Quote from: mcbobbo;757199here who will admit the sin, but c'est la vie.

Example:  3rd level Party runs across a randomly rolled Owlbear.  Kills it, but just barely.  Successfully tracks it to its lair - without having stopped to rest up.  Finds several more in the lair, females and young.  Over-enthusiastic-Cavalier says "I charge."  Bob the 'suck GM' says "No you don't, because this is a fight you know you can't win.  The party will almost certainly die if you pick this fight.  Plus you can tell from here that this cave isn't big enough to be the place you are seeking.  Let's not get distracted..."

So I was all sandboxy until the player failed to realize that the entire world wasn't there just to be XP, then I railroaded the party back to what it was doing before they found the lair.  They didn't seem to mind and we didn't spend the rest of the session rolling up new characters.

That's not a definition of "railroading" I've ever seen anyone use before, ever.  That's not railroading, that's "breaking the fourth wall to tell players the consequences of their actions" which, for newer players, I'd have no problem with.

Quote from: Gabriel2;757202I think we should re-label railroads that are used for good.  I like the term rollercoaster.

One particular GM I play with has ran a couple of games set on trains, so he gets friendly ribbing about that.

In the most recent one, I spent so much time arsing about that he threatened to have the train leave without me, so I couldn't go to the next phase of our mission. I kept arsing about (I was having fun, unproductive and game-ruining fun, but fun nonetheless). The train left without me. Fair enough.

Quote from: Haffrung;756720If you don't like how a GM runs a game, why not man up and run the game yourself?

Playing is a different experience from GMing and sometimes a person may want to play more then GM. Though teaching by example can work.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757199I know I am probably the only one here who will admit the sin, but c'est la vie.

Yeah, that's not bad or 'railroading' to me either. I've had lots of GMs back up the situation for a moment, thinking perhaps they hadn't communicated the full danger of whatever is in front of us... or even to correct us when we're seriously barking up the wrong tree because of possible miscommunication.
In a game I was running for some kids, brothers, I had to interject a few times to explain why it would OBVIOUSLY go badly for the younger brother's PC if he were to kill his older brother's PC. A bit of setting info I had to pound in to him... followed by a retraction of his previous statement and a general getting back on track.
Later on I gave him a much milder warning about a group of local farmers he wanted to attack. He chose to do it anyway, I let him and it got him killed (kind of) and pretty much started a war.

A powerful referee tool: "Are you SURE you want to do that?"  Followed by silence and a little grin.

Way more powerful than a railroading.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;757289A powerful referee tool: "Are you SURE you want to do that?"  Followed by silence and a little grin.

Way more powerful than a railroading.

I find a raised eyebrow gets the message across with more subtlety but whatever works I guess.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757199We did the Satan thing once.  Our friend Darren was new to the group and after several sessions we took him out to a bonfire and basically ripped off that comic.  "It's time you learned the real D&D, muwahaha."  No knife though...

As for railroading,  it's a tool in the toolbox that I am proud to use when needed. I know I am probably the only one here who will admit the sin, but c'est la vie.

Example:  3rd level Party runs across a randomly rolled Owlbear.  Kills it, but just barely.  Successfully tracks it to its lair - without having stopped to rest up.  Finds several more in the lair, females and young.  Over-enthusiastic-Cavalier says "I charge."  Bob the 'suck GM' says "No you don't, because this is a fight you know you can't win.  The party will almost certainly die if you pick this fight.  Plus you can tell from here that this cave isn't big enough to be the place you are seeking.  Let's not get distracted..."

So I was all sandboxy until the player failed to realize that the entire world wasn't there just to be XP, then I railroaded the party back to what it was doing before they found the lair.  They didn't seem to mind and we didn't spend the rest of the session rolling up new characters.

More on the topic, though, I did once play in a game where powerful NPCs would appear at odd times and insist that Steve's PC dance for them or die.  And in fact Colin made Steve himself dance to display the quality of the dancing.  It was pretty funny, as running gags go, but certainly a high school thing to do.

Why would you give the owl bear a lair and young and other owl bears if you were going to invoke a "not in my game you don't sonny rule"

In my game you trail the owlbear back to its lair and you find a cave with some bones. The end.

Because he wanted to give the owlbear lair more stuff?

It's not a question of why as much as when. The paladin would know that pushing his party past their breaking point, just to finish off some owlbears that are not part of the quest at hand, would be unwise. But that was just that moment. If later, after rested, doubtful if it would have been a pause worthy moment. Nothing wrong with informing the player about the PC's normal understanding of the situation.

Things like alignment, ethos, history, power dynamics, known social mores, etc. I just inform players as they go. Sometimes that involves interrupting them from doing obviously (to the PC POV) counter-indicated behaviors. Then after informing the player to the fullest extent I can/they care, about PC's relevant 5 senses info and prior life knowledge, I ask if they still want to proceed.

Like suicidally running up to the queen to sodomize her with a trout during court, such things are worth pausing the game state to really let the full ramifications sink in. However I would have used that owlbear lair moment to explain instead of just say no.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757316Because he wanted to give the owlbear lair more stuff?

It's not a question of why as much as when. The paladin would know that pushing his party past their breaking point, just to finish off some owlbears that are not part of the quest at hand, would be unwise. But that was just that moment. If later, after rested, doubtful if it would have been a pause worthy moment. Nothing wrong with informing the player about the PC's normal understanding of the situation.

Things like alignment, ethos, history, power dynamics, known social mores, etc. I just inform players as they go. Sometimes that involves interrupting them from doing obviously (to the PC POV) counter-indicated behaviors. Then after informing the player to the fullest extent I can/they care, about PC's relevant 5 senses info and prior life knowledge, I ask if they still want to proceed.

Like suicidally running up to the queen to sodomize her with a trout during court, such things are worth pausing the game state to really let the full ramifications sink in. However I would have used that owlbear lair moment to explain instead of just say no.

Nah sorry can't see it.

If I want a game where I can't interact with 1/2 the scenery I will play an MMO.

As a GM I would never , never tell a player they can't do x, y or z unless it was physically impossible for their PC to actually do. Even then they could try. I bend the bars and escape, you stretch and strain and pull at the bars but to no avail.

If you show the PCs a thing don't be suprised if they want to investigate the thing. If you don't want them to investigate it then why is it there? and if the answer is simply because its there then you allow the party to investigate it and if they get killed and their quest fails and darkness envelops the land then okay shit happens.
By all means have an NPC scream that they don't have time to return for the treasure but don't be suprised if that NPC gets ignored or stabbed with a sharp pointy thing until they stop complaining.

Not with things like paladinhood. That is an instance where mistakes can be irrevocable. Similarly with other forms of certain destruction or loss, you should really inform players how unlikely that choice would be lightly made.

He told them no, but he really should have framed what the known consequences were. The owlbear lair is merely a matter of timing, nothing more.

Quote from: Marleycat;757295I find a raised eyebrow gets the message across with more subtlety but whatever works I guess.

See? Now that's funny right there.

I usually go with a furrowed brow and a "Oooookay..." or "Really?"

Not a thought through GMing strategy, just my gut reaction.

(And, on topic, while I'm usually a great GM, I have had my fair share of suckitude.)

If paladin-hood is in question over clearing out an owlbear den, that's kind of crappy. However, you could impart the same sense without telling anyone "no."

That seems to be at the heart of the argument here. Does the referee say "no!" Or does the referee let the players know in some other way that they're putting themselves in stupid danger?

As a player I prefer the latter because I like stupid danger and rolling up new guys. Other players may prefer the latter for other reasons. I can't think of a kind of player who would prefer to just lose control over their character for a moment when the referee shouts "no".

Quote from: Opaopajr;757316Things like alignment, ethos, history, power dynamics, known social mores, etc. I just inform players as they go. Sometimes that involves interrupting them from doing obviously (to the PC POV) counter-indicated behaviors. Then after informing the player to the fullest extent I can/they care, about PC's relevant 5 senses info and prior life knowledge, I ask if they still want to proceed.

Like suicidally running up to the queen to sodomize her with a trout during court, such things are worth pausing the game state to really let the full ramifications sink in. However I would have used that owlbear lair moment to explain instead of just say no.

Hmm this is a fine line.  Letting someone know setting information their character has but the player has forgotten or failed to consider is one thing, and should be done lightly.

Pausing to let the player know the action is unwise...is unwise.  The great thing about RPGs is a player can play more then one character.  If someone has gone into "Big damn Hero" mode, it's best to let them reap the whirlwind and learn the nature of the setting's reality.

In the example of the trout, or something less absurd but equally stupid, I think it's essential that you don't pause the game state.  If someone is being that stupid, they need a harsh lesson.  Of course, dealing with adults, here, if it's a kid, you may want to evaluate how you proceed as the best way to show them the nature of consequences.

Quote from: jibbajibba;757317Nah sorry can't see it.

If I want a game where I can't interact with 1/2 the scenery I will play an MMO.
...

I think there is a big difference between can't and "really really shouldn't."  The player is running the PC, but to me the PC is not the player.  That PC theoretically knows things the player doesn't and sometimes the GM has to step in and remind the player of that.  In-game is preferable, but sometimes GM to player is fine too.  If the player still wants to roll up a new PC, then sure fine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;757317If you show the PCs a thing don't be suprised if they want to investigate the thing. If you don't want them to investigate it then why is it there? and if the answer is simply because its there then you allow the party to investigate it and if they get killed and their quest fails and darkness envelops the land then okay shit happens.
...

If my players run off after everything I show them they will end up spending more time making new PCs than playing.  I often show them things that suggest "Abandon hope all ye who enter here without an army" and if they don't get the hint I think it's OK to outright say "I may not have explained that in a way that it was intended to be understood, but going there is HIGHLY likely to end up with a return to character generation."  I don't think that's breaking immersion any more than saying "roll your attack" (though both do lessen immersion, they are necessary).

Quote from: CRKrueger;757361Pausing ...

... pause the game state. ...

I don't agree with the idea that pausing the game state is bad.  There are meta moments as a normal part of the game in even serious LARPs.  To me this is nothing more than a meta moment equal to (as I note in my previous post) "roll your attack" or calling out damage in a LARP.  Sure it's preferable not to and as a GM I try to limit the meta moments and make them as seamless as possible, but I don't think it pauses the game state inappropriately.