i've seen them, and i layed out counterpoints. you've countered my counterpoints. i've countered your countercounterpoints. whole lotta countering going on. woo!

Yeah but thats my point Penta. A good system in that case, with tight rules, wont make a lick of difference. Even one where the system covers almost all cases. Also 15 minutes being a long time is relative but that isnt really the issue here (Personally I'll give em up to 30 becuase where internet connection issues are in play, 15 minutes actualy isnt alot of time at all, but yes ultimatley you do have to make a call to go on)

And the point is yes, this GM made a terrible call, and its why I refuse to do anything anymore with him running stuff. However part of the arguments that have been flying around is that a 'good' RPG system (Which personally I dont consider rifts to be all that great, workable yes, good, heck no there are far better systems out there) wont change anything.

Also since peopel brought up the idea of a computer GM being 'perfect'. I must say I disagree, Computer GMs in computergames constantly railroad the player. The story basically goes from point A) to point B) and only has X # of outcomes for any given scenario. On a tabletop game players would all go 'But whyc ant I do X instead?'. You cant expect that of a computer game, because it's quite honestly, not that flexible. So it's a very bad example to use as far as I'm concerned. And ultimately some one who programed said game basically acted as the GM and said. OK if the player choses option A) this happens, if they chose option B) this happens instead etc. WHich is -exactly- what a GM of ANY RPG game has to do.

There allways will be alot of calls made GM side be it human or computer on eway or another. A human GM on the other hand is (if their good) alot less likely to railroad players than a computer wich will only give you say... 3 options in a situation where iwth a live GM you might infact have... I dunno 30 (exageration but you should get the point here) including just saying screw it, let the princess die. A computer just wont/might not give you that dialog option, which is effectively railroading you into saving her.

I mean the whole point of me giving the earlier example with the RIFTs game was at least an attempt (posibly failed) at showing that just cause a system isnt good/bad doesnt mean it will in anyway make up for the faults of the GM. It's entirely irrelevant to the scenario, yet it's one that can happen quite often (at least on an internet setting). And here there were even rules about cover/firing from cover etc that had been partially houseruled in etc. ANd the GM simply chose to ignore them in an effort to apparently kill my character deliberately. No system can and will change that.

A decent/good GM on the other hand as I've said eariler will make a reasonable call, either based off their general style, or with the aid of consulting players about certain decisions. Neither is a bad answer. Is a good GM flawless? Heck no. Can they make a bad call even so? Yes I think that's long been established since. But another point I'm trying to make is just because a -basic- system (Whcih SR4 still is I poitn out again, it's allready been stated that more advanced rules are comming out with the new source books to cover/address alot of these holes) doesnt cover every angle that it's thus by default a horrible system that leads to horrible GMing.

Compare and contrast: implementation, ideal.

~J

If that's the way the game world works, then that is how the game world works. You are assuming that just because you got free will to decide what you do in real life or in a game with a real ife GM, you should have more than 3 options. Why are you assuming that? Why can you not accept that in that game world perhaps "destiny" is a game mechanic? Playing a computer game, especially one without multiple GMs, there is consistency. If I do X, Y will happen. If I can't do X, then the game mechanics do not allow me to do it, even if in RL, I can. If in RL I cannot do something, but the game mechanics allow it, then I can do it in the game, no matter how improbable it is in RL.

Basically, what I am saying is that the game world does not have to conform to your conception of it, even if you are basing your expectations on RL experiences.

True. Looks like we've past that point of adding anything new to our discussion.

That's not his complaint. His complaint is about people calling computer RPGs good GMs, because they have to do lots of things that a good GM wouldn't do.

eh, yeah, sorta. at this point, it seems like more work than it's worth to outline the points that you've basically conceded, and to build them into the conclusion that--hey!--SR4 kinda sucks. because even if i did, you'd change your mind about (effectively) conceding them, and we'd just end up going over all the same ground again. if i were trying to convince anybody that SR4 sucks, that'd be worthwhile... but i'm not. just picking it apart to see if there's anything new i can learn from it.

And my point is that different people have a different interpretation of what a good GM should do. What the computer allows or disallows can be decided by a good GM, but once it is decided, there will not be a change unless you do a reprogram of the coding.

To me a computer is as close to the best GM as any human can be, because it doesn't play favorites and what it allows or disallows is predictable. If the first time you try something you aren't allowed to do so, then the second time you try it, you still shouldn't do so as well. There is no last minute house rule, there is no "let's talk about this" crap, no bending the rules for or against anyone.

only assuming that the computer can come up with a good ruling every time. consistently bad is just as undesirable as inconsistent, and can be even more unfair. for instance, a computer GM that always decides that the PCs miss their firearms attacks probably isn't one that even you would prefer to play under. or, more realistically, one that always defines a vague rule a certain way, even in situations where it doesn't make sense (for instance, allowing characters to make 1km shots in total darkness without aiming) would be worse than a human GM that uses good judgement.

And this is also part of my point with the 'Computer GM' not necessarily being a good thing. It isnt exactly 'bad' so to speak. But there have been plenty of times when I've had a PC in a computer game that could easily beat 'Bad Guy X'. Except 'Bad Guy X' is still important to the 'plot' and thus cant be killed at all. No matter what you do. It is then that your 'railroaded' into the plot. That doesnt mean it isnt a GOOD one. But the poitn still stands that a perfectly logical 'solution' isnt able to be followed at all.

That doesnt of course mean you dont have GMs that do the exact same thing, some do. And I wouldnt be supprised if every GM did something abit similar to some extent or another. I mean I enjoy computer RPGs just fine. I'm an avid computer gamer period (Preference to RPGs and FPS that has a good storyline. Fallout for example was kick ass. Hell I still consider the two to be the greatest computer RPGs ever. But they are guilty of some of the same stuff that I'm refering to none the less.)

I mean one of the 'points' being brought up in this whole thing is Bad GMing. Now.. it's generally accepted as I understand it that 'railroading' PCs is considered bad GMing. It isnt an issue of well you cant make that shot in the pitch dark, while blind, hobbled, half dead, with a gun with a bent barrel kinda thing. Its cases where its like:

GM: Villan X arrives on scene and..
PC group: OMG! That bastard! We try to kill him!
GM: But... you cant! Destiny says otherwise!
PC1: The heck you talkign about? I'm gonna frag that slitch. He killed my dog!
PC2: He killed my grandmother with a broken lawn chair!
PC3: Yeah! ANd he ran over my cat mr. fluffykins!
PC4: Your forgetting all the innocent people he's killed too!
PCs 1,2,3: Who cares about them! EIther way he must die!
PC4: Well I do agree with that!
GM: But.. the story!

The newer (And even some of the older) computer RPGs are getting better at dealing with some of the stuff like this. But at the same time, saying that a computer RPG will be 'consistant' isnt actually all that true. Look at Oblivion. As you level up suddenly your 'average highway robberman' has teh ubar l337 g3ar! Yarr!

How the hell is that consistant? SUre it does it to everyone but it doesnt make a lick of sense. Meanwhile certain other NPCs dont ever change gear/equipment no matter what your level is. It isnt scaled. That then isnt consistant with the rest of the game world. And thats just one tiny example. And then you've got RPGs that are riddled with bugs. And you wind up having the same fight same place kinda thing, sampe PCs etc but completely differnet things happen. In many cases this is just a sort of 'chance' based deal. ANd I'm not refering to combat itself. But the occasional glitch. Best example I can give off hand is Neverwinter Nights 2. There's one NPC if you follow the proper dialogue etc -should- (and for some people does) join you at your keep. However it isnt consistant at all with it due to a bug in the software. If your of the right alignment/follow the right dialogue etc. It sometimes bugs otu and he doesnt show up.

And also sure if the game designers classify as 'good GM's the computer will generally be programed to make more or less the right calls. But what if their terrible? And there have been some really god aweful computer RPGs out there too.

So again a good GM with a storyline in mind (Or a good RPG designer) will take into consideration alot of things that could happen. Like you go and kill main NPC X. (Fallout to an extent allows you to do this for example). SO that when you get to main encounter Y The dialogue is different, some of the options are no longer there or what ever.

Ones that arnt designed so well on the other hand just dont let you kill that NPC no matter what the hell you plan or what happens. Also stuff like NWN2's NPC dialogue with party members. Some of the stuff you say forces a standing loss/increase with various NPCs. Never mind that in many cases I could easily think of ways to phrase something differently that either would have come out even or at the very least not lead to a standing loss. I mean flexibility is a -good- thing. At the same time I obviously a computer RPG can only handle so many options as it's programed to handle etc. But that doesnt suddenly turn around and make it anymore consistant or better than a human GM. Because it's basically human GMs that put it togeather in the first place and the game will only be as consistant as they are themselves or have programed it to be (Which may be more so but they can equally just have it programed to 'randomize' certain outcomes)

Just like there is a basic premise that railroads you until the point you join the game, the basic premise sometimes railroads you while you play it.

Yeah but to me being consitant at making bad calls makes for a bad GM

i would say this surprises me, but honestly, i've seen the way you advocate crazier things.

if consistency in and of itself is your goal, sure, a computer GM is the answer. i, however, prefer to play in a game world that i can believe in without working too hard at suspension of disbelief. such a game world is not possible under a computer GM.

MIssed this one and to respond to it. I wouldnt say it ever really railroads you. Railroading generally implies that you cant do anything but. I mean the storyline is often there yes with plans of some great epic quest or something. Your characters are given the motivation to follow through with that.

But that doesnt mean your actually FORCED to go along with it. YOu can just say well.. that job doesnt sound like one my character would be interested. I'm goign to find something else. I mean yeah the counter is easily that the GM simply some how eventually connects that up to the 'grand plot' he had initially planned. But that isnt allways the case.

So I suppose actually in the end I would have to agree to an extent you might very well get 'railroaded' but not really. Eventually the PCs run out of ideas of what to do as well and go back to the intial reason they all started doing what ever it was in the first place. Othertimes there actually isnt some 'grand plot' planned out initially. Especially with SR games this is how i personall operate. I come up with a few things, and make stuff up as I go along based uppon what happened.

SO yeah while the first few runs might center around something it's really just to get the game going and where it goes from there is very often up to the PCs, and if they run out of steam, I'll quickly whip up some little thing to keep the ball rolling.

Thats also assuming there even is one written. It purely depends on the GM's style at that point. Personally I like to encourage the players in any game I run to write up a BG. How they got to where they are today. If they decide that they allready are a team thats cool. Otherwise they just start out not knowing each other (Or soemtimes they might say ok well I know X from back when we were in a gang togeather or something, what ever works). So here's the job from the J.

Shadowrun doesnt NEED anything more than that to kick off a game. It's easier to start off with everyone knowing everyone sure. But even then... why does the story have to start any sooner as far as the PCs are concerned than 'your contacts tell you about a job. Your to meet the J in the old burns family cemetery by the church in tacoma'?

You dont have to railroad them at all. They'll take -some- job or other. Their runners, they want work, they want cash, they want karma, they want big honking new toys of death. If they turn around and say.. you know.. I dont really want to be a runner. I want to be a mercenary! well.. ok sure! go for it. It's not that much of a different lifestyle in some ways. It's easily encompassed within the SR genre. And there's even a whole listing of merc corps they could sign up with if they wanted to.

Personally to be honest, I never start out with anything more than several ideas for games. Even if it's to be epic in scope. Simply because the players will allways inevitately think of something you didnt, hose your plans and you've got to do damage control so to speak. In my case that consists of 'well that sucks but at least I didnt spend 20 months building up a huge campaing that specifically required them to start off by taking this job'. ANd if they want to turn it down that's entirely tehir decision

SO how exactly are they being railroaded? If you have a GM who goes.. you cant say no! I'd simply respend with why the hell not? Railroading implies being forced. I'm not forced to join a game, and if the GM says ok well this is the story so far, ok well thats fine. It sets up reasonable grounds to inspire me to go along with it. Great!

I've never -ever- before you claiming it was such ever heard of anyone ever calling the starting fluff of an RPG tabletop game railroading. Though were it something like ok, my char is somewhat antisocial, completely gay and only into elves. But no the GMs story require that I instead screw a 'beautiful' female troll in a fit of kinky chains and leather BDSM who subsequently is murdered and I'm blamed for it... umm well then yes that is railroading because my character wouldnt have gone with a female troll anyway. (I might buy a male troll in such a situation who knows)

If I was simply the 'patsy' for this setup it's just one of those plothooks. I mean to me Railroading generaly implies that when the game is going and you decide you want to do action X, that should be perfectly possible (Timmy is at point blank range, i have a gun, it has bullets, were alone in a well lit room and I have full control of my body) and the GM simply rules that 'I cant kill little timmy because it would ruin the story' thats railroading some one.

Railroading implies you have absolutely zero chance to make a decision. ANd if you really have some sort of issue with how the game starts off because your GM has your character doing something that makes no sense for that character.. maybe you should say something. Cause personally if he's like 'WEll it happend so there!' thats not the kinda GM I want to play with anyway. I mean your character HAS to start off somewhere. I tend to leave it very open. I mean I have played games where the GM was like 'Ok you wake up in a jail cell, your not quite sure how you got there'.

I've enjoyed them quite abit. But the GM also let me do what I wanted to do. Sure I didnt get to fight my captors or what ever. At the time my character didnt even know who he was a captive of. But the intial situation was only really to get the ball rolling. Once we were past that we were able to do what ever we wanted, had abit more experience under our belts and some extra gear etc. If he'd instead been like 'ok now you have to find out who kidnaped you and take them out!' that would be railroading. Cause in that situation I didnt even care who the hell the were, neither did the other party members we just wanted out and that was the end of it. (Well at least untill much later on when we were all like... heyyyy you remember how we first met? Yeah!.. I wonder who that was, we eventually found out and went and kicked some major hoop. But that was purely a player driven event)

Something like that.

Well ok I'll give him that but thats a silly thing in my oppinion to argue about. I mean if the character is dead before the game even starts umm.... why are you even trying to play agian?

As for them allways being ready to do the job at the exact same time etc. Yes and no. I tend to give em abit of time to begin with to do what they might want to do and they can infact be late to a meet.

But I think every GM then in that sense is guilty of 'railroading' his players into still being alive, breathing and able to make a presheduled meet right at the start of any game. Which is why I dont really consider it railroading, but you could argue the sematics of that till the cows come home, go out again, come back, die of old age, their body decomposes and their bones turn to dust.

I mean if you really want to play your runner from the day he's born. Umm.. I guess all the more power to you I guess. But I doubt it would really be all that exciting (Albiet perhaps somewhat novel in concept). God I can just see that now.

GM: You are boldly pushed from your mothers woom. What do you do?
Player: Umm.. waht?
GM: You've just been born.
Player: uhhh.. ok? What do I see?
GM: Your not sure, your still to be fully devloped mind sees alot of bright light, it's kind of painful actually. And you have the feeling that you are being .. you've decided to use the therm 'held' and in a 'direction' you will call 'upside down'. It's really quite new and confusing. Roll willpwoer to avoid the terror of tehse new experiences
Player: Umm... I failed.
GM: You'd probably be crying alot at this point
Player: Yeah.. being a newborn I probably would. RIght i'll scream and cry like a banshee on drugs.
GM: oops! Looks like the doctor critically fumbled his roll to pass you over to mommy, you've been dropped on your head. This will lower your maxium intelligence cap by 1.
Player: Well that sucks!

Well then let me clarify it as 'railroading a players decisions'. IE your onply option is option A. When there clearly is an option B.

If your going to bitch about the settnig of the game why the heck are you even playing in it would then be my question. It seems to me you totally missed the point i was trying to make about it. I mean everything has to start somewhere.

No. Railroading implies there is no option B. Only option A. And as I've pointed out there are plenty of ways to start off a game without forcing everyone to all start off at the same meet at the same time allready as a team etc. Your totally ignoring that.

Therefore you do not have to be railroaded. There are other options. And might I point out that since no one can force the player to join the game, they are thus not railroaded and can infact simply find another game to play. Now your just being silly

There is option A and option B, but there is no option C. That is railroading. Or anytime when the GM limits your options as a player. And in fact, by joining another game you did get railroaded - you took option B, not join.

While there are plenty of ways to start off a game, the way the PC starts off the game is still determined by the GM. And I am not going to start calling people silly.

And as I've pointed out there is some times and can easily be option C) D) E) F) G) etc.

While I agree (and I've said this before) that usually an RPG starts off the GM puts up a basic premise to put all the players togeather. But it doesnt have to be done that way and I've certainly GMed games entirely differently.

I request a BG from the players. They chose what their character is, they build it from scratch, they chose where tehy start off with, blah blah blah blah blah.

Plenty of times I've run things solo with individual players (especially if their new to the game in question) long before they join up as a group. This is purely the players choice. You could for example have a team who's decker is operating out of Hong Kong or something while their operating out of Seattle. Maybe later on theya ll get togeather who knows. You can easily ask the players Ok where do you want the setting to be? ask each person where tehy want to start off etc. And generally before I start a game at least I say ok I'd like to run game X. If it's something like SR next question would be what time period do you folk want to do it in etc? and go from there. It doesnt even take long at all to do, so how exactly is that me railroading the players starting points when they get to pick it themselves?

Eventually sure they all get the message hey Mr.J wants to have a meet with you he's offering a job and has been refered to you by contact Y or what ever.

yeah but thats not railroading at all they still have a choice of taking it or not. Or if say they dont like the meeting spot they at least have the choice of letting the J know that for reason X the site isnt suitable and would he please mind meeting them at alternate location G.

Eventually having to come to a decision about something is not Railroading. A railroading GM never gives you options, or all those options wind up with the exact same effect as if you'd picked the other. To say that there isnt ever any degree of railroading at all wouldnt be accurate of course. But that doesnt make it a horrible negative thing. Which when you speak of some one being railroaded is exactly what is implied.

No, that is railroading because their choices have become limited. Rallroading is limiting the players options. It doesn't matter if you have a choice as long as the choice was limited.

Excatly. How do you decide how far is too far? Who decides how far is too far? In a game who decides such things?

The fact that you could die during chargen was the best feature of the original Traveller RPG.

Well tehcnially you can 'die' before the game even starts in Shadowrun. It could even be used as an excuse as to why you have cyber/bioware X. You were a young spry lad, but an unnoticed/undagnosed heart problem suddenly lead to your having a yeart attack at the young spry age of 21. Things went so far that you were declared legally dead blah blah blah and were pemanently paralized from the waist down. Your only recorse, should you ever want to walk again was via the miracles of modern science! You wound up needing to have X part of your lower body replaced with cybernetics and thats why you have a pair of cyberlegs.

Curse you for making the joke I was going to make!

Hackmaster also lets you die during character creation. Fighters can die in a war during training. I don't know about the other classes, but everyone gets a chance to be horribly maimed, mentally abused to the point they snap inside, and lots of other fun maladies.

-----------

Railroading: to me railroading is a scale ranging from complete and total choice where the GM only responds to what the players want to do and complete lack of choice where the GM tells a story and all PCs actions contrary to that story are negated.

By that definition then yes, in some ways sitting down at the table is railroading, because you're constantly having to choose between staying alive or shooting yourself in the face. However, that level of railroading is so trivial as to be not worth talking/complaining/preaching about.

but then it's similar to having the GM tell you. Uh no your character wouldn't do that because of <insert>, he'd do this instead.
you really aren't playing YOUR character you are playing someone elses.

Wushu. Capes. If you read the page on Capes, you'd see why GM fiat is flat-out impossible in it. Otherwise, read for yourself, and you can see why GM fiat is virtually impossible in either system, and completely impossible in Capes.

Umm... next sentence, please?

**Kersplat**

In addition to the ones James mentioned, you could die during character creation in HOL, and I've never had a first clone make it past five minutes in a Paranoia game.

Railroading: Generally, it's defined to restricting the players choices to Option A, but sometimes A or B happens as well. So, sitting down at the table isn't railraoding, because the GM isn't limiting your potions yet. I'll agree with James on this one: It's when player choices are negated, in favor of a prescripted story. This also branches off into the GMPC phenomenon.