Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.

I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot?

If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

1: If the DM presented a scenario/outline/module and the players said "Yeah sure" and then show up and ignore it. Then yes. The DM is in no way obligated to cater to them.

2: For some. Yes. But more to the point the players agreed to something then didnt. That might mean they made the DM waste time prepping. And while sure I can come up with something on the fly. Even if its "You go to jail for arson." or worse... But That is under my own aegis and Id be just as within rights to say. "Session closed." and then explain why and why dont ever do that to me again. Though I tend to play modules really fast and free. But I do expect the players to at least engage the adventure they agreed on in some manner.

3: Seems usually ittelevant of the system. Its in part a matter of player engaging the adventure agreed on or not. Or wether the GM is willing to, or even can whip up something on the fly on the spot. Even for those good at winging it this sort of situation might be anything but fun. Very YMMV.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942202Even so its an awesome stage (a really big but well detailed one) and the actors have a ball performing on it. They know the lines are there and choose to play their parts within them instead.

That's a strong analogy but not an inaccurate one.

Like I said earlier, its a fundamental difference in perspectives and expectations. I don't get this demand for a "world" either. Its never been a big deal and there seems to have been shared feeling or at least understanding with the players I've had over the yeas in that regard. I what I can to work with my players and they do the same with me. I guess I am basic. I can't and don't want to try run everything like its some kind of virtual reality universe simulator where the PCs can do anything that pops into their heads.

If that means I'm basic then so be it. I'm having a good time, my groups have a good time and end the day that what matters to me not what some guys I'm never going to play with think of my style or techniques. We'd probably have bad times if we did play together but I don't they're failing or bad at running games they're tastes are just different from mine.

Rgrove, the examples you've given some pretty clear to me. They're not going to click with everyone though but don't sweat it. How are things going aat your table is what matter not what some faceless guys online say, including me. Don't lt get you down.,

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192I DONT LIKE THOSE KINDS OF GAMES, nor do many people. We like the adventures being more linear, more narrative, more theatrical. Its not a matter of being limited by ability or 'basic', its a matter of choice.

Okay, serious question: why do you keep asking questions/participating in discussions about nonlinear, nonnarrative, nontheatrical gaming then?  You can like whatever you please, but why are you doing what you're doing?  We're back to "I hate green peppers, so I don't go into cooking forum threads about green pepper recipes."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942210Okay, serious question: why do you keep asking questions/participating in discussions about nonlinear, nonnarrative, nontheatrical gaming then?  You can like whatever you please, but why are you doing what you're doing?  We're back to "I hate green peppers, so I don't go into cooking forum threads about green pepper recipes."

I didn't start this,thread, I just commented on it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192What you have never understood tenbones, and your not alone, is that I totally get what you are saying. It 'clicked' a long time ago but I DONT LIKE THOSE KINDS OF GAMES, nor do many people. We like the adventures being more linear, more narrative, more theatrical. Its not a matter of being limited by ability or 'basic', its a matter of choice. Ive played in and run sandbox games - for me they lacked something I was looking for in my gaming both as player and as GM. Some people I have played with feel the same way. Its totally cool that you are into it and have mastered the ability to run them. Awesome! And I mean that - really, that's GREAT. It does not however, in anyway, overshadow what we do. Its apples and oranges not T-ball and Major League.

See, this is where you're talking out of the side of your neck. The very things you say you "like" - are the things that I easily can produce in a sandbox-game. That's why your GMing is basic. The things you think are problems (as you've clearly indicated) are not actually problems to someone that actually knows how to run an honest sandbox game.

So yes it's very much a limitation of either your ability and/or your decision making processes. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about it. Right? The reason why you feel your concept of sandbox-games were lacking is simple: you don't know how to do them. If you did - or were honest about it, you'd simply say either:

1) I don't like sandbox games I like running modular storytime-adventures.
2) I'm trying to figure out how to manage my sandbox games more efficiently. Guys here's the situation.... .

But what you have is - Guys, I'm trying to run a storytime adventure and my players keep wanting to do things that's off my dot-to-dot plot-synopsis. The fact that your players, in this basic example said they wanted to go the Shanghai and, apparently put your underwear in a knot, shows they too are wanting to go beyond the confines of *your* story. They're sandboxing without you. Only you're not able to give them any real-estate to extend your tiny playground.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192You made the comment that the PCs are not the gravitational center of my games. You are right. They are participants in the story, no not "Mah Storeh" or whatever the fuck that is, but "Our Story". As GM I have as much influence as the players do, sometimes more, sometimes less but its a partnership.

How is it a partnership when your only problem seems to be not allowing your players to explore the game? Exactly in what way is this a partnership? They aren't making up a story - YOU are. And we've been telling you for some time now, there is no story. The story is what the players DO. There are circumstances relating to the setting that you create, NPC's with motivations, etc. but the story is what emerges from the play. Anything else is storytime with dice and, yes, basic GMing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192Im not there to entertain their whims. That sounds bad but Im not sure how else to say it. The game does not revolve around the players solely, at least ours doesn't. They have a part in it certainly, a huge part but they understand they are 'part of something bigger' the world doesn't spring into existence around them then fade when they walk away.

I'm calling complete bullshit on this. Wanna know why? Because Shanghai doesn't apparently exist to you. The ramifications of going to Shanghai have zero consideration. The only consideration you've shown in your example is your self-absorbed clinging to *your* precious story. How do I know? Because your players wanna go to fucking Shanghai and you're on the internet bitching about it like it's some kind of problem. That's how I know.

If you knew how to run a sandbox game - you'd see this an opportunity (which I politely pointed out). And I gave you a more than reasonable answer on how you could expand things out and keep your precious story while letting them do some off-roading and who knows? Something awesome may come of it. Or nothing. Or they might die. Or they might live. Or it could be the best, most pivotal thing that ever happened to your game - but you'll never know because you're too busy working off a flow-chart.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192My players have always gotten this and for the most part, except for a couple new guys with previous experience to the contrary, fit in perfectly. Ive found many around the web, even a few here who have messaged me privately, that agree or at least understand and appreciate our kinds of games too.

Then why are they trying to go to Shanghai and why are you here complaining about it like it's a problem? And worse - you're making it sound like they are the problem, when it's fairly clear they arrived at that conclusion by whatever means your GMing led them to that. OR are we going with "They're a bunch of assholes"? Which is it?

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192The issue I take with a few of you like Black and yourself and others is the condescending tone you use when replying or commenting, as though anyone (Not just me) that doesn't agree with you is inferior in some way and need only practice a bit more, accept your propaganda, and someday they too will be awesome. I don't want to pick fights on this damn forum but Im simply not going to agree to that, ever.

I'm not sure I've ever said I've "mastered" GMing. I don't think I ever will, I and others here have been doing it so long that I'm pretty confident in my position that it's not something that is ever mastered. You can do it for a lifetime and you can learn best practices if you're honest and self-aware enough. But I'm not really sure what "mastery" is. I think that's for players to decide. I've said before in your threads where you've made this claim (which I've never said) about me - I'm never comfortable GMing. And I make sure I'm not comfortable because I'm always trying to learn new things. If I get too comfortable, I feel like I'm mailing it in. And I love the hobby a little too much to do that.

I also don't think I ever recall saying that anyone's love for GMing in any mode is somehow inferior to mine. I said your brand of GMing is *basic*. And I mean just that, because it is. Otherwise why are you posting these things as if they're real issues? Because they are, to *you*. They are not to *me*. And there is a factual reason for that. It's not rocket-science. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm saying there is a way to handle this without resorting to this bullshit crutch you use as your excuse for GMing "privilege". But it requires some honesty.

And that's where the real problem is. You're so defensive you've concocted all this stuff in your head (granted, BV is a lot more aggressive than me but we're saying the same thing) that somehow you've taken these many threads where I've said your "GMing is basic" to mean I'm saying you're a lesser human for it. Nope. I'm very specific about what I'm saying on purpose. That *YOU* have taken your admitted limited experiences relative to ours, as some kind of aspect of your identity and find insult at the very factual notion, makes the problem *yours*.

There are people that love, Love, LOVE story-time adventures. You're pretending that's not what you're doing. Or you have some cognitive dissonance at play here that you refuse to see how your own examples underscore that fact every single time. Otherwise why are you having these problems you're having?

Or is that just propaganda too? heh

Quote from: rgrove0172;942213I didn't start this,thread, I just commented on it.

Right. You commented on it with more of your examples which underscore the issues you have with figuring out how to GM, worrying that people are going to snatch your GM-badge you cobbled together from Cracker-jack toys. Dont' worry Grove, you're safe.

Maybe one day you'll get to touch ... the D.O.N.G.

... uhh white-belt.

/GONNGGGGGGG!!!!

Quote from: tenbones;942221Right. You commented on it with more of your examples which underscore the issues you have with figuring out how to GM, worrying that people are going to snatch your GM-badge you cobbled together from Cracker-jack toys. Dont' worry Grove, you're safe.

Maybe one day you'll get to touch ... the D.O.N.G.

... uhh white-belt.

/GONNGGGGGGG!!!!

Wow, just wow.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942197So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons.

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

That is the most telling statement, though, if grove's scenario in SF has multiple avenues to approach the problem, then he isn't entirely forcing a sequence.

In any case, it's pretty clear: grove (and his players) want to run narrowly defined stories (or maybe stories with narrow borders?). And that's that. Of course, that makes anything outside those borders a "dick move," so, once again, we're into the same argument about player-centered versus GM-centered, or sandbox versus story, or whatever else it is. Once again..:-/

The War... it never ends.

Quote from: Omega;9422053: Seems usually ittelevant of the system. Its in part a matter of player engaging the adventure agreed on or not. Or wether the GM is willing to, or even can whip up something on the fly on the spot. Even for those good at winging it this sort of situation might be anything but fun. Very YMMV.

I suppose, also, that GM system knowledge can make such things moot. That said, I also know that I would have a much tougher time winging , say a 3.5 scenario, or 4E, or even 5E. I could throw it together using a few ready references. I should probably make clear here that winging the story part is easy. My issues would be with on the fly adversary generation. On that, I can easily wing Dungeon World, or B/X, but, if I were running, say, Pathfinder, I think I'd find it daunting to adjust whole cloth.

Then again, if I'm running a sandbox, I've got some thing prepped, whereas, if I'm running a narrow story, I might have nothing ready outside the present scenario.

Quote from: tenbones;942229The War... it never ends.

No kidding...:-/

The War?

Quote from: tenbones;942229The War... it never ends.

Perhaps but the difference is I don't begrudge you your side of the war. I acknowledge and value it. I just don't want to participate in it. You are incapable of the same, endlessly droning on an on about your superior way of playing and how I can never measure up. No matter how many times this comes up your argument is the same... you agree to pacify me until I grow up and learn how to REALLY play, like you.

I don't have anything against you personally tenbones, your comments are well thought out but based on assumptions, most of them faulty. Ill take some blame for minimizing some of my own descriptions and examples but you take a thimble full of water and float a freighter. In all fairness I think your logic is completely off base and your attitude in relating it sucks. I can tell you have a wealth of gaming insight and experience locked away behind all the snobbish rhetoric and under different circumstances I would love a long drawn out conversation with you to tap in on some of it. Sadly your combative posture brings my shields up every time and instead of wanting to hear more I find myself dreading your appearance. (Not as bad as Black's granted)

Im going to try really hard to cancel yellow alert and find the gems within your load of ..... when it comes my way, because I know they are in there but its gonna be tough.

Laugh, seriously we need to both laugh at this ridiculous argument between complete strangers.

As to San Fran, I never complained once. It was an example of how players can suggest something that forces a GM to either freeform or deny the result. I chose the latter.

For what its worth, thanks for taking an interest but honestly... this thread isn't even about me... I was merely commenting on someone else's issue.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942197So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons.

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

Um, you have played CoC, right? Usually with Azathoth or Cthulhu, et alia, there is no 'later'.

Nope, rgrove is right here. There are certain campaign issues in sandboxes that are deal breakers, such as quests that literally are apocalyptic. Similarly, if I am running a domain/business maintenance sandbox, or medieval localized sandbox, I am not going to change my table offering to the player's vision of a grand world tour.

PCs reside in Cormyr in my Cormyr-focused sandbox campaign, but want to travel off to Kara-Tur T'u Lung instead? That's nice. Off your characters go, unlikely to be heard from again. If they ever make it and return it'll likely be easily over 20+ years, and likely beyond what our campaign will last in real time. So... anyone interested in rolling up a PC that actually wants to play in Cormyr, y'know what I actually am offering the table?

I DICTATE my table's offering. Your player entitlement ends where I SAY IT DOES. I AM NOT your private video game server. Sandbox your own daydreams.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942189You would prefer the GM make up some shit in game as to why the players should reconsider their actions instead of just coming clean and explaining the game was designed to go a different way?

No, you worthless buffoon, I would prefer the referee give the players and their characters a reason to investigate a haunted house beyond, 'I want to run MAH HAUNTED HOUSE STOREH,' and in that reason for investigating the haunted house a motivation not to torch it on sight.

Perhaps there is a book or a map in the library they might want, or an archaeological artifact or a piece of art they wish to obtain, or cash and jewelry they don't want to destroy. Perhaps there are clues suggesting other people may be visiting the site. Perhaps the site is under surveillance and burning it down will attract attention they don't want. Something . . . anything . . . for the players and their characters to give a shit about beyond, 'this is what I have for tonight.'

A great adventure site draws adventurers - and the players who run them - to it like a moth to flame. The adventure should be preceded by rumors, legends, stories, eyewitnesses. Make throwing themselves into sure death their idea, because they can't resist the idea of not going.

I know it's been said upthread already, but it bears repeating: if your players' level of engagement with your adventure is to simply end it before it starts, you fucking suck, full stop. Whether you tailor your adventures to your players with personal touches - which I don't - or simply scatter lots of bright shinys around and let the players and their characters follow their whims - which I do - participating in it should be their idea. No matter what, they should be given a reason to care on their terms, and if you can't do that, pack it the fuck in and play Monopoly, 'cause you have no fucking business sitting at the skinny end of the table.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942189This more than any other post explains where you are coming from - taking a negative and combative stance no matter what my argument is. I see a lot of this in the current political strife our country is going through, blind resistance to anything the other side has to say , but I didn't think I would find it here.

Obvious Troll is Obvious.