Doesn't change my point. For you narrative considerations override the rules of simulation; for me and many other's it's vice versa. Though I personally still strive for good narrative while abiding by the rules of simulation (and believe me that even this has elicited significant anger from other posters here).

Yes, I find the level of antagonism kind of odd. Ive read of lots things gamers claim they do here that I find objectionable but I don't go off on them because they do it. I get defending your point but outright attacking another's just seems peculiar. Its not like anything anyone has done in a roleplaying game, no matter how unwanted or unappreciated has ever really hurt anybody. We do get on each others nerves in forums though, Ive seen it everywhere be it miniatures forums, historical, literary... it doesn't matter. Kind of a shame though.

and queue the music!

https://youtu.be/eR-QC-2hwZQ

Quote from: tenbones;919534This is what I call the "What's in the crate?" problem. I'm good at improv. I can extemporaneously tell a PC what's in a given random container in any given random building in any town.

Yes that is a handy skill. I find improvising is easier to do in a setting that is not overly detailed and one that is not based on something published like an RPG product, a canon fictional setting, or actual history. It's also easier the less detail I've already created for the setting. Because I am very concerned with maintaining consistency lots of details may require me to look at existing notes and such to avoid forgetting stuff or contradicting stuff I've already created or revealed and looking up stuff is slower than just making up something new.

re: What's in the crate? Nowadays I'll often ask what it is they are looking for before answering that question. If they are just idly curious then making up some random shit in crates is no big deal. On the other hand if they have some actual line of inquiry they are trying to follow, I'll be a bit more careful about what sort of random shit I make up so that I don't unthinkingly create a red herring or an inconsistency that will confuse the players. I don't mind intentionally creating red herrings, though i usually find the players are well able to create their own red herrings without any help from me and my creativity is better applied to making things that are consistent and that reinforce what is actually going on behind the scenes while avoiding any additional red herrings that don't need to be there.

QuoteWhich is good, since I really want to keep immersion.

I'm less concerned about immersion. One of my players who is most immersive seems to be able to easily move out of IC to absorb the occasional bit of OC info. And really I don't use an OC method very often. And when I do use it it's at the point where the players are already going OOC to say they don't know what to do next or they seem like they are about to go OOC with something like that.

In addition, I'm happy to admit which stuff I made up ahead of time, which NPCs are based on real people and which are fictional, which floor plans are historical and accurate and which are not, etc.. Some of my players like to know which stuff is from actual history. Some don't seem to care one way or another. If I was concerned about making it difficult to tell whether information was actual, created beforehand, or improvised on the fly (like if say I had a player who seemed off put by OOC communication of any sort) then I'd do things differently. And doing lots of improvisation would be easier in an entirely made up setting where it is easier to just make up some shit with little fear of contradicting something important.

Quote...but I've seen many GM's choke on that simple phrase of walking into a warehouse and trying to open a crate a few times until the GM just said - "There's nothing in the fucking crates. Move on."

While I think the GM is also entitled to want the game to move along if he or she gets bored, if I go out of character it is usually because the players are restless rather than that I am restless.

QuoteIf the sign says there's "Here be Dragons" - and your PC knows about the the disappearance of the Hamhock Halfling-clan in this region, and their sheep... and you persist to go visit that area... yeah don't be shocked when Smaug Jr. shows up to light your asses up.

They get a warning sign? They should be buying you a drink for being so nice.

Round and round and round we go.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919555Yes, I find the level of antagonism kind of odd. Ive read of lots things gamers claim they do here that I find objectionable but I don't go off on them because they do it. I get defending your point but outright attacking another's just seems peculiar. Its not like anything anyone has done in a roleplaying game, no matter how unwanted or unappreciated has ever really hurt anybody. We do get on each others nerves in forums though, Ive seen it everywhere be it miniatures forums, historical, literary... it doesn't matter. Kind of a shame though.

You keep mixing up people saying "Thats not what I like at my table" with "What you are doing is WRONG!" after everyone finally sorted out what the heck you were on about because your initial posts were both antagonistic and lacking in key data leading many, even me to initially think that you were doing all this without the players consent. Note that the tone changed dramatically once we sorted that out and shifted to mainly just punting the ball whenever you make a pronouncement that just isnt so.

Quote from: Bren;919568They get a warning sign? They should be buying you a drink for being so nice.

HAH! That's probably an embellishment. The only warning sign they'd probably get in this case is claw-marks on their little burned out hovels and random halfling bits that didn't make it down the dragon's gullet. Someone with Survival or something might make the roll and know... Yep... it's a fucking dragon.

Of course what they do next... is on them. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote from: rgrove0172;919541My players and I enjoy taking part in a detailed, dramatic and well prepared story where the quality of the scenes, attention to detail and theatrical elements are...

...completely irrelevant to this discussion because this is a false dilemma.

"The only way to achieve detailed, dramatic, and well-prepared stories is to railroad!" <---- That is not a true statement. End of discussion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919541The players are the kids...

The hilarious thing is that you can post condescending bullshit like that patronizing your own players, but are then baffled by the Dora the Explorer metaphor.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919537(Except I wouldn't even go so far as to call it potty training. That would imply that it's actually a valuable step towards achieving your goal. It's more like someone deciding to pee in the potted plants. It's a dead end. You've taken a wrong turn and the only valuable thing to be learned from it is that you shouldn't do it.)

Because sometimes even if you are having fun, it is bad-wrong-fun. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Manzanaro;919546rgrove, I honestly don't think it's the 'game', particularly notions of fairness, that most people here have been focusing on. It's more the difference between simulation and narrative.

When you are right, you right.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919541It really got me to thinking that perhaps the reason, in almost every thread Ive started, post Ive made or position Ive taken, that I seem to be in the minority has to do more with my group's approach to gaming rather than my individual approach as a GM.

Your GM style and your group's approach to gaming are two sides of the same coin. You are trying to tell a story and to make your game play turn out like the sort of stories that you like. Your players are along for the ride. They play some of the parts or roles in your story. And since you are using a game system that doesn't have any mechanical widgets to help you with your story telling, you sometimes ignore or overrule the rules and the die rolls to try and get the story outcome you want.

And I think virtually everyone is aware that your players like your GM style well enough to keep coming back for more year after year.

QuoteWe rarely if ever talk about such things as fairness or adherence to the rules because stories, adventures  and yes even real life and therefore our game are not fair and the rules, frankly, are there to help not hinder the story we are telling through it.

The unfairness of the real world and the unfairness of stories and adventures aren't at all the same thing though. Some of us eschew the dramatic license of fiction to get a setting that is more like the unfair or uncaring nature of the real world and we accept and even encourage the sorts of unfairness that the real world includes. That's one of the things that not over riding die rolls actually provides is real-world-like unfairness and uncertainty. If you roll the dice, then in the game setting, unlike in fiction, the hero may just get bonked on the head and killed by some nonentity well before any dramatic destiny gets a chance to unfold. Or to put it another way, we don't know who are the heroes and who died in Act I until after play has ended and the story can now be told.

QuoteThe players rarely know what is going on completely and view the world only through the limited perception of their characters

Yes that is what you get when player knowledge is limited to in character knowledge. That is particularly important for people who want to immerse in their character. It can also be important if part of the game aspect is making decisions based only or mostly on IC knowledge. This is like the idea of the fog of war that is included in some wargames, but extended to cover all aspects of knowing and deciding. In general the GM isn't fooling the players so much as the GM is only providing them with limited or partial information that is appropriate to their character's perception. Though in the case of a failed roll to spot a secret door, sense an NPC's motive, or recall some world knowledge the GM may in fact be misleading the player by giving them only the inaccurate knowledge that their PC possesses rather than giving them the correct answer or the fuller, bigger, and more accurate picture that the GM possesses.

Quoteso as GM I am constantly 'fooling' them, directing the story around them, manipulating the in game reality for the best (Yes ..best as perceived by me as the creator and director) result.

But trying to create a particular story is very different than trying to simulate a world. And the way you are doing your story creation uses a very different sort of 'fooling' the players than is necessary for simulating a world and in maintaining an in-character perspective. A lot of us don't want to intentionally create stories while playing. That difference is a key one between your group's approach and the approach that many of us prefer.

QuoteAll I have asked in this forum is for a little respect, an admission that there is a place in the hobby for responsible"railroading" if you have to call it that. It can be hated, sure - but its a matter of choice and it is a style that has been used successfully for years.

I think virtually everyone is aware that your players like your GM style well enough to keep coming back for more year after year. And with one or two exceptions, no one is saying that you are wrong or they are wrong to like what you like or to play the way you like to play.

What a lot of people are saying is that it isn't necessary (for us and for almost everyone we've ever played with) to play the way you play just to have fun or get drama and excitement or to end up with an interesting tale of some kind. And maybe, just maybe, your players might enjoy trying something different. Or, you know, maybe not.

QuoteThose that choose to use it or accept it from their GM do so for a reason, they LIKE IT, not because they don't know better or haven't been graced by a REAL Game Master yet. All of those notions are extremely condescending and bring out the very worst in a discussion.

Yes that is condescending. Of course a number of your comments e.g. how dry, boring, simplistic, unprepared, undramatic, and uncreative other people's styles are is also condescending. Neither bit of condescension excuses the other.

QuoteWe like it when the elements all line up like they do in a novel, (a storm breaks out just a you reach the mansion, the cavalry arrives just as you run out of ammo, the monster lurches by a few feet away but doesn't find you as you hide etc.) It is these kinds of scenes we play for and as GM I don't risk the possibility that whim, chance, or blind player choice will deprive us of them.

I think that pretty early on most of us comprehended that you like a more or less GM directed narrative style of play. However, most of us don't find that a directed narrative is actually dramatic. Especially since the cavalry arriving in the nick of time is an overused fictional outcome that often depends on implausible dramatic coincidence or even an outright appearance of a deus-ex-machina.

QuoteIn our game the relationship between players and GM could be portrayed as kids going to an amusement park. The players are the kids, and I as GM am the park. Its my job to make sure they have fun, how I do that is my business. I can fool them, trick them, pick on them, cheat them, coddle them or what the hell ever. They know me, trust me and understand that whatever is done will result in a fun time for all.
   
Boy I hope that clears this up a bit.

I think virtually everyone is already aware that your players like your GM style well enough to keep coming back for more year after year.

Quote from: Bren;919588I think that pretty early on most of us comprehended that you like a more or less GM directed narrative style of play. However, most of us don’t find that a directed narrative is actually dramatic. Especially since the cavalry arriving in the nick of time is an overused fictional outcome that often depends on implausible dramatic coincidence or even an outright appearance of a deus-ex-machina.

I disagree here. A more directed narrative style of play can have some damn good dramatic impact. Even the arrival of the tried and true cavalry can be a thrill.

But like every style. It can also be a total game killer.  I mean really. There was that thread last year here with all the incessant bitching about how horrible the DM was to just make a decision on the spot.

Quote from: Omega;919589I disagree here. A more directed narrative style of play can have some damn good dramatic impact. Even the arrival of the tried and true cavalry can be a thrill.

OK. Maybe not most of us. Maybe just some of us.

Also I am differentiating a dramatic resolution from a satisfying resolution. The arrival of the cavalry may be quite satisfying even if the players expected it would happen.

QuoteBut like every style. It can also be a total game killer.  I mean really. There was that thread last year here with all the incessant bitching about how horrible the DM was to just make a decision on the spot.

I don't recall that one. Since I'm a bit low on my listening to people bitch quota today, can you link to it or give me a clue so I can search for it?

Quote from: Bren;919588Because sometimes even if you are having fun, it is bad-wrong-fun. :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919611It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

I used to live on a cul-de-sac. I currently live on a cul-de-sac. I like living on a cul-de-sac. But I take your point.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919611It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

And this is Gods Honest Truth because, well YOU SAY IT IS of course! You guys amaze me.

If I started a thread claiming that oh.. Savage Worlds sucks, I can prove it by claiming over and over and over again just how much I hate it. You guys would hang me... but that's exactly what some of you are doing. If it wasn't so aggravating it would be funny.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919633And this is Gods Honest Truth because, well YOU SAY IT IS of course! You guys amaze me.

If I started a thread claiming that oh.. Savage Worlds sucks, I can prove it by claiming over and over and over again just how much I hate it. You guys would hang me... but that's exactly what some of you are doing. If it wasn't so aggravating it would be funny.

uh... Savage Worlds DOES suck... just sayin... :cool: