Custom Creations in a Game?

[Darth Ultron]

Agreed; that's why people usually don't like railroading-- it's not about giving hints or direction, it's about forcing a direction on the players, whether they want it or not.

And again I think any normal complex game with a plot has to have some things some times be forced. The idea that the DM has to ask for the players permission and blessing for everything in the game is just silly. And people said they don't game that way...and have things happen, but then go around in circles to say the things that were forced were not forced and the railroading was not railroading.

Sure, there are plenty of things that'll be unique. But they should either be framed as... I think of them as "adventure checkpoints" when I'm planning my games-- points where various paths converge, and (typcially) a dramatic moment happens. Either that, or there should be alternate options. Maybe only Zagom's Tome has the secret password, but the necromancer Ragom has also read, if you can reach his tower, and if you're really desperate, the mirror demon Mogaz can teleport you past the barrier, for a price...

It's not like everything has only ''one'' way, but it should not be an absolute game rule that there are ''dozens of ways for everything'' and whatever way the players pick is the ''right'' one. And a lot of ''ways'' might be beyond the characters, but still possible.

Sure. Railroading auto-fails are when perfectly sensible plans, well within the characters' capabilities, are denied because they're not the "right" way to do it. Like... I dunno, a 10th level thief-rogue attempting to pick the lock on a commoner's house to get at the artifact they mistakenly picked up, only to be told "no."

And again, the vast majority of DMs say they do such things. But it's ''Not Railroading'', even when it's one of the most common definitions. And this one goes right back to the crying players. The characters come to a door, and their characters fail to open it....and they cry ''Railroad''.

[2D8HP]

''Railroad''.

Is this DM's Anonymous?

I confess to using "Quantum Ogres" (or as I called it then, "being not perfect, but good enough").

Anyway, better advice than mine is available, so....

Everybody hates railroading. But we often mean very different things when we say it. For instance:

Spoiler: Levels of railroading, spoilered for length

Show

No Railroading: an entire world is defined. Go anywhere, do anything, and we’ll simulate the results.

Railroading, level 1: I’ve designed a continent. Please don’t try to plane shift or sail away.

Railroading, level 2: There’s a tyrant who is the big bad evil guy. He’s oppressing your people. Try anything you like, but he’s the real enemy.

Railroading, level 3: You've been hired to take out the BBEG. There’s a town here to interact with, and a forest with many paths you could take on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG

Railroading, level 4: There’s a town here to interact with, followed by a road north through five designed encounters on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG.

Railroading, level 5: You must equip yourselves, leave town, follow the road north to the castle, and defeat the BBEG. You cannot buy a sword without locating the blacksmith. You cannot leave town without paying the gate tax. You cannot get past the goblins except by combat. You cannot get past the gnolls without a sleep spell. You cannot find the castle without a compass. You cannot enter the castle gate without a Knock spell. You cannot go down the first corridor without pulling the red lever. You cannot open the door at the end of the corridor without standing on the right flagstone. You cannot …

You could easily invent many more levels.

But the point is that the game with no railroading doesn't really exist, and would most likely be dull. How would we find the adventurous parts?

The original objections IO heard about railroading were objection to level 5 - traps with only one escape, puzzles with only one solution.

The best games I've been in have all been pretty far up the railroading scale - levels 3 or 4 out of 5, as defined above.

So we should probably be careful when describing something as "railroading". Very often we are objecting to the actual adventure.

Congratulations! You have passed the biggest hurdle to becoming a great AD&D DM. Too many people believe the hype that characters always died. And with average DMs, it was true. But in the ideal game of AD&D, the players feel threatened by death nearly always, but somehow, they virtually always manage to survive it.

I've run over a dozen characters from original D&D or AD&D, all of whom started at first level. Only one died at first level (due to my own stupidity), and only one died at higher levels.

Combined with a reputation for high lethality, two deaths out of years of play is all it takes for every encounter to be a suspenseful moment.

One of the most delightful feelings that can come from playing the game is the feeling of having out-witted the DM. Your job is to provide enough background and props and other complications that it's possible to do so. Describe the walls, stairs, furnishings, trees, rocks, streams, etc. Give them terrain and props to do things with. Nobody can swing from the chandeliers, or pull a rug out from under the bad guys' feet, or turn over a table, unless there's a chandelier, rug, and table.

When somebody comes up with an idea, don't ask what skills they have. Picture the scene in your mind and decide how likely it is to occur.

One consequence is that you shouldn't invent the way out of the situation. If you do that, then they aren't outwitting the DM; they are just following his path. And if they don't find his path, then they fail.

Create a situation with no obvious way out, and then any idea the players have can be the clever way to win, and they have just outwitted you.

What people think they want today is a safe encounter they can defeat easily. But what they will want tomorrow is to have been in a deadly encounter which they barely escaped, due to their own ideas and cleverness.

[ImNotTrevor]

But I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one'' of something. Only one guard lived through the break out three years ago, so the only person who was there and can tell the players about it is that one former guard guy.

And this guard told no one else the story? No one heard about the sudden increase in criminal population?
This singular guard who escaped also just conveniently happens to have the pertinent info, since obviously not all details of the breakout are necessary?
Divination spells stopped existing?
All of the escaped prisoners vanished into thin air as well, leaving none of them available for questioning?
None of them have committed any crimes since and been recaptured in the past 3 years?
None of them have resumed their previous activities, leaving breadcrumbs to track them among the criminal underworld?
If so, you need a genuine reason for all of the above to be true beyond "because I said so."
This example is the kind of thing that makes the world seem hollow and unrealistic no matter how many fluffbooks you write about it.

Only Zagom's Tome of Magic has the secret password in it. Period.

It better be a password for something else that belongs to Zagom. Else how did he attain the password to begin with and why is that source no longer viable?

There is not all ways six ways to do everything

Correct. In reality there is usually much more than 6 ways to accomplish any given task.

]
And I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one way'' to do something. The players want their characters to do a ritual: it must be done at dawn. Period. The Iron Tower has no windows and only one door, so that is only one way in.

I hope the Iron Tower wasn't supposed to have people in it and isn't very tall, or the lack of ventilation will cause extensive problems for anyone expected to be inside of it.
So this tower had better not have had people in it (because of aforementioned problems), and it likely couldn't have been used for any practical purposes in a medieval setting without sacrificing its arbitrary impenetrability. About the only practical purpose it could have would be storing something, but then why build the door?
This Iron Tower makes no rational sense as a structure, which is where this style breaks down:
It values its plot over having a world that makes logical sense, so it just won't make logical sense.

[ImNotTrevor]

And again I think any normal complex game with a plot has to have some things some times be forced.

Nothing in the complex histories of mankind was forced by an outside author. It does not follow that all complex storylines and sequences of events need an exterior author guiding the story.

The idea that the DM has to ask for the players permission and blessing for everything in the game is just silly.

Please argue against points that have actually been made, not ones you've invented for convenience

And people said they don't game that way...and have things happen, but then go around in circles to say the things that were forced were not forced and the railroading was not railroading.

Ironic that you're using circular logic to accuse others of circular logic.

It's not like everything has only ''one'' way, but it should not be an absolute game rule that there are ''dozens of ways for everything'' and whatever way the players pick is the ''right'' one. And a lot of ''ways'' might be beyond the characters, but still possible.

I can think of about 4 valid ways to acquire a Toyota Corolla within the next 24 hours. This number goes up if I include illegal means.
For nearly any task, there is no single "correct" way. Not even cooking. (Multiple recipes for the same dish can be found)
Even in math you have multiple techniques to get to the same correct answer for the same problem in many cases.
In reality, nearly everything has more than one solution. Arbitrarily denying a solution because you didn't prep for it is stupid, and could be seen easily.

And again, the vast majority of DMs say they do such things. But it's ''Not Railroading'', even when it's one of the most common definitions. And this one goes right back to the crying players. The characters come to a door, and their characters fail to open it....and they cry ''Railroad''.

You seem very familiar with the stresses of players crying "railroad" for someone who has elsewhere claimed that none of your players catch you railroading.
Hmmmmm.
Makes me think there's some fibbing going on somewhere.

[Darth Ultron]

This example is the kind of thing that makes the world seem hollow and unrealistic no matter how many fluffbooks you write about it.

But why anything could have happened. To say ''everyone in the whole world just knows everything about everything'' is just silly.

Correct. In reality there is usually much more than 6 ways to accomplish any given task.

That is not ture.

This Iron Tower makes no rational sense as a structure, which is where this style breaks down:
It values its plot over having a world that makes logical sense, so it just won't make logical sense.

Did you forget we are talking about an unrealistic fantasy world?

Nothing in the complex histories of mankind was forced by an outside author. It does not follow that all complex storylines and sequences of events need an exterior author guiding the story.

In real life no, but in fiction they do.

In reality, nearly everything has more than one solution. Arbitrarily denying a solution because you didn't prep for it is stupid, and could be seen easily.

Well, your forgetting things like ''the crown jewels are in the royal vault'' , no no matter what if you want them you must get them out of here.

Or like say you want to post on a online forum, will you must use a device to get online, go to the forum and type out your post. But your like saying ''oh people post all the time without going online and connecting to the internet.''

You seem very familiar with the stresses of players crying "railroad" for someone who has elsewhere claimed that none of your players catch you railroading.
Hmmmmm.
Makes me think there's some fibbing going on somewhere.

If it helps, unlike most others it seems, I game with three types of people:

1.Good Friends. No problems here.

2.People I sort of know a tiny bit, but are not friends with and just game with. Some problems here.

3.Strangers. Lots of problems here.

[ImNotTrevor]

But why anything could have happened. To say ''everyone in the whole world just knows everything about everything'' is just silly.

Please go after a point I actually made, not one you invented from whole cloth for convenience.

That is not ture.

Give me a task and I'll give you multiple solutions.

Did you forget we are talking about an unrealistic fantasy world?

The world has to be believable, otherwise it's basically Loony Tunes with wizards.

In real life no, but in fiction they do.

Ah, but many complicated works of fiction have multiple authors. Do you know how many writers there are for any given film, tv show, and even some books? Are you aware that the actors playing these parts even get a degree of input?
You have no leg to stand on, here.

Well, your forgetting things like ''the crown jewels are in the royal vault'' , no no matter what if you want them you must get them out of here.

And yet there are several ways to accomplish the task, which is my point, which you're ignoring in favor of things I never said.
(It's also worth noting that saying "these inanimate objects are in one particular place by virtue of being inanimate objects" makes sense. Meanwhile "There is only one living person with access to knowledge about an event with widespread consequences and many different persons involved on a variety of levels, AND this same sole remaining individual conveniently happens to have pertinent information" is a wild stretch and does not make sense.)

Or like say you want to post on a online forum, will you must use a device to get online, go to the forum and type out your post. But your like saying ''oh people post all the time without going online and connecting to the internet.''

Again, not even vaguely close to the argument I'm making. Maybe try reading?

(Also I can get someone else to post for me, pulling me out of the loop, or set a bot to post regularly in my place. This is actually a solveable problem.)

And also worth noting that the only way you made this problem seem unsolvable was by wording the one solution as vaguely and all-encompassingly as possible, where your usual examples are more akin to "the only way to post on this forum is to go to Library Computer #4 at Hollybrook Library" and then get mad when people suggest that maybe a smartphone or PC may be just as good and accuse them of saying that they are insisting any object with a circuitboard could access the CIA mainframe.

In other words: you put arbitrary and stupid restrictions in your examples, and when they are pointed out as being arbitrary and stupid you attempt to do the same to the objection, except you have to make up your own objection because no one is as stupid as you require them to be to win on your own merit.

If it helps, unlike most others it seems, I game with three types of people:

1.Good Friends. No problems here.

2.People I sort of know a tiny bit, but are not friends with and just game with. Some problems here.

3.Strangers. Lots of problems here.

Weird. I rarely have problems with any of these three.
Wonder what it is you're doing wrong?
Hmmmmm.....

[Darth Ultron]

Please go after a point I actually made, not one you invented from whole cloth for convenience.

Well, your point is that it is utterly impossible for their to be unknown things in the world right?

Give me a task and I'll give you multiple solutions.

It's ok, I understand reality and know that is impossible. You will just wander all over the place and do the old 2+2=5 trick to make whatever you say possible or you will just be silly vague. And as you'd side table DM, it would be an impossible thing to do.

The world has to be believable, otherwise it's basically Loony Tunes with wizards.

I guess it depends on what you think is believable. I'm fine with Cloud Castles, Ghosts, Time Portals, Intelligent Animated Skyships and Blink Cows for example. You seem to be stuck on ''everything must be exactly like Earth was in 1400'' or something like that.

Ah, but many complicated works of fiction have multiple authors. Do you know how many writers there are for any given film, tv show, and even some books? Are you aware that the actors playing these parts even get a degree of input?
You have no leg to stand on, here.

Well, sure most films and TV show episodes and books have one writer. You can check the writing credit easy enough for most films and TV show episodes. And most books have it right on the cover. And there is a huge difference between ''some input'' and the actor ''writing the plot and story''. A good RPG works like that too. The players might say ''we want to do a murder mystery'' so the DM makes that adventure.

Like you are saying the Hobbit Actor would say ''tossing the ring into only one volcano is dumb. There are billions of ways to destroy a ring because I say so" and then the actor will re write the script and plot so they can melt the ring in a campfire.

And yet there are several ways to accomplish the task, which is my point, which you're ignoring in favor of things I never said.
(It's also worth noting that saying "these inanimate objects are in one particular place by virtue of being inanimate objects" makes sense. Meanwhile "There is only one living person with access to knowledge about an event with widespread consequences and many different persons involved on a variety of levels, AND this same sole remaining individual conveniently happens to have pertinent information" is a wild stretch and does not make sense.)

Well, I guess you will never understand then.

Again, not even vaguely close to the argument I'm making.

I'd guess your the time of DM that has the others in the game be DM's too? So everyone just makes up everything? I guess that makes sense.

In other words: you put arbitrary and stupid restrictions in your examples, and when they are pointed out as being arbitrary and stupid you attempt to do the same to the objection, except you have to make up your own objection because no one is as stupid as you require them to be to win on your own merit.

Well, you know you bring up ''reality'' a lot...and reality has restrictions.

Weird. I rarely have problems with any of these three.
Wonder what it is you're doing wrong?
Hmmmmm.....

We play different games. Mine is more the classic all powerful DM and limited players, you are doing the everyone is a DM hug. Though I'd also guess your playing the anti-D&D type games too.

[ImNotTrevor]

Well, your point is that it is utterly impossible for their to be unknown things in the world right?

No. Try re-reading what I've written. I know you can do it, buddy.
I believe in you.

It's ok, I understand reality and know that is impossible. You will just wander all over the place and do the old 2+2=5 trick to make whatever you say possible or you will just be silly vague. And as you'd side table DM, it would be an impossible thing to do.

The theories of mathematics are not a task.
Nice try, though, accusing me of the thing you're doing.

I guess it depends on what you think is believable. I'm fine with Cloud Castles, Ghosts, Time Portals, Intelligent Animated Skyships and Blink Cows for example. You seem to be stuck on ''everything must be exactly like Earth was in 1400'' or something like that.

Still somehow missing the point.
Maybe try reading what I wrote instead of imagining something way more convenient for me to have written?

Well, sure most films and TV show episodes and books have one writer.

You'll want to doublecheck that one. Usually the primary writer gets credit for the episode, but there are pretty much always other writers involved. (Except with books. Hence why I said "some books.")

And there is a huge difference between ''some input'' and the actor ''writing the plot and story''. A good RPG works like that too. The players might say ''we want to do a murder mystery'' so the DM makes that adventure.

You do know that many iconic movie scenes and lines were essentially created when the actor did something off-script and the director decided that was better, yeah?
Shooting the sword guy in indiana jones.
Willy Wonka's entrance
"Most annoying sound in the world" gag from Dumb and Dumber
"We're gonna need a bigger boat" from Jaws
The entire Party Scene in Ghostbusters was done by Rick Moranis

And yes, RPGs are different from movies with actors because they allow for much cooler forms of collaboration, if you let them. If you don't collaborate with your players, then you'll never get anywhere beyond "basically LotR but worse in every way" with about as much emotional investment as anyone had for season 1 of Agents of Shield.

Like you are saying the Hobbit Actor would say ''tossing the ring into only one volcano is dumb. There are billions of ways to destroy a ring because I say so" and then the actor will re write the script and plot so they can melt the ring in a campfire.

Not even a little bit close to what I'm saying.

Well, I guess you will never understand then.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha
This coming from the guy who literally has not understood or accurately summed up a single point I have made.

I'd guess your the time of DM that has the others in the game be DM's too? So everyone just makes up everything? I guess that makes sense.

Nope. Just one GM. I don't come up with absolutely everything, but most player contributions amount to naming NPCs and other things firmly within their wheelhouse. Because obviously a martial artist trained by a master would know the master's name, and I'm not so anal retentive as to not let the player name that master and give some reasonable details.

But of course, you'll purposefully leave out this followup paragraph and insist that I let anyone do anything at any time, as opposed to letting the players have a small share of the narrative authority when worldbuilding and discussing the things that their characters care about.

Well, you know you bring up ''reality'' a lot...and reality has restrictions.

Yes. And it also tends to not be clean, convenient, or have singular solutions to all possible problems, aa you suggest. We even have a saying about it:
"There's more than one way to skin a cat."
There's also more than one way to build a car, (As evidenced by there being many types of car) start a fire, start a car (more if it's Manual transmission), download programs, obtain a movie, obtain a password (or any sensitive information), acquire embarassing photos of someone, learn about a recent local event, etc. That you can only come up with one solution to any given problem sounds like a personal failing on your personal part, since people find multiple solutions to problems on a regular basis.

We play different games. Mine is more the classic all powerful DM and limited players, you are doing the everyone is a DM hug.

Not even a little close.

Though I'd also guess your playing the anti-D&D type games too.

I don't play D&D, no, but I'm hardpressed to call anything I play diametrically opposed to D&D, except Fall of Magic which I only play on rare occassions when someone can't make it and we want to play something anyways, and is not a game I GM in nor would I use as an example of proper GMing since the game doesn't have one and it would be counterintuitive.

So, no. Your deductions are inaccurate. Again, I implore you to maybe try reading. It's a good skill to pick up, and can serve you well.

[veti]

Well, I like the more ''the characters know nothing'' myself. I want player and character knowledge to come from game play. Too many players don't want to just 'know' about the setting: they want to be super experts on the setting. And they use their knowledge to prevent the adventure, encounters or any type of experience from happening.

There's a reasonable middle ground here. If a player asks "this country I live in, is it a kingdom or a democratic republic or an oligarchy or what?", I'm gonna answer that. If they ask "where would I go (in my hometown) to buy a sword?", I'll tell them. But if they ask "is there any such thing as a troll that rusts your sword when you hit it?", I'm going to start thinking "how likely is it that they would know that?"

And if it's "is there any such thing as a feat that allows a fighter to (consistently) disrupt a spellcaster?", it's completely possible that they're asking about a secret technique that's, simply, only known to a handful of people and they're not one of them. Then I'll say "not that you know of". If they follow up with "who would know?", then they can make a Knowledge roll to direct them to the most likely subject matter expert.

And it does get crazy with the 'old' stuff the players ''think'' they know. Like a couple weeks ago I had a PC group that was being escorted through some woods by some elves. At night the elves cut down a tree to make a fire. Two players really flipped out over this demanding that ''elves would never, ever cut down a live tree''.

Yeah, that's... always happened. Even back in 1st edition, before I had more sourcebooks than hair follicles, people would be making those pronouncements based on their reading of Tolkien. Sometimes it's hard for players to get their heads around the idea that this is one setting, and preconceptions derived from another one may not work here.

[Tinkerer]

Do I describe everything everywhere, no. But I do describe adventure locations in detail.

Then you are abbreviating, condensing, and deciding what is important. I am sitting in a room right now and I could easily spend about 4 hours describing the room if I didn't decide what part of the description is important. Additionally I think you forget that you GM on this message board. People who want to see if what you are saying matches the reality can actually go and check.

Um, what? Why can't characters read books? And your game had characters write books?

Characters can't read books because the number of books written from an in game perspective is rather low. And if you are talking about written from the perspective of your world it is non-existent (your world doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to any of the standard settings I'm familiar with). Sure it basically gets the information across but I really wouldn't say it's accurate. And yes I've had several characters write books about their exploits. The players who are most likely to do so are also the players who are most likely to have notebooks full of notes detailing the game world. Heck I've even had a couple of players write books detailing their adventures. Well, collections of short stories anyways. In D&D there is literally an entire class dedicated to telling tales of their exploits.

Odd, because I do that stuff so much it is common.

I think it's pretty clear that of the sentences "And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who...." it was the "Spin Master" part that I was taking exception to, especially when you follow it up with a basic identity switch which isn't even a spin, it's just a plain alteration.

Yes. I'm not a fan of the ''you go to place X and it is dull and boring and we all fall asleep''. Sure it is not ''realistic'' that my world is full of crazy wacky adventure, but my world also has flying dragons, elves that live for hundreds of years, demons, blink cows and hounds of ill omen.

That is why you don't spend time on those things. The party is about to leave town. They are pumped up and psyched about the new info they just got! They know there is an exciting adventure just in front of them!!! Aaaaand one of the players realizes that they forgot to grab a length of rope to replace the one that got burnt up when they tried to lasso that dragon you got a few options. You can a) sidetrack the whole party into a well described shop where you engage in bartering with the local merchants and comparing lengths of rope. This is likely to piss off (and rightfully so) the rest of the party. b) deny the player on the grounds of "you should have gone to the bathroom when you had the chance". This will of course piss off Jillaroo Jane the Australian Yankee (long &$!#ing story) who kinda needs her rope. c) Just say "Oh yeah you can pop in and grab a length for 50 credits". Of course there are many, many other ways of dealing with the situation (I'd be inclined to drop a one sentence adventure hook for next time simply because I know Jane is in a rush and she's not the sort of person who would hold up the party).

If it is, I'd point out the ''Keep'' as a lot of adventure in it and it is not a ''dungeon''.

Yep. KotB is actually a forerunner of the sandbox style of RPG play as opposed to the dungeon style of RPG play. The railroad linear plot heavy story style is more of a 2nd edition AD&D invention than a real "old school" style and got popularized with the explosion of the D&D novels (particularly the Dragonlance Heroes saga). Of course this depends on your definition of "old school".

[Darth Ultron]

You'll want to doublecheck that one. Usually the primary writer gets credit for the episode, but there are pretty much always other writers involved. (Except with books. Hence why I said "some books.")

Guess it depends what you mean by ''involved''. Plenty of writers will jot something down and then let another read it and tell them what they think. Then the writer might or might not change something.

You do know that many iconic movie scenes and lines were essentially created when the actor did something off-script and the director decided that was better, yeah?

I'm not really sure where your going with this tangent. But sure, some times once in a while, a person has a good idea and it get used.

BUT it's a huge way from a director/writer/producer choosing to use an idea from another person to the point your making about how like an actor or player can ''take control of a plot and nobody can do anything about it because Actor Agency(aka player agency).

And yes, RPGs are different from movies with actors because they allow for much cooler forms of collaboration, if you let them. If you don't collaborate with your players, then you'll never get anywhere beyond "basically LotR but worse in every way" with about as much emotional investment as anyone had for season 1 of Agents of Shield.

Except your idea of ''collaborate'' is roll over and let the players run everything.

But of course, you'll purposefully leave out this followup paragraph and insist that I let anyone do anything at any time, as opposed to letting the players have a small share of the narrative authority when worldbuilding and discussing the things that their characters care about.

And, like I said you do, here is where you mix up things. It is one thing to have a cook out and a ''game 0'' where everyone just talks about stuff.

It is a whole other thing for the players to be tyrants and take control of the game.

I don't play D&D

I figured.

There's a reasonable middle ground here. If a player asks "this country I live in, is it a kingdom or a democratic republic or an oligarchy or what?", I'm gonna answer that. If they ask "where would I go (in my hometown) to buy a sword?", I'll tell them. But if they ask "is there any such thing as a troll that rusts your sword when you hit it?", I'm going to start thinking "how likely is it that they would know that?"

But what middle ground? Sure the DM can answer a question, but what about three or five or ten? Then that gets to be a lot of time. Plus every answer spawns another question. The Dm says ''republic'' and then the player will ask questions about that, and questions about those answers. It can snowball quick.

. Additionally I think you forget that you GM on this message board. People who want to see if what you are saying matches the reality can actually go and check.

Sure, except a PbP is not the same as a real life game. In real life I can say a description quick, but I'm not going to type out 50,000 words of text(even more so on my phone).

And in real life I give players like seven seconds to react, or they skip their characters turn. That does not work for PbP.

I think it's pretty clear that of the sentences "And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who...." it was the "Spin Master" part that I was taking exception to, especially when you follow it up with a basic identity switch which isn't even a spin, it's just a plain alteration.

Well, it does fluster the average Ma and Pa Kettle Players. Do you read Comics? Do you watch Lost or Once Upon a Time?

[ImNotTrevor]

Guess it depends what you mean by ''involved''. Plenty of writers will jot something down and then let another read it and tell them what they think. Then the writer might or might not change something.

Yes. And RPGs aren't books. The point was that not even these forms of media you use as an excuse for 0-collaboration are as collaboration-free as you insist for justification.
(Not that this applies even a little to what is, at its core, a collaborative exercise.)

I'm not really sure where your going with this tangent. But sure, some times once in a while, a person has a good idea and it get used.

BUT it's a huge way from a director/writer/producer choosing to use an idea from another person to the point your making about how like an actor or player can ''take control of a plot and nobody can do anything about it because Actor Agency(aka player agency).

Did you miss the part where Rick Moranis did an ENTIRE SCENE?

Except your idea of ''collaborate'' is roll over and let the players run everything.

You keep trying to tell me this, as if repeating it enough will make it start to be true.
Sadly, not how reality works.

And, like I said you do, here is where you mix up things. It is one thing to have a cook out and a ''game 0'' where everyone just talks about stuff.

I do this literally any time it comes up during the campaign. Not every relevant piece of information about a character's past will come up in session 0. So I allow for various details to remain unknown until they become relevant.

Turns out I know exactly what I'm talking about. Makes one of us not making things up.

It is a whole other thing for the players to be tyrants and take control of the game.

That would be an entirely different thing, yes. A thing nobody is talking about and that you brought in because it would be awfully convenient if we WERE talking about that. But we aren't, so you're floundering.

I figured.

This is the part where I break your brain by mentioning that I DM'd in my current style for D&D for years before finding other games I and my group like more.

But what middle ground? Sure the DM can answer a question, but what about three or five or ten? Then that gets to be a lot of time. Plus every answer spawns another question. The Dm says ''republic'' and then the player will ask questions about that, and questions about those answers. It can snowball quick.

The numbers more than one and less than ten are the middle ground, buddy.

[Darth Ultron]

Yes. And RPGs aren't books. The point was that not even these forms of media you use as an excuse for 0-collaboration are as collaboration-free as you insist for justification.
(Not that this applies even a little to what is, at its core, a collaborative exercise.)

It is kida an odd example your trying to make as it does not fit. In things like movies an actor is hired to play a role and act out a plot, they are no hired to re-make the movie into their own selfish vision. An actor might say make a suggestion, but they can't just take control over the whole movie and make it all about themselves.

Did you miss the part where Rick Moranis did an ENTIRE SCENE?

An actor did a scene? Ok, this is what actors do. I'm not sure what your point is here?

You keep trying to tell me this, as if repeating it enough will make it start to be true.
Sadly, not how reality works.

Well, it is what your saying.

1.DM controls the game. Normal Game.
2.Players control the game. Your Other type of game.
3.No One controls the game and it's all a random mess.

Now players ''making suggestions'' only fits in the normal game, and you say you don't do that. And if you do the ''vote game'', where each gamer gets a vote, that is a player controlled game, and you have not said you do this. And you don't to a meaningless random game, I think. So there is only one left.

I do this literally any time it comes up during the campaign. Not every relevant piece of information about a character's past will come up in session 0. So I allow for various details to remain unknown until they become relevant.

Maybe you need to do a better Session Zero?

The numbers more than one and less than ten are the middle ground, buddy.

Your middle ground seems like a lot. But I guess you have fun sitting there doing the ''less then ten questions'' every couple of minutes. That is not fun to me.

[Cluedrew]

1.DM controls the game. Normal Game.
2.Players control the game. Your Other type of game.
3.No One controls the game and it's all a random mess.

4.Control is distributed around the table. A healthy game.

Of course you are not going to agree with me on that, that would be a sudden change. But it is there, I've seen it work and it has lead to the best results I have seen in any game.

[Darth Ultron]

4.Control is distributed around the table. A healthy game.

Of course you are not going to agree with me on that, that would be a sudden change. But it is there, I've seen it work and it has lead to the best results I have seen in any game.

Well, ok, can you explain how you do this? It seems to me that this ''4th way'' is just the player control way.

Like assuming the game has a figurehead DM that just does what the players want, and the players just do whatever they want, and the DM says ''that is great player'' and it happens....well that is player control of the game.

I guess you would not see it as ''player control'' though as you ''all ways agree with the players anyway'' so it does not ''feel'' like they are in control or you really, really, really don't care and just do the casual DM style

And I see the ''getting everything you want all the time'' as very, very unhealthy. It's like letting a kid eat candy 24/7 as that is what they want to eat.

[ImNotTrevor]

It is kida an odd example your trying to make as it does not fit. In things like movies an actor is hired to play a role and act out a plot, they are no hired to re-make the movie into their own selfish vision. An actor might say make a suggestion, but they can't just take control over the whole movie and make it all about themselves.

No. But RPGs aren't movies, either. They are inherently collaborative.

An actor did a scene? Ok, this is what actors do. I'm not sure what your point is here?

You misunderstand. When I say he did the scene, I mean there was no other writer or director for that scene. Rick Moranis ran the entire scene.

Well, it is what your saying.

"If I say a thing enough, it will magically become true."

1.DM controls the game. Normal Game.
2.Players control the game. Your Other type of game.
3.No One controls the game and it's all a random mess.

Well you've progressed from a False Dichotomy to a False Trichotomy. It's still wrong, but it's progress.

Now players ''making suggestions'' only fits in the normal game, and you say you don't do that.

My players have narrative authority whenever it would improve the game or whenever decisions lie in their hands. I tend to ask pointed and loaded questions to facilitate this throughout the game.

And if you do the ''vote game'', where each gamer gets a vote, that is a player controlled game, and you have not said you do this. And you don't to a meaningless random game, I think. So there is only one left.

Congratulations. You've reached the conclusion that I and many others do not fit your 3-options model since it only operates at far extremes. We're making progress.

Maybe you need to do a better Session Zero?

Since I can't predict what will and won't be relevant 6 weeks from now (due to the agency of the characters having a large influence in the direction of the game) the only other option would be Novel-length backstories and, as the ancient meme states, "Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo' Dat."

Your middle ground seems like a lot. But I guess you have fun sitting there doing the ''less then ten questions'' every couple of minutes. That is not fun to me.

Who said it was every couple of minutes?
Only you....
So this is another invented thing you came up with that nobody is talking about!

Yay!

[Darth Ultron]

No. But RPGs aren't movies, either. They are inherently collaborative.

To say they are collaborative is a long way from what your talking about though.

You misunderstand. When I say he did the scene, I mean there was no other writer or director for that scene. Rick Moranis ran the entire scene.

So, once, a writer/actor/director did a whole scene (minus a camera guy, sound guy, grip and such) for one movie.....so by your logic all movies are like that all the time?

My players have narrative authority whenever it would improve the game or whenever decisions lie in their hands. I tend to ask pointed and loaded questions to facilitate this throughout the game.

So player controlled game then. Like I said. I just wonder why your so against admitting it?

Congratulations. You've reached the conclusion that I and many others do not fit your 3-options model since it only operates at far extremes. We're making progress.

The conclusion is more ''people don't want to admit what they do'' and ''all ways want to pretend to be different''.

A normal traditional game, of the type we are talking about, has one DM, and several players. So only have the DM in control or the players in control or no body in control. You can't have ''everyone shares control as DM and Player are not equal and the same'' and as there are more players then DM's, that is player control.

But if you do insist on some sort of shared control, I'd ask how you do it? And remember I'm only talking about games, like D&D that have a Dm and players. I know there are tons of games made by the ''D&D haters'' that do the more group hug care and share cooperation game, but those are whole other games.

Since I can't predict what will and won't be relevant 6 weeks from now (due to the agency of the characters having a large influence in the direction of the game) the only other option would be Novel-length backstories and, as the ancient meme states, "Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo' Dat."

Backstories are normally quite detailed. Unless your talking about like just filling in the blanks? Like the backstory just says ''grew up in some city'' because both you and the player don't have time to pick a city. Then later during the game, even more so if it will give the player some advantage, they can just say ''oh my character is from Highport...and all ways has been, wink wink" Or just rewriting history on the whim of the Player? So no matter where the character goes in the game world they will say ''oh, my character was born in this place ".

Who said it was every couple of minutes?
Only you....
So this is another invented thing you came up with that nobody is talking about!

Well, I don't know your Houserule. Do you like forbid a player from asking more then ten questions together and only one ''block'' of questions every two hours or something?

[Tinkerer]

The strawmanning is really starting to get quite sad here. For starters the majority of fiction (particularly in the modern age) is a collaboration between at least two people since there is pretty much always an editor going over the work and providing input. In the examples which you listed earlier of comic books, Lost, and Once upon a Time there were people writing the script ranging from 1 person (as a rarity in comic books and these are usually the worst books such as Marville) to 20 people. Hollywood writing rooms really don't just work based on one person with a script.

Plus:

Sure, except a PbP is not the same as a real life game. In real life I can say a description quick, but I'm not going to type out 50,000 words of text(even more so on my phone).

I know you were talking about providing more information than an average GM but if you are regularly busting out 50 000 word descriptions you might be going just the tiniest bit overboard.

I think that everyone can see the problem here. Some GM didn't like the idea of his players knowing anything about teh ultra kewl world which was made up so they came up with a houserule that killed the Knowledge skill. Only they didn't just remove it because that would make sense so they instead made it a trap option which would return dangerous and incorrect information if someone used it. If that's how you want to run things then that's fine.

[Friv]

No. Try re-reading what I've written. I know you can do it, buddy.
I believe in you.

This was your first mistake.

;)

[Koo Rehtorb]

Poe's Law all up in here.

[Darth Ultron]

The strawmanning is really starting to get quite sad here. For starters the majority of fiction (particularly in the modern age) is a collaboration between at least two people

Odd everyone uses collaboration to mean ''anyone that works near someone else''. In just about all cases an editor is all powerful, much like a normal classical DM. If and when an editor changes something a writer wrote, the writer has just about no options other then ''accept it''.

And I guess your going to count the camera operator as collaborating with the writer to create the movie too?

I know you were talking about providing more information than an average GM but if you are regularly busting out 50 000 word descriptions you might be going just the tiniest bit overboard.

I've said I'm a big on details DM. Some DM's are like ''eh, there is boring stuff...ok, Roll Playing time! 20 drow stand in a clear empty field and are surprised, you may roll and have your characters attack!'' , but that is not my type of game.

I think that everyone can see the problem here. Some GM didn't like the idea of his players knowing anything about teh ultra kewl world which was made up so they came up with a houserule that killed the Knowledge skill. Only they didn't just remove it because that would make sense so they instead made it a trap option which would return dangerous and incorrect information if someone used it. If that's how you want to run things then that's fine.

There is no problem, I like the players to find out about the world by playing the game in it. Not just sitting there and saying ''Dm tell me stuff''.

[Cluedrew]

Well, ok, can you explain how you do this? It seems to me that this ''4th way'' is just the player control way.

Like assuming the game has a figurehead DM that just does what the players want...

I'm arguing that you can't assume that.

But how do you do it? Generally everyone just throws some things into the game and accepts that those things might be grabbed by someone else and pulled a way they weren't expecting. Simple example, the GM in our games often doesn't have a quest in mind. Instead one or more of the characters' personal missions will drive the main plot. Still they will throw the threats they feel are appropriate in front of us, so you shouldn't call the player with the quest a co-GM.

[ImNotTrevor]

To say they are collaborative is a long way from what your talking about though.

Maybe if you can't comprehend basic english. Otherwise, my point has been consistent in stating that a midway point exists.

So, once, a writer/actor/director did a whole scene (minus a camera guy, sound guy, grip and such) for one movie.....so by your logic all movies are like that all the time?

Not even a little bit close. Brush up on those reading skills, friend.

So player controlled game then. Like I said. I just wonder why your so against admitting it?

Because that is equally inaccurate. As a GM, I play as the World and the NPCs in a way that makes logical sense and will react to players accordingly. There is no set plot or need to string players along on it. They get to prioritize which problems they want to deal with, and how. I, being the world, push back in ways that logically follow. (If the PCs piss off a major warlord, they can expect smashy shooty problems. If they piss off a corporate overlord, they may find themselves in financial or legal troubles. The may piss of neither. They may piss off both. Up to their decisions.

What ends up coming from this style has never been a simple plot. In fact, a lot of what happens is fairly convoluted and nuanced since different NPCs have different relationships with PCs.

It doesn't fit your mold, but I did in with D&D for years before I found systems I like better.

The conclusion is more ''people don't want to admit what they do'' and ''all ways want to pretend to be different''.

"Is it that my 3 boxes fail to account for all possible methods of GMing? No. People must secretly be lying!"
Maybe try Occam's Razor, buddy. It's less likely that there's a mass conspiracy than that your boxes are wrong.

A normal traditional game, of the type we are talking about, has one DM, and several players. So only have the DM in control or the players in control or no body in control. You can't have ''everyone shares control as DM and Player are not equal and the same'' and as there are more players then DM's, that is player control.

This is a non-sequiteur. That DMs and PCs have different roles does not mean narrative authority for things like "Which faction do the characters prefer" is impossible to split or move around the table. It just means the DM has a larger slice of the pie, but everyone still gets a good portion of pie.
What you argue for is that the DM has 99% of the pie and everyone else splits the last 1%. I'm suggesting that there are many percentages between, and I usually do more of a 60/40 or 70/30 split, with an occassional 50/50 if the game is better for it. And it may shift multiple times in the same scene.

But if you do insist on some sort of shared control, I'd ask how you do it? And remember I'm only talking about games, like D&D that have a Dm and players. I know there are tons of games made by the ''D&D haters'' that do the more group hug care and share cooperation game, but those are whole other games.

Im not going to be able to give you an example without you nitpicking an irrelevant detail. So I'm just gonna not take this bait. Been there, done that.

Suffice to say that I have more control than any individual player, but we all contribute because together we have better ideas than just me alone. Hence why I play TRPGs instead of writing books.... or rather why I do both and consider them to be very different. I don't really need dialogue and minor decisions made for me. I'm plenty good at those. So playing a TRPG to show off my plotwriting skills is a waste of my time. I have other outlets for that. Playing as an organic, living, breathing world that reacts in real time in logical ways to the actions of the characters? Much more interesting of a creative exercise.

Backstories are normally quite detailed. Unless your talking about like just filling in the blanks? Like the backstory just says ''grew up in some city'' because both you and the player don't have time to pick a city. Then later during the game, even more so if it will give the player some advantage, they can just say ''oh my character is from Highport...and all ways has been, wink wink" Or just rewriting history on the whim of the Player? So no matter where the character goes in the game world they will say ''oh, my character was born in this place ".

Being from a place doesn't really grant much advantage beyond having an in on knowing who's who. So I see no reason to disallow it. But I do make notes, so once they decide to be from a place, it's not changing. It's actually very easy.

Well, I don't know your Houserule. Do you like forbid a player from asking more then ten questions together and only one ''block'' of questions every two hours or something?

I've honestly never dealt with that problem at all. I get maybe 5 clarification questions per session (making sure they understand what's happening) and maybe 2 per session about what they might know. Since I usually just begin my descriptions with "You would know this person is...." my players trust that I'm not withholding information they should reasonably know. And if they want to sprinkle in minor details in their speech, eh. Fine by me so long as it doesn't outright contradict.
For instance, complimenting a Duke who does a lot of expeditionary trips on his latest expedition success a-ok, even if I didn't mention one specifically. It makes sense that he had one recently, he goes on a lot of them. Where he went is likely not relevant.

Asking the kindly widower who runs the Orphanage about that time she murdered 20 puppies will either be taken as a really poor-taste joke, or as an opportunity to see if someone is confused.

But this doesn't fit your 3-box model at all, so I'm probably going to be accused of lying by the guy who has yet to accurately sum up any of my points.
Pre-emptive irony? Yes. Yes it is.

[Friv]

"Is it that my 3 boxes fail to account for all possible methods of GMing? No. People must secretly be lying!"
Maybe try Occam's Razor, buddy. It's less likely that there's a mass conspiracy than that your boxes are wrong.

[Tinkerer]

Odd everyone uses collaboration to mean ''anyone that works near someone else''. In just about all cases an editor is all powerful, much like a normal classical DM. If and when an editor changes something a writer wrote, the writer has just about no options other then ''accept it''.

And I guess your going to count the camera operator as collaborating with the writer to create the movie too?



I've said I'm a big on details DM. Some DM's are like ''eh, there is boring stuff...ok, Roll Playing time! 20 drow stand in a clear empty field and are surprised, you may roll and have your characters attack!'' , but that is not my type of game.



There is no problem, I like the players to find out about the world by playing the game in it. Not just sitting there and saying ''Dm tell me stuff''.

Huh... Koo Rehtorb I think you may be correct on the Poe's Law assessment.

First off you were saying that the writer is the GM now you're saying that the editor is? Where does the director fit into things? Do you remember saying "Well, sure most films and TV show episodes and books have one writer"? And really I guess it depends on the production. If the cinematographer is the camera operator then one could count the camera operator as collaborating with the writer since the cinematographer collaborates with the director who collaborates with the writer (although considering the writer usually isn't involved much once shooting starts I guess that would put the writer in the position of the company making the RPG?).

Secondly you are honestly saying that you spend 6.5 hours straight describing one scene? That's how long it takes on average to say 50 000 words. As I've said I often have sessions where there is no combat at all and at most (with that one very rare exception) combat takes up about 60%. But instead you raise up your strawman again and say "If you are not doing things my way then obviously you are just a roll player with no attention to detail".

And thirdly the problem that I was referring to was a fundamental lack of understanding as is expressed by misrepresenting everybody's points. You've presented no compelling arguments, you've proven that you are incapable of understanding a person by being unable to address their points without ignoring what was said, you've expressed joy at chasing people away from the hobby... heck joy at making people cry (I still hope that one was hyperbole), and on remembering that note I'm forced to ask myself what the **** am I still doing here.

My apologies to everyone for helping to drag this out. It's like talking to a Flat Earth Society member, sometimes you are just so fascinated by the lack of logic that it's almost hypnotizing.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm arguing that you can't assume that.

But how do you do it? Generally everyone just throws some things into the game and accepts that those things might be grabbed by someone else and pulled a way they weren't expecting. Simple example, the GM in our games often doesn't have a quest in mind. Instead one or more of the characters' personal missions will drive the main plot. Still they will throw the threats they feel are appropriate in front of us, so you shouldn't call the player with the quest a co-GM.

But, again, your talking more ''before the game''. Like everyone shows up to play a game, and the DM is like ''I got nothing''. Everyone just sits at the table and does nothing. Then player two says ''hey lets go kill the dragon that attacked my home town and killed my family!'' The other players say ''ok'', and the DM says ''we will do that!''.

And ok, that is all fine. It's even normal: the player just suggested something. It's not the player taking control of the game and telling the DM what to do.

So I'm talking about all the game play after that.

It doesn't fit your mold, but I did in with D&D for years before I found systems I like better.

You could have just save a lot of time by saying ''my game is random and has no plot''.

This is a non-sequiteur. That DMs and PCs have different roles does not mean narrative authority for things like "Which faction do the characters prefer" is impossible to split or move around the table. It just means the DM has a larger slice of the pie, but everyone still gets a good portion of pie.
What you argue for is that the DM has 99% of the pie and everyone else splits the last 1%. I'm suggesting that there are many percentages between, and I usually do more of a 60/40 or 70/30 split, with an occassional 50/50 if the game is better for it. And it may shift multiple times in the same scene.

Not really sure what your saying here.

Like four people say ''hey lets go to Taco Bell!'' So the four people get into a car. One Driver, and Three Passengers. The Driver controls the whole drive and trip: the route, the speed and so on. A passenger can say ''take the Evergreen Parkway'' or complain ''your driving too slow'', but the driver can ignore them or listen as do as they ask.

In your version each person takes one part of the car to control, so one has the gas pedal, one the break petal, one the turn signal and one the steering wheel...and, well, as that is impossible the car goes nowhere(or rolls for a couple feet and crashes into something).

Im not going to be able to give you an example without you nitpicking an irrelevant detail. So I'm just gonna not take this bait. Been there, done that.

Playing as an organic, living, breathing world that reacts in real time in logical ways to the actions of the characters? Much more interesting of a creative exercise.

Guess this is where I can say ''just as you keep saying something does not make it true''.

And your saying your game ''comes alive'' and ''takes control''? You might need some fresh air....

Being from a place doesn't really grant much advantage beyond having an in on knowing who's who. So I see no reason to disallow it. But I do make notes, so once they decide to be from a place, it's not changing. It's actually very easy.

So, in your session zero, you don't do much on the role playing side and filling in details like even a simple ''10 minute background'' for the player characters? But you let each player, randomly on a whim, fill in details about their character just ''once''? Ok...well, it's a little weird.

I've honestly never dealt with that problem at all. I get maybe 5 clarification questions per session (making sure they understand what's happening) and maybe 2 per session about what they might know.

So you run a simple game. Got it.

But this doesn't fit your 3-box model at all, so I'm probably going to be accused of lying by the guy who has yet to accurately sum up any of my points.
Pre-emptive irony? Yes. Yes it is.

Your more confused then anything. You sort of say the DM has ''most'' of the control in the game, but are quick to say the players have ''some''. But you leave it kind of vague as to who controls what. And then you said your game is random and has no plot, so it really does not matter anyway.

You have never given a game example, but lets try a basic one:

So I write up a whole adventure including maps, stats, handouts, and a plot. (You do none of that)
Some goblin bandits start to raid the main road from Mudport (I know it's a plot and you don't use plots, so for your game lets just say the town falls out of the sky on top of the characters). The town mayor puts out a call for help from adventures (in your game this is where the Mayor NPC would come alive and do this for you). So the normal players in my game would have their characters accept this job (well, your players would still be wandering around at random...but lets just say they randomly want to do this ). Now in my normal game the players only have one choice: their characters must go find the bandits hideout and stop the raids. That is the plot. It does not matter ''how'' they do it, but they must do that (see it's that one way thing I mentioned before) (Now in your game the characters can pick from like six ways to stop the raids that all do not involve the characters interacting with the bandits at all (because you don't do the whole ''the characters must encounter the bandits'' plot that I do(and don't have a plot too) So...something happens in your game....).

So I have made an ''adventure'' and a ''plot.'' (You have made neither). I will lead the player characters through the adventure plot. (You will do something?) Like part of my plot (Part 1,Encounter 3) is the two goblins that sneak over to a Mudpot farm to steal chickens. Using my DM Agency, I will make sure the characters discover this fact and lead them right to the farm. It's ''up'' to the players what they want to do: they might just kill the goblins, they might capture them, or they might do something clever like follow them back to the hideout. But Encounter three will happen. (So your game has no adventure, encounters or plot....so, something random happens?)

In my game the players have no control over the game what so ever. As players they have agreed to just ''play'' a single character in the game and not be a ''side table Dm''. They are free to have their characters act and do things within the rules and the game reality, but that is it. Things will happen around the characters (like encounters), and the players can choose what they do. (somehow, your game is different....and something happens )

So this is a vague description of a start of a game (part 1 of 2), maybe you can fill in the blanks?

First off you were saying that the writer is the GM now you're saying that the editor is?

Movies are just really not a good example....except for maybe just Director(DM) and Actors(Players)?

Secondly you are honestly saying that you spend 6.5 hours straight describing one scene?

I'd break it up into shorter segments.

And thirdly the problem that I was referring to was a fundamental lack of understanding as is expressed by misrepresenting everybody's points. You've presented no compelling arguments, you've proven that you are incapable of understanding a person by being unable to address their points without ignoring what was said, you've expressed joy at chasing people away from the hobby... heck joy at making people cry (I still hope that one was hyperbole), and on remembering that note I'm forced to ask myself what the **** am I still doing here.

I think my argument is compelling, maybe you don't as your just doing the old ''he is wrong'' thing?

The ''points'' I see are ''that I am wrong'' and ''oh my game is different special''. I ask how, and they just say ''oh it is''. I ask again and they say ''something vague''. So I take the something vague and say it like it is: they say ''my game has not plot'', so I say ''so your game is a random mess?''; then they get all angry and say ''oh no my game has a lineal step by step way of doing things in order that make sense based around a single idea and out come''; I say ''um, that would be a plot''; And they scream back ''NO! Plots are bad wrong fun!" and the insults start.

My apologies to everyone for helping to drag this out. It's like talking to a Flat Earth Society member, sometimes you are just so fascinated by the lack of logic that it's almost hypnotizing.

I'm a Flat Earth Society member. Oh, and the New World Order used HARP to make Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. And they are spraying us everyday with Chemtrails!

[Cluedrew]

But, again, your talking more ''before the game''.

Its both before and during actually. And yes it is in many regards it is closer to the GM controlled game, as they are the one who does a lot of the putting together and adds the reactions from the world. But in some regards it is like a player controlled game (I think, never played an entirely player controlled game) in that the PCs are the proactive element and tend to be the ones driving the plot.

[ImNotTrevor]

You could have just save a lot of time by saying ''my game is random and has no plot''.

Not random, but has no plot, either would be correct.
This description is wrong, so I wouldn't use it.

Not really sure what your saying here.

Like four people say ''hey lets go to Taco Bell!'' So the four people get into a car. One Driver, and Three Passengers. The Driver controls the whole drive and trip: the route, the speed and so on. A passenger can say ''take the Evergreen Parkway'' or complain ''your driving too slow'', but the driver can ignore them or listen as do as they ask.

In your version each person takes one part of the car to control, so one has the gas pedal, one the break petal, one the turn signal and one the steering wheel...and, well, as that is impossible the car goes nowhere(or rolls for a couple feet and crashes into something).

Actually, me and some friends did exactly what your second option entails. Driver on brakes, I have long legs and handled the gas, one person in the backseat reaching forward to steer, and another on the shifter.

Do I recommend it? No. Not safe even a little. But we did successfully drive 4 miles to a Burger King.

Im not going to be able to give you an example without you nitpicking an irrelevant detail. So I'm just gonna not take this bait. Been there, done that.

This only works if someone nitpicks details, not questions large and glaring logical problems.
Good try, though.

Guess this is where I can say ''just as you keep saying something does not make it true''.

Difference being: I'm reporting on my own game. I would know.
You are trying to inform me of what my game is, which you know diddly about, and repetitively giving me inaccurate summaries.

And your saying your game ''comes alive'' and ''takes control''? You might need some fresh air....

I literally said neither of those things.
I think the one having delusions is you, since you keep responding to things I and no one else is saying.

So, in your session zero, you don't do much on the role playing side and filling in details like even a simple ''10 minute background'' for the player characters?

Not what I said and an inaccurate inference. Not all details are relevant at the start. If someone has been wandering for a few years and that's more important than their birthplacd for the first few sessions, then I'm not going to chafe. Because that detail is very minor in 99% of cases. When it is more important, it is usually talked about.

But you let each player, randomly on a whim, fill in details about their character just ''once''? Ok...well, it's a little weird.

Once per detail, yes. You weren't born twice.
Context clues, buddy. Use 'em.

So you run a simple game. Got it.

Ah yes, the simple straightforwardness of 8 warring factions having corporate and literal war, with different goals for each PC, betrayal and alliance and hiring of mercs and PCs alike...

PCs having influence in these operations, deciding who to support and who to work against, navigating a literal chunk of galaxy.

You have not even the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Your more confused then anything. You sort of say the DM has ''most'' of the control in the game, but are quick to say the players have ''some''.

You seem confused by this entirely reasonable statement. One person having Most of the control while others have Some control is very common. Especially in Government.

But you leave it kind of vague as to who controls what. And then you said your game is random and has no plot, so it really does not matter anyway.

You're still 50% incorrect.
It isn't random, and I don't plan a plot.
By the end, a plot tends to have emerged. This is called Emergent Narrative, and is how I play.
It's been a thing long enough that it has its own term.

You have never given a game example, but lets try a basic one:

So I write up a whole adventure including maps, stats, handouts, and a plot. (You do none of that)

I do none of that based on....?
You're making things up again, silly!
I do maps, stats, and the occassional handout that covers the most important information. In fact, I'm currently working on a setting for a superhero game happening in modern New Orleans. (Makes the map bit slightly easier, but I still have to draw out gang territories and any significantly different landmarks.)

I just don't do a pre-planned plot. Emergent Narrative is my thing.

Some goblin bandits start to raid the main road from Mudport (I know it's a plot and you don't use plots, so for your game lets just say the town falls out of the sky on top of the characters).

You may be confusing a Location (a particular place or position) with a Plot (the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.)
Those are two entirely different things, and I want some of whatever you're smoking that is fuzzing up that difference for you.

The town mayor puts out a call for help from adventures (in your game this is where the Mayor NPC would come alive and do this for you).

In my game the town mayor would do what logically makes sense. Which happens to be requesting help, if the local guards are insufficient.

So the normal players in my game would have their characters accept this job (well, your players would still be wandering around at random...but lets just say they randomly want to do this ). Now in my normal game the players only have one choice: their characters must go find the bandits hideout and stop the raids. That is the plot. It does not matter ''how'' they do it, but they must do that (see it's that one way thing I mentioned before) (Now in your game the characters can pick from like six ways to stop the raids that all do not involve the characters interacting with the bandits at all (because you don't do the whole ''the characters must encounter the bandits'' plot that I do(and don't have a plot too) So...something happens in your game....).

DU, I get the sense that you've come unravelled. Nested parentheses for days. I guess it's disarming when your smug condescension meets more effective, smugger condescension.

I present a situation. Several, usually. In reality many problems happen at once rather than neatly lining up to be dealt with one at a time in your more simplistic games.

In MY game, the goblins are attacking mudport, meanwhile the Sheriff of Dirthome is behaving strangely and many believe him to be cursed, the Mayor of Clogville has gone missing, and The North Mudland Caravan company has lost a lucrative caravan and would like if someone could recover the materials, please. All of these things are happening, with their own consequences if left unchecked. (Goblins will become more aggressive, the Sheriff will become actively psychotic and violent and succumb to the curse, the Mayor of Clogville will never make it back and the town will have resultant power vacuum issues, and North Mudland Caravan Company will weaken in its hold and trade routes to Mudland will suffer, making things more expensive. All this assuming they are left unchecked.) In a complex game like mine, the characters need to choose a problem to solve from many, rather than having problems form an orderly queue like in your simplistic plots.

So I have made an ''adventure'' and a ''plot.'' (You have made neither). I will lead the player characters through the adventure plot. (You will do something?) Like part of my plot (Part 1,Encounter 3) is the two goblins that sneak over to a Mudpot farm to steal chickens. Using my DM Agency, I will make sure the characters discover this fact and lead them right to the farm. It's ''up'' to the players what they want to do: they might just kill the goblins, they might capture them, or they might do something clever like follow them back to the hideout. But Encounter three will happen. (So your game has no adventure, encounters or plot....so, something random happens?)

Goblins gonna gob, it what will happen. Players can ask around or find clues about ways the Goblins are causing problems. (Goblins are rather unorganized and tend to not present a particularly coordinated front, so there are probably several ways the goblins are causing problems, from theft to sabotage to petty vandalism. What the players look into is up to them, but if they've decided to tackle the Goblin problem there's a variety of things to deal with, not just some chickens. They could deal with chicken thieves... or horse killers, or ballista breakers, goblins stealing weapons from the barracks, or any number of irritating goblin behaviors. Of course, I prefer my goblins to have complicated motivations, but you're wanting something simple. Hard for you to follow more than one thing at a time?

Meanwhile the situations elsewhere get worse because nobody is dealing with them effectively.

Heck, the party could even split up to take on different things according to what they're good at! (The kill stuff types go kill gobbos while the investigative types track down the mayor.) Since I'm an actually good GM, I can juggle those two things and maintain interest in both. (It's called doing a Scene Change, and you just do those. Cut back and forth between the two things with a good pace, and leave minor cliffhangers.)

In my game the players have no control over the game what so ever. As players they have agreed to just ''play'' a single character in the game and not be a ''side table Dm''. They are free to have their characters act and do things within the rules and the game reality, but that is it. Things will happen around the characters (like encounters), and the players can choose what they do. (somehow, your game is different....and something happens )

My game is different because it is full of many things happening, not one thing at a time.
My method requires that I participate actively in the session, that I consider ramifications, and try to simulate a living, breathing place. The place won't do it for me, so I have to be simulating it. It is hard work, and I'm tired at the end of every session. But it's the kind of tired you feel at the end of a marathon. Exhausted, but you had a blast and something awesome happened. Except in my brain, not my legs.

And most importantly, everyone, me included, has fun.

I control the world, and the NPCs in it. The story takes care of itself because the PCs do stuff. (The players value a good time over caution at my table, since I've taught them that the good times are where the danger is.)

So this is a vague description of a start of a game (part 1 of 2), maybe you can fill in the blanks?

Your world is mostly blanks except for a thin ribbon of it. Mine is full of things from one map edge to the other.
Because my games are complicated, fun, and evolve constantly. And yours are simple, 1-2-3 checklists.

[Jay R]

If this conversation has shown us anything, it's that any description of a DM's game is insufficient, and we will not understand how a game goes unless we actually play in it.

[ImNotTrevor]

If this conversation has shown us anything, it's that any description of a DM's game is insufficient, and we will not understand how a game goes unless we actually play in it.

Yes. My thinly veiled jabs were attempting to reach exactly this point. Once you start informing someone how their table operates, you might as well be attempting to tell them what dream they had last night.