NO WAIT PLEASE!!! Don't go back to the Player's Handbook!! I can CHANGE!!I just finished my totally original campaign: Teleporter Mazes of the Goblin King!! It's got stone hallways and riddles that are ALL pop culture puns, you'll love it, everyone loves it!! And don't worry about combat being slow. I FIXED it!! I made all enemies act on the same initiative and just, like, doubled all damage!!My homebrew isn't broken!! My world isn't just Temu Tolkien!! PLEASE I'll reflavor a beholder as your OC!! I'll give you a free feat every level!! I'll retcon the thing that killed your last three characters!! ANYTHING!!COME BACK TO THE TABLE. I'M JUST AS GOOD AS OFFICIAL MATERIAL. BETTER, EVEN!! WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME!!
I'm sorry, anon. One of the others players has their own campaign ready: Portal Labyrinth of the Gnoll Lord, and I am very interested in trying it out. Maybe once we're finished with that campaign we can try yours out?
>>98633978What is with this bizarre new fixation on vilifying the basic fundamentals of the hobby?
hey buddy... everything alright? wanna share what's bothering you?
>>98634010Probably some autist who ragequit his group after his DM changed an adventure module slightly because the player wouldn't stop metagaming.
>>98634057>Probably some autistironic...
>>98634061relax
>>98634090calm down
>>98634112nigga we're playing a TTRPG wtf are you doing
>>98634112Chill out
>>98633978Honestly this new shitpost at least has some weirdly focused effort put into it. Better than most of what goes on here these days.
>>98634140wind it back
>>98633978In over fifteen years as a player and a GM, I have never once played in or run a prewritten adventure. Your existence confuses me.
>>98634501I've done it a couple of times over the past nineteen years, but it's generally not been a good experience. There have been a couple of premade modules that have been alright, but they've generally been ones that contain some kind of a scenario but leave things pretty open and leave the GM plenty of room to change things and insert his own stuff. The problem with modules in my experience is that they obviously can't react to players going off the rails, and indeed that things need to be on rails for them to work in the first place. I've pretty much given up on prewritten adventures at this point.
>>98634010Same thing as storyshitting, freakshit, and a dozen other Milhouse "memes" forced around here over the last decade. It's just trolling. They want to make people angry, and they do it by taking an indefensible position and then defending it, but badly. The people who disagree are made angry by the position, the people who might agree are made angry by the poor attempt.
>>98635265this, many people just treat 4chan as the place where you epically insult and troll people
>>98635602>>98635265OP is just bants thoughbeit
>>98635614No, he's just retarded, on purpose.
>>98635616It's a funny OP, what can I say
>>98635265>storyshittingReal thing people have complained about for decades, the proclivity of GMs or players to pretend a game is a novel and disrupt the game to serve the narrative (that no one cares about, unless it emerges from the gameplay).>freakshitAlso just a new term for a real problem that has existed for decades, where a party consists of nothing but stat advantages and it becomes almost impossible to imagine how this group even functions as people (no attempt is made by the players to make it make sense).I think this one even had a comic making fun of it involving an all-monster party, which is an adjacent but related gripe.
>>98635627Oh look, an example of the exact thing I'm talking about. Railroading is a thing, but storyshitting is not. I would be willing to accept your definition of freakshit (an amusing inversion of storyshitting as you have it) but it's not really a thing that happens. Any DM with two brain cells will just say no. All this merely shows is that you are willing to take stupid positions and make a hash of defending them, just as I laid out earlier.
>>98635265>>98635627>>98635659freakshit is a real problem which is obnoxious because it's attached at the hip to another problem which is people who entered the hobby not because they want to play RPGs but because they want to self-insert as some super special OC. It's made even worse by the fact that it's a social contagion so there's a runaway effect where more and more people do it by default and act like you're Hitler if you criticize them about it in any way
>>98635659>Railroading is a thing, but storyshitting is notDifferent terms for a similar family of concepts.>it's not really a thing that happensIt is. Guess you just don't play games?>Any DM with two brain cells will just say no.Most GMs average 1.5 and are too afraid of dipping below 3 players to say no when they should.
>>98635733Self-insert fags have always been in this hobby though, ALWAYS. As far back as the 70s. When I was first exposed to D&D in the fucking 90s via Dexter's Lab it was a thing, and when I got into playing it in the early 00s it was a thing (that, or making clones of popular characters like Drizzt).
>>98633978>COME BACK TO THE TABLE. I'M JUST AS GOOD AS OFFICIAL MATERIAL. BETTER, EVEN!! WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME!!You would have to deliberately go out of your way to make something worse than 5e.
>>98635627My issue with both of those terms is that there is no definition that any of these trolls agree upon. Hell, most don’t use either “freakshit” nor “storyshit” the way you do. I’ve seen elves and dwarves called “freakshit”, and I’ve heard regular dungeon delving adventures called “storyshit” cause the players don’t immediately decide at the last minute to NOT delve into the dungeon and go pirating immediately. And yes, I get why there is no agreed upon definition. It’s part of the baiting process, change the definition to fit whatever angers the other party the most. But I still can’t accept them as actual fan terms for that reason. The majority use it as troll bait, and so far that’s all they’ll be.
>>98633978When you drop a game, I've literally replaced you in 1-3 sessions. Playoids are a dime a dozen.
>>98636149you don't actually have a problem with the terms, you have a problem with people being unreasonable, because that's what you're talking aboutThe terms are perfectly fine and describe completely real and destructive problems that have taken over the hobby. Much like the discourse in electronic games about 'soul', it's a term that people intrinsically understand, and the people who do not or pretend to not understand categorically don't belong in the hobby in the first place.Any person who has spend enough time playing TTRPGs (provided he isn't zone out and actually cares about the medium) has ran into these problems at some point and knows what they are. Realistically the only way someone has zero experience with them to the point where he really doesn't understand what people are even talking about is if the person does not play or has played with one single self-insulated group for decades
>>98634501I honestly don't know if I count or not. I've bought and used a ton of products sold as prewritten adventures, but only so I could bust them up for parts to use elsewhere.
>>98636253I’ve admittedly seen a lot of the problems that people try to lump under “freakshit” and “storyshit”, but they usually come from different sources/reasonings that make the umbrella term less viable for me. Take “freakshit”, for example. Plenty of people who play non-human fantasy species cause they call humans “boring”. Plenty of power gamer types who claim their character is half angel half demon so they can get unreasonable bonuses. Plenty of guys who are basically self-inserting as their sparkle dog OCs which are some variant of demigod because that’s what they want to be. All would be labeled “freakshit”, but all rubbed each other the wrong way when I saw it irl.I’m not opposed to labels for a particular type of bad player, I just don’t find it useful when it’s so broadly applied that it’s become “everyone who I don’t like at the table” or “any game that isn’t pure sandbox”. It’s only good for rage bait at that point.
>>98636426I agree but in the modern internet that's something that happens to every single widely used term. Terms originate because they describe something people are familiar with that has no description up to that point, and as more and more people adopt it, it reaches people who are outsiders and don't know or care much about the meaning. Then the term just becomes "thing I like" and "thing I dislike" because normalfags have no conception of the world beyond that. This is a problem separate from the terms freakshit and storyshitting themselves. As usual, the problem is that a community has been flooded by non-interested casuals
>>98636253NTA but my problem with terms is how dumb they sound. Railroading is a good term as it's evocative, but the trend of calling anything poster doesn't like as "[thing]shitting" is, and may God forgive me for uttering this, the Vivziepop of terminology. It's slathering a thick layer of "fucks" and "shits" over language to try and cover how utterly unimaginative one is.Arguing semantics and definitions is the lowest form of internet discourse, but for your own sake, think of better terms so you don't look like an utter muppet using them.
>>98636523If you can come up with a good alternative I'm all ears. The reason why those terms stick is because they do get a very visceral point across with their vulgarity that can't be expressed as clearly with other words. You might dislike the term freakshit but you immediately understand its meaning and you immediately feel the hateful disdain of the person using it
>>98635852>Different terms for a similar family of concepts.NAYRT. Can you give an example of storyshitting that is not railroading?
>>98636784let's say you have an emergent story where a player is about to die but the DM pulls a Deus Ex machina because keeping that character is more important than following the rules
>>98636820And how is that not railroading? Forcing outcomes to conform to the GM's narrative is the entire definition of the term.
>>98636867In that example it's not done to conform to a strict narrative, it's simply giving primacy of the narrative elements over the gameYou seem to have a very wide and loose definition of railroading
>>98636551>The reason why those terms stick is becausethey've been being spammed on this board for a decade now. That's it. When you force something for long enough, it becomes part of the lexicon. The initial pushback against them was pretty much unanimous, and that only encouraged their repetition as an easy way to ragebait.
>>98636878No, I was talking more about the fact that -shitting has become a common suffix because it communitcate something very specific. Like you're destructively and irresponsibly tainting something with your action
>>98636784From how I have seen it used by trolls, “storyshitting” and railroading get applied to any game that has some kind of storytelling in it above the level of “You exist, what now?” Essentially, imagine if everyone has geared up to play Tomb of Horrors, but on game day the table decides to just ignore the Tomb of Horrors and explore westward. If the GM insists on still playing Tomb of Horrors, then that’s railroading.Otherwise, I’ve seen it applied to people running a setting with politics and figures that are influential but the party may never meet. Those games get disparaged as being helmed by failed novelists, regardless of if it impacts the game or not.Whether or not those count as “real storyshit” or not, I don’t know. But that’s what I see from this board.
>>98636820Keeping the character probably is more important than the rules? What a nothingburger.
>>98636820This is very much railroading. You no longer have an emergent story, you have a story with fixed requirements, in this case a character's survival and have removed meaningful player choice to keep the story >emergingthe way you want.
>>98636878>The initial pushback against them was pretty much unanimousSo everyone hates them, yet everyone uses them?
>>98636876>You seem to have a very wide and loose definition of railroadingYou have an arbitrarily narrow one that doesn't stand up to historical usage of the term. The essence of railroading is that player choices and actions don't matter because the outcomes will be made to conform to the GM's chosen narrative. Nothing about that requires it to be a "strict" or prewritten narrative, just that the players are strapped in tight without any way to change tracks. As evidence, the old gif of Gromit laying down tracks ahead of the train he's on was always considered worthy of use in jokes about railroading, giving the lie to your insistence on a narrow definition.
>>98637007>anon fails to understand the usage of the past tenseMoreover, the fact that people in this very thread are continuing to deride the usage of the terms makes it pretty clear that "everyone" is not using them. Stop trying to manufacture consensus.
>>98634554Prewritten modules are meant to be introductory guides to teach newbies the concrete rules of the system in a controlled environment. Once you finish the module, the GM is supposed to branch out and allow the players to take the lead. Using them for anything but that is a failure of the concept.
>>98636551The reason why those terms "stick" is because a small number of people try to force them on /tg/. Wven here people generally get called out for using those terms, and I've rarely seen them used anywhere else but here. "Railroading", on the other hand, is a term that's genuinely managed to stick and spread in a way "storyshitting" never will.
>>98636149>I’ve seen elves and dwarves called “freakshit”, and I’ve heard regular dungeon delving adventures called “storyshit” cause the players don’t immediately decide at the last minute to NOT delve into the dungeon and go pirating immediately.Anon having never seen a white man called a "nigger" or a mentally healthy person called a "retard"
>>98637013I'm sorry, you're delusional. People use them because they're useful terms, and because they enrage people like you. There's no schizo conspiracy to force their usage.
>>98637122>People use them because they're useful termsWrong>and because they enrage peopleRight
>>98637122A small handful of retards on /tg/ using dumb terms on purpose in order to piss people off is not a conspiracy, true
>>98636878>>98637054Listen I don't disagree with you but you still haven't provided any alternatives. Descriptive language is extremely important to get concepts across and I personally believe that purity of description outweighs abuse of the word by subhumans when it comes to determining how valid a term is.
>>98637399Fundamentally, the negative externalities of using the word massively outweigh the benefits of a single word for "railroading (which I don't like)" or "other people's characters (which I don't like)."
>>98637399>you still haven't provided any alternatives“Railroading”, you disingenuous mongoloid.
>>98637454But you haven't been very convincing when presenting your thesis that the terms railroading and storyshitting are interchangeableWhen I head railroading I imagine a DM desperately trying to steer the players into the one story idea he had and which he really wants them to experience exactly according to his plansWhen I head storyshitting I imagine Critical Rolethose words don't evoke the same meaning at all
>>98637094So you agree it’s being used by idiots to the point of it having no point then beyond being rage bait
>>98637467>those words don't evoke the same meaning at allYou literally said the same thing twice in a row, though. If anything, Critical Role is even closer to your narrow definition of “railroading”, given that there was a script.
>>98637665Ohh I see where the confusion comes from. Critical role has both railroading and storyshitting. I guess it would have been better if I found an example which only has one of them.They are two separate things. You find it confusing because they often get used together, but that's not a rule and it doesn't always happen. Do you know how an arch-nemesis and an evil monologue are separate tropes but they often appear together? It's like that.
>>98637094>mentally healthy person called a "retard"We are on 4chan. I see reasonable people with reasonable opinions being called a retard in like 3 out of 5 posts.
>>98637698Pretty sure they found your use of the terms confusing just because you suck at expressing your opinions.
>>98637729if it wasn't already factual reality that the word 'storyshitting' exists to express a meaning impossible to express by another word we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place. Clearly it's already established and pre-agreed that the word exists to fulfill some kind of purpose. The thing we're debating right now is what the word can be replaced with if it's that important
>>98637549>bitches about meme buzzwords>calls insults "rage bait"lmao
>>98637816Yes, that’s the point of an insult, douchebag
>>98637698So explain what “storyshitting” is in a fashion that excludes the railroading components of your examples. Given your failure to do so thus far, I won’t hold my breath.
>>98637756>if it wasn't already factual reality that the word 'storyshitting' exists to express a meaning impossible to express by another word we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.That is not self-evident. One could easily propose a word for an extant concept and then violently defend the new word for no reason other than the entertainment value of annoying others.>Clearly it's already established and pre-agreed that the word exists to fulfill some kind of purpose.That is not clear, established, or pre-agreed. Your attempts to manufacture consensus are both transparent and childish.
>>98637756Literal communist tactics>But, comrade, you must admit that there would be no reason for us to be holding a trial if you weren’t guilty.
>>98638016>>98638037>>98638084Absent of any kind of elements of restricting, manipulating, or outright directing the journey or actions of a player (railroading), a DM can be overly focused on making a campaign needlessly and excessively presentable as a high-quality story (to real or imagined outside viewers) to the detriment of the actual gameplay. Storyshitting is when at any given moment the DM is more concerned and invested in the coherence and presentability of the story than he is in making the campaign interesting in terms of hard gameplay, even if that doesn't express itself in any way as control of the agency of the players
>>98638371you're a nogamesFor one, the DM spends a lot of time explaining and emphasizing information and details which ultimately have no relation that what's happening in the gameplay and which are irrelevant to the players and their characters. This is a misuse of both time and mental bandwidth for everyone playing the game
>>98638410Hypothetical question. What if the GM is giving information that is in fact relevant to the players and their characters, but it isn't blindingly obvious in the here and now, whereupon the players might just make the assumption said information isn't relevant to them and such ignore it? Such as telling the party the crime families in a city that the GM is planning to be the reason for the bandits that the party is hunting down, in order to set up further fights against those crime families if the players decide to. Is that storyshitting if the players tell him they don't care to hear about the crime families and by extension don't care to hear about the hook for future adventures/encounters?
>>98638410>>98638455Finding a clue about who the bandits work for should prompt a curious player to ask about what their character might know about that crime family. Recognizing a crest on a letter as belonging to them.If the GM tells a PC that they recognize the crest and explains what it means without the player asking and without any sort of roll, then it is technically railroading if the GM proceeds to explain anyway. Doubly so if the GM is explicitly planning for the players to face the crime family without any potential to avoid it.
>>98638455I'm gonna assume you're asking this in good faith. No, having story in a game is NOT INHERENTLY storyshitting. Storyshitting emerged as a criticism of DMs who go too far and put more story in their game than what they need for a good game. It's all about excesses. Just like how freakshit is not a criticism of the existence of beast races and etc. but rather an autoimmune reaction to the social contagion of newfag players making entire parties consisting only of weird extravagant characters (usually non-human).
>>98634501You didn't miss anything. In 35 years, I have only run two pre-written that was worth anything. The rest was so poorly designed that I ended up improvising most of the material anyway, which then defeats the purpose of a pre-written campaign.
>>98638475>>98638506Gotcha, thanks. I've GMed for ages, but I'm always self-conscious on trying to work out how much is the right amount of information I should be conveying to my table for clues and other background information. So it's nice to get other people's viewpoints on the matter.
>>98637029>Prewritten modules are meant to be introductory guidesThis might be true for D&D, I wouldn't know, but it's certainly not true in general. I have more than a dozen modules in my bookshelf for various games that supposes both the players and their characters have ample experience.
>>98638322None of those anons. I tend to use storyshitting to refer to player activity rather than railroading which refers to gm activity. A player who overemphasises their character's backstory, arc, talks over everyone else, wants their character to be the main character of the party and other mary sue urges are storyshitting. More than one player can be a storyshitter at the same time as a gm is railroading them. There are entire tomes devoted to this being the correct way to play, that the gm should focus on keeping everyone happy and helping them tell their stories. It can also apply to the gm who has specific stories they want to tell through the trappings of a game, which usually takes the form of a railroad but can likely be distinguished even if there is often overlap.
>>98638586Note this is different from storyfagging, which is playing actual storygames that are a lot better suited to the stated goals of railroading and storyshitting but tend to have a few very specific procedures that filter out games who are more interested in control feelings than storytelling. Most actual storygames involve letting go of narrative control in various ways to create unexpected group outcomes rather than storyshitting and railroading which is about trying to horde that to yourself as much as possible to get the outcomes and power fantasy they desire.
>>98638322>needlessly and excessively presentable as a high-quality story (to real or imagined outside viewers) to the detriment of the actual gameplay. Unless it's interfering with player actions/choices I don't see how there could be an excess of this. You're making storyshitting sound like good GMing but SaiD iN a StuPid VOice.
Is this the same faggot that got destroyed in the sandbox threads?
>>98638870if a DM is skilled enough to do it without it ruining player experience then there's no problem. The problem is that it's not something everyone can do. A lot of DMs want to LARP as the ecelebs they watched doing it online (scripted entertainment) and wonder why it's not working and why their players are suddenly acting frustrated and annoyed
>>98639042Should we have a -shitting for every possible thing a GM could do excessively? I've played in games where we never accomplish anything because there's 1d6+1 hobgobins and 2 worgs behind every tree and hillock. Was he combatshitting?
>>98639055if you find it objectionable you could replace -shitting with -bombing. I just really don't understand why anyone considers terminology to be some community-ending disruptor
>>98634133>le chiffre is holding the yellow token and preening like he's about to win>red has already won???
>>98639233I imagine thats part of the joke
>>98633978Sorry, anon. I've already replaced you. There are seven other players just like you with tighter, fresher attitudes eager to get me deep inside their imagination.
>>98639366this guy FUCKS
>>98635614The OP's funny to you? When you look at it you snort and chuckle just a little, and think to yourself "Now THAT is FUNNY." maybe you think back at it later in the day and you smirk and titter a little? That kinda funny? You're having a good time right now just looking at this thread thinking that it doesn't get any better than this.
>>98638410On the contrary, seemingly irrelevant detail may be important later, or ground characters in the world, presenting further "emergent story" opportunities as they have more knowledge of the world. Custom settings don't have the advantage of officially published settings with 20 authors and 50 years of cumulative lore, so anything that grounds players in them is good>Just don't use custom settingsI would rather neuter myself with a rusty spoon.
>>98638506>Just like how freakshit is not a criticism of the existence of beast races and etc.90% of the time it's absolutely fucking is. 89% of the time it's TRVETRVDSOVLVLTRATRVDITIONAL gamers deriding anything that isn't a 100% nonmagical human who is a peasant who took up the sword.
>>98639481Just came into the thread after reading it in the catalog.Yeah, it got a chuckle out of me. Unless this is actually the #395825th thread about the topic in the past week, I think those fags at the start of the thread are being suspiciously defensive little pussies.
>>98639621It's also the case that you can't really provide solely relevant information without railroading like hell. Like, sometimes when you mention something about the world, you intend it to be relevant, but players end up going in a different direction.>>98639672It's not the 395825th thread, but it's the third thread about the same subject in the last few days.
>>98639640>t. freakshit player
>>98639729>It's also the case that you can't really provide solely relevant information without railroading like hell. I'd say that the distinction of relevant information already indicates railroading. In a true sandbox, any information could become relevant, and it's up to the players what leads they pursue. The townsfolk telling the player the legends about a dragon in the mountains when they're asking about nearby monsters will be helpful if they actually decide to hunt it down. But if the party goes in the other direction, it wasn't exactly a waste of time either, because they couldn't have made the decision to avoid the dragon without knowing it was there.
>>98639729>Like, sometimes when you mention something about the world, you intend it to be relevant, but players end up going in a different direction.That's not railroading, that's providing hooks. Railroading is when GM straight-up disregards player input in deciding where the party goes. And, like people with free will, party CAN decide to trust the GM and follow his hooks. This is also not railroading even if it ends up moving the campaign away from the platonic ideal of sandbox.
>>98639672Well I'm glad you're having fun, and I mean that. That's how it should be.
>>98640448I didn't say that providing hooks was railroading. I said that making sure all the information you provide ends up being relevant is only possible if you railroad.
>>98640566Fair, but I also meant that the definitions are murky at best.
>people playing devil's advocate for a term used solely by trollsThis debate wouldn't exist if /tg/ had functional moderators.
>>9863964089% of the time its trolls acting stupid to get a rise out of retards who think every opinion posted on the internet is actually held by the one posting it.The other 11% of the time its being used ironically.4chan is not serious business. If something posted is egregiously retarded it's probably a troll farming (you)s. It's been over a decade and /tg/ is still the worst board at ignoring bait.
>>98635733>>98635857Self-insertion is literally the purpose of RPGs you fucking weirdos. There is no fucking reason for the entire "play-acting" part of RPGs except enabling self-insertion. If you don't do that, you should play a boardgame instead since that's optimized for pure gaming.
>>98638475>If the GM tells a PC that they recognize the crest and explains what it means without the player asking and without any sort of roll, then it is technically railroadingThat is a completely insane standard. You are insane. Providing the players information that their characters would know and plainly get with their normal senses is 99% of what you do in an RPG.>>98638532Don't listen to him, he's a crazy person.
>>98634162
>>98635265Freakshit is a real problem, doe
>>98639109Well, the language you use has aesthetics and those aesthetics matter. It's why I greet my boss with "Good morning Mr. Paulson" and not "Wazzup my nigga". It's why poets are very particular about their choice of words. It's why something might sound sexy when said in French but the exact same thing said in German sounds like someone swearing at you."Storyshitting" is simply an aesthetically unpleasing word. The user comes across as a bratty middle schooler and I instinctively want to avoid conversing with them.Aside from that there are other problems, namely that nobody can seem to agree on a definition. This anon >>98638586 uses a different definition than yours, and IIRC the anon who first tried to coin the term way back when it first showed up here intended it to mean something that was in the ballpark of quantum ogres, but not exactly the same. For a term that is so niche that I've never seen or heard it even once outside of /tg/, that's an awful lot of disagreement about the definition!Many of these definitions even contradict each other or even themselves, as pointed out by these anons: >>98639729>>98639621e.g. "storyshitting" is supposedly in the same family of errors as railroading, but they are pointing out that it is literally impossible to avoid what you call "storyshitting" without doing at least a little bit of railroading.In summary: the word is aesthetically unpleasing to hear or read, nobody can agree on the definition, and the definitions people do have are often contradictory or nonsensical. That checks all the boxes for a useless word that should be retired.If you want to come up with a better word, I'd avoid the -shit suffix entirely, as it doesn't really mean anything other than "thing I don't like", which dooms the word to being so subjective that after only a few iterations of the telephone game everyone will have a different idea of what it "really" means.Random idea off the top of my head: "narrative supremacism".
>>98641185>ROLE playing game>a game where you play a ROLE>ROLE is defined as a specific part or character played by a personYour opinion doesn't even pass the definition test.Self inserters are low IQ retards who are actually just incapable of abstract thought and putting themselves in another point of view. As such that should be gatekept from the hobby.
>>98641499Your retarded definition will continue to be wrong no matter how many whining posts on teegee you'll make.
>>98641429>descriptivist context is important >that's why this term I dislike needs a prescriptive singular definitionIts supposed to be an unpleasant term baka. That is is aesthetically unpleasing is indicative of its effectiveness. That it covers overlapping and interrelated concepts is good. Its not a pseudo academic term like >narrative supremacism and frankly if you can't prove in a meaningful way you're read the old forge article and played all three broad groupings in a wide range you're not capable of that sort of discussion. >if you want to come up with a better word No, I think I'll keep using it as is. Works great.
>>98634010Riddles are unironically never good because either you steal one everyone should know or people spout answers that make sense to them but they can't get the answer the DM wanted which is many times downright nonsensical to them.
>>98641429The whole storyshit/freakshit thing is just the same usage as the -slop suffix.But if he switched to saying storyslop or freakslop then he'd be putting himself in the same bucket as everyone else who tags on -slop to a description of something they don't like.
>>98641185No it isn't. Who told you that?
>>98638016Storyshitting is primarily a way of thinking about games. A storyshitter GM believes that he is crafting a narrative for the players to experience (the opposite of a game). When talking about games, he uses terms like plot hook, big bad, main quest, arc, what's best for the story, rule of cool, and so forth. Storyshitters are typically the result of a poor education.Storyshitting may be considered a goal : I want the players to see my cool story. If that's the case, then railroading is a method. Where storyshitting above was described in terms of the game is arranged, railroading is a matter of procedures. Fudging (both in terms of dice and events), quantum ogres, recycling, and linear design are all examples of railroading procedures.Storyshitters naturally often employ railroading as it's a highly effective strategy in relation to their goal. However, one does not require the other. Consider this example.A storyshitter might decide that when the players reach skull island and discover the mythical dildo, Nefarion Darkgrimm will begin the evil ritual.So far, so storyshat. But there's no railroading here, yet.Now, IF the GM sets about setting up things to nudge or force the players in the direction of skull island, THEN that would be railroading. We can easily imagine there might be half a dozen such story triggers set up in the game world, each based on the story the GM wants to shit. But it's not railroading AS LONG AS the players aren't forced in the direction of any of them.Obviously, this example should make clear why storyshitting and railroading are often found together. Railroading ia useful if you're a storyshitter. But often found together doesn't mean identical. Protons are nearly always found together with electrons (with the exception of H+), but they're still distinct entities, and thus distinct concepts. A storyshitter may conceivably never engage in railroading in his entire life. It's just not very probable.
>>98641429It doesn't and they don't. Only meaning matters.
>>98641697> No, I think I'll keep using it as is. Works great.Not that anon, but it always makes me think the person sincerely using it is a troll or cretin precisely cause it sounds like something a middle schooler would think up. Like without fail.
>>98641606Indeed, yours will.
>>98643426So it's just "good GMing" as opposed to "a dull grey expanse of boring interchangeable combat encounters linked by resource depletion".
>>98643467No, it's actually what I wrote in my post indicating it is, and not an imaginary phrase in quotes no one ever said thay you substituted for thinking.It would be good GMing if events didn't nonsensically wait arbitrarily long for the players to show up, since they're the result of thinking beings making decisions, and not IF THEN code blocks from a bad interactive fiction game.
>>98643467I can't imagine someone getting upset at the term 'plot hook'. Literally just describes a rumor or incident that points the players in the direction of adventure.Rule of Cool is similarly suspect there, as that doesn't typically refer to anything involving a grander narrative, but rather things like handwaving movement speed, action economy, or fall damage when the party Fighter wants to swing on a chandelier and do a jumping attack on an enemy. This seems more like storyshitting is just bundling together a bunch of common terms that he personally finds annoying.It's particularly hilarious given the OP post of this thread. OP is praising official content and prewritten modules, but if you open up any module it's going to be broken up into chapters. There will be information for the DM about who an antagonistic NPC that is scheming and plotting who the players are expected to confront at the end. Calling them the big bad, the bbeg, the main villain, or anything else doesn't change that their role in the adventure remains the same. Same with calling the sections of the adventure chapters or arcs, because the terminology is still drawing from storytelling.>>98643492If an event is set to occur only when the players arrive, regardless of any other choices they make, then that's just railroading again.
>>98643516There aren't plot hooks because games aren't stories. They're games. The "plot", if it exists at all, is created by players interacting with the world.No, it isn't railroading, because the players can choose to never arrive. So long as they are free to make a choice, they are by definition not railroaded.
>>98643516Rule of cool is not suspect. If the rules of the game don't allow you to do the things you want to be able to do, you should be playing a different game that does, instead. It is not defensible.
>>98643532>There aren't plot hooks Yes there are.>No, it isn't railroadingYes it is.>>98643541>Rule of cool is not suspect. It's extremely suspect.
>>98643545Wrong on all points.
>>98643459>filters retards Working as intended.
>>98643548Nope, I'm correct on all points. Only a niggershitter would disagree.
>>98643563Conceding already? Damn, that was fast.
>>98643568Your concession was fast, but I accept it regardless.
>>98643467>>98643516Its always amazing to see how people will intentionally refuse to understand or engage with someone's points when it conflicts with their personal experience. It gets weirder when these sorts specifically will also say things like >there's no wrong way to play the game or something like that. Its like they can't understand their own ideas and just use it as a paste over their ignorance.
>>98643576On the contrary. Reply again if you're the one that conceded.
>>98643551Well, it does highlight the retards that use it like it means anything anymore, so yes
>>98643587Highlights retards like you, you mean.
>>98643516Thank God there's someone else in the thread with an ounce of sense (perhaps more).
>>98643592Sorry anon, no one above the age of 18 uses it
>>98643426Thank God there's someone else in the thread with an ounce of sense (perhaps more).
>>98643601You were already dismissed, sorry.
>>98643580>Its like they can't understand their own ideas and just use it as a paste over their ignorance.People who use the term 'paste over' are glue eaters. They eat glue. If you disagree with this, you are intentionally refusing to understand or engage with my point.
>>98643616Yeah, like this. You refuse to even think about the content of the words and have to just >nou its remarkable to see. Like you're operating on pure stimulus response.
>>98643492Do you genuinely think that a game is improved by shit happening out of the players' view? Ooops, you spent two weeks fucking around in the foothills, and the orcs were actually due past your village just now. Whoops! Guess there was no way you could have known, tee hee!You've just abandoned pacing entirely at that point.
>>98643643Why did you try to present the GM as malicious in your example?If you want to attempt to write a post without being dishonest or poisoning the well, I'll be happy to discuss the topic with you. I can wait. Though I won't hold my breath.
>>98643609Begin, underage
>>98643631I accept your concession, glue eater.
>>98643643Not that anon, what's to be gained by intentionally misrepresenting what someone else wrote this hard? Having a variety of in game world events you inform players of through rumours and they can decide what to act on while you have a good base to use as a living world to draw on while improvising or making material works quite well. I can understand the overlap between rumours and plot hooks but also the distinction of how they're framed from the player perspective. If the gm is placing plot hooks it has more of an indication they are making specific arcs they want players to follow compared to rumours or in game information players can act on but aren't required to. This compounds when combined with other narrative vocabulary so I can similarly understand the hesitation to use it if the goal is more procedural and player driven emergent games.
>>98643658It was mostly for comedy, but sure. Why bother setting things up (I'm sure you agree the GM has to do some level of curation or preparation or suchlike) and then letting it all expire outside the players' awareness? I can understand letting a situation spiral once the players have been made aware, but bolts from the (apparent) blue are just going to make your players annoyed. Actually, even worse you just destroy your own prep and have to do more, to no effect.I'm not going to simulate a whole clockwork world with trade caravans on calendars and wars slowly unfolding unless the players get something from it. Life's too fucking short mate.
>>98643675>overlap between rumours and plot hooks
>>98643678>and then letting it all expire outside the players' awareness? This sort of wording makes me think you don't really understand that having an idea of events happening in the game world can be updated as needed during play and between sessions. >>98643688Just what a glue eater would say.
>>98643694>as neededNo, that's just it. "As needed" is exactly my standard. Events are needed as soon as player attention falls upon the area/person/whatever in question. I don't need a trade caravan to arrive at a town unless or until the players are there or their auspices relate to it in some way. Hey, maybe those caravans jazz past Fuckington Village every week, but I'm not actually moving them around in the background. I'm certainly not making all the NPCs and shit to fill out a caravan every time. I'm keeping one in the wings until the PCs get there. Parsimony is important because I only have so much time in my week to prep.(Just to head off a likely response: you DO need a good variety of things going on, it's not mandatory for players to pick up any particular thread, it is useful to have an idea what will happen if the players do nothing with a situation as well as a view to different outcomes, most of the time in my prep an "arc" as someone described is more like a little cast of NPCs, a bunch of related sets or locations, a synopsis of the conflict or scenario they're embroiled in. NOT a predetermined tale of any kind)
>>98643678Thanks for at least trying. To explain, I'll follow along with your example from earlier. Suppose there is an orc warband or patrol or whatever, and they are travelling over terrain in a particular direction, according to whatever goals they have. In this case, let's assume there are rules for determining rates of travel. Then I apply the rules for travel to the orcs, just like I would for the players. And just as would be the case for the players, they can be interacted with. In most terrain, a large group of orcs will leave signs of their passage, which can be spotted and tracked. Maybe the players, being a smaller group, can take a shortcut through a different route not available to the orcs, and get ahead to warn whoever they're approaching. Or maybe they try to ally with the orcs. Or use domination magic with them. Etc."The orcs passed by your village" isn't some unrecoverable failure state. It's something that happened in the world, because the orcs had somewhere they wanted to be. And just like the players, they're not going to arbitrarily sit around doing nothing for no reason. They have goals, and they do things to achieve those goals.All this, of course, assumes the players give a shit about the orcs, and have some reason to care where they're going. For all I know, maybe the players are banking on the orcs razing those assholes over in Desert Town so they can get control of the oasis after they fuck off. I don't know what decisions the players will make, and I don't need to know. All I need to do is run the game and apply the rules.
>>98643675>what's to be gained by intentionally misrepresenting what someone else wrote this hard?NTA either, but the same question could be asked of what's to be gained by acting like rumours and plot hooks are being used in a meaningfully different way.Rumors are one way players get information, but so are random encounters. Finding a corpse in the road isn't a rumor, but is still an indication of trouble. Arriving at a village with everyone missing isn't a rumor either, but something is still clearly wrong. Someone using 'plot hook' as a catch-all term for these sorts of events that the players can act on isn't being used to indicate that there's a particular story to follow.>This compounds when combined with other narrative vocabulary so I can similarly understand the hesitation to use it if the goal is more procedural and player driven emergent games.To me, this all seems like someone is reading far too heavily into the vocabulary used in order to perform a bad faith reading of intent.
>>98643723lol this is a funny thing to see. We do the same thing. >there are trade caravans between x and y is sufficient. How did you make an entire strawman out of nothing and are stuck on it from what's been posted? Are you just mad about someone doing it wrong entirely in your head? I thought you only have so much time in a week dude. I have no idea how you're getting this idea people are tracking all the movements between Fuckignton and Cuntville.
>>98643731This sounds like the most colossal waste of my GMing time imaginable, tracking every group of monsters and people in the region day by day.If the alternative is storyshitting, well, I guess I'm a storyshitter.
>>98643756>Are you just mad about someone doing it wrong entirely in your head? This seems to be what the entire thread consists of. People using slightly different wordings to describe the exact same thing, and then talking past each other because they're extrapolating something terrible.
>>98643756>I have no idea how you're getting this idea people are tracking all the movements between Fuckignton and Cuntville.This fucking dildo >>98643731 certainly gives that impression.
>>98643747Might be difficulties with the differences in language meaning and how it relates to player choice compared to gm driven narrative. We could put rumours and plot hooks in a much broader category of >player world information in terms of game events they can interact with and make choices about. >To me, this all seems like someone is reading far too heavily into the vocabulary used in order to perform a bad faith reading of intent.Amusingly this is the same from my end but I appreciate the effort to communicate you're making.
>>98643765For what it's worth, a lot of /tg/ users that use "storyshit" when asked about their ideal games basically say they want sandbox games that function more like a game of Skyrim than an actual ttrpg. Cause if you took their advice seriously, the GM should basically have so many story hooks and events that will play out independently of the party's movements and actions up until their involvement that you could write a book about it. Which is basically what their claim of "storyshitting" amounts to anyways.
>>98643778For sure this has happened. Its a tricky thing with 4chan style mixed serious and shitposting. >>98643783I would not take that to mean they are constantly doing the work of applying the rules for travel to the orcs. I took that as them doing so as it became relevant for player engagement based on >All this, of course, assumes the players give a shit about the orcs, and have some reason to care where they're going.Did you not read that part?
>>98643532Of course games ate stories lol, even a game of chess is a kind of story. Any sequence of events is a story.
>>98643810>the GM should basically have so many story hooks and events that will play out independently of the party's movements and actions up until their involvement that you could write a book about itThis is the weird assumption you're making I'm not sure where it comes from. Might be just how I have been exposed to and run hex crawling but most places aren't getting more than 2-3 lines of text and some key words. Its fairly easy to sort out how far the party is going to move, asking at the end of a session what they're doing so you know what to prep more indepth, etc. Again, it really looks like you're stuck on a thing no one here has been proposing. Even your glue eating dildo nemesis.
>>98643765You seriously think this is hard or time consuming? Why?
>>98643788To me, 'player world information' feels like it's just describing things the players know, rather than more specifically the opportunities to learn them like rumors.That said, I suppose that's don't find the term plot hook particularly objectionable, because I tend to assume that most people using it are using it imprecisely. They use plot hook because it's short, snappy, and serves as a simple analogy for the process of dangling 'bait' in front of the players. It's a serviceable enough catch-all that.Basically akin to if somebody uses DM instead of GM or vice versa. It might be an indication of what game they play more often, but the terms are so functionally identical in usage that I wouldn't see any reason to try to scrutinize it. >Amusingly this is the same from my end but I appreciate the effort to communicate you're making.I suppose it all being through text only adds to any miscommunication going on in the thread, but I can likewise appreciate trying to clear things up.
>>98643822No they're not. They're games.
>>98643839I’m a diffusion from the one you’ve been pointlessly feuding, and I’m mostly using this to highlight that most of the users on /tg/ don’t actually know how a ttrpg functions given that again, their ideal game state more often then not resembles a video game more than it does a real ttrpg. They always say they want a simple hexcrawl, but they usually end up describing Skyrim more often then not.
>>98643839>most places aren't getting more than 2-3 lines of text and some key wordsOh, there we go. We're back to "a dull grey expanse of boring interchangeable combat encounters linked by resource depletion."
>>98643861A story just describes a sequence of events anon. This thread is a story. Games are a story. What you did today is a story.
>>98643865No, not especially.
>>98643865lol so you are just making a strawman in you head. Very glue eater of you. Carry on being mad at imaginary things while refusing to read posts.
>>98643874Chess doesn't describe anything, and neither does a roleplaying game. Neither chess nor RPGs can speak or write. People can describe things, by using language. Also known as telling a story. You can tell stories about games. Games aren't stories.
>>98643874This thread also isn't a story. It's a thread. We use different words to refer to different things because they're different things. Not because they're the same things.
>>98643887Anon are seriously trying to say there's a meaningful difference between whether or not you write a sequence of events down or not?
>>98643894You don't believe there's a meaningful difference between doing something and not doing something? What difference could possibly be more meaningful than literal negation? How much further apart could two things get?
>>98643864> I’m mostly using this to highlight that most of the users on /tg/ don’t actually know how a ttrpg functions given that again, their ideal game state more often then not resembles a video game more than it does a real ttrpg.Could be, there's a lot of disconnect between what people imagine they want and what that actually entails. >skyrimnever played it, capped out at morrowind but not sure what you mean by describing it yet.
>>98643810No one in the thread has advocated for anything like this. Are you hallucinating?
>>98643864so skyrim is osr?
>>98643904Anon if I went and told someone about what I did in a game it's not transforming that thing I did in anyway.
>>98643942Right, you'd be telling them a story, and not playing a game with them. So games aren't stories. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>98643909>never played it, capped out at morrowind but not sure what you mean by describing it yet.Which is fully fair, so I'll try to sum it ilke this. People usually hold up Elder Scrolls Skyrim as one of the prime examples of a sandbox game since you can supposedly go anywhere and find something to do, both with how many hidden secrets it has and with how often it spawns random enemies to punch down to keep you from being bored.They basically want that experience, but in ttrpg format. But also want to ignore all the backstory and background elements that you get in a game like Skyrim with its cutscenes and hidden manuscripts aka "storyshit". They want an infinite hexcrawl that will provide endless content no matter what direction they want to go, but they hate the idea of a GM preplanning anything in said hexcrawl since it sounds like railroading, nor do they want to deal with prepared NPCs or anything that could be the start of a deeper mystery since that implies "storyshit" which they know they don't want.At least, this has been my experience with /tg/. And it's why I hardly take this whole "storyshit" seriously. They say they want freedom from being railroaded and no story stuff ever, but they also expect the GM to be able to spontaneously shit out five dungeons and a novel for every stone they uncover. I fully respect sandbox and west march campaigns and the kind of guys who can play them endlessly, but I'd never respect /tg/'s weird distorted ideals of them.
>>98644013No one has ever said that that's what they want. Why do you keep lying?
>>98643920>>98644022Who says I was talking to you? Now be off with you, it's past your bed time.
>>98644034I do. Everyone in this thread, like everyone else on Earth, exists solely by my permission. Answer me immediately.
>>98644013huh that sounds like a weird player perspective to have and I'm not sure how they'd simultaneously hold no preparation with infinite exploration unless they expected the gm to be an analogue computer. Is this a 5e thing? I don't see it in generals I'd more normally associate with hex crawling. >>98644022oh hush
>>98644054No. Answer me.
>>98644042>>98644057I get you're upset buddy btfo your solipsism bit after you also got blown out for not reading a post you directly linked but this thing where you fall back to shitposting doesn't work well.
>>98644079Hallucinating again? Only shitposter here is you.
>>98644054I see it come up from threads full of people complaining about "storyshitting", much like the one we're posting in now. To me it's a sign that most of the people who use that kind of term don't know how a ttrpg plays since there is no realistic way to run a game where the GM has nothing prepared at all yet every single inch is still filled with encounters and event hooks for the players to pick and choose from. Like, the only real way would be for the GM to just roll on random encounter and loot tables and infinitum, and that's not even at the level of a skirmish war game let alone a ttrpg.
>>98644091I don't see the phrase "The GM shouldn't prepare" anywhere in this thread. Can you point it out?
>>98644091Okay. Can you find those posts in this thread for me that do that or is it more of a vibes thing? I don't see them but could have been dismissing them as I skimmed. I think there's a lot of posts that dislike railroading and its crossover with an overemphasis on story but they seem primarily from the gm perspective like >>98635627>>98636253>>98637009>>98637399>>98638037>>98638586>>98639825>>98641697>>98643426and then a bunch of posters trying to take as bad a faith interpretation of their ideas as possible like the little goblin above you.
>>98644135You could at least sage the dogshit thread like a damned adult when you mass post.
>>98644153What makes you think I want to sage the thread?
>>98644153>saging a thread on page 1 that's being shitposted by a troll who got called out lol I'm mostly curious about the anon's interpretations of posts. Its already come up a few times that people were talking past each other while being mad so its worth checking to see and they've been informative and honest after that got cleared up.
>>98644185lmao
>>98644155>>98644192Indeed! Continue to provide laughter for us good clown.
>>98643783How did you get that impression from that post?
>>98644135On the whole, it's a "vibes" thing I gathered from prior threads when I specifically asked "Okay, so what DO you want in a game besides storyshit?". Cause otherwise, none of these niggas will give you a straight answer of what they WANT as opposed to what they DON'T want and be happy to just keep jumping at each other's throats over disagreements in wording for the rest of their days. But if it helps, I think this exchange from up-thread helps hint at it a bit>When I head railroading I imagine a DM desperately trying to steer the players into the one story idea he had and which he really wants them to experience exactly according to his plans. When I head storyshitting I imagine Critical Role>You literally said the same thing twice in a row, though. Both of these anons are trying to express a mutual disdain for the idea that they're not given full autonomy for their ttrpg of choice in favor of the GM's vision. But they don't agree whether the culprit is an overcontrolling GM limiting their choices aka railroading, playing in a game world full to the brim of backstory and background elements ala the comparison to Critical Role, or to a combination of both.
See what I mean? He doesn't even get what we're laughing at, so he immediately assumes it's him AND gets defensive LOL
>>98644212It's pretty straightforward. Just stop running video games. Irenicus doesn't wait indefinitely for you to escape from the dungeon because the GM wants to show off a cool mage battle. He has goals, and he takes actions to achieve them, and the players can try to interfere or not, or help him, and he is subject to the same rules as everyone else. He can succeed or fail based on his decisions and capabilities, and the players aren't the only people in the universe who might try to interact with him.
And >>98644235 helpfully provides the video game comparison that all of these "storyshitter" threads will inevitably go towards, hence the Skyrim comparison and why I roll my eyes at this shit.
>>98644246It's the correct comparison, since that's how storyshitters run their games, yes. Glad you could finally join the class.
Reading through this thread it's pretty clear that most of the people are just confused because they are so bad at describing things. They will try to describe something they don't want and use vague terms like "storyshit". It reminds me of how the masses in 1984 speak. They can't ever say why they like something, they can only call it "doubleplusgood" which means 'very, very good'. Except it's not an evil government making them speak like this. They are choosing to talk like this.Why even have a conversation with someone who can't even speak about their chosen subject?
>>98644254The irony is that most of the people complaining about "storyshit" spend so long complaining about it and how these GMs run them like "video games" that when they're inevitably asked what they actually want to play, the answer ends up basically describing a video game sandbox. And they know this. It's why they refuse to clarify anything, because then they're revealed as the idiotic nogames that they are.
>>98636784>that railroading dm totally railroaded us into winning that last combat that we ourselves had decided prior we were going to try to win.
>>98644266No, it doesn't describe anything like a video game sandbox, since there are none with intelligent beings.
>>98644212Okay I think I get it thanks for explaining. There seems like significant enough overlap in what the two posters are discussing but one being more of a railroad and the other having more of a player story arc focus, but the overlap being in how the gm forces the fulfillment of the player story arcs. Your idea to ask people what they actually want is a good call.
>>98644282Stop replying to yourself.
>>98644266>when they're inevitably asked what they actually want to play, the answer ends up basically describing a video game sandbox. And they know this.I'm not so sure it does or that they do. Its still missing the expectation of skyrim like or perhaps even just /vprg/ gameplay. It might lead there with questioning and its not usual for people to have seemingly contradictory desires that require some work to iron out.
>>98644290>>98644217Your earlier material was a lot better than this. Try again.
>>98644266What, specifically, makes it a video game, and why is that bad?
>>98644311Damn I must have REALLY struck a nerve, holy SHIT
>>98644282>Your idea to ask people what they actually want is a good call.At some point, you kind of have to. It's like being a chef and having someone send a steak back, with their only feedback being "I don't like how it was made". A perfectly serviceable and defensible statement by itself, but in terms of determining how to give them what they want far less helpful. A lot of anons can tell you they hate being railroaded and/or being given far too much background information, but they won't tell you what they want in its place since they don't have a fully formed image of that either.>>98644315Ask the anon that said "stop running it like a video game". I presume that when people say that they mean they don't want it "pre-scripted", but as we've seen in this thread people aren't good at communicating what they do want as opposed to what they don't.
>>98644306Until someone is willing to actually describe the ideal game that's free of "storyshit", you'll only have my word to take on it, and I won't blame you if you decided I'm talking out of my ass at the rate things go in this trash heap.
>>98644329After I said, "stop running it like a video game", I laid out in excruciating detail, with a specific example, exactly what I actually did mean. Did you not read the post?
>>98644334It's been described multiple times in this thread.
>>98644335You described every single ttrpg in existence, anon. I'm pretty sure you've never played ttrpgs to presume that you're somehow describing the exception to the norm.
>>98644329>>98644334I don't think you're talking out your ass. We're hashing out what starts as and gets used as seemingly nebulous terms by different people over time entirely through text on an anonymous image board. Clarity is going to be harder to come by without effort. I think as other anon is pointing out there have been some examples posted of what the would consider a better game, but I think you're right in that a lot of it is focusing on what they don't want rather than what they do, even if it can be extrapolated for them what that would entail it may not be as obvious to whoever is reading it. I have only ran games rather than played in them for a really long time, so I suspect my perspective is off but let me think for a minute and see if I can make a more descriptive outline.
>>98644344All evidence to the contrary, given all the people in this thread pretending to believe that my requirements are either unreasonable or impossible, or that I can't possibly really hold the position that I do, or that the idea of running an actual game is simply undesirable, or pretending not to understand on purpose so as to not have to think, or just trolling. Such as 98643467 or 98643516 or 98643643 or 98643678 or 98643765 or 98643783.
>>98644357Like I just said, it's been described multiple times in this thread.
Totally missed >>98643860 when I was reading, my bad.I see the overlap between >things the players know and >player world information but was thinking of information to also come with the idea of it being new rather than assumed preexisting context characters who are from the game world would have. I might be using the distinction more precisely than others, which I for sure do with DM and GM.
>>98644370I saw and think I understand the Irenicus example if that was you. There's a part I'm seeing about the way many vrpgs hold the game world, quests and events in stasis until triggered that has overlap with a lot of linear arc 5 room dungeon style gameplay, which might account for >>98644344thinking this is the default or only method.
>>98644357As someone who GMs and plays on and off, all I can say is that I learned as a GM that trying to railroad to the extent that people have said "storyshitters" do has always been mountains more stressful than just letting things go to pot, flipping through my notes, and then making up whatever I need to on the spot while pretending I was prepared for this. Seriously, I'd never actually be able to run a campaign if I expected my group to follow a script, they will either hone in on a bit of worldbuilding like a farmer watching a single plant sprout or they treat plot beats like a bull in a china shop and just run roughshod over everything. Making a general outline of the forces at play along with stat blocks and just letting the PCs do whatever rather than trying to forcibly funnel them anywhere is why I'm incredulous that >Irenicus doesn't wait indefinitely for you to escape from the dungeon because the GM wants to show off a cool mage battle. He has goals, and he takes actions to achieve them, and the players can try to interfere or not, or help him, and he is subject to the same rules as everyone else. He can succeed or fail based on his decisions and capabilities, and the players aren't the only people in the universe who might try to interact with him.is not considered the default by these threads. I'd go spare if I had to script everything out like Matt Mercer does, rather than just keeping track of my own antagonist's goals and letting the PCs worry about how they're going to foil him.
It's very obviously not considered the default. Every other thread is some retard bitching about how their players "won't follow the plot", and the rest of the internet is little different.
>>98644455I think if there's a constant stream of upset about how a form isn't being obeyed it is a default but an unsatisfying one for many. Figuring out what this dissatisfaction is about is an interesting endeavour.
>>98644516It's not a mystery. The point of playing a game is making decisions. If your decisions don't matter, you haven't made any decisions. So why did you show up?
>>98644444Nice quints. I have had similar experiences if I think of my early days compared to now. Having a mixture of notes and processes for building quickly as needed with a decent outline of the world with room to expand helps me considerably. No data just anecdote but I do feel like I see scripted 5 room dungeon format suggested here fairly frequently.
>>98644357Alright so if I were somehow not the forever GM (or DM, I was using GM as a more communicable general term) and for simplicity's sake we'll say its some dnd like game because weirder story games get too confusing for the concepts at hand, it would hopefully have many of the following >short group world building that builds functional foundation everyone can reference and be on a similar enough page like Beyond the Wall or Perilous Wilds >starting adventure to mesh group with several different linkages to in world events, factions, locations with evocative descriptions that can be investigated in some combination>starting adventure itself is a mixture of a well Jaquayed dungeon, generative questions and procedural tables as needed, allowing the gm to offoad some of the work and integrate the earlier group world building >campaign building on a mixture of self directed interest by the players and gm, check ins mid week so any prep can be done without being too much but still giving them enough to work with that its engaging for all involved, prep can be entirely made up or modules that will be adjusted to suit the campaign as needed >faction and world events happening at a plausible pace in the background as town cryer, rumours, etc. that can be engaged with or not and have updates that are actionable >wargames and a cool map the players build as they explore that is not the gm facing map >snacks Some of this can be done with a video game, some of this can be done with >every single ttrpg in existence but some of it is quite specific in terms of how it plays in an emergent and choice focused manner while providing the gm a variety of resources to use with their imagination so its not a slog for them. I realize putting your own desires forward is an invitation for ridicule but fuck it, its worth seeing what people think.Have to go, will check back tomorrow, this has been quite interesting and thanks for sticking with it through the trolling.
>>98644392>but was thinking of information to also come with the idea of it being new rather than assumed preexisting context characters who are from the game world would haveThat makes sense in the context of the current discussion. But for example, if I saw a thread talking asking about how to present 'player world information', I would probably assume they're asking about how to write a setting primer, or otherwise deliver that preexisting context of the characters to the players. But I digress. >I might be using the distinction more precisely than others, which I for sure do with DM and GM.Which is understandable. But it sort of goes back to where we started here. Where it's a question of what there is to gain by intentionally misrepresenting what someone else wrote.Pointing to the use of the word 'plot hook' as evidence that someone plans to give their players a story rather than a game is reading into the words something that was never explicitly stated. And likewise, somebody seeing those complaints as evidence that someone plans to give their players a 'dull grey expanse', again reading into the complaint something that was never explicitly stated.In each case, the individual is having their associations with various terms do the heavy lifting for their assumptions. 'Plot hooks bad' is easily twisted into 'rumors bad' or 'player world information bad', because they're not considering those terms with the same level of precision.Which means that the ultimate answer to your earlier question is that there isn't really an effort to intentionally misrepresent things. At least for most of these posts. It's just a fundamental mismatch because the words aren't being used in the same way.
>>98644357After establishing the time of the year, month, and day, I ask each player to let me know where their character is and what they're up to at the moment, and the game proceeds from there. The players can go anywhere and do anything, independently, as small teams, or as a single group, switching up however and whenever they want, and there is adventure in every direction.
>>98633978sandbox fag if you've gone insane from losing in your threads over and over again you can just tell us.
>>98633978storyshitter fag if you've gone insane from losing in your threads over and over again you can just tell us.
>>98644552My own approach is frankly less intricate than that. After years of gaming with my table, my goal for my games has just become "make a campaign my players will like", whether it's in an intricate setting or just a dungeon run. I've come to realize that my table does enjoy things like character arcs, backstories and "lore", but they'll be the ones to decide to engage with it or not on their terms. So I mainly prepare enough to keep the game going, and any superfluous information or deep lore dumps they might get from a game are probably something I put together during work hours to pass the time. Helps keep me from feeling attached to it in case it ends up going unused.And my ideal game is probably the same, just enough of a base premise to keep me motivated to strive to a goal, but otherwise the sky is the limit.
>>98633978Retard.
>>98645057Retard.
>>98644964Its alright sandbox fag, its ok to lose you just have to learn from it.
>>98641185In the dozens of player characters I've had over the years, I've had exactly 1 that has been a self insert. You're part of the problem and you don't even realise it.
>>98644971>I've come to realize that my table does enjoy things like character arcs, backstories and "lore"You aren't playing the game.
>>98644264Because current 4chan is so irony poisoned that any form of sincerity will get your thread drowned in shit by trolls.We quite literally are applying all our creativity and imagination to be the most insufferable, boring and demented beings humanly possible, and I hope this post makes at least someone ask themselves "what the fuck am I doing?"
>>98645531There are still a lot of creative people on 4chan, I'm one, and I imagine you are too. For me, I sometimes feel discouraged by all the threads created just to complain about stuff (especially the posts complaining about the current state of the board), so I only try to contribute to positive threads that are actually asking genuine non-spammy questions.I encourage everyone else to try to avoid interacting with obvious ragebait entirely, and to create more fun threads. The more individual threads running through the board, the faster shitty ones slide, and the more likely you are to have gems rise to the top.
>>98644971I don't even think its that intricate compared to more crunch heavy games, or perhaps the focus is on a few overlapping parts that aren't complex in and of themselves that can be used sparingly for decent amounts of game material. Nothing I described has anything to do with with superfluous information or deep lore dumps, which I think do end up in the range of what people mean by >storyshitting Its alright your ideal game and aims are very minimal and arranged around character arcs, backstories and lore. It sounds like you've found ways to offload that to the players which I suspect keeps them more engaged and entertained. It does admittedly feel a bit off you were so set on needing hypothetical players on /tg/ to be able to tell you what they want with details but don't have any to really describe what sort of game you want to play.
>>98644570I think you're underselling the importance of language and how it frames dialogue. Using terms like >plot hook comes with a cluster of concepts that have overlap with >rumour but also distinctions like an emphasis on plot itself. We've just spent a lot of time writing out careful and specific language use to clarify and understand. I'm not saying they're planning on some sort of distinction between a story and a game, that's someone else' hill. The dull grey thing was fairly obviously a troll at this point. They don't believe or think anything, its just making noise to get noise back for them. You're using them as examples of how people can take read into things however they want to contort it but missing that means if you are actually interested in understanding it requires more communication and specificity rather than less.
>>98648432I made the "dull, grey" post up thread and while I was peevedni wasn't trolling. Three lines of description and some keywords is woefully inadequate for a game you want others to pay attention to.
>>98648692Given how much you can run wild with other people's posts its rather surprising you can't mange to build an evening of gaming from 3 lines.
>>98648692So you didn't read the rest of the post, or?
>>98648432Using terms like 'rumour' instead of 'plot hook' doesn't have any emphasis on plot, but it likewise misses out on those adjacent concepts that using 'plot hook' covers. Somebody choosing to use one over the other is simply making a choice about what clarity they're sacrificing for the sake of shorthand.>I'm not saying they're planning on some sort of distinction between a story and a game, that's someone else' hill.Sure, but my point is that trying to assume intent is an easy way to get tripped up in this sort of misunderstanding.>The dull grey thing was fairly obviously a troll at this point. The dull grey thing was mostly an easy example for demonstrating how one uncharitable reading can lead to another, which makes me think you're missing the underlying point there.>You're using them as examples of how people can take read into things however they want to contort it Not quite. I'm using them as examples of how they are not you, and therefore do not have the same assumptions. That there is not necessarily an effort to contort things, but rather the conversation contorting over time due to those involved talking past each other.>missing that means if you are actually interested in understanding it requires more communication and specificity rather than less.I'd likewise say that if someone is interested in being understood, then it requires more clarity on their part. If someone makes a vague statement loaded with buzzwords, then it's not going to be very clear what they're talking about. And if someone else then reads into that in a way that the initial person didn't intend, it's not automatically because they were maliciously twisting their words. But rather, there was a lack specificity that will only be fixed by further attempts to clarify.
>>98648403>don't have any to really describe what sort of game you want to play.Oh, those are the kind of games I would run. If I were to pick games I wanted to play, my tastes are all over the place as it is. I really enjoyed my time running campaigns for Legend of the Five Rings, Tenra Bansho Zero, and Pathfinder, so it’d be nice to get to actually play those. Double Cross and Convictor Drive interest me since I’m a weeaboo, I love superhero shit like Mutants and Masterminds and Paragons, I’ve had a number of bad starts with Shadowrun and Dark Heresy I want a proper do over for, one of my friends ran a Gundam game in a home brew that I’d enjoyed immensely since I have a soft spot for giant robots, I heard good things about Draw Steel, and I’d like to get a proper taste of just monster slaying AD&D. And that’s just a start. As for premise and general format, those usually adhere to the premise of the game, but if I had to pick two that I’ve wanted to play would either be “large dungeon delve” or “merchant exploration”. Former would be just survivalist exploration of a huge dungeon, monsters, traps, competing adventurers, the works. For the latter, going to another continent and trying to strike it rich weather through taming the fauna, bartering with or fleecing the locals, or both. And in-between, dealing with challenges like pleasing the patrons sponsoring the journey or wrangling the hired workers who might be angling for a bigger share the more danger they’re exposed to. Neither of which are ambitious, but it’s what I’d like.
>>98648796Its very hard to believe that using terms like >plot hook over >rumour somehow don't have different emphasis. I don't really understand how you can hold that position without having to more or less write off any manner of specific communication at all, which again, is really off if you're going to simultaneously try and reexplain someone else's assumptions. I might be missing your point but it does seem like we're agreeing that effort and clarity are required. Which is further confusing with the first part. The over time talking past each other part again doesn't work either if you also want to hold there are no differences between word use. There's a missing linkage or step there to reconcile very diffuse and figurative language with more clarity.
>>98648844You misunderstood what I was saying there. I was agreeing with you, saying that 'rumour' doesn't place an emphasis on plot, unlike 'plot hook'. Unless I also misunderstood what you meant in terms of emphasis, because my reading was that you were trying to say that 'plot hook' placed an emphasis on plot that 'rumour' did not.
>>98648812The entire point of the exercise was to try explaining in your own terms the sort of game you would want to play and what it would have to contrast with your dislike of frequent posting that largely consisted of what people don't want. Those were your specific complaints. Very little of your description has much in the way of how gameplay is generated in relation to what a railroad, story arc, plot or emergent generation would be, its quite vague, but I think your point that the premise of the game-played would work best when fit to the premise of the game in a way that L5R is very likely going to be structured quite differently from and AD&D large dungeon delve in terms of how the GM would build it. Can you elaborate on how that would be with specific preferences?
>>98648692ANSWER ME.
>>98648860No, that was my bad reading poorly and extrapolating from a bad reading. I think we're more or less talking about the same sort of approach. Thanks for going through it with me.
>>98648890What's the question?
>>98648749I know you can see my posts. YOU WILL STOP IGNORING ME IMMEDIATELY OR I WILL KILL YOU.
>>98648947
>>98648956Predator drone en route :)
>>98648891No worries. Though I think this pretty well underscores my point. Through some unclear words and extrapolation, we arrived at a misunderstanding without any bad faith involved. And I wouldn't be surprised if this thread has plenty of similar mistakes that got blown out of proportion.
>>98648968Very much so. I think overall attributing ignorance rather than malice is a good call but holyshit is it difficult here sometimes. Thanks for effort posting with me. I hope you get to play your large dungeon delve or merchant exploration game anon.
>>98648880Not entirely sure what it is you're asking for, but that's probably on me. But alright, I'll give it a shot.In terms of what I might like in a game vs what a number of people on /tg/ claim to dislike, I think it's that I have a higher tolerance for "storyshit" in terms of pre-made story and narrative elements by comparison. I agree that players shouldn't be railroaded or deliberately blockaded from decision making solely for the GM's benefit, and should have the option to pivot the game to other ventures or directions if it's viable. But stuff like overly intricate monologues, background elements the pcs may never deal with, self-important npcs, or excess detail just don't really phase me as a player. I fully understand the kind of people who hate that stuff and want to get as far away from it as possible by, say, stripping things down to the bare essentials like a sandbox campaign, where there are no rules or in-game fun police to march them from point A to point B. But that's not my thing. I prefer a solid direction with occasional minor narrative hassles over complete freedom but no direction at all and/or a GM that doesn't have anything prepared.If you want some kind of comparison, I'd say it'd be like if you were playing Lord of the Rings as a D&D campaign. There'd the crowd that would hate having a DMPC like Gandalf following them around browbeating them, hate having to deal with all the narration and excess verbiage, hate generally being told what to do and where to go by lazy self-important NPCs, be pissed how it's nothing but orcs all the way down, and overall grouse how the GM won't allow them to just pocket the ring and live like kings. And then there'd be idiots like me, the guy who picked a hobbit instead of someone useful and is just happy to be along for the ride, smoking pipe weed, befriending elves and tree people, and occasionally shanking an orc in the kidneys letting the rest of the party deal with all that "plot" crap.
>>98649053I'm trying to get an idea of what other people like or want in a more specific way and think your idea of putting forward the parts one does want is a good way to get at more interesting discussion and could have insight into better ways to run my games. Your perspective makes a lot more sense with the LotR example and your general acceptance of gm tools that move things along in a more directed manner. I was thinking about story games a bit there and some of them can work as a low to no preparation but direction and oversight for the game procedures still tends to be quite important, if not more so because of the lack of other structure.
>>98649105I'll at least clarify this portion since I think this is closer to what you're looking to get more insight on>But that's not my thing. I prefer a solid direction with occasional minor narrative hassles over complete freedom but no direction at all and/or a GM that doesn't have anything prepared.My ideal game would have a general core premise that everyone agreed upon before the game started, something simple like "Stop the evil cult" or "Explore the dungeon to retrieve te treasure for the kingdom", but with a generally strong level of ability to achieve that goal within reason. Note that I'm not against deviations from said goal, like if the rest of the party decided after hearing what the cult's goals are that they want to join them or if they decided to pocket the treasure in the dungeon they explored rather than give it to the king. Similarly, I'm not at all against the game's focus shifting temporarily to something else, like if the premise is to journey to find an ancient city but the rest of the party wants to work with a local crime family for extra money for the journey ahead. But it should be something everyone agrees to, not one guy deciding he's bored and going against the party.I prefer that kind of game to say a complete sandbox. And not because I hate sandboxes. But because I only have so much time to play these games due to time constraints, and I've played with parties in the past where the other players had little drive and I had to basically drag them everywhere. Those games start a bit aimless and feel frustrating by the time I'm done since I'm doing a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of having a goal. To that point, I'll put up with things like npcs ordering the party around or the GM going into excess detail if it means that overall the game cuts down on wasting time trying to work out what to do.
>>98649105>>98643731>>98644235Exactly how many times do you need it repeated?
>>98649220So your ideal game is basically a civ game, but with every enemy and npc force having their moods/movements/motives tracked and not just per faction?
>>98649233No. If my ideal game was a civ game, I would have said "my ideal game is a civ game".When I write words, the purpose of those words is to communicate a meaning. If I wanted to communicate a meaning not in the words that I wrote, I would not have written those words. I would have written different words instead.When you want to find out the meaning someone wants to communicate, generally a solid strategy is to read the words they wrote. Making up random shit in your head is usually less effective.
>>98649246So your ideal conversation is to communicate like you hold your nose up so high that if you opened your mouth in a rainstorm you’d drown?
What makes you think anyone here is being a snob? Do you think of reading as some magical skill known only to an elite few?
>>98649220I didn't really need yours repeated, it was familiar enough to me I was fairly sure I understood and do something similar enough. I liked your example of Irenicus as a way to distinguish a living world in a way that isn't difficult to manage as s gm that makes it distinct from videogames.
>>98649279>What makes you think anyone here is being a snob? >Do you think of reading as some magical skill known only to an elite few?The tone of your writing communicates very loudly how much self-importance you carry yourself with online
No, it really doesn't. But thanks for letting me know you think I'm better than you (you're right, I am).
>>98649298Then why did you say "I'm trying to get an idea of what other people like or want in a more specific way" when you've already been told what people want in a specific way, multiple times?
>>98649311A truly wise man wouldn't feel the need to advertise themselves as such unless they were that insecure
And I don't, so thanks for agreeing with me, again.
>>98649321Because you're not the only one in the thread? We have specific ways to ask specific posts direct questions and I use those if I have them. Thanks for being clear about your stuff back there if that's important I hadn't meant it to be exclusionary.
>>98649357Just the only one who matters.
>>98649357I think he's just a troll trying to annoy you by treating you like an idiot
>>98649374Ironic.
>>98649125That makes sense, you're strongly focused on group cohesion, which I do think is important for ttrpgs, and prioritize it, while trying to be flexible. Trying to mix that with limited gameplay time and keeping the group on task can be challenging and is likely more so if the game doesn't have very clear goals and likely a nudge in that direction or concessions to it being a game focus. I haven't experienced this complete sandbox sort of approach where everyone waits with no direction but it does seem to come up as a complaint here if I think about it and there might be something similar to your frustration the anon up thread who was accusing dull grey nothingness, they're just not expressing it well and I'm finding the idea of a directionless sandbox hard to imagine how someone would run or prep or anything.
>>98649388Sandbox games are the type of game that ideally requires much more investment from both the players and GM. A proper GM running a sandbox game needs to have a higher level of preparation to ensure there is content in as many of the directions a pc party could take while minimizing "dead zones" aka areas where nothing interesting happens, but be confident and hands-off enough to not directly push the players to those particular spots he put more time and effort into fleshing out. Likewise, players need to be self-directed enough to set their own goals and explore and seek out things on their own with minimal direct prompting from the GM.Not many sandbox games end up like that. A lot of sandbox games will suffer from either over-investment or lack of investment. Some GMs will stuff the game world with all kinds of places and activities to go, but will railroad the party into going to all of them in a particular fashion so they "don't miss out". And some will just not prepare anything, placing the onus on the players to explore while they make things up on the spot in response to whatever they decide, aka "I'm going to just roll on the encounters table".Likewise, there's plenty of people who play RPGs that don't care to be the ones in charge nor want to be, whether because they hate speaking up or because they're there to just roll dice and leave the planning to the rest of the table. They can play most rpgs fine since situations like "Orcs attacking us, defend yourselves" don't require putting yourself out there. But those types just don't know what to do with a sandbox campaign beyond sit around wherever they started and just hope the GM brings the action to them instead of finding it themselves.Note that this is just my experience with BAD sandbox games. I've had a very short lived good one, so I know it can be done right. But you're more likely to find bad ones than good, which is why I prefer something more directed over something aimless.
Not really. You only need a vague idea of what's in each location. As players express interest or physically approach any particular location, you can imagine whatever might be there. And of course "physically approach" can mean many things. If the players acquire a way to teleport long distances or reach other planes of existence, then their sphere of influence is proportionally larger, which may be taken into account.
>>98649464If you're there "just to roll dice", you aren't interested in participating in the game. Leave.
>>98649464I think the part that I'm baffled about is having run a successful sandbox campaign for 3 years with the same group and it wasn't that much prep to do with osr materials, some good tables and a historical background setting to draw on. Significantly less than when I was running things like 3.5 or Shadowrun or Inquisitor as an rpg. After the initial build it was largely self perpetuating and easy to add modules with modifications or make areas the players were going towards. Starting with a simple premise and letting them explore from there was for sure aided by all of the players being quite good at coming up with ideas and places they wanted to go looking at the map. Railroading the party towards specific things sounds much more like they ought to be running a point crawl. Preparing nothing and making everything up on the spot is pure crazyness to me, I am having trouble imagining how someone would even start thinking that as something they want other people to do with them or what the premise even is at that point or how they'd explain it. I believe you it happens and complaints around it are not infrequent. I have very rarely encountered the wallflower player. Not in a long time. Totally anecdotal though and again people talk about it here often enough. Some of this I think is also me considering 10 hours of building over a week to get the groundwork down and 2-4 hours every few weeks to add material as light. And building a world that was easy to build quickly as needed by basing it roughly on a historical era I was already familiar with and like.
>>98649563You're right in that it's not that much work if you actually want to run a decent game. Which is why it gets painful when there are GMs that can't or won't do that much. I've once had a GM that outright started the game by asking us what we wanted to do without even establishing where our characters were. Like not even a "You find yeself at a tavern". Just "Okay, what do you do now?" It was like pulling teeth to get him to describe anything, and the long pauses between each explanation made it clear he didn't have anything prepared at all.While that's an extreme example, it's the kind of lack of preparation or investment in the game by the GM that leads to the "a dull grey expanse of boring interchangeable combat encounters linked by resource depletion" experience.And for my complaints on the wallflower type of player, I'm less harsh on them if only because it's possible to get them to open up, especially if you give them a rallying point so they can refer to it if they somehow feel lost. It's just that initial teething period that's painful, and it's worse in a sandbox game since they'll usually just sit at the nearest tavern from the game start and stay there until kicked out, usually because they don't know what else there is to do and don't want to look for it.
>>98649682Yeah that sounds really bad. No idea how a guy would call it a sandbox if there isn't any sand or box. Starting to see how the next step from that would be the dull greyness but I think even there I'm having a hard time figuring out how or what the gm there is thinking or how they get there. Its likely impossible but its vexing. It didn't seem like you were being harsh on wallflower players, just that its difficult sometimes but putting effort and time in helps them out. This is likely well off base expectations on my end but I had thought everyone meeting in a tavern had been just a meme rather than a normal start for a long time. Got to go again. I appreciate your efforts.
>>98643467How did you get from "intelligent beings in the world should make decisions" to "there cannot exist anything interesting in the world"? What is your reasoning?
>>98654597You can't have meaningfully, well-crafted elements to the game if you're slavishly simulating every orc, farming season, etc. To get that level of mechanical adherence you have to boil everything down to keywords, random table rolls, broad clichés and combat (which ways table time without requiring much preparation).
>>98654618Why do you think that?
>>98654626I only have four to eight prep hours a week and I don't want to spend them on solo gaming the fluctuations of the grain market and the movement of unrelated NPCs on their ways through life?
Damn, sorry you're bad. Thank god I'm not you.
>>98649279>>98649311>>98649340>>98654716who are you quoting
>>98654737Who are you quoting?
>>98654745click the post numbers
>>98654847Wrong answer. Pinkertons en route.
>>98654737He's a troll farming (You)s, and as such tries not to give any out.
>>98654737They're not quoting anyone. Are you stupid?
