Memorable Quotes.

[Luke Bunyip]

Originally Posted by Jasonft

"Yeast Infection"

Sheer and utter genius. IMHO

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

At which point I would have started making train sounds, gathered my stuff and left.

I have no problem with clairifying your point and verifying that the player does understand what was said, but dictating what they do when mind-control isn't involved is railroading.

I've no quarrel with your objection to being railroaded. I just wonder what makes you feel that presenting players with the choice between surrendering and having their characters killed isn't railroading.


Hans

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I've no quarrel with your objection to being railroaded. I just wonder what makes you feel that presenting players with the choice between surrendering and having their characters killed isn't railroading.


Hans

But you didn't present them with a choice. You told them they were surrendering. Even having a high IQ score doesn't mean you won't occasionally make a stupid decision, especially if it's based on a sense of defiance...

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

But you didn't present them with a choice. You told them they were surrendering. Even having a high IQ score doesn't mean you won't occasionally make a stupid decision, especially if it's based on a sense of defiance...

No I didn't. I said that given the situation Ultraviolet described, I wouldn't have let the fact that the player didn't realize that the NPCs were pointing machineguns at them make me assume that the character wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The part about telling them that they surrendered was really just a throwaway line based on my opinion that giving a player the "choice" between having his character surrender or be shot to doll rags was tantamount to telling him to surrender (or gather his stuff and leave, of course).

So when Mark Skarr told me he'd leave a campaign where the GM told him flat out that his character did the only sensible thing he could do in the situation, I wondered why putting the PCs in a situation with only one sensible thing to do wasn't already railroading them.


Hans

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

So when Mark Skarr told me he'd leave a campaign where the GM told him flat out that his character did the only sensible thing he could do in the situation, I wondered why putting the PCs in a situation with only one sensible thing to do wasn't already railroading them.

Because the GM is telling me what my character is doing without verifying if it's what I want the character to do. What if the character responds aggressively to threats? What if they don't believe that they'll survive surrendering? What if they have a secret from the rest of the party that they're wanted?

Because the party can make many decisions that doesn't involve surrendering. Or maybe it does, but the moment the enemy lets their guard down they strike, or run. Because saying that "I want you to surrender so your character surrenders" is railroading. Saying "Are you sure you want to do that, they have machineguns not machinepistols, surrendering is probably a wise choice" still leaves the decision to surrender in the party's hands. It makes them feel that they made the right choice instead of having it made by the GM, for them. If you're just going to tell me what my character does why am I "playing?"

When you take the choice away from the players you're no longer playing a game but telling a story.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Because the GM is telling me what my character is doing without verifying if it's what I want the character to do. What if the character responds aggressively to threats? What if they don't believe that they'll survive surrendering? What if they have a secret from the rest of the party that they're wanted?

Obviously none of that was the case in the situation Ultraviolet described, because the decision to shoot two of the NPCs was portrayed as a ludicrous thing to do, something the player wouldn't have done if he hadn't mistaken machineguns for machine pistols.

Because the party can make many decisions that doesn't involve surrendering. Or maybe it does, but the moment the enemy lets their guard down they strike, or run. Because saying that "I want you to surrender so your character surrenders" is railroading.

Well, it's railroading if the players don't like it when the GM bridges parts of the plot with narrrative. In some genres it's more or less a convention that the heroes get taken prisoner every once in a while. When the plot calls for the heroes to be taken prisoner, I think it's a kindness not to waste the players' time pretending they have a choice.

Saying "Are you sure you want to do that, they have machineguns not machinepistols, surrendering is probably a wise choice" still leaves the decision to surrender in the party's hands.

Telling them that their characters will most likely be killed if they don't surrender is giving them a choice? I don't see it.


Hans

[Blood Legend]

Now now, I'm very proud of this thread, dont get it locked, its one of the few reasons I come back to the forums every now and then.

Please disperse (take it elsewhere etc) ok? Much appreciated.

Also, given the choice "are you sure, they're machineguns not machinepistols." I'd have changed my answer to 'Oh...well in that case I shoot the two gunners."

[BLloyd607502]

(Anyway, back to the thread's intent and purpose)

Superheroes Game. Beez-man returns, the old RP ended ten years before this one started with the break up of the hero group they were in due to politics.
Betrayed by the State and rejected by his former 'friends' who chose to take the goverment Dollar. Bee man went back to being a homeless. Until a up and coming politician had him head hunted for a Job.
Support his campaign as part of a group of trained performing monkeys in superhero costumes. Good Pay, Great Benifits, Wonderful Accomodation. The Works.
Bee-man said no, then someone walked into the boardroom and told the Senator that a group of very vicious Supervillians had broken out of prision (Who were part of a clever press Pull by an old PC who was now an NPC running for president.) The senator cleverly manipulated Beez-man into doing 'this once, only once' in return for something very minor.

One of the Villians was a man known as 'Heamophilliac' (Or something to that extent (Also a PC)), he had power over Blood. So Obviously the insect man was sent after him as insects don't have blood.

Now, Heamophilliac has heard of Bee man and gets a bit suspicious when this huge cloud of Bees (Beez) starts wandering in the same direction as him.

H:Hmm...I think I'm going to kill those bees...
B: Why?
H: Well, they're not acting very reasonable are they...I mean, it's odd behaviour.
B:...They could be migrating...
H: Bees...Migrate?!

(Took us Five minutes to get back to play between the laughing and the argument over wither or not Bees Migrated.)

[Mehmet]

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

Now now, I'm very proud of this thread, dont get it locked, its one of the few reasons I come back to the forums every now and then.

Please disperse (take it elsewhere etc) ok? Much appreciated.

Also, given the choice "are you sure, they're machineguns not machinepistols." I'd have changed my answer to 'Oh...well in that case I shoot the two gunners."

Hehe... I think that was the point of Ultraviolet's post all along :)

The mistake is not attacking the machinegunmen but not eliminating the two whooters first. So, nope, not much railroading there...

Cheerio!

[Mark Skarr]

After the character had spent quite a long time involved in some energetic ribald pleasantries:

OOC: Well, detached and objectively she'd ask "I'm sorry, what was your ultimate goal for said activity?" However, the objective part of her brain is currently sitting in the corner reading Moby Dick.