A compromise that's worked wonders for me is ending each session with a round table discussion on what the party plans to do next. Once they all agree on their next destination or course of action, I make some basic prep for that.

I still improvise a hell of a lot (easy to do with my GM binder full of random tables), but detailing the world based on where the players choose to go has so far made everyone happy.

Edit: I also love my Paizo plot twist and chase cards. Not old school in any way but they're fucking fun to use for everyone at my table. Fuck the haters.

Quote from: Madprofessor;952266Clarification:

Prepping for what the PCs will do in their adventures = railroading
Prepping the world for the PCs to interact with =/= railroading

That's way too vague.

For example, let's say the PC's are traveling down a road.  And down that road are a couple of Inns and a bandit toll.  And because your players (which I may be making a massive assumption here that they're your friends, but bear with) Have been stopping at each spot to have a tipple and a fight,   And so you make out several NPC's who are there to get beaten senseless.  And lo and behold at all three establishments that's what they do!  These events were effectively preplanned, but the Players did them anyway, thinking they started it (This happened in a game I ran, one of the players was playing a Viking type who thought the best way to know a place was to lay out the establishment's patrons), so is that a Railroad?

How about the Bandit Toll across the road, in which the players CAN decide to get involved, finding out that this was an out of work merc army looking to feed themselves.  So you detail out the Captain, a couple of Lieutenants and make up the soldiers and goons.  Then on a whim you decide to stat out the camp and the various members there.  And lo and behold, just as you predicted the Players get involved!  Railroad?

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;952265Prepping =/= railroading.

granted, but thats not what I'm reading, based on the above posts

Quote from: Necrozius;952270A compromise that's worked wonders for me is ending each session with a round table discussion on what the party plans to do next.

+1 to this.

Besides - as long as it was a decent hook and fit the characters - how often do people totally ignore hooks?  They might not come at them how you expect - but it's rare in my experience for them to ignore one.

Quote from: Necrozius;952270A compromise that's worked wonders for me is ending each session with a round table discussion on what the party plans to do next. Once they all agree on their next destination or course of action, I make some basic prep for that.

I do the same, but even my basic prep has become less and less because my current players really, really, really hardly ever do what they say they're going to to from one week to the next. I finally just stopped prepping anything, and now just follow the course. The problem with this is that one of the players has a PC (we'll call me 'A') dead set on what they should do, two PCs (B&C) not really caring what they do (so they follow PC A), and the final PC/player (D) evidently getting fed up with PC A (while at the same time going along with it, as if he has to). All this, despite me basing everything on, "What do you do?" and reacting to it.

This came to a head last session, when player D got pissy about having to go along with player/PC A. I finally just flat out asked, "What the fuck is it you want to do? Because you can DO it, if you just say so. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU. So, next time, just do what you think is right. I can follow anything you bring up."

I guess he didn't realize this, but, honestly, the campaign course has been set by them all along, with one exception where I manhandled them into exploring a tower that I just wanted to use because I had put so damned much time in prepping it, because they had TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE IT THE NEXT SESSION!:-/

That more or less convinced me not to get too hung up on detail. I have the big picture, and I can whip up adversaries on the fly. That, evidently, is all we need for this campaign.  I do know THIS, though--all those ignored hooks are gathering steam, and some of the stuff they ignored is going to create some deadly shit in short order. I'm following Dungeon World's "Front" concept, which is nothing more than advancing agendas based on whether they are dealt with or not. They're focusing on a really big threat right now, but a couple of the smaller ones are going to make things pretty crazy in base town.

Quote from: san dee jota;952144Nope.  This was kickstarted last year.  (and yes, I had to look it up)

Well, then I am so at a loss. Headed to the search engine...

Was it "The Strange?"

Quote from: Black Vulmea;952177For someone who agrees with my basic premise, you seem to be strangely interested in coming at me because . . . what, it's cool to disagree with the angry guy? A word of advice: I'm a fucking monkey throwing my shit - if you pick it up and throw it back, guess what that makes you? A fuckwit throwing the monkey's shit back in the cage.

I wish more people listened to that advice. And not only in games, either:D!

(I also agree with your "creativity" comment, but it's not nearly as entertaining, or with such far-reaching applications:)).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952211And as far as being a referee, practice makes perfect.  I personally am tired of the notion that a referee has to be some brilliant savant.  My first ever D&D dungeon level was shit, but my friends put up with it.  After 44 years of practice, I'm pretty good at it.

Granted, this forum is mostly blessedly free of the "But being a GM is HARD!" shit, but damn, it's a pervasive attitude.

Tell me about it...

Quote from: Tristram Evans;952261Are railroading GMs forcing players through their "chose your own adventure" story plots just the norm these days?

Because for me, being a GM means pretty much all improv, all the time.

Come on, man, you know the answer varies from group to group, right? Right?
(I've found that the system you want to run to be a good predictor of that attitude, but that's neither here nor now, and it's purely anecdotal anyway. Let's just say Paizo-trained GMs are among the worst offenders, and leave it at that).

Quote from: Madprofessor;952266Clarification:

Prepping for what the PCs will do in their adventures = railroading
Prepping the world for the PCs to interact with =/= railroading

Yes, of course.

Quote from: cranebump;952277I do the same, but even my basic prep has become less and less because my current players really, really, really hardly ever do what they say they're going to to from one week to the next. I finally just stopped prepping anything, and now just follow the course. The problem with this is that one of the players has a PC (we'll call me 'A') dead set on what they should do, two PCs (B&C) not really caring what they do (so they follow PC A), and the final PC/player (D) evidently getting fed up with PC A (while at the same time going along with it, as if he has to). All this, despite me basing everything on, "What do you do?" and reacting to it.

This came to a head last session, when player D got pissy about having to go along with player/PC A. I finally just flat out asked, "What the fuck is it you want to do? Because you can DO it, if you just say so. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU. So, next time, just do what you think is right. I can follow anything you bring up."

I guess he didn't realize this, but, honestly, the campaign course has been set by them all along, with one exception where I manhandled them into exploring a tower that I just wanted to use because I had put so damned much time in prepping it, because they had TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE IT THE NEXT SESSION!:-/

That more or less convinced me not to get too hung up on detail. I have the big picture, and I can whip up adversaries on the fly. That, evidently, is all we need for this campaign.  I do know THIS, though--all those ignored hooks are gathering steam, and some of the stuff they ignored is going to create some deadly shit in short order. I'm following Dungeon World's "Front" concept, which is nothing more than advancing agendas based on whether they are dealt with or not. They're focusing on a really big threat right now, but a couple of the smaller ones are going to make things pretty crazy in base town.

And that's also how you run a game with no need to prepare anything except the word.
Yet when I say that running a PbtA game is a good training exercise for new GMs wanting to run traditional games, for some reason, nobody believes me. Curious, that;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;952284And that's also how you run a game with no need to prepare anything except the word. Yet when I say that running a PbtA game is a good training exercise for new GMs wanting to run traditional games, for some reason, nobody believes me. Curious, that;)!

I have to agree with you. Interestingly, we're about to switch systems to something more traditional (where I can roll some dice for the first time in a year).:-) I'll be keeping the DW conceits while running a B/X/Microlite hack. Of course, I say that while actually wanting to run Allied Heroquest stuff, with my own creations (which I will affectionately call "Button Quest," since, having sold off my old HQ stuff long ago, those pesky greenskins, undead and etc. would all be replaced by buttons (I DID DL, print out and prep all the game's cards) Buttons away, sez Morcar/Zargon! :-)

Quote from: AsenRG;952284Come on, man, you know the answer varies from group to group, right? Right?

I just know from growing up, "railroading" was generally considered a derogatory term for the worst sort of GMs, slightly below even the Monty Hauls. And I never understood it as a playstyle, honestly, because it seems to directly conflict with what makes RPGs unique as games: the ability to do anything and be anyone, and the freedom to make choices for characters that isn't offered by gamebooks or videogames. Now I'm not going to decry "badwrongfun" or pull a Vulmea-in-monkey-mode, but it seems like the capacity of a GM to improv really defines their suitability to that role.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;952299I just know from growing up, "railroading" was generally considered a derogatory term for the worst sort of GMs, slightly below even the Monty Hauls. And I never understood it as a playstyle, honestly, because it seems to directly conflict with what makes RPGs unique as games: the ability to do anything and be anyone, and the freedom to make choices for characters that isn't offered by gamebooks or videogames. Now I'm not going to decry "badwrongfun" or pull a Vulmea-in-monkey-mode . . .

Quote from: Tristram Evans;952299. . . but it seems like the capacity of a GM to improv really defines their suitability to that role. (emphasis added - BV)

Quoted because fuck yeah.

Quote from: cranebump;952278Well, then I am so at a loss. Headed to the search engine...

Was it "The Strange?"

Thought we established it was the super expensive Invisible Sun. The Strange and Numenera have been out for a while and are just hardcovers.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;952261Are railroading GMs forcing players through their "chose your own adventure" story plots just the norm these days?

Because for me, being a GM means pretty much all improv, all the time.

Off topic... But from what I've seen... No. Nor have they ever been prevalent. Just ever present.

Id lay a guess that most are fairly good at it that do and more importantly have players that like that style. But its the bad ones that stand out, Just like theres bad improv DMs.

As noted in an older thread here. There are players and player groups that despise improve style DMing even. They pretty much demand the DM railroad them. And that too has been around probably since right after the start.

I prep regardless because I don't trust my subconscious.

Sure I can improv. In fact, given the nigh infinite range of choice & coherent(-ish) consequences that may follow in Imagination Land, it's almost impossible not to be able to in some capacity. But if left to my own repeated GM-choice of "coherent(-ish) consequences" I don't trust myself to stay truly neutral, or not fall into predictable patterns.

So prepping content and running random content generators to color encounters are essential to me. Granted my dice are also cursed to make me sweat out every randomized content, taxing my improv further. But that strain is part of the challenge as a GM trying to stay lively yet impartial, and I may add part of the fun.

Improvisation and the ability of all participants to spontaneously create game content that is shared in the minds of everyone involved is the whole purpose of the tabletop rpg medium. Computer games do a much better job of presenting pre-scripted storylines to be followed & consumed. The graphics and cool visual effects just blow away even the most overproduced print product in sheer production value.

Outside of OSR publishers, the industry seems to have forgotten this primary purpose of the medium. When it comes to the meaning of "module" as it applies to adventure modules most mainstream publishers simply don't get it. I got a false sense of hope when the 5E starter set was released. There was an adventure included that featured an area map, and several areas of interest ready for exploration. I remember thinking as I flipped through it that perhaps hell HAD frozen over and WOTC finally remembered how to produce an actual module.

Sadly, the starter set would be the last proper adventure module WOTC would release for 5E. At least thus far.

I have never understood the desire to simply consume, rather than create, in a hobby that features creativity as its largest advantage over other entertainment mediums.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;951841FFG broke my heart with X-wing.  The basic game is quick, playable, and fun, and the admittedly expensive components were well engineered to make it easy to play; it reminds me of many aircraft minis games circa mid 1970s but the components drastically streamlined the record keeping.

Then they shitted it up with all the bullshit cards to modify the craft, and the game no longer became about tactics, it became about deck building on your TIE fighter.

Seconded, except my experience was with the Star Trek equivalent. Great foundation: turning radiuses, power management, cool minis. Then, suddenly, it became "which version of misc. Romulan pilot are you using", and this may as well have been a card game. In fact, removing the minis entirely and making the ships cards you move around would have probably worked better.

Good thing is, there's a reasonable game at the core, so if you ditch the cards and make a reasonable point buy system you can get back to having fun with these minis again.