But then they will care, so there is no problem. And it is not necessarily about whether the characters accept the quest at all, it is about giving emotional context which will inform their attitude towards it. Is this personal or just a job? Stuff like that.

Why will they automatically care? Just because you're describing the person giving them the job? How can you decide that they care?

And this is purely mercenary motivation, and I agree there is no pressing need to roleplay to establish such. But if it is something more personal, then I think some roleplay will definitely enhance it. And I think it is usually better if the characters have motivations beyond XP and gold.

No, my character was a native of Furyondy, and his brother had been killed in a giant attack... so he was very invested in trying to stop the giants.

I did not say it is necessary. I said there are very good reasons for doing it that way.

Well, you said that anyone who doesn't do it will only ever be mediocre at GMing... so maybe let's agree that you've said "it's necessary to perform the job well".

With which I still disagree.

Then I don't really see how you are immersing in the viewpoint of your character. Yes, people's feelings can change, but here the timeline of that change is messed up due the flashback. In fiction the character was moved by the king's distress before they arrived to the dungeon, so they felt that way from the get go. But the player didn't even know that then, only later due the flashback, so they could not immerse into that or roleplay that.

To me the things you say indicate third person thinking outside of the character, where we are looking and shaping the narrative from the outside. It doesn't really make sense when we are in the first person trying to feel like being the character. Nothing wrong with that, but personally I endeavour to do and support the latter.

I'm investing in my character because I'm thinking about my character and what their motivation is, not listening to the GM give a speech that's supposed to give me the motivation needed. I prefer for my motivation to be internal.

And again, I'd like to remind you that this is about a specific instance... a specific type of circumstance where there is a prepared adventure and the expectation is that the players buy in and go on the adventure. In that case, immediacy is important to me.

It will elicit some response. Though as I am good at portraying NPCs and I know my players and their characters, I certainly can anticipate with some confidence what sort of reaction given performance will elicit.

This seems to me about you attempting to elicit specific responses from your players. If they're not really meant to be choosing how they feel, then why not just jump ahead?

I just do not really get the whole "skip the RP and get to the good stuff" attitude. The RP is the good stuff! And yeah, RPGs have other elements too, and it is more interesting if you vary things, but it just felt fundamentally wrong to me to describe such interactions somewhat pointless or inconsequential. They are not, they are the heart and soul of the game. Doesn't mean you could never start with action and have RP to establish the emotional context later, but then I'd definitely prefer it to go in that order in the world too. Like if the PCs arrive at "the adventure site" on purely mercenary reasons, but once there encounter people affected by the situation and then it becomes more personal.

I didn't describe them as somewhat pointless or inconsequential. You're taking a pretty specific argument I made and applying it far more broadly than I ever claimed.

This started when I said the following:

Count me in for getting right to the adventure. If that’s what play is meant to be about, then delaying it just seems silly. Context and character can be established as you play.

It’s never felt organic to me to do a bunch of free roleplay and only then proceed to what’s been prepared.

Now... if we're talking about a situation that's different than this... let's say a major decision point in an ongoing game where there is no set expectation of what is to happen next... where the outcome is truly up to the players and what they decide for their characters... that's something different.

But if it's the start of play and we're meant to do the thing? Let's just do the thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I get what you are saying, so maybe it's just the particular example.

With roleplaying, you don't have to be an actor who has his voice choke up as tears run down your face. You can just describe the king as being teary eyed, with his voice choking up for a few seconds before he can continue on. And then speak with a relatively normal voice as you roleplay the king asking the group to rescue his daughter's best friend's cat.

The idea that if you aren't a DM who is capable of an Oscar winning performance and can evoke the strong emotion involved in order to roleplay a teary eyed king scene is ridiculous. You don't need to have a great strength in that sort of RP to do scenes like that.

Sure, but the point is that it can be done quickly. You can narrate it. You don't have to play it out and portray a teary-eyed king or what have you.

Again, the context is for a prepared adventure that's going to happen.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but the point is that it can be done quickly. You can narrate it. You don't have to play it out and portray a teary-eyed king or what have you.

Again, the context is for a prepared adventure that's going to happen.

Why would I skip out on good roleplaying? I'm not going to just narrate the group meeting and taking the job. It's going to be roleplayed out to the benefit of everyone at the table. We like roleplaying, so we aren't going to just have a quick narration and end up in front of the hill giant compound.

That applies to prepared adventures every bit as much as improvised ones.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a deep, personal discussion, and it's a lot more subjective than it's being presented as. I think there's room out there for all kinds of DMs.

I do completely agree with the notion of embracing one's strengths too. Nothing wrong with that. If the table has the most fun, which is how most of us measure whether we're doing well as a DM, when you're concentrating on your strengths, then why stop? If something works, by all means, keep doing it!

I don't disagree in principal, but I maintain its really, really easy for a fair bit of self-deception to creep in even on a well-meaning GM's part on whether his weaknesses are harming the game he's running or not (or even what those weaknesses are). And no, you can't count on his players letting him know, since there's a fair amount of pushback in the hobby on players doing that, and even if the current one doesn't react in a hostile fashion to that, they're often not the only GM a player has ever had to deal with, and habits are habits.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why will they automatically care? Just because you're describing the person giving them the job? How can you decide that they care?

I can't decide it. But it is a difference of people watching a sad scene in film or just being told "now pretend to be sad." The chances are the former will produce far more genuine feeling than the latter. And it does not need to be any specific feeling, but some feeling.

Well, you said that anyone who doesn't do it will only ever be mediocre at GMing... so maybe let's agree that you've said "it's necessary to perform the job well".

With which I still disagree.

Mediocre GM thing was about incapability or unwillingness to portray convincing NPCs in general. Not necessarily in this specific instance.

I'm investing in my character because I'm thinking about my character and what their motivation is, not listening to the GM give a speech that's supposed to give me the motivation needed. I prefer for my motivation to be internal.

But how can you think about it consistently if new emotional context is introduced retroactively? Also, this is a RPG, a group activity, so whilst you decide the internal state of your character, it is done as a reaction to the contributions of the other participants.

And again, I'd like to remind you that this is about a specific instance... a specific type of circumstance where there is a prepared adventure and the expectation is that the players buy in and go on the adventure. In that case, immediacy is important to me.


This seems to me about you attempting to elicit specific responses from your players. If they're not really meant to be choosing how they feel, then why not just jump ahead?


I didn't describe them as somewhat pointless or inconsequential. You're taking a pretty specific argument I made and applying it far more broadly than I ever claimed.

This started when I said the following:

And my response was an explanation of why some people might not want to do that.

Now... if we're talking about a situation that's different than this... let's say a major decision point in an ongoing game where there is no set expectation of what is to happen next... where the outcome is truly up to the players and what they decide for their characters... that's something different.

But if it's the start of play and we're meant to do the thing? Let's just do the thing.

Yes, it of course if even more important in crucial decision points. But it is just that I think a lot of things work better if you spend some time establishing the context. Like if the crucial decision point is whether your character will betray their master in order to save the life of their friend, then that has far more weight and resonance if we have actually spent some time roleplaying the character's relationship with their master and their friend.

Like you do you and all that. I am just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm reminded of this gem from the D&D Memes Thread.