The "bitch about your GM" thread

Cygan: although I agree with you that millions of people are perfectly happy with railroaded scenarios like this, don't forget that we are talking about real RPGs here. The difference being that on a computer, once you go off the tracks, you can certainly explore (like in Oblivion), but you won't have an imaginative GM capable of adapting the scenario he had planned and simply modify it so he can still use it with the new path you have chosen. In a computer, when the castle you've to go to fight the Big Bad is in the East, but for whatever reason you decide to go West. Well, that's the end of it. Around a table, an experienced GM will simply sigh behind his screen at the players who totally misread the hint and simply transpose the castle and everything that went with it West You think he'd try to send a few subtle hints that they are on the wrong way first? Yes, except a really experienced GM knows that his players usually interprets that sort of hint as "We must be on the right tracks! They're all trying to misdirect us!".

Tomu: that's a very nice way to put it. It's all about what everybody expects the game is going to be. And since generally everybody has a different idea of what they find fun, it's better to talk about it beforehand.

What is this I don't even

I'm a very narrativist based GM, which means that I generally tend to think first in terms of how the story world would react to certain elements-this is limiting because if the players go off somewhere unexpected, the plot basically happens without them. But that's just a weakness of that particular model. The strength of the model is that as long as everyone subscribes to it, it's easier for everyone to acknowledge the consequences of going "off track" and people tend to be a lot more focused, making it easier to remain in character.

A role-playing game is a game in which you take the role of a character.

Please don't go around saying things like 'We are talking about real RP Gs'. Tabletop games are no more 'real RPG's' than a computer-based RPG.

Tabletop RPG's are certainly a hell of a lot more responsive and intuitive, I will agree. They are not, however, the real RPG's.

I agree with most of what you say. Just not that bit.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

I picked up on that too, but decided to let it pass, as I didn't get the impression that it was suggesting there's a "right" way to play a TTRPG and a "wrong" way.

No, but it is saying that there is a "Real RPG" (Tabletop RPG's) and "Pretend RPG's" (Other RPG's) just because one has unlimited options behind it and one does not.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Sort of. Bad choice of words methinks.

Actually Cygan got it right: one is limited and limiting, the other not (so much) by an order of magnitude. In my opinion and experience.

Perhaps my use of "real" wasn't the most eloquent and politically correct? But then it's because I tend to think that if you are exclusively playing computer RPGs, you're not experiencing the full thing.

Call me arrogant and patronizing (and I'm sorry in advance if that sounds like personal attacks, but I assure you it's not), but for me, playing computer RPGs is like having a wank. It's perfectly enjoyable and I can survive on it, but man, I've tried the real thing and I'd rather be having some of that action. That doesn't make wanking a bad thing! But it's limited. And limiting if that's all you ever experience, telling yourself "Fah! Why would I need to bother with X

when I have all the free porn on the Internet at my disposal!"

Sure it's hard to find the right partner, and it's easy to tell other people "you gotta try it with someone! It's a lot better!", and it's terribly presumptuous to tell other people how it should be done and what's the Right Way to do it. But I think we can all agree that once you've tried it, you realise one is The Real Deal, and the other is... not fake, okay, but like the demo version or something.

Does that make more sense? Do you see why I can't think of another word than "real" ?

(and please please please, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, so if you're gonna argue my point, well, please do that. I'd love to hear somebody explain to me why they have tried pen and paper RPG and never again will they do so, because clearly, they're getting all they need from computers already. Perhaps we should start a different thread, though)

edited 12th Aug '11 8:25:12 AM by fibojoly

What is this I don't even

The analogy fails because the dynamic between wanking vs. intimacy has a biological background, whereas the appreciation of Tabletop RP Gs vs Console RP Gs-or tabletop games designed like console RP Gs-is just a distinction of personal tastes. If there wasn't a sociobiological backing for actual intimacy being required, the difference between it and wanking would honestly be nothing but preference.

No, it's just, you're trying to claim one is The Real Deal, but you're ignoring the fact that it's a matter of preference. Some people like having unlimited freedom to explore (you, me) while others like having set limits.

It's not a matter of which is The Real Deal, it is a matter of both offering different experiences. You are looking for something in your games, and you find it in Tabletop RPG's. Other people look for something different- they look for a story to participate in, they don't look for a story they define.

Both are The Real Deal.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

What you are driving at, Cygan, is that they are entirely different media, and cannot be properly compared to one another.

Which invalidates your whole arguement in the first place. Yes, FFXIII is linear. It's also a computer RPG. It's simply not the same thing. Although if you want to draw comparisons between railroad RP Gs and sandboxes, outside of Japan, where people by FF simply because they want to show their support for the company, the best selling franchises on the market for ages have been GTA and Fallout. Now it might be hemmed in somewhat by ME franchise, but it's pretty clear that there is something about Sandbox-style RP Gs that draws in a whole lot of people.

Likewise, saying that I cannot use this thread as prime evidence for the negatives of railroading is about as ludicrous as denying evidence of racial discrimination because it was presented at a freedom rally. "Well, of course you can't accept this evidence! It was presented by the oppressed people at their rally! Don't you know they just come here to complain?!"

Also, I'm sorry Tomu, but the whole "the difference between sex vs wanking is just preference" thing — no. One includes building a connection with another human being. The other doesn't. They are fundamentally different, because one involves experiencing pleasure with someone else, while the other is merely you pleasuring yourself. You are once again confusing form with function.

edited 12th Aug '11 9:14:45 AM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

Also: I'm playing a Werewolf The Forsaken campaign that is definitely not a Wide-Open Sandbox. However, the storytelling is satisfactory enough to keep the party interested and there are Two Lines, No Waiting - we're either watching over our turf or chasing a possessed serial killer, depending on how prepared we are (for example, we can't go after that fucker if half of our characters are heavily wounded). It's not railroading - everything is sane and consequence-based.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

This discussion has officially become insipid.

The point I was getting at is that the "Console games are wanking" analogy does not follow.

edited 12th Aug '11 9:23:16 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

^ Yeah, bleh.

edited 12th Aug '11 9:27:04 AM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Time for a "gush about your GM" thread.

First key to interpreting a work: Things mean things.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12965758850A98116600&page=1#1

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Oh hey! I'll just go over there then...

First key to interpreting a work: Things mean things.

Tomu: an analogy is like an illusion: it will disintegrate if you start disbelieving. But if you got my point before you started scratching at it, then it served its purpose.

Funnily enough, if you stick with the analogy, this thread is very much like a "complain about your girlfriend" thread. And you and I seem to share the belief that communication between both sides is the best way to solve problems, too!

Cygan: well, it certainly is a matter of preference whether you want to endure an asshole GM who seems not to want to give you the sort of adventures you want to enjoy. You could decide you've had enough and go back to the computer and have fun that way. Perhaps more fun than you ever had at the table! That's absolutely possible. (it has happened to me a few times!)

But you can't talk with your copy of Oblivion and tell it "Dude! I already solved your stupid puzzle! The first letter of each chapter forms a sentence and tells me where to go! I got it! Now why isn't there anything there? And why do I have to go do your stupid fetch quest for some NPC to "help me solve this riddle" that I've already figured out?" That's not a matter of personal preference, that's a matter of one medium being inherently limited.

To get back on track: this thread is about bitching about stupid GMs (And I'm sorry for derailing it so much). Will you tell those people who complain that they should go play on a computer because they definitely won't face the same problems? Because they can experience all the stuff they liked about their pen and paper game, but without all the hassle of having a GM who doesn't know what he is doing?

What is this I don't even

There is no console RPG with the plot that I want to interact with. Creating console RP Gs is haaaaaaaaard.

@G Ming conversation: I've been a GM for 14 years. I've done countless tabletop games and three LAR Ps (one of which had 70+ players at it's peak), and the one thing I learned was thus; the players will always ignore, subvert or otherwise mutilate whatever story you've come up with.

So don't bother.

Generate a starting point, a vague notion of an ending and let the players' actions determine the course. Oh sure, give a nudge here and there; but never plot more than two steps ahead of the current action.

I always run games by the seat of my pants, and you know what? The players are happy because they feel like they have some control (because they do, really), and I'm happy because the game isn't a fight...it's a cooperative exercise.

A good game is like good sex; if it isn't a team effort, someone's going home frustrated. G Ms who try and make it all about their story always end up angry, just like players who want the game to be all about their character and won't give an inch. Also like sex, you have to give a little to get a little.

So, don't plot it out beforehand. Simply learn to improvise. It's been my experience that players will forgive (and forget about) plot-holes one could drive a truck through as long as they are entertained on a session-by-session basis. You game to have fun; if everyone's having fun, you're doing it right.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

lolpwnd.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Again, it really comes down to knowing your player base, but since Dn D is a free medium, it tends to draw those who are interested in that free medium, meaning that there's a disproportionate amount of players who are much more in preference to versatility than linearity. Add that to self-selection bias, and it's not surprising that you may find yourself facing down the barrel of improvisation fanatics 100% of the time.

@Tomu: I don't think you can break it down by system preference; I've G Med about a dozen different settings for a wide variety of people, and in each case they preferred a free-form environment as players. What never fails to leave me scratching my head is how those very same people will turn around and be hyper-control-freaks when they gamemaster.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Dn D is just a placeholder that's easy to type, though I do think some systems lead themselves to improvisation better than others.

My point is, I have different experiences from you, so you must just be a natural freeformatude magnet.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:46:11 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

@Tomu: Ah ok. So, you see more players who honestly prefer a linear setting (Where the GM has everything plotted out) vs. a freeform environment?

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Yes and no. I tend to find players who are much more concerned with having an epic story, and that tend to get annoyed when the game grinds to a halt due to analysis paralysis and the inability of the party to decide what to do. I also tend to find that, after the fact, after I've abandoned a campaign and explained the plot (I do that for various reasons-don't judge me!!!), the general response is "That's the most awesome thing I've ever heard."

Diam, for instance, is eternally pissed at me for canceling SSS.