You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

Yes, I know what your assumptions are Hussar. Let's just drop this. I'm tired of it. I have tried to be very concrete and give examples from adventures, from stories, from other media, and from my own campaign as to why those meta reasons are the least important ones. I never really expected you to be sympathetic to the issues the meta reasons raise. And I'm tired of trying to parse your empty replies. There are ten thousand other things I could be doing with my free time.

Ok, fair enough, let's go through the other list then.

a) The desert contains valuable clues about point B. This could be all sorts of things like ruins built by the same civilization, which in turn have writings or frescos depicting elements of point B or tell you things about point B's history.

Oh, good, setting wank. I would miss this. Why are you railroading me to force me to see this.

b) The desert contains widgets which will be useful when at point B.

I would miss these. Why are you railroading me to force me to find these?

c) The desert introduces monsters or themes which will later be expanded on when you reach B.

I would miss these. Why are we being railroaded into encounters? I thought the players had control over the action in your game.

d) The desert introduces factions which control or occupy point B.

And we will meet that faction when we arrive at point B. Why are we being railroaded into meeting them earlier?

e) The desert contains allies which will help you in your mission in point B by providing clues, resources, or direct aid.

And we would lack these resources. We might even fail. Such is life. But, then again, WE the players decided to bull through and not spend time in the desert. Why are we being railroaded into meeting potential allies? If we wanted potential allies, shouldn't we be the ones to initiate that action?

f) An opposing faction has prepared ambushes in the desert to prevent you from reaching point B.

And, considering that I'm traveling far faster than anything else that isn't flying, since I can make the summoned creature move at a dead run until it dies, then spend 6 seconds and summon another one, I guess we skip over those ambushes. Again, why are we being railroaded into encounters?

IOW, the only reason you have for forcing the group to play this out is to railroad them into encounters. After all, if they don't play this out and simply hand wave the trip, then all these reasons cease to matter don't they? The only reason you refuse to hand wave things is because you want to run encounter/scenarios between point A and B. The players don't want to. They just want to get to point B, because that's where their goal is.

 

[pemerton]

I've had bad sessions several times. Mostly its been to under preparation on my part. You plan 1 clue instead of 3, or 3 clues instead of 5, you don't create enough plot threads, events and NPCs to fill up dead time, and your PC's lose the plot and suddenly you've got dead air. The players are confused. They don't know what they should do next. They try repeating prior conversations with NPC's to see if they missed something. They head out in unexpected directions because they don't have any better ideas. Things aren't going as planned and players are starting to tune out, and you are wracking your brain for what to create extemporaneously that will get things moving again. It happens. Fortunately, it doesn't happen often.

This is enough to indicate to me that your approach to RPGing is quite different from mine. Most of my GMing is extemporaneous, based around a few basic ideas about backstory and situation. And if the players can't agree what to have their PCs do next, I will either kibitz with them at the meta-level (which also plays a subtle incharacter role too, of me as GM RPing their inner hopes and desires, as I remind them of the stakes of the various alternatives in play), or frame some new scene that ups the stakes or introduces some new complication or otherwise gets things moving.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>


It's baffling to me, this thread is. What have I really done here? All I've said to the DM is, "Hey, Mr. DM, this situation that you've put in front of us? Not really feeling the love. Can we just skip it and move on?" With the expectation that we would, in fact, move on.

The reaction to that has been an endless stream of insults and questions about my ability to role play. Constant shots about how I should stick to video games and not pollute the one true way of gaming. And the worst part is, there are other DM's here agreeing with it. It's mind boggling to me.

Do you really hold this level of control and power trip over your players? That if they express a liking for a different sort of playstyle, you belittle and berate them and kick them out of the group? Seriously? Look at the automatic presumptions coming out here - I'm whiney and only trying to spoil everyone's fun. Constant appeals to how the rest of the group feels, with the automatic assumption that I'm the odd man out here. It's just too bizarre.

If the player attempts to signal me inside the game by using an ability, it will generally fail. I don't look for signals like that. If the player is summoning a centipede for a mount, I'll assume they want the actualise a visual scene they have in their head or they think that a mount of that particular style will be advantageous. The scene continues with an untrained exotic mount with all that implies in the game setting and rules.

If a player asks at the meta-game level if the group can skip ahead, I may ask the group if that's everyone's desire and if there is consensus, skip ahead. I may not. There can be al sorts of consequential reasons I need more input from the group from the current circumstance and skipping ahead is not an option. In any event, no player should have an expectation that such a request will be granted.

I've certainly sat with a player who was exhibiting a desire to play a game I wasn't willing to run and suggested that he leave the game, yes. Sometimes the best solution for different desires is to part company. That way I can run a game I and the others at the table enjoy and the player has the opportunity to find something he would enjoy more. If everyone at the table wants a different game then either I'll leave and find players that want the game I want to run or stop running and let someone else take up the DM mantle. If, as a player, I find myself in a game that I want run differently, I look for compromise and if not forthcoming, leave.

 

[Nagol]

Ok, fair enough, let's go through the other list then.



Oh, good, setting wank. I would miss this. Why are you railroading me to force me to see this.

You may miss it; others may not. Either way, it is not railroading for the DM to say "If you want to get from here to there, we'll play the game. You can go do other things if you like, but to get there you have to go through this." It's about as much railroading as a closed door is railroading.

I would miss these. Why are you railroading me to force me to find these?

See above.

I would miss these. Why are we being railroaded into encounters? I thought the players had control over the action in your game.

See above.

And we will meet that faction when we arrive at point B. Why are we being railroaded into meeting them earlier?

See above.

And we would lack these resources. We might even fail. Such is life. But, then again, WE the players decided to bull through and not spend time in the desert. Why are we being railroaded into meeting potential allies? If we wanted potential allies, shouldn't we be the ones to initiate that action?

Well, no. You as a player want the skip the whole journey with a stipulation that "and now we get there". If the characters want to bull through and ignore any clues, other possible scenarios, and resources that's OK. But the players have no reason to expect a pass to get there unscathed, unscarred, and unknowing.

And, considering that I'm traveling far faster than anything else that isn't flying, since I can make the summoned creature move at a dead run until it dies, then spend 6 seconds and summon another one, I guess we skip over those ambushes. Again, why are we being railroaded into encounters?

Because you have no freaking idea what resources the ambushers have? Maybe they can summon a sandstorm and ride inside? Maybe they travel under the sand? Maybe they are telepathic insects that can coordinate a ambush deeper in the desert based on your direction of travel?

IOW, the only reason you have for forcing the group to play this out is to railroad them into encounters. After all, if they don't play this out and simply hand wave the trip, then all these reasons cease to matter don't they? The only reason you refuse to hand wave things is because you want to run encounter/scenarios between point A and B. The players don't want to. They just want to get to point B, because that's where their goal is.

No. Having the players engage the game allows the players further data and insight into their circumstance and allows them to adjust their goals, strategy, and tactics based upon what they see, interact with, and how they interpret the environment's response. It also tests their readiness and preparation against the environment. Who says that you'll survive to reach your destination, anyway?

 

[pemerton]

You can go do other things if you like, but to get there you have to go through this.

<snip>

the players have no reason to expect a pass to get there unscathed, unscarred, and unknowing.

<snip>

Having the players engage the game allows the players further data and insight into their circumstance and allows them to adjust their goals, strategy, and tactics based upon what they see, interact with, and how they interpret the environment's response. It also tests their readiness and preparation against the environment. Who says that you'll survive to reach your destination, anyway?

Nagol, normally I can follow your posts very easily but on this occasion I'm a bit lost. Are you trying to show that exploratory play is feasible? Or that it is mandatory?

I'm not sure it's in dispute that it is feasible - there is a certainly a style of play in which any passage of time or change in circumstances of the PCs requires invoking the action resolution mechanics (ie "scene framing" in the robust sense is not permitted), and in which players are expected to subordinate their goals and modulate them in response to the outcomes of exploration-oriented play (which will be engendered in large doses by the continuous resolution approach to the passage of ingame time).

But surely you're not saying that playing in such a way is mandatory? I mean, it is completely viable to play an RPG in which the GM is expected to accomodate setting and situation to the players' declared goals, rather than vice versa - in which case exploration per se is relatively unimportant, and having to go through this to get that will happen ony when both this and that resonate with the player(s) in question.

 

[Nagol]

I'm saying that if the table is engaged in exploratory play then it becomes mandatory. Hussar's descriptions of the scene lead me to expect the DM was trying for exploratory play -- terrain in the first case and attitudes, personalities, and motivations in the second.

If the game is not exploratory then summoning a beast to ride upon is either stage dressing (actualising an internal vision) or prepping an asset for future scenes. Crossing a desert in non-exploratory play is pretty much either "Fine we do so" or skipping from non-exploratory scene to non-exploratory scene.

If you're staying in the scene the GM has a reason. In an exploratory game's case that reason is obvious. If the game is non-exploratory and the scene isn't transitory then it exists for a purpose. Just because a player is not engaged with one particular situation dosn't mean the scene needs to be skipped. Skipping the scene can still be refused because the aspects of play being engaged hinge on something happening in the current situation.

Perhaps as the characters lose sight of evrything but desert, the skeleton of a member of another character's lost parent's last expedition will be found -- and a more natural unfolding is desired.

Perhaps the situation in the desert is balanced on a knife edge and the characters presence will tip the balance regardless of action -- but which way will the characters let it fall?

Perhaps other characters have personal demons to wrestle with as part of the crossing?

 

[N'raac]

So, when the DM rams these scenes down my throat, forcing me to play through them, despite my expressly stated wishes that I don't want to do this, what compromise is the DM showing?

Explain what I have missed. What I see is that the PC’s want to get from point A to point B. There is a desert between point A and point B, so the PC’s need to cross the desert. One character summons a bizarre mount to cross the desert. The DM then says “Cool – OK, how are you saddling this beast up? And what are your Ride skills.” IOW, let’s figure out how the mechanics of this will work. The player then says “No, I just want to be across the desert with no further gameplay”. Why? How has the journey across the desert been established to be something that will bore you to tears? It seems the issue is more one of impatience to leap immediately to the endgame than one of boredom and disinterest.

I would be far more irked if the DM spent half an hour going through our preparations to ride the giant centipede, then said “After four bumpy days riding a giant centipede you arrive at the other side of the desert” than if there were engaging encounters in the course of that travel.


If I take your “What is the Goal” approach through source material, how much of the story do we skip?

“I don’t want to go through 6 years of education – I want to fight Lord Voldemort NOW!”

“Travel through Mordor? I don’t want to play out the travel – I want to face the final confrontation at Mount Doom NOW!”

“What’s this Death Star in our way? I don’t care what the old guy senses. You already wasted WAY too much of my valuable time with those stupid aliens, having to actually TALK to the pilot and copilot we wanted to recruit and listen to his descriptions of his spaceship. We just want to hire him, pay him and have him disappear.”

I mean, in real life, when you hire someone to paint your house, do you ask them personal questions about their backgrounds and goals in life? I certainly don't. I get their name, pay the money and that's about it. I couldn't really care less. So, why would my character really care about these guys? They are there to do a job, get paid and go away.

In real life, the housepainter has a storefront, a business history and likely provides a quote up front. And we still see lots of people at the Better Business Bureau reporting how they got ripped off.

But in general, I can think of tons of reasons why the desert crossing is important:

a) The desert contains valuable clues about point B. This could be all sorts of things like ruins built by the same civilization, which in turn have writings or frescos depicting elements of point B or tell you things about point B's history.
b) The desert contains widgets which will be useful when at point B.
c) The desert introduces monsters or themes which will later be expanded on when you reach B.
d) The desert introduces factions which control or occupy point B.
e) The desert contains allies which will help you in your mission in point B by providing clues, resources, or direct aid.
f) An opposing faction has prepared ambushes in the desert to prevent you from reaching point B.

Oh, good, setting wank. I would miss this. Why are you railroading me to force me to see this.

I would miss these. Why are you railroading me to force me to find these?

I would miss these. Why are we being railroaded into encounters? I thought the players had control over the action in your game.

And we will meet that faction when we arrive at point B. Why are we being railroaded into meeting them earlier?

And we would lack these resources. We might even fail. Such is life. But, then again, WE the players decided to bull through and not spend time in the desert. Why are we being railroaded into meeting potential allies? If we wanted potential allies, shouldn't we be the ones to initiate that action?

Every one of these can later be turned around to say “The GM is punishing us for not crossing the desert HIS WAY! Why does every action we take get interpreted to have the worst possible consequences?” You were unhappy you even had to make ride checks on the centipede. How are you going to react when the party is wiped out by a vastly superior enemy? Will your anger be soothed when the GM says:

“Well, had you played out the trip through the desert, you would have gotten a sense of the environment, so you would have been better able to avoid the penalties from the heat, you would have had the magical gear that would have negated some of the enemy’s advantages, you would have encountered various things that would have clued you in to the resources of the Big Bad so you could have better planned to deal with them, and you would have encountered the enemies of your enemy, who could have assisted you. But you told me you didn’t want to play that out and by golly you’re the boss. So, what will you roll up for your new characters?”

You're accusing the GM of writing fanfic and forcing you to play through it, but you're also insisting on dictating the results of your character's actions and which scenes we will and will not play out for your character to shine in. That sounds a lot like character fanfic to me, rather than playing the game and interacting with the setting.

You'll make the centipede travel at a dead run, but it seems you'll moan at the villainy of the DM for suggesting that could impose a penalty on your ride checks. You just want to quickluy hire the first six guys signing up to go out and kill something, but if they don't have the abilities or gear to do the job, or they trun out not to be loyal followers cheerfully accepting the pittance you dole out to the survivors, then the GM is out to get the players for not being "railroaded" into speaking with their potential employees and making a reasoned hiring decision.

Now, if we've ground through 20 minutes of descriptions of desert dunes, or interviewed half a dozen potential hirelings with detailed family trees, then I think asking if this is actually going anywhere may be justified. But cutting the scene off at the knees before it even gets rolling? Not so much.

 

[Celebrim]

This is enough to indicate to me that your approach to RPGing is quite different from mine. Most of my GMing is extemporaneous...

Yep. And as soon as a GM says the 'e word', I'm pretty sure his approach as a GM won't appeal to me as a player. That is a much more universal marker to me than pretty much anything else. Theory, system, ideas about player vs. game master roles, they don't really distinguish tables to me. The most fundamental difference in tables in my experience is how the GM prepares to play.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, good, setting wank. I would miss this. Why are you railroading me to force me to see this...I would miss these. Why are you railroading me to force me to find these?...I would miss these. Why are we being railroaded into encounters?...Why are we being railroaded into meeting them earlier?

You have a very odd definition of a railroad. I got tired of listening to railroading being used as short hand for 'things I don't like', and so wrote a lengthy post on what a railroad actually is in this thread. Railroads depend on in my opinion particular techniques that are designed to ensure particular outcomes the GM find desirable. No where have I suggested that the desert should be designed according to any railroading techniques. Some of the things I've suggested explicitly rule out several of the techniques in my post.

By contrast, you're approach as a player to the scene is dependent on 'The Hand Wave', on reversing the role on the Literary Narration technique of providing outcome as proposition by offering proposition as outcome, Tiny World (in that your version of the in game reality is intended to contain only your destination), and the Endurium Walls technique in that you've been dead set in this thread on trying to rules lawyer this scene by arguing that a creature with speed 40 and lacking the Run feat or any other special speed enhancer (ergo, flat out this bug barely hits 20mph) can outrun anything in the desert and ergo it follows that there are never encounters. Who is triyng to railroad whom?

The fundamental assumption I have is that the players want the things that are at the destination to be both surprising and difficult. The players enjoy a mystery, they enjoy discovery, and they enjoy challenge, they want to experience and participate a story, or else they wouldn't be playing an RPG. The encounters that may or may not happen in the desert are expected to be to the players benefit and to be recieved as such, arming the players with knowledge and resources that will prepare them to meet the difficult challenges in point B. Even the tangetal and incidental encounters, what permeton calls 'the grind' provided that they don't occur too frequently are expected to be recieved with pleasure by at least some players because they provide oppurtunity to explore setting ("Look out, it's a saber toothed moose-bear!"), tend to provide oppurtunity for character spotlight ("I'm good at this!"), and involve overcoming tactical challenges. Those tend to be things that players like. Maybe not all of them. Maybe not equally. But at least somewhat. And globally, they make the world feel more organic, more fleshed out, and more real in that the same events or encounters in a different more immediately story relevant setting would feel forced. And for most players this is more satisfying. There is also a great deal of fantasy literature versimiltude in handling the game in this way, which satisfies players who are motivated to feel like they are within their favorite sort of story.

You clearly have a very different set of assumptions. Ergo, I'm quite certain neither of us would be happy with the other. I would love to hear some explanation from you though of something you've been entirely silent on in this thread. What is in 'City B' that makes you so anxious to be there 'now'? Why is it 'the fun'? And what is it that you as a player are motivated by when you are a player? You are insistant that GM's should deliver 'the fun' and let the players decide what 'the fun' is, but you've done nothing compared to what I feel I've done in this thread to explain what 'fun' is.

One of your other fundamental assumptions is that your plan to charge at the blazing speed of at most 18mph across a desert is a foolproof way to ensure nothing happens so why don't we just skip over the desert and that if the DM doesn't agree with your rulings as a player concerning the outcome of a proposition, you are being railroaded by an egotistical DM. I'm not even going to dignify that assumption with further argument.

I thought the players had control over the action in your game.

I never said that. I said players had control over their own actions in my game. No one has singular control over 'the action'.

IOW, the only reason you have for forcing the group to play this out is to railroad them into encounters. After all, if they don't play this out and simply hand wave the trip, then all these reasons cease to matter don't they? The only reason you refuse to hand wave things is because you want to run encounter/scenarios between point A and B. The players don't want to. They just want to get to point B, because that's where their goal is.

Let's pretend for a moment that I have a desert and a player has previously acquired an item or a promise from a Djinn Lord called 'Shiek over All Deserts' that gives them a one time Wish. It's the sort of thing I would do, and I referenced the concept early on. So instead of the somewhat doubtful plan involving a giant arthropod, the players offer up the much more foolproof proposition: "Guys, I'm really not into this desert thing. Let's just sumon Shiek Over All Deserts and ask him to carry us across.", and the party all thinks this is good use of the wish, and that's the proposition that is offered. Well, after at most 5 minutes of narration to satisfy how cool and powerful this proposition was, they are now at City B, and I'm going to do nothing to stop that plan. Congradulations. You've made it to City B. Chances are you are now screwed, because though I won't stop a soundly excuted plan, all the reasons I outlined about why the desert is important still apply. Based on what you said thus far, this is going to in your case at least immediately bring up a new conflict, "Why aren't you letting me win? Where is my fun! Why are we being railroaded by all these complications in City B when what we came here for to do this. I demand we be allowed to do what we came for."

In short, all your shouting about 'railroads' is covering for the fact that you as a player want director stance as the player. It's not that you don't like railroads, in fact you insist on them, but crucially so long as you are the conductor. You want to give both propositions and outcomes. That bores me on either side of the table. As a DM encountering a player who wanted both, I'd be inclined to stop playing. As player encountering a DM that wanted both, I'd be inclined to stop playing, but quite crucially, as a player encountering a DM that expects me to do both - even if he isn't explicit about it - I stop playing.

 

[Umbran]

In short, all your shouting about 'railroads' is covering for the fact that you as a player want director stance as the player. It's not that you don't like railroads, in fact you insist on them, but crucially so long as you are the conductor. You want to give both propositions and outcomes.

Can we not make this personal, please? Thanks, all.