Quote from: Drohem;350869It just left me a little flat after hearing that things mirrored the video game at certain points.

I'm normally the GM and up until about a year or year and a half ago or so, had a group that I'd been playing with for a while. We were damn comfortable with each other and knew what to expect.

When I first encountered...scripting in this 4e game, there was a good bit of cognitive dissonance for me. And when it crops up - such as in our last session - there still is. It's...odd.

So, yeah, I understand where you're coming from.

Seanchai

But doesn't scripting like this mean that nothing you do can really go "off script"? I mean that you may take a long digression but even so, in order for the "cut scene" even to trigger (let alone come off as scripted), you have to be brought back into line.

Even though I've played with a GM who was IMO plotting a fair amount, it was always "within" sessions; the overall flow of the game, I'm pretty sure, came from the PCs plans. There was no overarching plot that was prewritten.

Just to help understand, I do go way overboard in my Sandbox.
I's not that there are not plots, but I let the PCs go and figure things as they will.
(I happen to believe if players discover things due to their performance vs a script, ther versimilitude is not busted up as much)

My Igbarians just figured something out I left for them over 2 yrs ago, and my Mistonians are still missing pieces f in their storyline that I placed over a decade ago.

There is no problem with the scripting its the telling the players post event that was the mistake.

The DM might have fudged rolls or more likely changed tactics so the outcome was as he desired. I have certainly done the latter though I always roll open so not the former. The thing is you have to do it in such a way tha the players do not feel you have done it it takes a light touch to achieve this.

If the Messenger had to die for the plot to develop then personally I would have had the messenger attacked away from the party some how or had an opponent use poison or something and if the PCs were not necessarily key killed one of them as well to cover my tracks but it appears that the GM handled it well and it wasn't til he announced how clever he had been in doing so that the player felt cheated. In this case I call that good DMing spoilt by too large an ego.

Large ego sure, but that's kind of a requirement for the job Hmmm good GMing? We don't know for sure. Would he have let the player figure the betrayal by gathering intelligence before the encounter and empower them to avoid the death of the messenger? GMing like a Final Fantasy designer with mandatory cut scenes wouldn't be good at all IMO, even if he's good at hiding the ropes he's pulling.

He's done this before after sessions where he's said that this encounter or event was also in the video game, but it never came off so concrete before; if that makes any sense.  A few sessions previously, we encountered a group of bandits called the Ronin who took over a bridge near a small town.  We deal with them and clear the bridge.  After the session, he tells us that the Ronin were taken directly from the video game.  I have no problem with that since it didn't seem like our plan and actions in retaking the bridge were scripted in any way.  

The next session, we wake to discover that the Ronin have kidnapped two village girls by the note they left for us.  The note says to meet them at sunset on the bridge to have it out or they'll kill the girls.  We decide not to comply and try to find the girls post haste.  We find tracks and discover their lair.  We storm it commando style and get to the girls and save them before they can be seriously harmed or killed.  After the session, the GM tells us that the bandits would have tried to kill the girls if they had time, but our actions (and good dice rolls) prevented that from happening.  Again, I have no real issue here because our actions dictated the course of the scene without any rope pulling.

However, in this case it was different all the way around.  I am a seasoned enough role-player to have smelled the trap and ambush immediately when he told us that the soldiers circle us with weapons drawn.  At this point, I am fine since, you know, this is how sessions, plots, and story lines progress.  I happily suspend disbelief and drop back into the immersion of the session.  The fight breaks out and the messenger is surrounded and actively killed once he's put down.  This strikes me as strange behavior since he's never taken this extra step to be lethal to downed characters, especially since the downed half-elf archer was a few paces off from the rest of us and presented a better target for such actions.  It really became overtly obvious after the messenger was killed because the GM announces several moments after the death (and dice rolls) that he forgot to add the messenger's death soliloquy, and proceeds to present it to us.

Obviously, there is going to some amount of scripting and railroading in a campaign-based game where you are trying to present some kind of cohesive story line, however how loosely or tightly.  If done in small doses or rare instances, I can cheerfully and willingly fail my disbelief roll and ignore the ropes or the rails and continue happily with my immersion.  In this case, when the GM told us after the session that the messenger dies at the end of an act in the game, and that this is the end of an act in our game, and that it's been scripted that the messenger must die, then it is virtually impossible for me to ignore the ropes and rails because the GM is actively pointing at them and saying 'look here! See!'

When you are dealing with games like d&d you can usually guess who will die if you know the stars and who will fight who. I don't think the gm was rail roading. For one, the messenger is the important one to kill as the pcs are his guards. They don't care about some no name ranger. Secondly, your party blundered into that fight. No scout. No augury. Walking into a military camp without checking it out first is the same as asking the gm what he wants to have happen next.

I'm not saying he is honest about his dice. The screen if for cheating. However, the party basically surrendered the messenger by walking into the camp without checking it out.

Quote from: jibbajibba;351061There is no problem with the scripting its the telling the players post event that was the mistake.

The DM might have fudged rolls or more likely changed tactics so the outcome was as he desired. I have certainly done the latter though I always roll open so not the former. The thing is you have to do it in such a way tha the players do not feel you have done it it takes a light touch to achieve this.

If the Messenger had to die for the plot to develop then personally I would have had the messenger attacked away from the party some how or had an opponent use poison or something and if the PCs were not necessarily key killed one of them as well to cover my tracks but it appears that the GM handled it well and it wasn't til he announced how clever he had been in doing so that the player felt cheated. In this case I call that good DMing spoilt by too large an ego.

I totally agree.