|
As an occasional scenario author, I'm curious as to whether anyone has examples of good, fun, non-railroad scenarios. Ones in which you feel the GM and players have a great deal of flexibility. Which scenarios (from any season) should authors keep in mind so that we can deliver more content like that in the future?Seeing an intrigue-influenced version of Murder on the Throaty Mermaid would be super interesting.Agreed. A murder mystery like that can be fun, if done well. And actually, my big complaint about that one is the most railroady part.
** spoiler omitted **
I agree. This scenario i was not very fond of for the same reasons in the spoiler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the term "railroad" was never linked to gaming if people would still complain about it? When I started gaming, the answer was "no."
Every season, someone says the same complaint as the OP. Different strokes. The vocal minority is always the loudest.
Interesting question. I would counter with 'when did railroad become a bad thing?
When I started gaming, the adventures were all custom made by the DM, however there was still a specific plot and an end enemy and within a night or two we were moving in that direction.
Is it a module thing where hundreds of people are doing the same adventure the same way... and everyone knows it? Otherwise pre-D&D I played some Marvel Superheroes RPG modules... and they were also Chapter by chapter telling a story.
I never really considered anything out of the ordinary in that. We were playing a story... just like the stories I read. Beginning middle end...
It may be a bit basic, but I never thought it odd or railed against it. The idea of modules being scripted was just the way it was done. And that was with a LOT less options for character classes now. It's gotta be hard to go sandbox with a group of 4 and hundreds of thousands of combination of classes.... on a time limit...
Modules/APs/Scenarios really HAVE to be bare bones adventures if they're trying to please everyone. Anything goes is really for home games.
|
|
I wonder if the term "railroad" was never linked to gaming if people would still complain about it? When I started gaming, the answer was "no."
Every season, someone says the same complaint as the OP. Different strokes. The vocal minority is always the loudest.
Interesting question. I would counter with 'when did railroad become a bad thing?
When I started gaming, the adventures were all custom made by the DM, however there was still a specific plot and an end enemy and within a night or two we were moving in that direction.
Is it a module thing where hundreds of people are doing the same adventure the same way... and everyone knows it? Otherwise pre-D&D I played some Marvel Superheroes RPG modules... and they were also Chapter by chapter telling a story.
I never really considered anything out of the ordinary in that. We were playing a story... just like the stories I read. Beginning middle end...
It may be a bit basic, but I never thought it odd or railed against it. The idea of modules being scripted was just the way it was done. And that was with a LOT less options for character classes now. It's gotta be hard to go sandbox with a group of 4 and hundreds of thousands of combination of classes.... on a time limit...
Modules/APs/Scenarios really HAVE to be bare bones adventures if they're trying to please everyone. Anything goes is really for home games.
Well, generally i find people want to be unique in the game. Completing an adventure the same way everyone else does is boring. When do you hear people telling how they went through an adventure and they get excited because they feel they did it in a unique or interesting way.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a matter of degrees between a normal healthy fun story with a beginning and (intended) end, and a railroading monstrosity.
One of the big factors is how sensibly one scene leads to another. In a good adventure, the players want to go to the next scene the author intended, because it makes sense. They found a clue pointing there, it's the next door down the hallway etcetera. So writing in a way that doesn't feel railroad-y is a lot about luring players into the direction you want them to go rather than shoving them there. It doesn't have to take much. Instead of an NPC telling you "go to Y (because the GM knowns you need X)", instead have the NPC respond to the players' requests with "oh, you want X? You can find it at Y."
Another one is the sensation that you have choices and that your choices matter. A dungeon where you can go either way, and those choices matter, that's nice. It's sometimes called Jacquaying. The Beggar's Pearl is a good example of this; there are three different ways to get to the final room, and each will end you up in a different tactical situation.
We're generally quite tolerant of linear dungeons. Most dungeons are somewhat linear, but it's okay because most basements in real buildings are, too. And any building intended to repel invaders is going to have layers of defenses that you need to peel back one by one. So it's not that unnatural. This gets exploited a lot with five room dungeon setups. Especially in the PFS format where you tend towards a fairly set number of encounters per crawl, most dungeons are variations of this. Hall of the Flesh Eaters and Labyrinth of Hungry Ghosts are both quite linear for example, but that's not something people complain about. It's not as obvious, but even the embassy in The Disappeared is fairly linear. However, during that one, you get to make a lot of choices in different ways to overcome each new obstacle. It's un-railroady in that the author tells you "you need to get there", provided several ways to cross the intervening distance, and left guidance to GMs for what if the players try something else.
Even so, it'd be nice to see more nonlinear dungeons. Especially dungeons that are above-ground, often seem written to exclude any out-of-order traversal. Even if the GM lets you climb into the throne room through a window, you'll be worse off because you should have really found some helpful item by going through the rooms in order. This requires a significant rethink of the story you tell through the encounters however.
|
It's not as obvious, but even the embassy in The Disappeared is fairly linear. However, during that one, you get to make a lot of choices in different ways to overcome each new obstacle. It's un-railroady in that the author tells you "you need to get there", provided several ways to cross the intervening distance, and left guidance to GMs for what if the players try something else.
This is a great example. When I first played The Disappeared, it looked like a sandbox adventure that you could tackle any way you want. Then I read it, and GMed it 4 or 5 times. Every single group has to go through the place in the same order. They have choices as to how to handle each section, but it's still an extremely well hidden railroad.
As for the complaint about Mists of Mwangi, the same problem existed in The Penumbral Accords... in the same map. I think this is why they changed up the layout of the Blackros Museum, starting with the Silver Mount Collection. My only complaint there is that they added a big, new building format that's mildly annoying to draw, and then waited a year to publish the flip-mat for it. And then didn't put out a second adventure in that new museum yet.
|
I've seen an adventure (non-PFS) where the enemies were chosen due to their divination powers. No matter the order you went into rooms a did things the encounters happened in the same order. Players thought they had a choice (and in fact if they had done things in reverse some of the fights might have been easier), but the GM knows in fact it was pre-determined the whole time. I thought it was a fairly interesting way to railroad the characters without giving away that it actually is on one track.
Well, generally i find people want to be unique in the game. Completing an adventure the same way everyone else does is boring. When do you hear people telling how they went through an adventure and they get excited because they feel they did it in a unique or interesting way.I wonder if the term "railroad" was never linked to gaming if people would still complain about it? When I started gaming, the answer was "no."
Every season, someone says the same complaint as the OP. Different strokes. The vocal minority is always the loudest.
Interesting question. I would counter with 'when did railroad become a bad thing?
When I started gaming, the adventures were all custom made by the DM, however there was still a specific plot and an end enemy and within a night or two we were moving in that direction.
Is it a module thing where hundreds of people are doing the same adventure the same way... and everyone knows it? Otherwise pre-D&D I played some Marvel Superheroes RPG modules... and they were also Chapter by chapter telling a story.
I never really considered anything out of the ordinary in that. We were playing a story... just like the stories I read. Beginning middle end...
It may be a bit basic, but I never thought it odd or railed against it. The idea of modules being scripted was just the way it was done. And that was with a LOT less options for character classes now. It's gotta be hard to go sandbox with a group of 4 and hundreds of thousands of combination of classes.... on a time limit...
Modules/APs/Scenarios really HAVE to be bare bones adventures if they're trying to please everyone. Anything goes is really for home games.
Ahhhh... but that's my point. How do people KNOW if they completed it a unique or interesting way?
Did this kind of attitude happen back in the 80's or is it more of a modern mentality when everyone can jump on forums and discuss and compare how the did it?
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Well, generally i find people want to be unique in the game. Completing an adventure the same way everyone else does is boring. When do you hear people telling how they went through an adventure and they get excited because they feel they did it in a unique or interesting way.I wonder if the term "railroad" was never linked to gaming if people would still complain about it? When I started gaming, the answer was "no."
Every season, someone says the same complaint as the OP. Different strokes. The vocal minority is always the loudest.
Interesting question. I would counter with 'when did railroad become a bad thing?
When I started gaming, the adventures were all custom made by the DM, however there was still a specific plot and an end enemy and within a night or two we were moving in that direction.
Is it a module thing where hundreds of people are doing the same adventure the same way... and everyone knows it? Otherwise pre-D&D I played some Marvel Superheroes RPG modules... and they were also Chapter by chapter telling a story.
I never really considered anything out of the ordinary in that. We were playing a story... just like the stories I read. Beginning middle end...
It may be a bit basic, but I never thought it odd or railed against it. The idea of modules being scripted was just the way it was done. And that was with a LOT less options for character classes now. It's gotta be hard to go sandbox with a group of 4 and hundreds of thousands of combination of classes.... on a time limit...
Modules/APs/Scenarios really HAVE to be bare bones adventures if they're trying to please everyone. Anything goes is really for home games.
Ahhhh... but that's my point. How do people KNOW if they completed it a unique or interesting way?
Did this kind of attitude happen back in the 80's or is it more of a modern mentality when everyone can jump on forums and discuss and compare how the...
A lot of material that Pathfinder takes inspiration from were originally designed for people to compare how well they did with one another though most of it was linear even back then.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, a railroad scenario is not when it's already determined where you're going, but when it's determined what you'll be doing.
There are many scenarios like "go to X, obtain item Y, take it to Z". That is not in and of itself a railroad; it's only a railroad if the players don't have a choice. For example, if it becomes "make a swim check to go to X (because there's no other way), kill the monster at Y (because you can't talk to it or sneak or do anything else), then give the item to NPC Bob at Z (because you can't keep it or destroy it or give it to someone else)".
Yes, scenarios of the latter kind exist, but they're pretty rare, and season 7 does not particularly have more of them than earlier seasons.
For instance, the classic scenario The Frostfur Captives is not what I'd call a railroad.
On the other hand, City of Strangers feels very much like a railroad.
Choices are fun.
|
|
As an occasional scenario author, I'm curious as to whether anyone has examples of good, fun, non-railroad scenarios. Ones in which you feel the GM and players have a great deal of flexibility. Which scenarios (from any season) should authors keep in mind so that we can deliver more content like that in the future?
After part 1 of EotT's intro, I nearly murdered Osprey. I had very few old scenarios under the character's belt and none of them reflected well on birdman. The intro became very railroady very fast with an incredibly antagonistic NPC.
Consortium Compact is one of the better scenarios I've come across for avoiding the railroad. I also enjoyed Ancients' Anguish and Twisted Circle.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
After part 1 of EotT's intro, I nearly murdered Osprey. I had very few old scenarios under the character's belt and none of them reflected well on birdman. The intro became very railroady very fast with an incredibly antagonistic NPC.
That's not a railroad. You choose to try to murder an allied NPC, and your choice has consequences. If anything that's the opposite of a railroad.
|
|
After part 1 of EotT's intro, I nearly murdered Osprey. I had very few old scenarios under the character's belt and none of them reflected well on birdman. The intro became very railroady very fast with an incredibly antagonistic NPC.That's not a railroad. You choose to try to murder an allied NPC, and your choice has consequences. If anything that's the opposite of a railroad.
Me: "After I opted to let another person cut you out of the worm that swallowed you instead of plane shifting you to the abyss like the other one, then aiding in the defense of the lodge, you still think I'm implicated in conspiracy with a man I've never met?"
Osprey: "He's important and has his hands in everything."
Me: "So how are you not implicated?"
Osprey: "Reasons. Now go prove your innocence."
Me: "Why don't you prove my guilt and your innocence?"
Osprey: "Nope."
I hadn't taken any hostile actions. I had actually spared his life. I regret that decision. Mind you, this is on my chaotic good stoner psychic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
** spoiler omitted **
I hadn't taken any hostile actions. I had actually spared his life. I regret that decision. Mind you, this is on my chaotic good stoner psychic.
Ok, that's a fair reaction on your part. However, this is the GM's doing, and not what it says in the scenario.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
I hadn't taken any hostile actions. I had actually spared his life. I regret that decision. Mind you, this is on my chaotic good stoner psychic.
Ok, that's a fair reaction on your part. However, this is the GM's doing, and not what it says in the scenario.
** spoiler omitted **
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
** spoiler omitted **
On the other hand, it is also entirely valid for the PCs to follow Osprey's orders; he does outrank you, after all. Point is, the scenario is written to deal with both of these, and several other outcomes.
The deal with EoTT is not so much that it's a railroad (indeed, this short discussion on the scenario already shows how many different directions it can go into) but that you're fighting an enemy who is smart, prepared, and has contingency plans. Contingencies may look like a railroad as long as the players are unaware of what's going on, but they're actually not.
|
As an occasional scenario author, I'm curious as to whether anyone has examples of good, fun, non-railroad scenarios. Ones in which you feel the GM and players have a great deal of flexibility. Which scenarios (from any season) should authors keep in mind so that we can deliver more content like that in the future?After part 1 of EotT's intro, I nearly murdered Osprey. I had very few old scenarios under the character's belt and none of them reflected well on birdman. The intro became very railroady very fast with an incredibly antagonistic NPC.
Consortium Compact is one of the better scenarios I've come across for avoiding the railroad. I also enjoyed Ancients' Anguish and Twisted Circle.
To be honest, I think this is more a function of the time frame in which EotT was written...
|
|
As an occasional scenario author, I'm curious as to whether anyone has examples of good, fun, non-railroad scenarios. Ones in which you feel the GM and players have a great deal of flexibility. Which scenarios (from any season) should authors keep in mind so that we can deliver more content like that in the future?After part 1 of EotT's intro, I nearly murdered Osprey. I had very few old scenarios under the character's belt and none of them reflected well on birdman. The intro became very railroady very fast with an incredibly antagonistic NPC.
Consortium Compact is one of the better scenarios I've come across for avoiding the railroad. I also enjoyed Ancients' Anguish and Twisted Circle.
To be honest, I think this is more a function of the time frame in which EotT was written...
** spoiler omitted **
That is a fair point, but even in the instances that my character had interacted with Osprey in the past, he was still a total ponce.
I feel like I'm in a 90s arcade all of the sudden. Insert 2 coins to continue.
While this chronicle didn't go on my EotT character, here's another example:
Not exactly a likable character in either instance.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
Interesting question. I would counter with 'when did railroad become a bad thing?
I wouldn't necessarily say the 'railroad' itself becomes a bad thing, you can have it and people move around creatively. I've done a whole module with an organic story backwards just because the party thought the point of contact was the bad guy. Did we still go through the 'railroad' yes, but we just got there in a different order.
It's when its more common than not that a GM has to break the 4th wall and tell you to come back to the 'railroad' when RP has naturally followed the means of what was laid out in the scenario -- is the bad 'railroad'. It's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here." The GMs think what you are looking into makes sense, you think it makes sense with the pieces and its like you walked off the Map in a Video game and your in blank pixel land. [Which is highly surreal, I've done it a few times in GW2 of walking off the grid in dungeons.]
As an occasional scenario author, I'm curious as to whether anyone has examples of good, fun, non-railroad scenarios. Ones in which you feel the GM and players have a great deal of flexibility. Which scenarios (from any season) should authors keep in mind so that we can deliver more content like that in the future?
There are a few and its easier for me to just describe it than go look up the different names of scenarios.
The list of things to do. This is the approach to this that even as a GM I like a lot. I call it the list of things to do, because 1/2 the time I see it an NPC gives you a list. You have the 3-5 events that need to take place, the order of the events are irrelevant just that you do all or even just some of them. It may result in the events (completed in any order the PCs so choose), point towards the final encounter where the PCs then go, 'hey we keep seeing this common thread, lets check it out.' or the PCs have gotten enough attention the final encounter comes and finds them.
I think one of these was from Grandmaster Torch, but there's been a few over the years.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's when its more common than not that a GM has to break the 4th wall and tell you to come back to the 'railroad' when RP has naturally followed the means of what was laid out in the scenario -- is the bad 'railroad'. It's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here."
Yes. It should go high on the list of any source of GM'ing advice that as the GM you DO NOT point out (perceived) flaws in the scenario while you're running it.
Yes. It should go high on the list of any source of GM'ing advice that as the GM you DO NOT point out (perceived) flaws in the scenario while you're running it.
It's when its more common than not that a GM has to break the 4th wall and tell you to come back to the 'railroad' when RP has naturally followed the means of what was laid out in the scenario -- is the bad 'railroad'. It's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here."
Agreed... I've never run into a DM who did that. 'I' nearly did with a few marvel modules during my DM infancy... but nobody I've played under would tell you what is and isn't part of the story like that,... O.O
But again, maybe that's a time limit thing too... with our games we can waste some time winging things and chasing down rabbit holes. Organized play may need that stick to keep the players in the right direction... Still, I wouldn't enjoy that.
Though to be fair... I complain about MOST of the Pathfinder 3.x rules about the same thing. Anytime I want to do something fun and creative with an immediate ruling or DC and have the DM or Players tell me there is a feat or rule for that action and I can't attempt it for X amount of levels...
Never been a fan of the 'nope, you can't do that' gaming strategy...
|
It's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here."
It should go high on the list of any source of GM'ing advice that as the GM you DO NOT point out (perceived) flaws in the scenario while you're running it.
Well, and here I thought that it'd be part of a GM's duty to fill in or invent information lacking and to improve what he perceives as flaws in a scenario.
Who would have known that I simply could have blamed the scenario's writer instead.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
Yes. It should go high on the list of any source of GM'ing advice that as the GM you DO NOT point out (perceived) flaws in the scenario while you're running it.
It's when its more common than not that a GM has to break the 4th wall and tell you to come back to the 'railroad' when RP has naturally followed the means of what was laid out in the scenario -- is the bad 'railroad'. It's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here."
I wouldn't say that having to tell people they have gone outside of the scope of the module or scenario is a high amount of 'never do this'. Ever since I joined one of the first things I was told about GMs and PFS is 'run as written' is the golden rule that shall not be broken.
I play with groups that love to over think aspects and could probably use any scenario as a jumping off point into a whole campaign. Usually you have around 4 hours to finish including paperwork at most stores. It's easy for people to jump on to things that are there for cultural and make plot interesting that don't have much to do with the plot.
If they resonate with the characters they can go chasing that outside the rabbit hole. The GM having to break 4th wall and say hey you've left the rabbit hole is understandable, but... if it's written well the culture and red herrings should not be more memorable than the plot. There should be multiple things saying hey this here is a bigger problem than the normal every day issues these people face that got highlighted as culture fluff.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess there are good and bad railroads. The nice railroad is when you buy a ticket to an interesting destination, you have comfortable seats, see some interesting things out of the window as you race across the countryside, and you occasionally get off the train to stretch your legs, talk to the locals, bash their heads in, and take their stuff, before getting back on again.
The bad railroad is when you really don't like where you're going and there's a steward physically forcing you to remain seated. And he's telling you that what you're seeing out of the window is awesome, but you don't really buy it.
Of course there are also free-range walks through the countryside. If all goes well you see interesting stuff, walk over to anything that looks interesting from a distance, and maybe you have a good travel guide that gives you a whole menu of things you might go and take a peek at. It also tells you which gangs of hoodlums are safe to beat up and which ones carry chainsaws so you might want to avoid them until you can get a rocket launcher.
Other walks though involve lots of aimless wandering in boring suburb or concrete industrial yards where nothing fun is happening. Your friend said this would be the ultimate sandbox experience, where "you bring your own fun" or something, but you're just worried about the completely CR-inappropriate gangs with machine pistols you keep having to dodge.
---
That was perhaps a little bit more metaphor than we needed. My point is, it's good for a PFS scenario to have a sense of direction. It needs to have a good "why" to the adventure. From there on we also need some "what" and "who" - what monsters, who are the NPCs? Finally, we need some "how". How will the PCs achieve the scenario goal, with all those things in between them and success? A good scenario has a path that the PCs can find - a breadcrumb trail that makes sense. A great scenario can also stand it if the PCs decide to blaze a different trail. With knowledge of NPC goals and capabilities the GM can frame an appropriate response. The breadcrumb trail is only there to ensure that everyone can get to the end, not just the highly motivated, initiative-taking creative people.
|
So perhaps "railroad" wasn't the most apt term to have used when I started this thread, or I should have done a better job of defining it. I think Kurald nailed what I have been getting aggravated at with season 7. I expect scenarios to have a series of challenges that they want us (the players) to overcome. We need to get from A to B, that can't be changed, and shouldn't. There needs to be some sort of structure there for us to be able to play a concise game around.
In a good scenario, there is a playground between A and B, the players get to decide how to go about it, there are challenges, and you succeed or fail not just on random chance dice rolls, but on the plans you enacted.
In a bad scenario, there is a moving walkway connecting A and B, you can't get off the walkway, and it doesn't matter what you do, it will dump you off at B eventually. In these scenarios, the only success or failure condition is the dice rolls, because the writer already decided how you were going to do it.
In other words, every scenario tells use what we need to do. A railroad is when a scenario tells us how to do it, instead of letting us come up with our own solutions.
|
|
I don't recall a single season 7 scenario that dictated how to solve the obstacles.
Well sun orchid scheme was the worst one that pops to mind. Most of the scenarios don't have to be that way, if your gm ignored the sidebars that say here's the way the PCs have to do it and let you come up with your own ideas then yeah, they're probably better that way. And you broke the run as written rule. And we go back to the part where I said we shouldn't have to break the rules to make these scenarios fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here."It should go high on the list of any source of GM'ing advice that as the GM you DO NOT point out (perceived) flaws in the scenario while you're running it.Well, and here I thought that it'd be part of a GM's duty to fill in or invent information lacking and to improve what he perceives as flaws in a scenario.
Who would have known that I simply could have blamed the scenario's writer instead.
I perceive some sarcasm there, or at least I hope so. Yes, it would be great if a GM always had an answer for every question asked by a player or action taken by a character, but sometime y'all (like kids) ask the darnedest questions and we just don't have a believable, cognizant answer in the moment. It's in those situations the GMs gotta just shrug and say it's beyond the scope of the scenario
|
|
I don't recall a single season 7 scenario that dictated how to solve the obstacles.
You have a very different recollection than I do, then.
The most egregious example is probably the end of the Bronze House Reprisal, but several other examples of overly scripted encounters spring to mind just glancing at the summaries
|
|
I perceive some sarcasm there, or at least I hope so. Yes, it would be great if a GM always had an answer for every question asked by a player or action taken by a character, but sometime y'all (like kids) ask the darnedest questions and we just don't have a believable, cognizant answer in the moment. It's in those situations the GMs gotta just shrug and say it's beyond the scope of the scenarioIt's when common phrases include "this isn't included in this scenario" and its not a multi-part, or "I have no information for you, it would make sense you know this, but it's not written here."It should go high on the list of any source of GM'ing advice that as the GM you DO NOT point out (perceived) flaws in the scenario while you're running it.Well, and here I thought that it'd be part of a GM's duty to fill in or invent information lacking and to improve what he perceives as flaws in a scenario.
Who would have known that I simply could have blamed the scenario's writer instead.
In some instances, the writer does a good job of setting up the context of the given situation. They tell the GM characters' motives, describe the area, what is happening etc. They give the GM enough information to be able to extrapolate answers when the PCs come up with questions or ideas that go beyond what the writer accounted for, because there is context for the GM to understand what is happening in both the overall story and the individual scenes.
In other instances, there is just a list of actions. Three scenes are described with the barest of explanation of how they connect overall. Each scene is meticulously scripted: If the PCs do A, this guy climbs onto the roof, and if the PCs do B, he jumps into the sewer. If there is no explanation of why he does these things and the PCs choose anything other than A or B, then the GM has no idea what to do, because there is no context with which to make the decision by.
A well written scenario should provide the right information: the framework that enables a GM to make up stuff to fit in when needed.
A poorly written scenario only provides a series of occurrences. When the GM doesn't know what is happening, they have a hard time filling in information that is lacking.
Also, a well written framework with less scripted action says: "I trust the GM to adapt to their players and run a game that is fun for their group." A heavily scripted scenario with little framework says "I think the GM is and idiot and needs to be told exactly what to do because they are incapable of making good decisions on their own." So if you are writing a module, please trust the people who are going to be running it. I would like you to think: "Someone is going to be running this for their friends. 4-6 people trust this GM to want to spend 4+hours playing their game. I will try my best to give that person all the tools they need for them to have a fun time together and trust them to fill in gaps on the fly as they need to." There will be gaps, you can't account for all possibilities, and trying to do so is a waste of word count. Spend those words giving us information to expand our game, not restrictions to limit it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other instances, there is just a list of actions. Three scenes are described with the barest of explanation of how they connect overall. Each scene is meticulously scripted: If the PCs do A, this guy climbs onto the roof, and if the PCs do B, he jumps into the sewer. If there is no explanation of why he does these things and the PCs choose anything other than A or B, then the GM has no idea what to do, because there is no context with which to make the decision by.
A well written scenario should provide the right information: the framework that enables a GM to make up stuff to fit in when needed.
A poorly written scenario only provides a series of occurrences. When the GM doesn't know what is happening, they have a hard time filling in information that is lacking.
Also, a well written framework with less scripted action says: "I trust the GM to adapt to their players and run a game that is fun for their group." A heavily scripted scenario with little framework says "I think the GM is and idiot and needs to be told exactly what to do because they are incapable of making good decisions on their own." So if you are writing a module, please trust the people who are going to be running it. I would like you to think: "Someone is going to be running this for their friends. 4-6 people trust this GM to want to spend 4+hours playing their game. I will try my best to give that person all the tools they need for them to have a fun time together and trust them to fill in gaps on the fly as they need to." There will be gaps, you can't account for all possibilities, and trying to do so is a waste of word count. Spend those words giving us information to expand our game, not restrictions to limit it.
The problem is that some GMs take advantage of that 'loosely worded' material and attempt to go nuts with it. In a home game, that's not so bad.
In PFS play, though, that's a serious issue. Suddenly that really *tough* Confirmation fight that the party fought (because the GM thought 'hey, let's throw X at the party, too, wouldn't it be KEEN!') becomes fodder for conversation when folks compare their stories "What do you mean there were two *plot point creatures* at the end with *inappropriate gear and weapons*.
Give folks an inch, they'll take a mile, and it's no less true for GMs than players...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the problem that if the GM improvises answers, and is good at it, players might think it's Actually Important Plot Material (tm). And then they want to follow that plot thread, and the scenario starts to go even further from the "rails". And then you have to break the immersion by telling them you invented those answers yourself, please don't focus on them anymore.
|
|
.The problem is that some GMs take advantage of that 'loosely worded' material and attempt to go nuts with it. In a home game, that's not so bad.
In PFS play, though, that's a serious issue. Suddenly that really *tough* Confirmation fight that the party fought (because the GM...
That is a strawman answer. Adding additional enemies and changing what's written isn't allowed, nor do I think it should be. Also, "Loosely worded" is your words, not mine. We don't want ambiguous or "loose" wording, that's not helpful. We want information that allows us to run a scenario, rather than a script we must rigidly adhere to.
I agree, in Pfs play breaking the rules is a serious issue. I'm not talking about changing any of the rules. I'm talking about changing the way the scenarios are written.
And we have to let people try and sometimes that means they will fail. That's OK, failure is not all bad. You don't learn anything if you're not allowed to fail sometimes. If we're so constrained with limiting the GM's actions because we fear letting anyone screw up GMing, we end up with a bunch of mediocrity like season 7. Let people aspire, trust GMs to take what you wrote and run with it. Yeah some of them might trip and fall, but they'll have the opportunity to learn from that, and others will make something great. Continue tying everyone's feet and you got a bunch of shuffling. People still trip, but now they blame the rope and don't learn, and nobody gets to run.
|
|
That is a strawman answer. Adding additional enemies and changing what's written isn't allowed, nor do I think it should be. Also, "Loosely worded" is your words, not mine. We don't want ambiguous or "loose" wording, that's not helpful. We want information that allows us to run a scenario, rather than a script we must rigidly adhere to.
The problem is that the more variables that are introduced, the more that *WILL* get missed when even the best GM is preparing the scenario IF they have enough time. Season Seven is not the only season that's had this as an issue, nor do I suspect it will be the last.
There was a particular Season Six that a particular GM ran that I was present at that had far in excess of given encounters because 'I wanted to see you guys sweat'. And that was very nearly a TPK . Letter of the scenario/campaign legit, but really pushing the liberties on when 'creative solutions' invalidate opponent tactics'.
If I have life experience, that's not strawman-ing, that's life experience, and if we can learn from it, we're better people for it.
I agree, in Pfs play breaking the rules is a serious issue. I'm not talking about changing any of the rules. I'm talking about changing the way the scenarios are written.
And we have to let people try and sometimes that means they will fail. That's OK, failure is not all bad. You don't learn anything if you're not allowed to fail sometimes. If we're so constrained with limiting the GM's actions because we fear letting anyone screw up GMing, we end up with a bunch of mediocrity like season 7. Let people aspire, trust GMs to take what you wrote and run with it. Yeah some of them might trip and fall, but they'll have the opportunity to learn from that, and others will make something great. Continue tying everyone's feet and you got a bunch of shuffling. People still trip, but now they blame the rope and don't learn, and nobody gets to run.
I've seen greater mediocrity (thus far) from Season Six, Five, Four and other scenarios (with the exception of Ire which was effectively a massive playtest).
Blaming Season Seven when it's ACTUALLY working the ranges of characters rather than following the 'safe tourist path' is sort of like blaming a drill instructor in Basic Training for 'pushing you too hard'.
Sure, it voices the concern, but it doesn't fix the situation which is a bit more deeply seated than any given Season.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the problem that if the GM improvises answers, and is good at it, players might think it's Actually Important Plot Material (tm). And then they want to follow that plot thread, and the scenario starts to go even further from the "rails". And then you have to break the immersion by telling them you invented those answers yourself, please don't focus on them anymore.
I do this all the time, I have occasionally run into time problems when groups go to far down the rabbit hole, but it is a rare occurrence. I try very hard to obscure the difference between ad-libed npcs and key plot developments. I've found it does wonders for keeping my games feeling like they take place in a fully flushed out world, instead of being stuck on a railroad where everything not important is a cardboard cutout.
Example:
As part of my prep for a scenario I gather a list of names appropriate for the region.
Party goes to bar and asks about the mysterious Marketplace killer. They make their gather info checks and we roleplay a little scene with the barkeep.
I'd much rather always be able to tell the party what they found out, rather than just say "You didn't learn anything about the Mysterious Marketplace Killer."
So not only is the barkeep now named Khaleed, they also get a recommendation to try his brother Ra'emm's pastries while they are in the market.
Players of course assume that because these NPCs have names they are obviously important to the plot.
Of course when Ra'emm tells them about this woman named Jasmina he's been trying to impress but won't give him the time of day and the party goes off to try and convince Wakara the flower merchant to give Ra'emm a big discount on a bouquet, I might get into trouble but when the scenario assumes they party is eventually mugged near the marketplace it's nice to have steered them in that direction and given them some flavor in the meantime.
|
|
So is it too late to ask for a scenario that's BEGGING players to 'jump off the train' with strong hints they do so?
The tracks here has you murdering an innocent captive and eating his still beating heart in a vampiric ritual. Before then you have to go through a few escalating steps of evil, but at some point you have to hop off the train.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I don't recall a single season 7 scenario that dictated how to solve the obstacles.Well sun orchid scheme was the worst one that pops to mind. Most of the scenarios don't have to be that way, if your gm ignored the sidebars that say here's the way the PCs have to do it and let you come up with your own ideas then yeah, they're probably better that way. And you broke the run as written rule. And we go back to the part where I said we shouldn't have to break the rules to make these scenarios fun.
The sidebars are suggested ways to infiltrate in order to gather needed intelligence.
The scenario has the information for how to deal with a few of the cases if the group fails to gather the information. It specifically has an "other" for infiltration role. I have run it three times, in all but one case at least one character gave me a role that they suggested --. Noble, security expert, and one I can't recall at the moment. The GM should accept that sort of thinking and be flexible in interpreting the roles.
I do think this scenario takes good preparation and a GM able to adapt while keeping the goal in mind. Every iteration is going to have some of the same challenges, but it is much more flexible in how you handle them than many other scenarios.