Worst game I ever ran.

[Gargoyle]

Some good advice in the thread, I don't have much to add except some generic DM tips that helped me out more than anything when I started:

1. Keep the game moving along.
2. If you make a mistake, try to err on the side of the PC's.
3. Give the PC's as much freedom as you can to succeed or fail.
4. It's better to improvise than to over-prepare.
5. Make sure that the game is fun for you too, otherwise it won't be any fun for anybody else.

 

[ahayford]

I don't like this approach to DMing. I think of it as "moving the goalposts".

In your case, if the players think Random Harmless NPC #23 is the BBEG, maybe he IS the evil guy after all. So the difficulty of the campaign is set to "easy".

The way other people do it (worse, I think) is if the players figure out the BBEG's secret identity correctly, change the background so it was really Random Harmless NPC #23 all along, just to string out the story/so the players can't "win" too earlier. Setting the difficulty to "rat bastard DM/unwinnable".

Well like any tool....it has its place. The trick is not overuse it. Sometimes your PC's come up with great ideas that you didn't think of. My point was more to not be afraid to change things up if you feel like your PC's are headed in an interesting direction that you didn't expect/intend that to always bend to your PCs whims.

 

[Vegepygmy]

ok, so first to all of you that think this was a rail road... why would I let them avoid 2 encounters (one of witch was suppose to lead to a major event) if I was railroading?

I don't know, but why would you describe encounter #2 as "an rp encounter, and the PCs would make a new ally" if you weren't?

(I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that your choice of words certainly makes it look like there were some rails there.)

 

[olshanski]

ok, so first to all of you that think this was a rail road... why would I let them avoid 2 encounters (one of witch was suppose to lead to a major event) if I was railroading?

I think it looks railroady because of your own descriptions.

encounter 2-this was an rp encounter, and the PCs would make a new ally.

Even before the encounter started you have planned what the party will do (roleplay), and what the result will be (make an ally).

encounter 3- a skill challange and combat togather...a spirit of the land wants to ask for help, and as she is there curropted by the cycst spirits attack them both.

This doesn't sound like a railroad, until I hear your reaction to it:

But the PCs didn;t trust here and kept threatning her and pulled weapons, and until I stop the game thought she was a bad guy setting them up.

The fact that you consider this a problem, and had to stop the game, you were railroading. If you were not railroading you would have just gone with the flow... so the party didn't trust her and threatened her? Is that so bad? the players are blundering along... that's pretty much business as usual. The fact that you felt you had to "stop the game" means that you felt things had gone off the rails and needed to be corrected. This is a symptom of railroading.

what do you think? what did I do wrong, how do I improve?

I think you need to be less married to your plans, or plan for more options. Consider that every encounter could be combat/negotiation/skill, and be prepared to live with the results of the players actions. You only provide dramatic elements, let the players decide how those elements fit together.

Also, I'm not saying you are a bad DM. Everyone is guilty of a little railroading or having too set of expectations of the PCs from time to time. I think you are probably a good DM (since you recognize a problem), and with a little work could easily be a great DM.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the anger is from the PC death. It happens, but sometimes players get upset.

You just have to move on.

I also don't think it was too railroady myself. Like you said, you adapted to their actions for the most part.

 

[kitsune9]

what do you think? what did I do wrong, how do I improve?

Sometimes, it's just a matter of taste. From reading on your post, it doesn't sound like you did anything wrong. The adventure just didn't jive with the players. It happens.

I ran one adventure where one of the players was a noble who was severely deep in debt. There was a quest that was needed to get her family restored to seek out a flying ship in a fortress inside a volcano. After the adventure was over, one of the players just hated it. It wasn't over the encounters, the treasure, or the other players, he simply didn't like the storyline. It happens at times.

 

[haakon1]

This doesn't sound like a railroad, until I hear your reaction to it: The fact that you consider this a problem, and had to stop the game, you were railroading. If you were not railroading you would have just gone with the flow... so the party didn't trust her and threatened her? Is that so bad? the players are blundering along... that's pretty much business as usual. The fact that you felt you had to "stop the game" means that you felt things had gone off the rails and needed to be corrected. This is a symptom of railroading.

Good point.

I think you need to be less married to your plans, or plan for more options.
. . .
Also, I'm not saying you are a bad DM. Everyone is guilty of a little railroading or having too set of expectations of the PCs from time to time.

I'm not sure I agree with your implication that even the slightest hint of railroading is bad.

If that were true, then any Adventure Path -- or any campaign that's not a seat-of-the-pants improv sandbox -- would be at least a partially bad campaign, because it's not completely free player choice every second.

Generally, I think DM's need to plan encounters and need to get the PC's to the site of X adventure. That's not railroading, it's getting on with game, as I've always seen it run, as least.

What annoys me when the two following scenarios are both decried here as bad DM railroading:

a) "Railroading" as the DM drags the players around by the nose and micromanages them. E.g., they must befriend the Spirit of the Land, 'cause it's cool or because it's the only way to beat the BBEG, and he "must" be defeated.

b) "Railroading" by the evil-bad DM buying/building a scenario and wanting the players to play it.

If I as DM say: "So your mentor's wife is waiting for you at the tavern when you come back from your shopping, and she looks very upset. She takes you aside, away from other guests at the tavern, and says your mentor may have been kidnapped, as he's been missing for two days. She asks you to investigate."

Then I expect you as a player to say (OOC: oh, here's the adventure hook, goody, let's play) and in character something like: "Does she know where he was last seen? Did he have any enemies?"

As in, do improv right and go with building a story together, rather than shutting it down and killing the story. If you are there to play D&D, by all means go ahead and play some D&D.

If the player chooses to react to that lead-in by saying, "No, ignore the wife, let's go wandering around some more for no reason" or "Let's shove around the Commoners in the bar to prove we're tougher than them", or some other not-getting-on-with-the-adventure approach, I'm going to be annoyed because the player is wasting everyone's time.

So if you say my (b) scenario is railroading and wrongbadfun, I have to disagree. If you don't say that, then nevermind.

 

[the Jester]

Alot of people seem to be making an assumption about encounter 3.

GM said 'So I had to go out of game and say "Guys, she is one of the last not corrupted" before they got it'

He didnt say: 'You guys are supposed to be friends with this spirit'

He had to stop the game because there was an extreme disconnect between what he was saying and what the players were understanding. He didnt tell them what they were supposed to do, but that what they thought was going on was not correct in a rather extreme manner.

His description of the encounter (quoted below) makes it pretty clear that he basically told the pcs, "Hey, she's a good guy!" instead of letting them make their own choice about how to interact with her; from his description, they had all the info they needed to make a decision, made it, then had the dm "Nuh-uh!" it.

It is sort of like this:

Player 1:'We are low on supplies and magic, I dont think we can take out a red dragon'
Player 2:'I agree, I would rather risk the werewolves in the forest than try to take out a dragon in a city'
Player 3:'No one has survived a night in the forest in 30 years, and it would violate the Fang treaty'
Player 1:'Well, we will teach them not to mess with us if they have a problem with us camping for the night'
Player 2:'Yeah, and we can sell the pelts to that lich in charge of Blackmoor for alot of cash!'
Player 4:'Yeah! Lets do it!'

Now, do you have your campaign turn into a massive war between the werewolves and the humans, with the players hated by everyone for stupidly starting a war, or do you go:

DM:'Dudes, I said the Red Dragon INN.....'

But that's different. In this case, the pcs already had the information. They just interpreted it differently than the dm preferred; the dm basically stopped the game to say, "You're doing it wrong."

Think of your example instead like this:

Player 1:'We are low on supplies and magic, I dont think we should attack the Red Dragon Inn'
Player 2:'I agree, I would rather risk the werewolves in the forest than try to take out an innfull of bandits'
Player 3:'No one has survived a night in the forest in 30 years, and it would violate the Fang treaty'
Player 1:'Well, we will teach them not to mess with us if they have a problem with us camping for the night'
Player 2:'Yeah, and we can sell the pelts to that lich in charge of Blackmoor for alot of cash!'
Player 4:'Yeah! Lets do it!'

The pcs have the information, and they choose to do something other than follow the dm's expectations.

ok, so first to all of you that think this was a rail road... why would I let them avoid 2 encounters (one of witch was suppose to lead to a major event) if I was railroading?

Your descriptions make it sound that way. You have each encounter already pegged as a roleplaying encounter or a combat encounter or a skill challenge instead of just being a situation that the pcs can/may need to respond to, or at least that's how it read from your initial post.

the spirits of the land I had to go out of game for becuse none of them where at all on the same page as me... so I had to clarafy.

More info: She appear as a beutifal half elf dressed in skimpy silk cloths but with eladrin eyes. She spoke sweetly and quitely but her voice carried. She had no weapons and introduced her self as one of the last of the ture sand spirits. When they asked to make insight rolls they identfiyed she was not aggressive or a threat. When they rolled arcane they figured out she was similar to a nymph or dryad but for sand. She offered help and information and got an intimadate check and a gun (we have house rule flint locks) waved at her.
when she said she could sense true heroes in them and they would not shoot her other party memebers pulled out guns and bows and sai "wanna bet"

It doesn't sound like your pcs are very interested in being true heroes at all. Perhaps that is part of the problem. They had (from your description) very clear information from which to decide their actions, but when you didn't like their choice, you stopped the game to "correct" it for them.

Part of the joy of playing D&D is making stupid decisions and dealing with the consequences of them.

It would be a different beast entirely, IMHO, if they had not had clear information from which to make a decision.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

His description of the encounter (quoted below) makes it pretty clear that he basically told the pcs, "Hey, she's a good guy!" instead of letting them make their own choice about how to interact with her; from his description, they had all the info they needed to make a decision, made it, then had the dm "Nuh-uh!" it.

so to recap you belive that a DM should never clearafy when communication breaks down, or inform players of info there characters are smart enough to put togather?

But that's different. In this case, the pcs already had the information. They just interpreted it differently than the dm preferred; the dm basically stopped the game to say, "You're doing it wrong."

I did no such thing, if Kurt wanted to kill the spirit fine, but His high insight character who is always the first to put things togather deserves the benfit of the doubt and to be given what his character should know.

It doesn't sound like your pcs are very interested in being true heroes at all. Perhaps that is part of the problem. They had (from your description) very clear information from which to decide their actions,

the game was pitched as heros, I told them the only prereq was heros...and for umteen levels (we started at 1) they have been the heros. They are risking there lives to get 5 crystals that are the only way to stop a far realm invasion by invunrable super solders.

but when you didn't like their choice, you stopped the game to "correct" it for them.

I stoped the game to remind them what was going on.

Part of the joy of playing D&D is making stupid decisions and dealing with the consequences of them.

It would be a different beast entirely, IMHO, if they had not had clear information from which to make a decision.

so should I tell people with high perception what they see and hear? should I tell people with high history about the past of the world? Should I tell people with high religon what they know about my gods? If so what is diffrent about telling someone with a high Insight what there insight should tell them?

I never gave a PC and action, I did stop one to inform him of what his character knows, then let him choose to knowingly kill a good NPC...


edit: I am asking for help, and maybe I should be more greatful, but I can not see the game that went so far away from anything i ecpected as a railroad game seson... again, not one thing went as planed, and everyone hated it. Normaly they throw me a curve or two but I can guess how they will react to most things, and when things go left in one place we find things from there continue fine.

 

[ahayford]

The problem here is that you are hearing from 2 types of DMs....those that only run sandbox style games, and see them as the way dnd should be played....and those that run a game iwth a more directed plot like an adventure path.