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.