A linear adventure can be ok, as long as the GM isn't saying it isn't a linear adventure.

"Hey, I want to run a game which will consist of a series of set events. Players can act as they like during those events, but there will be intermissions where I narrate what happens in between." sounds fine. I'd happily play that, sometimes. However I might be annoyed if I was told we were playing a campaign and asked to roleplay a bunch of investigation and decisions, only to find out that many/all of my decisions had zero effect on what happened.

In the "Y in the road" example, the issue is that the Y and the choice effectively do not exist, yet the GM is behaving as if they do. So the players may think there really is a choice and perhaps there really is a world with terrain to explore, when there is not. If/when they find out, they may be understandably annoyed, unless they don't mind being misled that way (which some players do, some players don't, and some players console themselves by adding it to their list of ridiculous silly things GMs have done).

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.

You assume a lot. There could be any number of reasons the decision was made.

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.

A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them. And stick your Troll comment.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935392My 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.

My players would laugh at this notion. They understand, as I thought most players did, that there is no competition between Players and GM. They shouldn't be trying to stump anybody, and if they do so accidentally, its an unfortunate occurrence that only takes away from the flow of the game. If anything my players, over 35 years, have always respected the work put in by the GM and will 'go with the flow' when weird options become available in the interest of a smooth storyline for all.

If for example the adventure appears to be centered toward a trek across the desert to find the tomb, but someone brings up an airship as a bizarre possibility, they will stick with the trek as its obvious that's the direction everything was headed. Unless of course the choice comes at the end of a session and there is time for the GM to adjust.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935441Unfortunately 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.

1) Linear Adventures are one of the things I find wrong with RPGs in general. Create clues, events, NPCs, locations, encounters, etc. and let the players figure it out. Toss stuff in when it makes sense, let the players push in various directions. Linear adventures often get derailed and then the GM has to push the players back on track. Instead, motivate the players to want to investigate, save the princess, or find the lost treasure. It's not a mindset, it's an observation. I have been doing this 35 years now. I'm sharing my experience having run all kinds of games using all kinds of adventures.

2) What the fuck else are you doing if not trying to have fun? You butt-hurt because I said the primary goal is to have fun? I'm so interested in hearing why you're so butt-hurt over our use of the word fun. Is it because I believe GMs who use linear adventures suck? Look bro, it's just an opinion. Don't get butt-hurt over my opinion. In the end if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, then you're doing it right. I still think your linear adventures suck however.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them. And stick your Troll comment.

I'm a good Referee. I'm surprised all the time.

I'm surprised when I roll Reaction Rolls that surprise me. I'm surprised when I roll Encounter that surprise me. I'm surprised when my Player pull some amazingly clever solution or scheme I never could have seen coming to solve a problem or overcome a challenge. I'm surprised when they use a magic item in a way I never would have anticipated.

Honestly, some of my happiest moments are where I'm surprised. I love being surprised. But more to the point, leaving aside the delight surprise brings, I have no idea how one would Referee without being surprised every once in a while. Like, are RPG Referees supposed to be Mentats or something? Cause I don't think they exist.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935441Unfortunately 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.

yes, some GMs have elevated a freeform, improve way of playing to some sort of vastly superior status and look down on everything else. I respect and admire such play but there are lot of other really good options.

Quote from: Skarg;935451A linear adventure can be ok, as long as the GM isn't saying it isn't a linear adventure.

"Hey, I want to run a game which will consist of a series of set events. Players can act as they like during those events, but there will be intermissions where I narrate what happens in between." sounds fine. I'd happily play that, sometimes. However I might be annoyed if I was told we were playing a campaign and asked to roleplay a bunch of investigation and decisions, only to find out that many/all of my decisions had zero effect on what happened.

In the "Y in the road" example, the issue is that the Y and the choice effectively do not exist, yet the GM is behaving as if they do. So the players may think there really is a choice and perhaps there really is a world with terrain to explore, when there is not. If/when they find out, they may be understandably annoyed, unless they don't mind being misled that way (which some players do, some players don't, and some players console themselves by adding it to their list of ridiculous silly things GMs have done).

See I just don't see that at all. The Choice was an illusion... so what? The characters wouldn't now the difference, and its a Roleplaying game. Everything should be experienced from their perspective. Its not some academic challenge between the players and GM, one in which he withheld information vital to their making the better choice. No world existed down that other road they didn't take. Had they chosen it, there would have been. From their standpoint, its all the same. How could a player be offended by that?

Especially given the original question posted here... had the Y in the road been presented in a Zero Prep game there wouldn't have been a world down either road! The damn Y in the road was just made up 2 seconds ago afterall. Everything after is still churning in the GMs head or waiting to be generated on one of his charts.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935482yes, some GMs have elevated a freeform, improve way of playing to some sort of vastly superior status and look down on everything else. I respect and admire such play but there are lot of other really good options.

... who exactly is saying "improvisation" is vastly superior to and looking down on everything? And why do you insinuate they speak for most people here? In fact I've seen several people (myself being among them) say in this thread and most of your other threads where you bring up this axe you like to grind, where we acknowledge linear elements as a tool in the toolbox.

To the degree that you "admire such play" implies that somehow these "other options" are of equivocal value? Got some examples other than GM fiat? And how exactly are you measuring them as "really good" when you apparently are only playing with the same people? Which leads to...

I find it odd that you'd project your singular experiences with your group which you've played with for over 3.5 decades as indicative of "what is normal" when it might not be normative at all. You act as if you and they don't develop idiosyncratic habits along the way over 3.5 decades?. I can assure you - based on your various threads that revolve around trying to establish your notions of GMing on this forum - you have.

Your predilection of trying to gain some affirmation for your views on GMing, I find... strange. As myself and others have said: If it works for you and your group, play on. Contextually it depends entirely on the subjective nature of the participants. That should be patently clear.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them.

Horseshit, dogshit, cowshit, bullshit, pigshit, chicken shit, llamashit, aardvarkshit, zebra shit, and every kind of other shit in the entire multiverse.

If I set up a situation and figure out ten ways to solve it, my players will promptly come up with solutions 11 through rutabaga.  I am surprised by my players ALL THE TIME.  It's what makes this silly ass hobby still worth pursuing after 44 years.

This thread needs more GNS theory.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]608[/ATTACH]

Quote from: rgrove0172;935483See I just don't see that at all. The Choice was an illusion... so what? The characters wouldn't now the difference, and its a Roleplaying game. Everything should be experienced from their perspective. Its not some academic challenge between the players and GM, one in which he withheld information vital to their making the better choice. No world existed down that other road they didn't take. Had they chosen it, there would have been. From their standpoint, its all the same. How could a player be offended by that?

... then why even call it a roleplaying game? Who is actually doing the roleplaying when the choices, as you say are an illusion and you're just creating storytime for the "players" (because they're not really playing - that's an illusion too).

Do you think a Choose Your Own Adventure book is an RPG? Ironically, by your own standard you get more choice in a Choose Your Own Adventure book than you might in one of your own adventures because there's no one to force you into a scene other than the rules of the book telling you which page to turn to. In your case, you don't really get a choice that's actually real. Since as you said, it's an illusion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935483Especially given the original question posted here... had the Y in the road been presented in a Zero Prep game there wouldn't have been a world down either road! The damn Y in the road was just made up 2 seconds ago afterall. Everything after is still churning in the GMs head or waiting to be generated on one of his charts.

You're pulling an intellectual bait-and-switch on yourself. You're trying to postulate a legitimate GM option to re-purpose interactive set-pieces with this notion that because a GM can actively subvert the intention of any PC with trivial ability without the player's knowledge, then that's is actually the same thing. Because one serves different motivations of the act of GMing than the other.

If you err on the former - then you're just feeding content. If you err on the latter - you're doing storytime because the intents of the PC's *don't matter* if you're forcing them to interact with your set-piece. The weird part of all this is you're doing the bait-and-switch and I'm not sure if you actually believe you're not.

In which case Black Vulmea is right - you'd be trolling. I prefer to think of you as cognitively dissonant - and you're looking for help.

I hope this helps.

My biggest cognitive problem is with the idea that I only have one idea for what the players can do.  I've got more damned ideas than I can write down.

Quote from: trechriron;9354801) Linear Adventures are one of the things I find wrong with RPGs in general. Create clues, events, NPCs, locations, encounters, etc. and let the players figure it out. Toss stuff in when it makes sense, let the players push in various directions. Linear adventures often get derailed and then the GM has to push the players back on track. Instead, motivate the players to want to investigate, save the princess, or find the lost treasure. It's not a mindset, it's an observation. I have been doing this 35 years now. I'm sharing my experience having run all kinds of games using all kinds of adventures.

Unless you are RNGing it all, nearly all adventures are linear.  It is the way we humans process things.

Quote from: trechriron;9354802) What the fuck else are you doing if not trying to have fun? You butt-hurt because I said the primary goal is to have fun? I'm so interested in hearing why you're so butt-hurt over our use of the word fun. Is it because I believe GMs who use linear adventures suck? Look bro, it's just an opinion. Don't get butt-hurt over my opinion. In the end if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, then you're doing it right. I still think your linear adventures suck however.

Have you even bothered to read the thread and the use of "fun" in it?  I would say no.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;935497Horseshit, dogshit, cowshit, bullshit, pigshit, chicken shit, llamashit, aardvarkshit, zebra shit, and every kind of other shit in the entire multiverse.

If I set up a situation and figure out ten ways to solve it, my players will promptly come up with solutions 11 through rutabaga.  I am surprised by my players ALL THE TIME.  It's what makes this silly ass hobby still worth pursuing after 44 years.

Your obsession with fecal matter is rearing it's stinky head again.

Sounds like a you problem if you can't predict what your players will do with a great deal of accuracy.  Maybe you don't pay attention to what is going on?

Isn't that 44 year line a wee bit disingenuous?  You also say you took a couple decades off of gaming, so really isn't that more like 24 years of gaming.

All GMs are #Illusionists, whether they realize it or not.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923To the players there is absolutely no difference in the experience.

Thing is their experience is based on what they believe to be true, so it doesn't matter if you're actually running a railroad or straight #Improv, only that your players believe you are.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;934954But if the players don't realize that their decisions are irrelevant, then you have the illusion of choice.

To get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

Quote from: Daztur;935111Basically it depends on if your world runs on an attempt to model physics or an attempt to model narrative logic.

Not really.

Quote from: Daztur;935111As a genera rule if you find yourself tweaking stuff and overruling the rules a lot then you're probably using the wrong rules.

#SystemMatters

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935223This is an important point: though your players may not know you're an illusionist cocksucker, you're still an illusionist cocksucker if you engage in illusionism.

DM screens were created for a reason friend

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935223If you tell a lie and don't get caught, it doesn't mean you're not a liar.

And if you tell the truth and aren't believed, it doesn't matter if you're not a liar.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;935481Honestly, some of my happiest moments are where I'm surprised.

Same here. In fact the potential for my players to surprise me is the only reason I GM rather than just write a book or something.