Quote from: cranebump;935149Either way, there's a fucking wizard tower there, and, as a player in your campaign, I'd would likely not give a shit how it got there. It's there. I'll either investigate, or I won't.

The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

Yes, absolutely,  have to agree. On the original question of the tower appearing wherever's appearing, I think a GM is justified to do something like that if (1) it's part of a stockpile of prep materials (2) it makes sense within the parameters of the campaign and (3) the players ultmately make the decision to explore it. As for whether it turns out to be fun, that would remain to be seen in play. The only thing I can say about anything that pops up in my own game is about preparation. I can present a well-prepared tower excursion, and may want to, simply because it's a solid piece of prep, in my mind, and I think I will run it more consistently than something I am winging. But if PCs skirt the well-planned set piece, then I have to file it away, maybe uses elements of it in other things, if I think those elements might fit with some other thread they're tugging on.

(My players so seldom go where I think they will, even when they SAY they will, that I end up with a lot of preparation of places likely never to be seen -- I was shocked as hell last session when they actually bit on a thread that led to something I had invested a great deal of time in. But damned if they coulda used their thief that evening, and damned if he didn't cancel 15 minutes before game time. THAT turned into an interesting session...)

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299... Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

A good GM does not insist on one-sided fun. It has to be fun for the whole table. If the GM is the only one having fun, they should soon find themselves alone.

Quote from: trechriron;935301A good GM does not insist on one-sided fun. It has to be fun for the whole table. If the GM is the only one having fun, they should soon find themselves alone.

Man, this just reminded me of some dude who used to post in one of the other forums I used to haunt, I think it mighta been the official D&D discussion pages (don't think it was rpgnet). This guy went on and on about prepping every square inch of territory, and how his players love how detailed and immersive everything was, and how his table was always full, and how blahblahblahblah, the intimation being "yeah, anyone who ISN'T doing it that way is just subpar" (as HIS campaign was OBJECTIVELY superior). All the while, I kept thinking, "I don't doubt anything you say, and I doubt I would ever sit at your fucking table, because we'd have to hear the backstory on how the table legs of the dwarf king's banquet furniture were whittled from Songbark, and bathed in the tears of dead Yuan Ti." More power to the dude for prepping it ALL, but, for the love of God, man, it sure sounded like it was all about HIS world, HIS campaign, and his...well, HIS is the operative word there. (I wonder, if your PC takes a shit in his campaign, does he change the growth pattern of the undervines?)

Quote from: cranebump;935298If the players don't mind exploring the tower, regardless of how it got there, then I think you're dickery-free. If the campaign cannot move one inch forward unless you make them explore the tower, then you're dickery-infused. Regardless, if the group goes along with what you have in mind, then it doesn't really matter how anything gets anywhere. Players & GMs must meet somewhere in the middle at some point, or there's no game to be played.

I agree totally, dickology included.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935241I've brought this up mainly because of local discussion. As stated I've played both ways without issue but had a player lose his god when he discovered I had more or less 0 prepped an adventure. I had another more tactfully question possible railroading during a single session adventure. I didn't see the real difference between the two practices. You guys are great with your opinions.

Please give more info about these players and their concerns.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935213But if confronted with a Y in the road, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what lies down either path, how is it wrong to let the players choose then provide an adventure down the one they travel - regardless?

There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever. If the players have no clue what's down there, so it could be anything. From the GM's perspective, he/she can go 100% improv (rolling on tables or adlib or whatever), or 100% pre-prep drop in a site. All these are perfectly acceptable approaches.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

Fuckin' a, yeah.

If I believed for a moment the OP was an actual gamer and not a booger-eating troll, this is exactly the referee I would expect that person to be.

Quote from: cranebump;935300On the original question of the tower appearing wherever's appearing, I think a GM is justified to do something like that if (1) it's part of a stockpile of prep materials (2) it makes sense within the parameters of the campaign and (3) the players ultmately make the decision to explore it.

Quote from: Psikerlord;935332From the GM's perspective, he/she can go 100% improv (rolling on tables . . . (emphases added - BV)

Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344Fuckin' a, yeah.

If I believed for a moment the OP was an actual gamer and not a booger-eating troll, this is exactly the referee I would expect that person to be.


Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

Yeah I am a massive fan of chance encounter/random tables - you know what might be coming, but even as GM, you get to be surprised too

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

When it comes down to it, this (the bolded part) is one of the main reasons why I like to be a DM.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344still surprised by What Comes Next.

My players have told me that their favorite thing in the game is when they do something that totally stumps me as DM whereby I have no idea what should happen next and have to pause the game for a while to think through the ramifications.

On the flipside, one of the things that I hate the most about being a DM is being unable to come up with a solution when a massive curve ball smacks me in the face. Especially when, the next day, I think of an awesome way to handle it.

The worst part is when I decide to open up discussion at the table for a solution and everyone else is also stumped.

Example: at the end of a previous session, the players had agreed upon a course of action: travel through the jungle (on foot) to a ruin to find the McGuffin. Everyone had decided that they were totally up for being chased by dinosaurs, giant insects and cannibals. All of my prep was for this: maps, encounter tables, an elegant chase system, all ready.

Problem: two players had to cancel at the last minute. Since the party was smaller, the Warlock's Flight spell could carry the entire (now smaller) party to reach the ruin. The entire prep time, encounters, everything was ruined. YES, there are plenty of ways to handle this, but at the time, I had nothing NOTHING. So I just sighed, awarded them experience for such a clever solution and we played a board game instead.

Yes, I sucked as a DM that night, but that's the sort of thing that happens occasionally. I hate that.

QuoteHere's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

Indeed. We've had some great situations come up with a combination of spell failures combined with WM charts (DW's "Draw unwanted attention"). I started with randomly genreated ones from Wizardawn, then tweaked them to add internal consistency between the entries on the charts (in particular how the WM's represented larger populations, their relationships with other monsters on the list, and so on). Even just doing that has made the campaign more interesting, as some of these Wanderers are now part of the game (we've introduced a dragon in a place where I intended nothing at all, which forced me to figure out why he hadn't fried the [relatively] nearby village--I have decided they have a deal with him, regularly passing him a portion of their livestock, lest they draw its ire, and it, or its kobold minions, descend, en toto]).

The other thing I've used are the random charts with The Perilous Wilds. Have generated several dungeons from that, and from that, woven them into the campaign tapestry.  In short, random shit is awesomely fun. :-)

Quote from: Necrozius;935394On the flipside, one of the things that I hate the most about being a DM is being unable to come up with a solution when a massive curve ball smacks me in the face. Especially when, the next day, I think of an awesome way to handle it.

The worst part is when I decide to open up discussion at the table for a solution and everyone else is also stumped.

Example: at the end of a previous session, the players had agreed upon a course of action: travel through the jungle (on foot) to a ruin to find the McGuffin. Everyone had decided that they were totally up for being chased by dinosaurs, giant insects and cannibals. All of my prep was for this: maps, encounter tables, an elegant chase system, all ready.

Problem: two players had to cancel at the last minute. Since the party was smaller, the Warlock's Flight spell could carry the entire (now smaller) party to reach the ruin. The entire prep time, encounters, everything was ruined. YES, there are plenty of ways to handle this, but at the time, I had nothing NOTHING. So I just sighed, awarded them experience for such a clever solution and we played a board game instead.

Yes, I sucked as a DM that night, but that's the sort of thing that happens occasionally. I hate that.

So they spend the rest of the night RETURNING. And then you resolve what happened when they found the doohickey.  Or whatever.  It's a CAMPAIGN, a single victory does not stop the world dead.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935194I think the distinction between a linear adventure and a railroad is important to make here.
A railroad is where the characters decisions are irrelevant. "Forcing" as you say. There is no good railroad. There is no good reason to railroad.
A linear adventure, on the other hand, can be just fine. I think this is what you meant by the metaphorical awesome train.

Unfortunately most here are of the mindset that Linear Adventure is a Railroad.

Just like they have taken the word "fun" in this thread and turned it into a club.