Thread 96483949

/tg/, I'm designing a campaign for my group.
The campaign consists from three acts. As a whole, they cover levels from 1 to 20.
What happens in the first act is immaterial for this thread.
In the very beginning of the second act, however, they will meet the big villain of the campaign, who decides that they're going to be a threat to his master plan and immediately kills them all right at the end of a gruelling dungeon. The player characters then go to Valhalla, meet not!Odin and then return to life with a divine quest.
Half of the second act will involve fulfilling this quest to pay not!Odin back for their resurrection. The other half involves revenge against the villain.

Now, obviously if they just reveal themselves, they'd just be killed again. So they'll be gently suggested to assume false identities and infiltrate the villain's massive army of mercenaries in order to foil his plan from the inside. By the end of the act, the villain's army will be gone, his personal power extinguished, and then he'll die as the final boss of the act.
That's the idea. However, I keep thinking about how it'll actually go. I have 7-9 dungeons in mind for the second act. That is a lot of sessions spent under secret identities, while everyone believes that they're dead. While the undercover arc could potentially be interesting, I'm also seeing the potential for it to be very exhausting to actually go through.

Should I just pre-emptively cut the "undercover" part to just 1 or 2 dungeons? It's going to be pretty difficult to change them on the fly, if I see that this story is not working.

In 1916 Russian civic engineers finished multi-stage construction project connecting Moscow with Vladivostok, which is generally considered mankind's longest and most ambitious railroad. But damn, you're getting close second.

>>96484029
fpbp

>>96483949 (OP)
do you have enough locations from act 1 to revisit while incognito? plus act 2 starts with the dungeon they die in, then valhalla, then at least two odin dungeons, and most of those arent undercover.

>>96483949 (OP)
>In the very beginning of the second act, however, they will meet the big villain of the campaign
CHUGGA CHUGGA CHUGGA CHUGGA
CHOO CHOO
ALL ABOARD!

>>96483949 (OP)
You can just do the secret identities but not make a big deal out of them. Also, like, they can let down their secret identity during the dungeon run, can't they?

Just don't be a douche when they keep forgetting when they have to transit to the secret identities.

But also
>>96484029
fpbp

But also railroading isn't necessarily bad if your players are fine with it. Some people like a GM who keeps tight control of the story.

>>96483949 (OP)
>/tg/, I'm designing a campaign for my group.
no, you are writing a gay novel
>>96484279
>But also railroading isn't necessarily bad if your players are fine with it. Some people like a GM who keeps tight control of the story.
cope. people only "like" this bullshit because they don't know there is an alternative.

>>96484289
>people are only allowed to like what I like

Some people like basically watching a TV show that's slightly interactive.

>>96484340
No, they're there to socialize exclusively. They're merely tolerating your "TV show" (It's a hundred times worse than even a shitty TV show, let's just be honest).
But the same people would be fine, if not more amused by a real game being run properly.

>>96483949 (OP)
Consider not railroading your players. Like what you said can still be a valid campaign, just maybe don't give them a full act, gank them with your villain, force them on a resurrection quest, force them to play a subterfuge campaign after several apparent sessions of not doing that, force them to play into the villain's weaknesses in one specific way, and then force them into your cinematic confrontation to capstone the experience.

I genuinely don't get running a campaign where player input is irrelevant to the experience. I like running games to see what my friends do when I put X, Y, or Z in front of them; this just seems like you want to tell a very specific story, and the players being there is essentially immaterial to what you're doing.

>>96484367
So just how high are you from smoking all that copium?

Cause I'll bet the view is great

>>96484340
dont take the bait, its just the same well-poisoning retard samefagging

>>96484442
>It's cope to say the same people who don't care about the game wouldn't be bothered if you made it more like a game
Kek, nogames.

>>96483949 (OP)
>/tg/, I'm designing a campaign for my group.
Okay, cool.
>The campaign consists from three acts. As a whole, they cover levels from 1 to 20.
I mean, that's a fair starting point, but you should be open to some malleability. The last campaign I ran was supposed to be a three-act Campebellian monomyth, but the way events played out ended up resulting in a fourth part.
>What happens in the first act is immaterial for this thread.
Stop. Go back. You're planning wrong.
>In the very beginning of the second act, however, they will
You don't know what they'll do at the beginning of the second act because you've declared that you're ignoring the first act entirely. That means you don't know where they'll be, what they'll be doing, or what sides they'll be taking.

>>96484528
>ou don't know what they'll do at the beginning of the second act because you've declared that you're ignoring the first act entirely.
I haven't ignored it. I'm not going to elaborate on it for the purposes of this thread because I already have the details finished for it and don't intend to revise it at this stage of my preparations.

This unironically reads like the tabletop equivalent of those video games that are just a series of quick time events.

>>96484543
So what do you do if they do something different? Like, what if they decide to sign on with the villain?

>>96484029
Holy shit dude.

>>96484550
>Like, what if they decide to sign on with the villain?
The villain has no reason to accept them, especially at that point when they'll have been a thorn in his side for a time already, even if they didn't know it.

why are people here always so negative and retarded?

>>96484597
I don't know. I wish I had some other place to go to for ideas but everywhere else sucks.

>>96484597
I'm telling you now before you make the same mistake every game master in our group has made at some point or another:
>DO NOT FORCE-KILL AND REVIVE YOUR PLAYERS TO DEMONSTRATE THREAT, PUT THEM IN DEBT, OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAT YOU'RE THINKING OF
Please learn from our mistakes. It's not worth it.

I respect the Banner Saga OP image for what it's worth.

>>96484597
Calling OP out on his faggotry doesn't happen because /tg/ is negative it happens because OP is a faggot.

>>96483949 (OP)
but what happens if the players at any point across what I can only imagine must be several dozens of sessions at least decide to do something else?

>>96484587
>kill someone
>they come back to life
>but they're willing to overlook it and work with you anyway
So, what, he kills them again because it worked so well the first time?

>>96484877
>>but they're willing to overlook it and work with you anyway
My players won't do that. Maybe this mystifies you but I've played with these people enough times to not be totally in the dark as to what they'll do in a given situation.

>>96483949 (OP)
Why have them revived by Odin? How about having them animated as minor undead by the Evil One (Ghouls, Wights, etc), ecperience first hand the horror the Evil One is going to inflict on everyone, and then strive to break free from their undead slavery?

>>96483949 (OP)
How will you handle it if they accept their new roles in the army of darkness and instead strive to advance in the ranks of the Villian's forces, furthering his aims? Players sometimes go off the rails you plan for them.

I often find it's best just to set up a situation, forces, locations, the various faction aims, etc and see what the players do with it. If you are planning the entire story to go a certain way no matter what they decide to do, the players will soon lose interest due to their lack of autonomy. Most play this game for the freedom it gives them, not to feel they are wearing a straightjacket.

>>96485009
So you're writing a story you've already planned out, in such a way that they will do exactly what you want them to do? Why play a game at all? Why not just run something like Gloomhaven? You sound tedious.

>>96485071
>Exactly
Where did I say that?

>>96485093
why are you taking the bait?

>>96485093
>>96483949 (OP)

>>96484029
Ebin

>>96483949 (OP)

Things will not go to plan. They never do.

If you want to railroad properly, the secret is there's no rail, just stations.

>At some point, they are killed by the villain, and given the divine quest.
This already needs a contingency.
>If someone survives, they see not!odin in a dream instead while their friends return.

And that's as much as you should be planning. Anything more will result in hubris. Though, of course, you can plan out what your villain is actually doing over time.

>>96483949 (OP)
>>>/lit/

>>96483949 (OP)
>return to life with a divine quest
>"we don't want to do his quest"
your move?

>>96483949 (OP)
Does this group actually exist or are you just fantasizing about the campaign you would run if you had one? Because you're pretty fucking clueless on how this actually works.

>>96485125
Good point.

>>96485198
>If you want to railroad properly, the secret is there's no rail, just stations.
That's how it works anyways.

>This already needs a contingency.
Not really. The Villain himself is the "station" in this example, he can't be avoided or stopped because he will just thrash the PCs in a 1v1 no matter what they do, and he will find and kill all of them no matter what they do once he's aware of them.

>>96485125
Good point, thanks.

>>96485198
>If you want to railroad properly, the secret is there's no rail, just stations.
That's how it works anyways.

>This already needs a contingency.
Not really. The Villain himself is the "station" in this example, he can't be avoided or stopped because he will just thrash the PCs in a 1v1 no matter what they do, and he will find and kill all of them no matter what they do once he's aware of them.

>>96485254
Bait.

>>96485896
I've been running games for 8 or 9 years at this point, so yes the group exists and yes I know what I'm doing. Just because it's not the same way you would run a game doesn't mean it doesn't work for my group.

>>96486646
>I've been running games for 8 or 9 years at this point, so yes the group exists and yes I know what I'm doing. Just because it's not the same way you would run a game doesn't mean it doesn't work for my group.
Wow they must be really desperate for any game at all if they're willing to sit through your novel then.

>>96486677
They've chosen me over other GMs before actually.

>>96486646
>Bait.
shat your pants already?

it's going to happen and you will cry, just trying to help you :)

>>96484029
Golden

>>96483949 (OP)
Story games suck donkey dick but I suppose you guys have to learn the hard way.

>>96483949 (OP)
I once started to run a game that was supposed to go to the max level, with clear ideas about what would happen at various points and especially with a clear climax in mind. I was 17at the time, and it was my first attempt at running something other than a oneshot. It did not go well, but it was a very valuable learning experience. More specifically, I learned to appreciate player freedom as a core strength or TTRPGs and the fact that said player freedom means that planning too far in advance in too much detail is folly. Players won't do what you expect them to do, they will do things you don't expect them to do, they will draw conclusions completely different from the ones you thought they would draw, and trying to prevent this is playing against the strengths of the medium. Roll with it, let players do what they will, adapt, improvise, don't railroad. You can learn from your own mistakes if you want to, but you can also learn from mine, and from those most of the people ITT telling you not to railroad have either committed themselves or experienced as players.

>>96484597
While /tg/ often is needlessly negative, that¨'s not what's going on in this thread.

>>96483949 (OP)
nigga you are so severely over-preparing even the guys with 3 apocalypse bunkers think it's overkill.
your group is not going to play more than one session at a time, so you only ever need to prepare one more session than you're currently in.
also, "rocks fall, everyone dies" is lame and gay even if you're pulling a literal deus ex machina afterward.

>>96487806
You ever realize that just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean others share your same problems and deficiencies?

>>96487923
>nigga you are so severely over-preparing
There's no such thing as being over prepared.
Maybe you're content with scrambling to prepare between every session, but I'm not that type of GM.

>>96484029
Bro did NOT have to cook OP this hard holy shit...

>>96486646
>I've been running games for 8 or 9 years at this point
in your own head

>>96488049
Bait.

>>96488054
can't be bait if it's true

you're not fooling anyone here

>>96487964
>You ever realize that just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean others share your same problems and deficiencies?
My problem in that case was choosing the same approach you're taking in your camapign, and the solution to it was becoming a better GM who's there to run a game rather than to tell a story. What's the point in posting a threadd to ask for advice and then rejecting every piece of advice offered to you, anon? It might not be the advice you wanted to hear, but it's well-meaning, born out of multiple anons' experiences and worth considering.

>>96488077
He's not going to run a game. This is just a troll fiction thread.

>>96488077
>Anon finds he's unable to run a particular type of game, and finds more success when he switches to something easier and simpler
>He determines that therefore nobody, ever, can run that type of game
I appreciate that you're trying to give advice, but it's terrible advice.

>>96488099
It's easier to plan a story ahead that to roll with what players do, though. Tht's why a lot of new, inexperienced GMs do it. Improvisation is a higher-level GMing skill than planning. I guess it's possible that you have a special, not necessarily in the positive sense, group of players that never does anything truly surprising. That's not a good thing, as being surprised and having to adapt is one of the things that make GMing fun, interesting and different from just writing your own story.

Frankly if your players don't care that you've already decided what they're going to do then they're shitty secondaries who are just there to socialize and belong to a group. They don't deserve a good DM or game.

You (a shitty secondary also) who's just there to socialize and tell your gay little story you're too afraid or incompetent to just write and self publish with all the AI slop on Amazon Reads, deserve no better as well.

Thank Crom you're all clumped together having a bad game to yourselves.

>>96488127
>It's easier to plan a story ahead that to roll with what players do, though.
No it isn't. Planning ahead means you need to figure out what the PCs are going to do in many different situations. You have to be familiar and knowledgeable of their behavior.
In comparison Improv is fucking easy because you can just make things up on the fly and most players will tolerate it as long as they believe you're actually rolling and improvising.

>>96488156
>Planning ahead means you need to figure out what the PCs are going to do in many different situations.
So what's your plan for >>96485254

>>96488165
>So what's your plan for >>96485254
Not to let it happen.
See, that's the thing you don't understand about writing a more linearly structured game. Once you understand what the players will do, consistently, you can just set it up so they'll do what you always wanted, and they'll never know any better.

>>96488183
So you don't have a plan. The moment players exercise even a modicum of free will, your campaign is over.

>>96488183
This'll only ever work with a particularly low-class kind of player with no real ideas of his own, though.

>>96488199
It won't work on those kinds of players either.

It's not a video game. It's inevitable that the players will step off the rails even if they didn't mean to.

>>96488194
>So you don't have a plan
Not letting things get to that point is a plan.
What's your plan if you suddenly die of a heart attack in five seconds?

>>96488211
It's not a plan because whether things get to that point is not something you can control.

>>96488199
>This'll only ever work with a particularly low-class kind of player with no real ideas of his own, though.
Maybe that's what it'd take for you, since you don't understand your players. But I've got a good understanding of my players and how they'll act.

>>96488226
Sounds like you have a skill issue.

>>96488211
Did you imagine that pointing out the possibility of unexpected and unplanned for events in real life somehow magically supports you idea of nothing unexpected happening in a game? It doesn't, anon.

>>96488237
Sounds like you have a never played a TTRPG issue.

>>96488239
Except it does, because you know what most people's answer is? Lose some weight and don't get to the point where you're gonna die of a heart attack at a young age.

>>96486646
>I've been running games for 8 or 9 years at this point

>>96488229
I'm a psychologist by trade and I've been playign with mostly the same group of people for close to 20 years, and while I know my players very well I would not presume to be able to predict their actions throughout a campaign long enough to go from level 1 to level 20. I can predict their reactions to a lot of things OOC, but a big part of the point of RPGs is to get in the role of someone you're not in real life, and the specifics of that "someone" vary from campaign to campaign.If your players have never befriended someone you thought they'd fight, fought someone you thought they'd befriend, refused a plot hook, seen a plot hoom somewhere you didn't plan for one to be, killed someone you'd planned to be important to the plot in the future or outright left the country you'd planned to set the campaign in, your players are shit and lacking in initiative.

>>96488249
You can do that and still die of a heart attack at a young age, though, or die o a brain aneurysm or cancer or accident or whatever.

>>96488278
The much simpler explanation is that his players don't exist. He's never run a game and never will.

>>96488261
It's possible. Some people are slow learners.

>>96488261
>>96488245
Bait.

>>96488278
Okay, post your degree with timestamp and I'll take what you say into consideration.

>>96488283
>You can do that and still die of a heart attack at a young age
Not without a prior condition, nope. And this still doesn't excuse you being overweight.

>>96488303
>still doesn't excuse you being overweight
Why are you resorting to ad hominem?

>This thread mere days after someone posted their completely sandboxed campaign in /osrg/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx5prDjKAcw

>>96488286
So what's your logic here?

>>96488321
It's a figure of speech, anon. I'm not literally accusing you of being fat.

>>96488323
The /osrg/ campaign using ACKS? I read that, it was pretty great. It's nice to see one of the better systems on the market actually getting some attention here for once instead of just seeing whining about 5e and 40k.
Don't get me wrong btw, I haven't been saying sandboxes are bad. But they are objectively easier to make work than a linear, pre-planned campaign.

>>96488343
As someone that hasn't replied to the OP yet?
If you are OP? You're overthinking it. DMing is a vibe and the great virtue of tabletop is freedom.
Don't plan out an entire campaign because the first time players come across a river they'll decide to become gay pirates and give up on the main quest.
It's just what players do.

Here's my advice
Take the core concept of 'Heroes of Asgard who got fucked by the BBEG' and run with that instead.
Big, well hung warriors, mighty heroes of levels 6-8 on the cusp of becoming legends in their own lifetime get fucked and dabbed on my a treacherous ratfuck who betrays them to their deaths, tells everyone they died cowards, 'comforts their wives' and wipes his cock off with their funeral cloths in the aftermath.
Brodin of Brahallah sees this as an atrocity and sends them back as Draugr.

Then hand them a map, go 'This is his kingdom built on lies and bullshit. Here's where your bodies were discarded in the dishonourable barrows. What're you going to do?'

Simple, elegant, gives them options, knock off for a pint and a crafty wank in the meantime. You can set up dungeons on the map and just let them decide what they're going to do, if they're going to go all in and fuck everything up for revenge or try to do minimal damage to the innocent, ect.

>>96488438
You sound a bit too retarded and homosexual to be worth taking advice from.

>>96483949 (OP)
Any proof that you have a group?

>>96488183
>"I'm just not going to let the players get in the way of my presupposed outcomes"
don't come crying here when your players tune out or drop the game entirely and call you a railroading bitch, because they'll be fucking right.

>>96488438
It's fine if you have a bad handle of your group and their habits, but that's not an issue at my table. Your advice is bad and useless because I'm still going to run a linear campaign, and just like the last three, it'll be successful because I put time and effort into preparing it.

>>96488503
Any proof that you ran campaigns before?

>>96488502
>don't come crying here when your players tune out or drop the game entirely and call you a railroading bitch
Never had that happen before, and it won't be happening here. You just lack the skills and knowledge to run games above the babby's first sandbox level.

>>96486646
>I've been running games for 8 or 9 years at this point, so yes the group exists and yes I know what I'm doing.
Should be easy to post proof then.

>>96488503
If your players really are the sort who'll happily play through several linear campaigns without doing anything surprising enough to derail any of them, odds are they'll eat up any slop you serve them without complaint. Why even bother putting so much thought into it? You clearly have an abnormal group and advice based on experiences with normal players won't be helpful.

>>96488551
He doesn't have any players.

>>96488438
Pearls before swine, the post

>>96488551
>If your players really are the sort who'll happily play through several linear campaigns without doing anything surprising enough to derail any of them
They were surprised plenty of times, I don't know why you think they weren't.
Unless, maybe you're the type of player who isn't happy unless you've "derailed" what the GM had planned out and that's all this continued hissyfit is about? If so fear not, I don't let people with sadistic personality traits into my games.

>>96488556
I'm entirely willing to believe that OP's been running games for a group that's going through the motions of playing a game in order to socialize and thinks himself a GMing genius because those players don't care enough to ever do anything that might challenge or surprise him, myself.

>>96488598
Then you'd be a gullible retard.

>>96488575
>they were surprised
That's nice, but entirely unrelated to what I said. How many times were you surprised in those past campaigns?

>>96488615
Enough for things to be "derailed", and invalidate a significant amount of my pre-planning? Never.
Enough to be emotionally captured during a session and alter my plans? Occasionally. I think a lot of anons missed that I don't plan things out scene-by-scene and session-by-session, which should've been obvious if they'd even read my post but whatever. This site is becoming a gutter of trolls and low quality bait anyways.

>>96488652
Reply.
>>96488481
>>96488513
>>96488542

>>96488598
I don't really understand the logic of people who think the OP is trolling and continue posting in the thread. Isn't that exactly what they'd want anyways?

>>96488660
The sooner it gets knocked off the board the better.

>>96488662
Apply to be a janitor.

>>96488669
Why?

>>96488606
naw, it's a fairly well-documented response to railroading to check out once you spot the rails.

>>96488660
NTA but they're upset at the idea of games that aren't exactly like their own. The last thread I posted was about discussing a recently released system and I had 1-2 posters having a meltdown and claiming it would never be used in a game.

>>96488652
Sure, you're definitely contributing to this place becoming a gutter of trolls and low quality bait anyways. In the unlikely chance you're not baiting you pretty much confirmed my suspicion of your players being unusually placid and lacking in initiative, though. If that's the case, just stop overthinking things and serve them slop, it'll be fine.

>>96488678
No it isn't. You're just trying to justify why you got tricked into engaging with this obviously made up story.

>>96488687
That doesn't make much sense. My players surprising me sometimes confirms that they're placid? You just sound mad over something that has nothing to do with me, to be honest.

>>96488660
Why are you posting that in reply to a post saying that OP probably does run games?

>>96488660
The post you replied to wasn't about OP lying to us, it was about him lying to himself. A lot of long term groups keep going because they like hanging together but there's no other reasson for doing it (more and more common as you age and have to justify spending time for yourself).

We don't know, maybe they have a blast. I've played with people who were clearly enjoying mid shit and kept telling anecdotes about how fun it was for days, so whether OP is great or not it isn't even the main factor.

>>96488726
OP is clearly insufferable though. He has no game.

>>96483949 (OP)
Have you ever done something like this before ?

>>96488726
Yeah, the main issue with this thread is OP apparently thinking that the difference between him and all the people ITT advising him to not railroad is other people being worse GMs rather than other people having more active players bringing more ideas of their own to the table.

>>96488705
Because they're clearly one of the few sane posters in the thread.

>>96488755
You have to be genuinely stupid to believe that OP has a group or "ran games for 8 years"

>>96488754
The main issue with the thread is that people here cannot conceive of games that aren't exactly like their own experiences. This is because /tg/ is full of third worlders who lack empathy (and games), and old washed up boomers who couldn't run a game past three sessions. The few who escape these categories then get screeched at relentlessly.

>>96488775
No, that's not the issue. People saying that OP's group might be unusual clearly can conceive of that. The issue is OP's ridiculous assertion that being able to predict several different people's actions over different long-lasting campaigns is a matter of skill rather than of thise people being more predictable than most players.

>>96488775
That's how it feels these days. I get this bitter pick-me bitch energy from most of the anons ITT with how they think it's inconceivable for me to have ran a game, ever. They failed at GMing in my style just one time, and have sworn off ever since because they're terrified of failure. Reminding them that they could've been successful that way shines a light on their own failures.
Hence, the angry outbursts.

Thanks for keeping my thread alive with the bait posts btw. It's given me great motivation to prepare as thoroughly as possible.

>>96484029
OP is past well done by now

>>96488794
>People saying that OP's group might be unusual clearly can conceive of that.
True but it's a minority of posts that can even accept this possibility, and an even smaller minority that can accept that without needing to make shit up.

>>96488775
The bigger issue here is that retards are getting tricked by OP's bait.

He doesn't have a game, has never had a game, will never have one. You'll notice that he speaks only in the most vague stock phrases, never providing a single specific detail about his past experiences.

>>96488796
Another issue with this thread is OP dismissing obviously sincere advice as either bait or other peopke having skill issues, and then dismissing people getting annoyed about that as more bait. OP really is a faggot, and not just any faggot but one who somehow manages to drag the quality of the discussion on /tg/ in the year 2025 down.

>>96488836
I haven't dismissed sincere advice, I've even been thankful for it.
However, sincere advice is not good advice. If someone asks for travel tips and what they should pack when driving across the country, trying to tell them they should just take a flight, even when they've told you they are specifically not doing that, is giving them bad, useless advice.

>>96488887
Why didn't you just plan to not get bad advice?

>>96488906
Why are you so mad that I have better games than you?

>>96488754
That could be a thing. Some people like linear stories. You can't pretend you know best what strangers enjoy. I run a lot of dungeons and those have well defined limits and end goals, part of the fun is how the players work around those limits but it's not a story game being directed by the players.

OP should still listen to the babyDM advice to not kill the players in unwinnable fights because that betrays the trust and makes them feel like the decision was never in their hands. He could give them a very tough fight and only let the ones who naturally die in on the big lore. Like a consolation price.

>Dude I'm going to shoot myself in the dick, it's going to be so hardcore
That sounds like a terrible idea
>Lmao, that's gay advice, you shouldn't be giving me bad, useless advice when I've already decided to do something, now advise me on the best angle to blast my dick off at
There's no helping some people, go forth and may Lucifer count you among his own OP, for God tends to turn his back on Hubris.

>>96488908
Could it be that there are some things you can't plan your way out of?

>>96488943
>compares GMing to shooting yourself in the dick
Well I can see why trying to run games was difficult for you.

>>96488796
You're a child.
You don't know shit.
Go ahead and fail, learn from it, become better without becoming bitter. That's good stuff. People are warning you because the thing you want to do is a well know trick that ruins groups. It's betraying the tacit contract that their actions matter and they are in control of something. Once you show them they will die whenever you feel like it future risks will be less important because maybe the DM just wanted us to die, or maybe we win because he wanted us to win. Your search for a good story is ignoring the nature of the medium where you're telling it.

>>96488955
I cannot guide you to wisdom or self-awareness OP, I can only put it in your path and watch you repeatedly trip over it while claiming that there's nothing in your way.

>>96488965
>Starts stomping his feet and calling everyone else a child
Not dodging the unc-usations lol

>>96488965
He's not going to learn anything from this because it's a troll thread.

>>96488980
>I cannot guide you to wisdom or self-awareness OP
I mean yeah you generally need to be wise or have self awareness to guide others to it. And so far as I can see? You haven't shown any whatsoever. Just a whooole lot of baby rage.

>>96488981
I call you a child because you clearly are one

>>96488986
you're clearly desperate for attention, please calm down. It's cringe.

>>96489009
Just saying, you act like you were born 50 years ago and stopped mental growth at 10. It shows in how you lack imagination, a symptom of losing neural plasticity.

>>96489016
sure
go funnel them into a fixed fight preteding no one ever though about it before and get the resuslts everyone else gets from doing that.

>>96489041
>I couldn't run a game like that well, so nobody can ever do it!
Kek'd

>>96483949 (OP)
>Should I just pre-emptively cut the "undercover" part to just 1 or 2 dungeons?
Yeah. In the worst case scenario, it's much easier to extend an idea than it is to cut it short without fucking up your pacing, and the most common mistake accomplished writers make is having arcs and story beats stick around for longer than they're welcome.

Ignore the retards ITT, this is a hobby not managing a nuclear fucking reactor, you can afford screw ups, and it's good to not be afraid of potential failure while you're chasing after success. Who knows, maybe you'll accomplish things no jaded faggot ever could.

>>96489148
>Who knows, maybe you'll accomplish things no jaded faggot ever could.
OP, you're being way too obvious. No one would post from page zero but also know what's going on in a 100+ post thread and also defend OP's basic bitch cliche as if it was anything new.

>>96489148
>it's much easier to extend an idea than it is to cut it short without fucking up your pacing
This is true, I tried to think of a time when I've had an arc that felt like it needed more screen time rather than less and I couldn't come up with any examples.

>>96489852
Bait.

>>96484029
This is too smart for most readers, who'll think you're giving him praise.

>>96484367
>more amused by a real game being run properly.
NTA, but I wish this were true. I had a group I GMed for for years and any time I encouraged them to have any kind of agency they complained. They really wanted the railroad, they just wanted to be there to roll the dice and react to narrative scenes strung together.

There are two kinds of players (and this applies to people in general) and most of them prefer to be led along, free of responsibility. Its the ones that enjoy exploring with a self-motivated drive that make for the best players, but these are rare.

>>96489148
>>96490704
>obama giving himself the medal.jpg

lol ,god have mercy on those poor players and future ex friends

>>96490743
Still lying huh OP?

>>96490774
I just got here, but feel free to schizophrenically think I'm whichever other anons are in this thread.

>>96490822
Finally decided to start defending yourself? Lmao sure buddy

>>96490743
I've seen groups like that, I've played in them. It's not exactly that they like the railroad as much as not having any trust in agency being rewarded. If your ideas go to dead ends and you can see the GM struggling to do something he hasn't prepared and the end result is worse, you might as well sit down and see things go. If ou of nowhere you're expected to do stuff you are not used to it and you know it's gonna be punished with shit game. So you try to go back to the comfortable numbness of the railroad.

There are proper ways to make narrative games and even games with limited interaction that feel like it's your story. But you need procedures and randomness, a clear demonstration that the GM isn't the one deciding if you're allowed to exist in the game.

>>96490913
Don't bother, he hasn't seen any because he's never played a game.

>OP acting as his own backup dancer
lmao

>>96488183
>Once you understand what the players will do, consistently, you can just set it up so they'll do what you always wanted, and they'll never know any better.

So, again, what is even the point of playing? It sounds like you should start a local theater troupe and write a play.

>>96491058
>So, again, what is even the point of playing?
To have fun. I've tried other hobbies and ways of playing, but I like this way, and so does my group.

>>96485009
Man, I’ve been playing with the same people for nearly fifteen years now. I know them inside and out and know exactly how to bait them into certain courses of action.

They are still capable of surprising me, and sometimes do so in ways that have completely altered the course of campaigns—because, no matter how well I know them, I can’t predict everything they’ll think or every idea that they’ll come up with when solving a problem. If your players are never doing anything that catches you off guard, it sounds like they aren’t terribly engaged. That, or you set up obstacles that can only ever be bypassed through a single intended solution, in which case you’ve effectively bludgeoned them into being disengaged.

>>96493686
I think you missed the other posts where I've said they have surprised me. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between "Surprised" and "Completely derailed everything" though.

>>96494277
You've also claimed that you can perfectly plan out a 1-20 campaign because you know exactly what your players are going to do and how they are going to react.

You see how these two ideas are in tension, yes?

>>96494352
>You've also claimed that you can perfectly plan out
Can you quote the post where I said "perfectly" anywhere?
No?
Yeah that's what I figured. Now if you pull your head out of your rectal cavity and look at the OP, you can see that I understand the idea of wiggle room and needing to adjust things as the game proceeds.

>>96494378
Then you understand that they might not decide to go after the villain who killed them?

>>96483949 (OP)
>I am utterly fucking clueless, send help
Consult pic related
This whole concept has about four times the amount of stuff it actually needs.

>>96484029
Put me on the cap

>>96494785
>they might not decide to go after the villain who killed them
They will.

>>96494821
And other than you assuming they will, they will do that, because...?
You know, what's the reason they will do that, other than you wanting it to happen and wanting them to do that?

>>96494836
They will do it because they're figments of his imagination.

>>96494836
>And other than you assuming they will, they will do that, because...
Because I know how to guide them into doing so. If you find that answer insufficient, it just betrays your own lack of skill as a GM.

>>96494850
Fair point.

But more seriously:
Never cease to amaze me how much people think in terms of writing a novel or a movie script, rather than a game, and how hard they get blocked when players don't follow the railroad. Bonus points if it's something really, glaringly obvious as impossible player reaction/decision, and yet it is integral part of the whole structure.
And the weirdest part is that this is not something that only greenhorns and newfags do due to not knowing better. Nah, you can find people in the hobby for 20+ years that try this shit.
Why? How?

>>96494860
Ok, so you have zero way of making them do that and just hope for the best. Thanks for sharing and good luck with the wild improv when they won't.

>>96494873
Stay mad, keep replying to yourself, etc etc.

>>96484029
/thread

>>96486646
>Bait.
Vastly realistic playoid response*

>>96494981
If you were a player, maybe. Thankfully I've long since weeded out disruptive autists from my life.

>>96494991
I've ForeverGM'ed since 2008, but fine, sure.

>>96495001
...And that relates to what I said not even slightly. Not that I believe you since you can't even read a one line post without getting confused.

>>96494991
>Translation: I have no group at all and just hope for the best

This is either a bait thread, or OP is king autist of railroad mountain

>>96495023
>Autist is unable to conceive a group that wouldn't include his worthless ass

>>96495038
And you being ass-mad about "autists" relates to the fact it's perfectly reasonable for players to ignore a quest... how?
The original anon asked a very important question: what's your move when players ignore the quest? What you have prepared instead?
It's not some fantastic assumption, or weird-ass tangent. It's basic planning 101 - what you gonna do if people won't follow and what are your contingencies.
Screaming about disruptive autismos isn't a solution, you know.

>>96495071
>it's perfectly reasonable for players to ignore a quest
Please quote where I said "Players would never ignore a quest."
Ahhh, can't do that either, huh? Well anon that's because I've never said that. What I've said is that I know how my players work, I know what they like, I know what they hate, I know what motivates them and how to get them to act in a particular way. And thanks to that, I can predict what choices they'll make.
>Screaming about disruptive autismos isn't a solution
Never said it was, it's just funny to mock you for being so creatively bankrupt.

>>96495088
>Complains about autistic people
>By throwing a temper tantrum about things that never happened and words nobody ever wrote
>Then claims victory by endurance by even more projection
>The basic question remains unanswered
The prosecution has no further questions

>>96483949 (OP)
>"So I have this novel idea, what do you think?"
Go to nearest vanity press. They'll love it.

>>96494869
a lot of old modules were just like that.
I've run some one shots that requiered a preventive "there's gonna be a big weird ask near the start, please play along because there's cool stuff after that". I think that meta stuff is fine in a one shot with a clear cut off time and everyone knows they have to pick and chose when to go wacko. In a campaign you get one big condition at the start, like "I'm running satanic mob intrigue in magical 1930's Kansasm, make OSE characters". Everything after that has to come naturally out of play. I believe OP could in theory make most of his plan work, There's a reasson why campaign modules exist, it can be done. I think the details are cliche and bad and will end badly, but ruining campaigns is part of the hobby.

>>96495088
are your players being nice to you and saying yes to whatever to keep you happy or have they given up on playing a game where they have control over their lives?
>I know them well enough and can manipulate them
sure you can, Light Yagami. It's not at all that they are being nice and making an effort for you, you're just a master manipulator.

>>96495188
>a lot of old modules were just like that.
Who the fuck uses modules?
No, seriously. Who uses that stuff? I never understood it as a business model or even an idea. Like why the hell would you not just write a "scenario, ready to serve", but, more importantly, why would anyone want to run something like that? Why would you remove the only interesting part of being a GM from yourself?
I'm in this hobby since mid-90s. And I just don't get the sort of mindset it takes to grab a module, not to mention those psychos that do nothing, but modules. At this point, a GM might be literally replaced by a voice syntesizer. Not even AI to run, just someone to read the script aloud.
>I've run some one shots t
One-shots are a different breed, because everyone present knows this is for here and now and there will be no continuation, but also no alternatives than what's prepared. This does enforce following through with events, simply because there is literally nothng beyond a pre-planned game that is already happening. Said that, this also means it can legitimately wrap up earlier, because players might still decide to do something the one-shot wasn't prepared for or actively refuse to follow, as their decision. Which concludes the one-shot and is an option.
> I believe OP could in theory make most of his plan work
I believe OP never in his life run anything prior, but read a bunch of trashy novels. Not even modules, just fantasy literature as such.

>>96495227
you don't run modules like a robot, you take parts you like and see how much you can use or maybe you take out parts for other uses. There's a limit to a single person's creativity, both in quantity and variety, so you suplement with other people that did cool stuff you like. Just like an orchesta plays Mozart, a jazz band plays standards, paintors replicate famous paintings. You learn from other people, steal things, maybe suplement part of the work someone did better than you so you have a better space to add your own stuff or a set up you wouldn't have though about.

>>96495270
You realise that at this point, you might just run your own thing... right?
Hence my confusion why people keep trying to use those things.
Sure, I understand them as a business model - fleece random idiots that have no clue - but that doesn't mean they are viable for any use.
You'd think that people would figure out decades ago. And yet here we are

>>96495118
The question was answered. Sorry that you're butthurt that I don't run games like you do.

>>96495205
If my players wanted to play different games, they could. Like I said, they've put me before other GMs before. This apparently shocks and befuddles you.

>>96495270
Except there is one problem:
Playing modules teaches you how to railroad, not how to GM. It creates this tunnel vision mindset, where it's only natural for you as a GM to drive things strictly from point A to B and then C, in specific order and after specific triggers.
Which is worse than a complete newfag that is trying his own thing by trial and error, because at least that guy has experience to learn from, whereas module runners just reinforce what the modules are designed for: to get more modules.

>>96495389
>Playing modules teaches you how to railroad, not how to GM
Railroading is GMing. Whether it's bad or good GMing depends entirely on whether the players realize they're being railroaded and take issue with it.

>>96495383
>The question was answered.
Where?
Where is the answer to the question of "your move?"
Don't repeat yourself about weeding out autists, because that doesn't answer the question - that just tells us you have a seizure at the table that things didn't went as planned.
>b-but I understand what players will do
And that STILL doesn't answer the basic question of "what you gonna do when they won't do as you planned"

>>96495406
The worst part is that you might not be even trolling, but genuinely believing this shit - saw plenty of people who on one had had over a decade of "experience" and yet believed that they absolutely must railroad things.

>>96495409
>Where?
Right here >>96494860
Now I'm gonna do what you think is impossible and correctly predict your next move: You'll keep seething and deny that as an answer.

>>96495419
>believing that you're succeeding as a GM if your players are happy is trolling
Wew how low has /tg/ sunk?

>>96495422
So far you are only projecting my mental states, but okay
So you gonna guide them when they tell you simply no? How that works? You know, they refuse your hook/quest. How do you "guide" people who refused.
You've been in such situation, right? You aren't just talking from you ass and theory-crafting, because you actually GM'd at least once in your whole life, right?

>>96495437
>Things nobody said, claimed or even implied, but in green text
Here is the (You)
But at least now I can feel better about your post, because you were merely trolling, so thanks, I guess

>>96495449
>So you gonna guide them when they tell you simply no?
Wew holy ESL.

>>96495449
They won't tell me no if I properly guide them to the outcome I'm looking for. That's really as simple as it is.

>>96495329
You run your own thing, you supplement with some else's ideas. It's like looking at paintings or movies for inspiration, once in action you're doing your own thing but you took some stuff from cool stuff you wouldn't have though of.

I know some people run modules straight out of the box, I'm not a fan of that. I could see case scenarios where you find somethin really cool and want to see it play out or you didn't prep anything and have something to keep things going while you develop your own stuff.

>>96495389
Look, I'm defending prewriten adventures right now just to present a different perspective, I don't think they're the ideal thing to use or whatever. I already said that I see them as a jazz standard, an okay base you use to add your own stuff and those aditions are the fun part.

Some modules are heavy railroads, everything WotC made in the last 6-7 years are just that. They can't have new stuff added without breaking and even if the players play along to see what happens it's all underwhelming and souless. But I've used cool dungeons I couldn't had made myself because I'm not that good at building them, there are some that have weird ideas I liked and wouldn't had though of. Recently I read Earthshaker, about basically gnomes showing off their giant mech from town to town until it's taken over by enemies so the players have to climb a humanoid shaped dungeon to reach the controls before it crushes their city, I loved the concept, the plot sucks so I have to do something different with it and the dungeon itself isn't great so I'll have to change that too, but the concept is something I really want to steal and some parts are pretty good. I believe that's the right way to use a module.

>>96495383
>This apparently shocks and befuddles you.
nah, I just have more life experience and understand social situations better than you. You'll eventually look back on this and get it.

>>96495458
>Things nobody said, claimed or even implied
Ahem
>>Whether it's bad or good GMing depends entirely on whether the players realize they're being railroaded and take issue with it.
Players happy, you're GMing correctly. Players unhappy, you're GMing poorly. Ezpz, why are you such a bad GM that you can't grasp this?

>>96495406
When you say railroading you don't mean the same thing other people do, it's a term that's been abused to the point of confusion.
Railroading means you don't allow players to do what they want, leaving a single option that they can either take or be forced to take. Railroading doesn't mean having forces affect them putting them in a reactive role, or making the world continue working against their efforts, or having strong forces that must be dealt with.

There's a reasson why railroading isn't lumped with dungeons even though all dungeons have strict liminations on the characters.

>>96495498
>nah, I just have more life experience and understand social situations better than you.
He says, unable to conceive of any group being different from his own, thinking it not only improbable, but literally impossible, because his imagination and capacity for empathy is in the negatives.

>>96495536
you acuse people of not being able to imagine different scenarios and right after that imagine that people had a single group their whole life. It's fine, you're young and think you have everything figured out, you'll realize how dumb you were with time. That's how it works.

>>96495528
>liminations
ESL moment, no wonder you don't understand what railroading means kek

>>96495555
>you acuse people of not being able to imagine different scenarios
It's not an accusation but a statement of fact. When I tell you how my group is, you simply claim that can't possibly exist and get angry when I shrug and don't... What, exactly? Tell you that I'm just making this all up to farm (you)s from retards?
I don't even see why you're here except to get mad that I'm uninterested in advice given through ignorance.

>>96494860
So you don't present them with a choice. What's even the point of that? If you've already decided what actions they WILL take, what fights they WILL lose, what fights they WILL win, why even involve players at all?

>>96495649
>So you don't present them with a choice.
I present them with some choices and scenarios they can navigate. If that's not your type of thing, anon? That's fine, you aren't one of my players so your tastes are totally irrelevant to me.

>>96484029
Shit, man, it's been illegal to own a nigga like this since 1865

>>96484289
My Saturday group explicitly demands railroading. Every time I've tried to give them choice they tell me "Just decide for us." I'm done running games for them after this campaign. Someone else can do it.

>>96495757
You've already said that you know how to make sure they make the choices that you want them to make. You're presenting them with only the illusion of choice and then effectively closing off any other options.

>>96496906
>You've already said that you know how to make sure they make the choices that you want them to make
And? What exactly is confusing you here, beyond seeing everything in a black and white binary?

>>96496714
sure thing OP lol

>>96484597
Because everyone here is so used to being attacked that their default defense mechanism is to attack first, creating a neverending cycle. The people with enough self-esteem leave. The only people who stay are the people who think the deserve the abuse and the people, like me, who get rock hard from it.

>>96488278
>I'm a psychologist by trade
You have been 4chan long enough to know that nobody is going to believe your unverifiable, fake credentials.

>>96497246
That post really got under your skin, huh?

>>96497246
I've also been on 4chan long enough to know that there are people with all kinds of academic and professional backgrounds here. We've got students, NEETs, soldiers, psychologists, physicians, engineers, various sorts of tradesmen, all sorts. And of course I've been here long enough to know to not post my personal information, such as my degree, here.

What does a psychologist even do todaty except tell young men to chop off their balls and young women to chop off their tits?

>>96484029
Choochoo all aboard one way trip to screencap town!

>>96498318
I am the king of England.

>>96498325
Mostly watch their job get replaced by AI.

>>96488135
>Thank Crom you're all clumped together having a bad game to yourselves.
I'm in the group too. There's no brakes on this train, we've already flattened 3 indians.

>>96488211
>What's your plan if you suddenly die of a heart attack in five seconds?
Call god a railroading bitch

>>96498325
Do cognitive assessment to help identify learning disabilities or disabilities and preserved areas of function following brain injury and so on, offer neuropsychological rehabilitation, help with diagnosing psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders, offer treatment for depression, anxiety and such, advice schools and families on how to take into account children's special needs, stuff like that. Depends on where the psychologist in question works, it's a pretty varied field.

>>96498339
If you think that soneone with a fairly normal, not super special job and education being on /tg/ is as likely as seeing the King of England here, you need to seriously rethink your life and your attitude to it.

>>96498346
AI might replace all jobs eventually, but I'm not terribly worried about it happening to mine anytime soon. At the moment psychologists are in high demand, I think everywhere in the Western world. Not necessarily people with a bachelor's degree in psychology, mind you, but licensed clinical psychologists don't have to struggle with employment.

>>96484029
I'm assuming you and OP are the same person and this was staged, but it's still a very funny post.

>>96483949 (OP)
Don't fucking plan out campaigns in minute detail like this. Plan 1 adventure at a time with some hooks and general ideas. It's fine to map out what the villain is going to be doing through the campaign, it is not fine to map out what the players are going to be doing, that's what the game is supposed to be about.

>>96484289
>>96496714
My group is also completely helpless if they don't get super clear direction, but I don't think of my campaign as a railroad. Each adventure starts with some variation of 'You are approached by the major of fucksville who wants to hire you' and they always agree and then they go deal with the problem. They don't want a sandbox, so I'm not forcing one on them.

>>96484597
OP please, we're trying to save you(r players)

>>96497225
No OP, this is genuinely a deserved reaction.

>>96499271
>I'm assuming you and OP are the same
If OP wasn't being a complete sperg itt about railroading being le good akshually I'd tell you you were right.

>>96483949 (OP)
Did you just...spoil the plot of Banner Saga?

>>96484029
OP BTFO

>>96500917
>About railroading being le good
"Black-and-white thinking is an autistic trait where people see things in an all-or-nothing capacity. Also called dichotomous thinking, it tends to be common among the autism community."

>>96503840
Autism isn't a community.

>>96484029
OP IN ABSOLUTE SHAMBLES but seriously he didn’t deserve being completely obliterated like this

>>96505666
Nah, he did.

>>96505666
He did. He deserved worse. So I printed out a physical copy of his comment and jacked off with it. Now he is a faggot cause he gave another man pleasure. Hope he enjoys hell.

>>96505619
How do you explain the people who post on 4chan

>>96506139
At this point 4chan is mostly bitter divorced dudes who are pushing 40 and too poor to have a proper midlife crisis. Legit autism moved on long ago.

>>96503840
This has nothing to do with my post. Why did you post this?

>>96507667
"There is a general agreement that self-awareness is foundational to conscious experience. However, autistic people have been described as lacking in self-awareness"

>>96484029
Bodied that freak

>>96509119
>he says as he regurgitates unrelated quotes
Extremely fitting i gotta say

>>96509119
Bodied that freak

>>96501084
OP did not, Banner Saga doesn't have those events happen. Honestly the Banner Saga image doesn't make much sense here outside of a loose Nordic vibe.

>>96498325
Basically gets you to talk long enough to figure out what wacky shit's been fucking with you without you realizing it, and then maybe possibly getting you to think about how to get over that (maybe, if they feel like it), in my experience. Mixed bag but helped when I needed it.

>>96498325
Get pissed when you say you wanted a psychiatrist instead

>>96499285
I had a DM who kept insisting that sandboxes were the peak of the game, if it's not a sandbox you're playing the kiddie version.
But whenever we did something unexpected he froze and couldn't deal with it. We had to either change our mind and do what he wanted or insist that we didn't want to be knighted or give our lives for some rando we just met for like 10 minutes and it would result in nothing happening or the most obvious fallout with no twist or new line of developments or anything.

Eventually we did a sandbox in a setting he said he loved and it was absolute nothing. No political angle, no threats to anything in particular, no market to be part of, no titles to get. Shinji floating in ep26 was his idea of a sandbox apparently.

If someone sucks at closed adventures, they will suck at sandboxed too. Telling them to just ran one is not gonna change who they are or how they do things.

>>96503840
we're not being black and white, we're telling OP that his idea is a cliche that never works and he an find dozens of people complaining about GMs that do this

>>96517488
I've ran sandboxes before that my players enjoyed, but some of them have told me they prefer things that were more "plot-heavy" (their own words, not mine) and that built up to longer, grander things than what fumbling around in the dirt can achieve. I prefer linear campaigns too though so this is what we stick with.

>we're not being black and white
Many anons in this thread are actually, and can't see the difference between saying "Railroading is good" and "Railroading can work for some groups". Nuance totally escapes autists.

>>96518808
a lot of anons will say that there's only one way to play ttrpgs. It's the same as /co/ saying you can't enjoy comics and comics made in japan, or people in /lit/ saying that if something is good then it's not genre fiction. It's a matter of identity, if other people like other stuff then I'm lesser, or something like that.

In this particular case, OP is saying something particularly dumb and his responses only feeds it all because he's not aknowledging the risks of what he wants. "I know what my players like" is a dumb argument because you improve trying to do things better, it's complacent in a very obnoxious way.

I do think a sandbox can be plot heavy. There can be big and complex repercusions from player actions, and that stuff is what gives you a more complex idea of thr world to take better and more interesting sandbox choices. If every aspect is malleable and just there for you to push and shape you don't really have a game. A good sandbox isn't GTA, it's a world where you can go deep into things the GM didn't think you'd be interested in doing and would be too complex to set up in a pre-writen module.

>>96519754
>a lot of anons will say that there's only one way to play ttrpgs
Yeah, and they're retarded.

>because he's not aknowledging the risks of what he wants.
The risks were acknowledged. The truth is that 1-2 nogames got very pissy when their preferred solution (Completely change your GMing style to an easier one) was not accepted or needed.

>"I know what my players like" is a dumb argument because you improve trying to do things better
Which is exactly why your argument and others are dumb. Rather than try to tackle the issues a linear campaign can have, you'd prefer to run away to an alternative. And you know what? That's perfectly fine, you should run the games you and your players find fun. And I'm gonna do the same.

>I do think a sandbox can be plot heavy.
It can't unless it's not a real sandbox.
A sandbox where you actually do just let the players do anything and do not attempt to herd them along plots and predetermined paths would require an immense amount of work which a DM realistically can't do. It's taken me about a month to design my current campaign. If I were trying to account for every possible choice my players could make in act 1, it would easily take over a year.
Instead what you do is improvise and adapt on the fly, but that requires you to not have a plot and take on a more reactive role. A lot of GMs just do what I do though and deny it vehemently to maintain the illusion.

>>96519754
>a lot of anons will say that there's only one way to play ttrpgs
it's true

if you want to railroad or be railroaded then stick to video games, they do it better

>>96520292
There's not a single video game that does a dungeon crawl better than tabletop.

>>96520300
there's way more than just one lol

dungeon crawls are bottom of the barrel dog shit, imagine playing a game in which you can do anything you can think of and then choosing to just play a shittier take on video games

>>96520307
>dungeon crawls are bottom of the barrel dog shit
shit gm or nogames, call it.

>>96520285
>Yeah, and they're retarded.
>because he's not aknowledging the risks of what he wants.
>The truth is that 1-2 nogames got very pissy when their preferred solution (Completely change your GMing style to an easier one) was not accepted or needed.
do you realize you're doing the same thing?
Like I said, it's an identity issue. Instead of seeing other perspectives you identify with some random thing you do and get defensive when questioned.

>you'd prefer to run away to an alternative.
No, like I said, a bad sandbox can be worse than a railroad that at least goes somewhere. Even if it sucks you get closure.
Stop feeling personally attacked because this wasn't a personal attack.

>It can't unless it's not a real sandbox.
Is that the issue?
Did you convince yourself that a sandbox is by definition bad so it can't be good?
Most sandbox modules include opposing factions, fields to thrive, big goals. The original Planescape had like 5 or 7 factions you could join and do stuff for them. Even short stuff like A Pound of Flesh has four ticking clocks that keep ruining the space station in different ways depending on what you do and it's like 40 pages long.

You need to have a general structure and then you improvise over it. It's structured differently, so if you try to manage it like a linear adventure you're going to go crazy. You design it as roads they can take and intercross in different ways with some sort of independent progression that the players can change and will hit them soomer or later.

>>96520351
>Do you realize you're doing the same thing?
Except I'm not? I've already said that there are multiple ways to play games and have fun. You're the one who is inconsistent and defensive here.

>No, like I said, a bad sandbox can be worse than a railroad that at least goes somewhere.
You also said "we're not being black and white" when other anons have directly said a linear campaign is always bad.

>Did you convince yourself that a sandbox is by definition bad
Go ahead and quote where I've said this anywhere. I'll wait, because you won't, and you can't.

>>96520372
>when other anons have directly said a linear campaign is always bad.
and I also said people get defensive about retarded stuff because it hurts bizarre feelings they tied to those tastes.

>Go ahead and quote where I've said this anywhere
>>>I do think a sandbox can be plot heavy.
>>It can't unless it's not a real sandbox.
you like plot heavy stuff, you told yourself a sandbox can't be plot heavy so you think they can't fit your taste. But most good sandbox modules are pretty plot heavy, That's why people talk about them, you don't see people praising playing GTA in psycho mode.

>>96520396
>and I also said people get defensive about retarded stuff
Like you're doing right now?

>you like plot heavy stuff
Sometimes.
>you told yourself a sandbox can't be plot heavy so you think they can't fit your taste
I've said I've ran sandboxes before and had no issues with running them and enjoyed them. Once again, you're a black and white autist who can't understand that I like sandboxes, but I like linear campaigns more. Difficult concept for you, but I can like chocolate and vanilla ice cream and still prefer one over the other, anon.

You, though, clearly have no idea what the word "plot heavy" means.

Wow this thread is absolutely filled with samefagging

>>96483949 (OP)
Man, I fucking love the Banner Saga.
But fuck this guy.

>>96483949 (OP)
Your trying to write a book, do that.

Games are random you cannot predict what happens, where the players will go, or think. Their like a 70% chance your players decide the BBEG is the best thing every and want to join up. 20% a random NPC you did not even name, gets picked out as the players, as the true BBEG, and the other one is just a random. and 10% they decide to go fishing, and the BBEG takes over without ever encountering the party.

>>96523707
>Games are random you cannot predict what happens, where the players will go, or think.
I can, actually. Maybe you can't, but that's a side effect of you having a poor understanding of your group.

>>96523736
You're still on about that, OP? Having an unusually predictable group may well make some things easier, but it's not something to be proud about.

>>96523760
>You're still on about that
You're still samefagging?
>Having an unusually predictable group
I'm pretty sure it's not that my group is predictable, it's that you're unusually low IQ and bad at understanding others.

>>96523802
If your group wasn't unusually predictable, they'd act differently enough in different campaigns and when playing different campaigns that making reliable long-term predictions about their actions wouldn't be feasible. I guess it's possible that you're a rare kind of a social genius, but considering that you felt it was a good idea to ask /tg/ for advice and then spent the thread failing to convince anyone about what you're trying to do being a good idea, I really doubt it. Assuming that you're honest and right about your ability to predict your players' actions, the most believable and parsimonious explanation for it just simply is that your players are more predictable than most.

>>96520285
>A sandbox where you actually do just let the players do anything and do not attempt to herd them along plots and predetermined paths would require an immense amount of work which a DM realistically can't do. It's taken me about a month to design my current campaign. If I were trying to account for every possible choice my players could make in act 1, it would easily take over a year.
It not your job to herd the players, it your job to make a world that moves without the players. What factions exist, what do they want, what are their plans, Where will they be in 5-10 years if the players don't get involved. These are the questions.

And heir are hundreds of books full of random tables, that cover every situation, use them.

>>96523824
>If your group wasn't unusually predictable, they'd act differently enough in different campaigns and when playing different campaigns that making reliable long-term predictions about their actions wouldn't be feasible
This sounds like you're just saying you can't form a theory of mind for others and understand how they think, so unless you put them in the exact same situation, they're unpredictable to you.
Sorry, not how it works for those of us with an IQ above 100.

>but considering that you felt it was a good idea to ask /tg/ for advice
I mean, I've received good advice in this thread. The rest is basically what I expected: 1-2 anons getting very upset that I won't do exactly as they think I should. I don't care to convince because you aren't at my table and there is zero benefit in doing so. It is funny to tell you you're wrong though and watch the meltdown proceed.

>>96523837
>It not your job to herd the players
Depends on the style of game being run.

>>96523878
>This sounds like you're just saying you can't form a theory of mind for others and understand how they think, so unless you put them in the exact same situation, they're unpredictable to you.
>Sorry, not how it works for those of us with an IQ above 100.
Yeah, this is the kind of Dunning-Kruger delusion that's the reason people have shat on you in this thread. No, anon, people just aren't that predictable, at least not when it comes to RPGs. They're more predictable in real life, where there are more constraints and actual, real stakes to taking risks and stepping out of their comfort zone, but when it comes to RPGs? Nah, that's where people do shit they wouldn't or couldn't in real life and haven't done in the previous campaigns.

>>96523911
>Yeah, this is the kind of Dunning-Kruger delusion that's the reason people
I don't consider the mentally infirm and retarded people.
>No, anon, people just aren't that predictable
For you, sure. That's fine, you just aren't skilled at understanding others and how they think, we all have flaws, yours just render a particular style of GMing nonfunctional for you.

>>96523878
>Depends on the style of game being run.
It not, the players are in charge of their characters. The GM is in charge of the world.

>>96524162
>It not
Did you mean to say "it doesn't", retard?
Because if so you're wrong.

>>96483949 (OP)
this board is for shitposting and bait, you're not supposed to discuss games here

>>96484279
What story?

>>96484597
Why are you running a book instead of a game?

>>96485093
Either you know what they'll do, or you don't. Any uncertainty at all, no matter how slight, means you don't know. There is no middle ground.

>>96486646
No, it's not bait. Answer the question immediately.

>>96486701
No one has ever chosen you, for anything.

>>96524943
>>96524951
>>96524934
Bait.

Struck a nerve huh? lmao

>>96524177
Nope, you're wrong.

>>96523971
No, for you. You aren't capable of predicting anything, at any time, in any situation, ever.

Sperganon is upset that he lost the argument, as usual.

Storyshitter malding as usual.

Millhouse is a meme guise!!!

Storyshitter malding as usual.

>>96524900
he isn't

>>96483949 (OP)
>supposed-to-lose villain isn't even the final boss of the campaign

>>96523878
>This sounds like you're just saying you can't form a theory of mind for others and understand how they think, so unless you put them in the exact same situation, they're unpredictable to you.

The question is why are you bothering to plan for the players, that work a GM does not need to do, that a job for the players. Are you in charge of the characters, and what they do, because if you are your writing a book.

A GM job is running the NPC's, factions, and events taking place in the world.

Example, how well is the new cult doing in taking over that one town on the boarder. Did they fail, succeed and start raising demonic armies to attack the other towns, start converting other towns. Do they need an artifact retrieved, how do they go about the task, do they hunt it down themselves, that's a enemy party the PC can encounter, post a bounty, and hire the PC's. Events generate events, which generate more events. The PC can get involved with, or go somewhere else for other events.

>>96528521
>The question is why are you bothering to plan for the players
Already been answered.
>B-but I think the only way to run is with a sandbox where you don't plan or anything!
That's a fine opinion formed through ignorance anon, but I did not ask and do not care for it.

this is the same master planner who couldn't even plan his way out of getting BTFO by the first post in his own thread

A btfo-ing so good it required the guy to samefag and reply to himself in anger for a week

>>96483949 (OP)
>he doesn't rush everything 30 minutes before the session
Lmao what a faggot