kroh
Supporter
Posts: 132
|
Post by kroh on Jan 13, 2015 23:03:02 GMT -8
Hey... How about those dice!
I think that the idea of Railroading can also come on the part of the players. How many times have we heard about the RPG player that treats the game like their personal sitcom. We have the HJRP Con game where the PC punched an NPC in the face and had to face the music or the Portal discussion which was brought up again on this episode. This is just A player Hijacking a game just to be a dick or for the sake of treating the game like their own personal copy of Grand Theft Auto - Dungeon City Blues. How many times have we witnessed a player (who is the spitting image of the comic book guy from the Simpsons) who drolls on about his fairy princes warrior who would or wouldn't do item A because of Reason B (which then spoils the game for the rest of the group). In one of my own games, We had a guy who played as fighter who if some one insulted him, he would kill them. This worked out OK for him against the peasantry but against nobles... our GM PuNiShEd us for allowing him to behave that way.
About Roll20: Can't say enough good things.
Regards, Walt
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on Jan 14, 2015 9:22:12 GMT -8
We cracked open some of the easyrollerdice.com dice at Monday's game. The dice bags are well made, and of a decent size. The dice were great. The 105 dice package is 15 7-die sets. Full sets, none of this "We sent you 100 dice and 30 of them were d4s" other companies send you. They do feel a little lighter than some other brands, but overall, it's a fantastic deal.
Maybe when I get mine, I'll do some durability tests.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Roper on Jan 14, 2015 11:40:56 GMT -8
Based on what happened in our game this past Monday, these dice bring on THE DRAMA!
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jan 14, 2015 12:20:02 GMT -8
Based on what happened in our game this past Monday, these dice bring on THE DRAMA! Can't wait to hear about it
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jan 14, 2015 12:59:47 GMT -8
So one thing you guys touched on, and I think needs to be discussed more when it comes to linear stories, is that yes-and can be just as railroading as no-butting. If we've defined railroading by having the player's choices not matter, being too loose with yes-and can lead to choices not mattering.
Let's examine the example of needing an audience with the king. Instead of getting a letter of introduction, they sneak in with the entertainment, and wait in the Kings private study for him to show up. If you treat that player choice the same as you would have if they handed the King a letter of introduction and gone though the proper channels, I'd argue that you are railroading the story. If it doesn't matter HOW the players meet with the King, and all roads lead to the same conversation, then player choice does not matter. Choices players make only matter when they have consequence consistent to the tone and logic of the world. Sometimes the consequence of sneaking into the castle when you're a third level adventurer with no name for yourself if you get your party thrown the fuck into a dungeon for making a really terrible decision.
Similarly, I see no problem with there being one solution to a problem. A demon gets summoned and can only be killed with a weapon foraged out off the metal used in the summoning circle that brought it into the world. The party is free to go try anything they want to defeat the demon. They're free to ignore the demon and let it pillage the world. But don't think the GM should Yes-Anding in another way to defeat the demon just because the players don't want to forge a sword.
Furthermore I agree with the email. There's nothing wrong with "Go to the king. The king will tell you where the Iron of Summoning is because he's actually an ex-cultist and he's the only one who knows where it is. Take the Iron to a master sword smith. Make Sword. Fight demon."
That's as linear as lines get. Players don't really have too many options in there. If they try and forge the sword themselves, and they have no idea how to do it, or how to enchant magical blades, do you let them simply because they didn't want to seek out Dwarfy McPlotHammer?
So is the above situation railroady? You're not forcing your players to do anything. They are just as free to ignore the World Stomping Demon as they are to try and beat it.
Would you feel the need to come up with alternative ways to defeat the Demon based on what your players planned on doing? Would you allow them to take a journey into Hell and try and sever the Demon's connection with whatever abyssal blah blah plot mcguffin energy source, rendering it vulnerable on the material plane?
Player choice not mattering is a two way door. When the GM doesn't let the players do things or be awesome because it might steer the plot off the rails, that's what we think of as railroading. But similarly, a lack of in game consequence for player choices is just as railroady.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 14, 2015 14:31:25 GMT -8
We can futz around with the definition of railroading, but GMing so there is no consequence to players' decisions is not it. It's bad, and we can come up with a name for it, but let's come up with something besides railroading. This hobby has enough problems with definitions of terms as it is.
How about a catbox? A play on sandbox. You can make stuff in it, but why would you want to?
|
|
kroh
Supporter
Posts: 132
|
Post by kroh on Jan 14, 2015 14:33:12 GMT -8
Plus, no one wants what is eventually put into a catbox
|
|
|
Post by Bill Roper on Jan 14, 2015 18:49:47 GMT -8
Let's examine the example of needing an audience with the king. Instead of getting a letter of introduction, they sneak in with the entertainment, and wait in the Kings private study for him to show up. If you treat that player choice the same as you would have if they handed the King a letter of introduction and gone though the proper channels, I'd argue that you are railroading the story. If it doesn't matter HOW the players meet with the King, and all roads lead to the same conversation, then player choice does not matter. Choices players make only matter when they have consequence consistent to the tone and logic of the world. Sometimes the consequence of sneaking into the castle when you're a third level adventurer with no name for yourself if you get your party thrown the fuck into a dungeon for making a really terrible decision. I believe I addressed this idea during the conversation, but if not, here goes. They could absolutely sneak in with the entertainment and wait in the King's study - I would "Yes, and..." the hell out of that. HOWEVER, there would be serious consequence to them doing that. Could they possibly talk their way back to meeting their original intent for the meeting? Maybe. But THAT might take a LOT to accomplish because they would be viewed as a physical threat to the King! What happened next would depend on what the original intent of the meeting was, who the characters are, and so on. There MAY be a way for the players to get back to a version of the same conversation, but even as a best case, they would NOT have the SAME conversation they would have had if they came in with the letter of introduction.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 15, 2015 12:43:27 GMT -8
Plus, no one wants what is eventually put into a catbox You don't have pet dogs I am guessing . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 15, 2015 12:57:25 GMT -8
That's the dog version of Almond Roca.
|
|
kroh
Supporter
Posts: 132
|
Post by kroh on Jan 15, 2015 13:13:45 GMT -8
Plus, no one wants what is eventually put into a catbox You don't have pet dogs I am guessing . . . Aaron I do... and she does it out of spite... not because it tastes good...
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 16, 2015 2:32:57 GMT -8
You don't have pet dogs I am guessing . . . Aaron I do... and she does it out of spite... not because it tastes good... FF to 0.53 It's not spite, it's desire Aaron
|
|
kroh
Supporter
Posts: 132
|
HJRP1405
Jan 16, 2015 2:35:19 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by kroh on Jan 16, 2015 2:35:19 GMT -8
Bwahahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 16, 2015 3:56:49 GMT -8
In defense of those early ADnD modules. Many were written for convention play which, the hosts have admitted beforehand, lends itself to a more linear structure of game witha significant amount of player buy in - compared to campaign play. Those early modules that were not written for convention play always had notes and areas inside that were "left to the individual DM to create/expand so as to tailor to his/her own campaign". The Village of Hommelet - the details of many of the other villagers, including their names, were up to the DM. The DM was also encouraged to add intrigues. eg: 'Black Jay' the herdsman whose 'wife and children were slain while he was away at the wars' (which wars?, which side?, who slew them?, why?). In this modules it was entirely up to the DM to provide plot hooks for the players to be there and to provide adequate motivation to explore the Moathouse. Sinister Secret of SaltMarsh - well ALL of Saltmarsh is left to the DM to create, all you got was the manor house and the rumors in town pointing in that direction. Plot hooks? yes, railtracks? no. The Secret of Bone Hill - a 'campaign' module. Lendore Isle was described, areas noted and detailed and various 'goings-on' alluded to. What happens next depended on the DM and his/her players. Descent in the Depths - entire swaths of it were left for the DM to create . . . and with no guarantee the players would 'stay on course' except for a rough map they find. Demon Web Pits - the DM was given a brief paragraph detailing various alternate Prime Material Planes, which were then handed over to the DM to 'create' with nothing to stop the players avoiding the main plot hook by side trekking into one of these worlds - the only 'railroad/catbox' in the original text: " . . . Because each world could be of great size, the DM may not wish to have players exploring these worlds. In such a case, the DM may suggest to players, "It doesn't look like Lolth lives here" or give some other discouraging clue" The 'old modules' were either level appropriate sand boxes providing the DM with a framework from which to hang his/her intended story, or linear 'crawls' designed to played within 4 hours at a convention. By the time you get to ADnD 2e modules HAVE changed . . . from simple adventures/encounters to an emphasis on 'story'. These modules could be claimed to railroady, because they 'had a story to tell' whether the players liked it or not. They were often NOT dungeon crawls as the hobby believed, as it does again now, that it had 'matured' from those 'early' 1e days. The progenitor of this style of play was the original DragonLance series (admittedly released for 1e) . . . I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I never liked DragonLance - not because of the world of Krynn (which was very clever) or the 'Story' (which was a good novel and would make a great TV series) but because of the way it would give the DM the tools to keep 'the story' intact in spite of the players. That is, certain PC's and Villains 'could not die' until certain story conditions were met . . . the DM was given an array of tools to bring these people 'back' until 'the story' said it was okay for them to be defeated. IMHO This series did a great disservice to scenario design, literally a 'how not to' of campaign creation . . . it's only saving grace was the rich world they had created to frame their story. Interestingly its these old 1e modules that get the most interest and nostalgia compared to the 2e ones - you will find many more fan made conversions of 1e modules to 3.x than you will find 2e modules on the internets. I imagine the same will be true of 5e as well . . . When it comes to criticizing old modules the only one that ever seems to get mentioned (or seems to have been read by everyone) is the 'Tomb of Horrors'. It's supposed to be a killer tournament/convention play module which was co-opted as a commercial release because the game had 'taken off' and there was a huge demand (ie: exceeding TSR's ability to create new material) for new DM's. It was probably a mistake as it was a high level killer module, more appropriate to ending a campaign/character story than starting one. I get rather annoyed at 'shit' being hung on the 'old modules' when many of 'those modules' have either never been read by the persons commenting or were read soooooo long ago that time has distorted their recollection. The content, as opposed to the production values (size, artwork), of 'old modules' versus 'contemporary adventure paths' has altered very little . . . with the 'contemporary adventure paths' reading more like the linear branching story trees in common with CRPG's and being distinguished as providing more detail/depth (ie: constraints) due to the sheer physical size of these volumes. The 'old modules' were scant, bareboned, poorly illustrated with crappy maps - what most people probably recall are the crappy DM's that ran them as teenagers . . . DM's that misread the marketing hype on the back claiming it to be 'a complete adventure' and thus assumed that they wouldn't have to create anything. Thus when these teenaged players 'stepped outside the box' you got the birth of such insane concepts as 'wandering damage' from teenage DM's. Yes, the adventure idea was 'complete' as an 'idea' but the rest of it, of which there would be a significant amount, depended on the DM . . . Aaron
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jan 16, 2015 7:10:32 GMT -8
"What I assume must be filthy, filthy genitals..." (I just about wet myself with that one Kainguru). Well done. A game where the players actions have no consequences ? Doing a Dallas ? (This extremely dated 1986 american reference involves an entire pivotal plot line in a shitty television drama being all just a dream).
|
|