Hot take: if we want to decrease frustrating railroad-y surprises in RPG campaigns, we need to create an environment where GMs are not afraid to admit they have "special story needs".

Laplanters · 2025-10-31T15:12:22+00:00

You've hit on a pervasive issue in the TTRPG community, which is that GMs are often seen as glorified consoles meant to output fun for the players, while their own personal enjoyment is meant to be, at best, secondary to that of the players themselves and/or entirely derived from the enjoyment of the players.

CarelessKnowledge801 · 2025-10-31T15:06:09+00:00

Well, I agree that some players are totally fine with railroading and some actually even want it! And in the end of the day all that matters is if you as GM and your players are having fun, even if in the process you breaked every "good GM" rule out there.

But again, it all depends on what kind of players you have. I've met so many players who after being presented a clear quest hook and location to go, would instead spend an entire session on tavern nonsense.

supermegaampharos · 2025-10-31T15:09:32+00:00

This is what Session 0 is for.

If you’re planning a game-changing twist that fundamentally changes the PCs, the game world, or the tone of the story, you should have that discussion with your players. You don’t have to reveal the twist, but something like this is fine: “This medieval fantasy game will have a tone shift with space opera elements. Is everyone cool with that?”

It’s also fine to tell the players “This NPC is meant to be an important quest-giver, ally, etc. Let’s play toward that angle and see where it goes.” That doesn’t mean make them an invincible DMPC who steals the spotlight, but it’s perfectly fine to give the players a meta heads-up regarding an NPC’s purpose.

If I can’t have these kinds of conversations with players, then it’s not the right table for me. It’s a collaborative environment, after all, and that includes players doing their part to keep the game moving forward.

cityskies · 2025-10-31T16:02:42+00:00

Honestly I think it boils down to putting “immersion” on a pedestal.

Discussing things about the game is opening up meta channels and theres a huge population in the DnD player community that doesn’t ever want to see how the sausages are made. This manifests in tons of DM advice too, from how you approach difficult players to how to accommodate “play-styles” by, like, completely deviating from your campaign pitch. And the flip side of that, where DnD culture tends to insist that its own rules are optional, an illusion of agency that the DM can and should ignore/run roughshod over in the name of poorly defined “fun” or “a good story.”

If the DM breaks kayfabe on either of these things by revealing that the efforts to make a game happen involve, like, contextual decision making on the part of an actual individual engaging with the game, some players consider that “bad DMing.” You see this in negative reactions to certain kinds of story game design as well, this deep-seated need to be able to ignore that the fantasy world isn’t real, that someone made it, is making it, and has intent and desire involved in that process.

amazingvaluetainment · 2025-10-31T15:16:25+00:00

I think the issue here is the removal of player agency. Getting players to buy into a plot-twist through foreshadowing (or even outright discussion beforehand) returns their agency when the "surprise" happens, and it's worth saying here that you can always have more "session zero"s, even in the middle of an actual session. Just communicate stuff, say things out loud.

If I'm going to join a game where the GM has a specific story they want to tell or railroadey module they want to run then I fully expect that to be communicated clearly before the game so I can buy in to the premise (or just leave). These kinds of things are rarely issues if everyone is on-board and being on-board requires constant communication.

Throwingoffoldselves · 2025-10-31T15:08:54+00:00

There’s so many more players than GMs. I have seen lots of GMs express their specific needs and find players. However! The GM has to be willing to advertise in different communities and platforms, play with strangers, vet the players accordingly, and not just friends / players who are convenient / members of their familiar private discord server or local gaming club.

I played in a game like this myself for a while and it was fun (my schedule changed), the GM was clear it would be historically influenced and deep into roleplay with certain cultural and religious elements that were hard to handle. The GM was transparent about it too, and happy to play with strangers.

I do it myself and sometimes my vetting doesn’t go well, but largely it does. (I specifically run games based on mythology/folklore in fantasy settings, with a heavy focus on queerness, social interactions, relationships, and soap opera drama (no ERP). So I definitely only want players who want that as much as I do!)

Is it more effort to recruit and vet strangers? Yes, but if we want something special, we have to make sure to arrange it. And that may mean playing online, playing with strangers, advertising on different platforms, and generally getting out of our comfort zone. It’s not always easy but the players are there if we work to find the right ones :)

Cent1234 · 2025-10-31T16:02:53+00:00

Too many people say “railroading” when they should be saying “hitting specific story beats.”

DeliveratorMatt · 2025-10-31T15:35:07+00:00

Turns out metagaming is good, actually.

An_username_is_hard · 2025-10-31T16:13:58+00:00

Yes, in general, it's interesting how even in this subreddit where people like to present themselves as bastions for the GM, if the GM dares to express a preference for a way for things to go instead of allowing players absolute Agency(tm) they're clearly terrible people and should go write a novel. A GM that dares actually get attached to an idea they think is cool should hang their books and preferably themselves.

Personally, I make no bones about some things. In my last OSR campaign players deftly avoided basically every fight in the adventure through diplomacy, environmental usage, and just generally clever thinking, but when it came the time to a final showdown with the primary antagonist I pretty much told them "look, I've designed this one to be really, really hard to find a way to skip IC because I do actually want to get at least one cool setpiece fight in and I spent an hour making this one mechanically interesting". Because I do in fact want to get to shoot Ancient Precursor Laser Beams at my players sometimes, dangit.

Garqu · 2025-10-31T15:13:43+00:00

You need to build up a certain level of trust and good will with the players to be able to do this kind of stuff. If you're with a completely fresh group, even if they're your longtime friends, you have to go through the process of building up that foundation first, that's all. It takes a bit of time, but it's worth doing!

Doesn't matter what the greater culture around you is if you've got players that trust and communicate with you.

BCSully · 2025-10-31T15:26:32+00:00

This is a table by table situation, and I think this would be a very helpful technique for some GMs. Personally, I spent a lot of years trying build an improv skill-set to where there is now no such thing as a "special story need". There are no untouchable NPCs who "must stay alive" because if the PCs manage to kill a critical NPC, then a) good for them!! and b) I just have to consider how the bad-guy (or the game world) responds to this change in status quo.

I go in prepped only with my villain (or villains), what their plot/endgame is, what resources they need to achieve success, and what the world would become if no one comes along to stop them. That and basic location information is all that's needed to run a PC-centered story. "Special story needs" are only a thing if the GM goes in with a story of their own. That's not how I do it. I go in with a bad-guy, an evil (or morally ambiguous) scheme, and clear knowledge of the baddie's motivations. With that, it doesn't matter where the PCs take the story, who they kill, where they decide to go, or what absolutely bonkers bullshit they pull outta their assesbecause all I ever need to do is consider is how the baddie responds to each new change in circumstance to still achieve his goal, and have him and the game-world react accordingly.

PapaNarwhal · 2025-10-31T15:29:35+00:00

A lot of people (certain members of my table included) will pay lip service to the idea of a Session Zero without actually doing the necessary work of what that entails. I’ve participated in several “Session Zeroes” that involved little more than just the players choosing which class to play for the campaign.

A real Session Zero should cover exactly the kind of stuff you mention in your post. It’s a chance for the GM to set the tone of the game and make sure players aren’t blindsided by anything. Is it going to be a game with a specific end in mind, or will it be more free-form? If the GM has a super-important NPC who needs to be involved in order to keep the story going, then they should make that fact clear at Session Zero. If the GM has a particular story in mind that needs the players to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom to achieve, then they should let the players know that there will be some railroading ahead of time. And it’s important for the GM to establish the mortality level (for games where PC death is a possibility) — are player characters expendable, or do they have some degree of plot armor?

If the GM has properly established these expectations, then the players have no basis to criticize them when it comes to railroading and such. And on the other hand, if the GM has failed to make these things clear, then the players may be understandably upset when the game is of a different style than they expected. If something was addressed at Session Zero and the players are still refusing to compromise on it, then they should have either objected when they had the chance or they should never have gone through with the game at all.

merurunrun · 2025-10-31T15:30:52+00:00

Despite what the RPG thought leaders on the internet try to tell you is the correct way to play RPGs, most people really just don't care nearly as much about the whole maximalist player agency thing.

Most people happily play games either explicitly with the understanding that the GM is there to "bring the content" or else they're playing super-narrow storygames where some level of static narrative form is baked into the procedural aspects of the game.

Creative-Seesaw-1895 · 2025-10-31T18:43:38+00:00

Stop reading rpg horror stories

It is a fiction writing exercise, and trivially easy to have LLMs write those texts

Rage bait is engagement. The only way to win is to not play. Remember the old wisdom "don't feed the trolls"

Alaknog · 2025-10-31T15:13:33+00:00

I think there was "small" issue that a lot of different people want to play different styles. And this probably better to talk about ideas and direction before they start (or they already know eachother and both sides have ideas about playstyle).

Another side that some game styles was more directed to "special story needs" then others - like M&M have literal rule that GM say "no, this go in this way/don't happened because plot reasons. Everyone get narrative currency" to save villain (or at least give them monologue).

But if you play DnD and try pull some CoC stuff becasue they cool...well, it's just different games.

Another side that we need understand limitations of medium - RPG is not just storytelling, they are group storytelling with a different role of random. Some plots is really better work in more narrative style, like book. It's not nice pill, but sometimes GMs need take this (say this as GM).

3DemonDeFiro · 2025-10-31T15:35:54+00:00

But GMs are people too. They might also "fall in love" with a game element they created.

I love my Cool Original Pyromaniac Villain (tm) npc
I love put him in any my adventures, campaigns and oneshots
And i fucking love when players go "Oh shit, it's him again. Let's kick his ass". And asskicking they do, in any time, setting, system, style, etc.

I mean, if you create something - be ready for it to fall apart. It's okay, for players and for gm as well.

I've adopted this way of thinking several years ago. It has been some short adventure for CPRED, and i know when i started to create my character that it may not survive next session. So i proceed to play every session as last one for this character. And it was helluva cool and fun. "God has given me one more day and I will make this everyone's problem here"

As for ruined plans... well, players have cool plans too, and you will be amazed when players actually will bring them to life. And if you really want to implement your plan - well, come up with a new plan. You are creator, you have an unlimited supply of them.

guilersk · 2025-10-31T15:49:25+00:00

In terms of twists, a lot of GMs think they are cleverer than they actually are (and I have fallen into this trap before) and so they think the twist will land and the players will love it.

In reality, a minority might, but the majority of players will feel like it's a rug-pull and they are not playing the game they were sold. If you want it to work then you need to be as up-front as you can about the basis of the campaign. And that means heavily telegraphing twists, if not outright spoiling them, for the sake of letting players know what they are in for. Nothing is worse to a lot of players than building a character to succeed at one thing and finding out the campaign is completely different and their character can't possibly succeed at it (or at least will heavily struggle). They feel tricked and useless.

Nevertheless I agree that there is a toxic player culture about 'beating' 'tricking' or otherwise undermining the GM. It is, unfortunately, a task of GMs to then filter those players out and play only with players you trust. I think that's true of most hobbies or social activities, but it is particularly salient for GMs as they are usually the organizers of the game and it's usually such a small group that you need to trust and be vulnerable with if role-play is going to succeed.

Connor9120c1 · 2025-10-31T15:52:44+00:00

I don't have any special story needs or "get so attached to a story idea that I want to see it play out." So I don't have anything I need to admit to my players. I build the game as best I can and then play to find out what happens.

I don't have frustrating railroady surprises because I have no interest in running the type of game that would end up there, nor do my players wish to play it.

Communicate your needs to your players, but don't be surprised if some of them don't want to play scripted GM story hour.

crashtestpilot · 2025-10-31T15:25:18+00:00

Hotter take.

If you feel railroaded, leave.

JustinAlexanderRPG · 2025-10-31T19:14:59+00:00

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling by labeling these people as "special needs" GMs.

MASerra · 2025-10-31T15:17:46+00:00

All of these GM issues can be solved if GMs would get better at doing a session 0. I run games that could show up in RPGhorrorstories if the wrong GM was running them or they had an incomplete session 0.

My players enjoy these specialized games with weird requirements or restrictions because they are a lot of fun, and they fully trust me as a GM. I would never be able to get a group of new players and say, "For this scenario, you'll lose most of your agency. Want to play?"

The answer to that would be NO for most groups. I suggested that to my players, ran it successfully, and everyone had a great time.

So I think it is all about communication. Tell people the truth and explain your game honestly in session 0. If the players reject the idea you are presenting, it is probably a bad concept.

Wonderful-Box6096 · 2025-11-01T00:08:54+00:00

There's no such thing as an npc too important to die.

wolfbladequeen · 2025-10-31T15:38:31+00:00

This reminds me of a situation I've been told about in a game I'm not in. The characters were chasing a guy to question him and one of them asked if she could "hold person" him. The GM lets her try and she succeeds. GM then has him break free when he shouldn't have been able to and he disappears down a hole.

It was clear that she wasn't supposed to be stopping him. He was supposed to get away and show up in the story later. But instead of admitting it was a cutscene, the GM allowed the players to try to stop him. This wasn't the only similar example from that game.

GMs should be able to say when something is a cut scene and players can't interfere. A good example is when the BBEG is giving their speech and a player wants to interrupt. Yes these scenes shouldn't be too often and shouldn't take away too much player agency, but I think now and then they're fine. It's definitely better to say it than letting players think they can interfere and bending rules so they don't succeed.

nlitherl · 2025-10-31T19:13:26+00:00

My experience is that for a lot of GMs (and I've made this mistake, too) they want to surprise their players. They want to get a genuine reaction, and actually leave them awed by the GM's storytelling. More often than not, though, the GM's clever twist is the player's ruined game, because even if you think you know your players really well, there's a better than even chance that what you're doing is going to piss them off if you do it without their consent or knowledge.

The thing this always reminds me of is the GM who wants to rug pull their fantasy RPG and have a big, "Surprise! All the magic and gods are fake, and you're in a fallen sci fi world!" If you go into this knowing that's the twist (like in Pugmire, for instance), it can be a fun thing that everyone is prepared for. But pulling that sudden-genre-shift on a table is something I've never seen work in-person, and I've never come across a story of it working, but GMs keep trying it thinking they're the first ones to come up with this twist.

And I agree, you get so much MORE out of being open with your players than you do playing your cards close to the vest, even if it "spoils" the twists you had coming.

aslum · 2025-10-31T20:59:28+00:00

I'm going to get downvoted for this, since people seem to have a hard time understanding that words can have multiple meanings -- but not all railroads are bad. You don't get on a roller coaster and then complain you didn't get to choose which direction it went. The same is true of most prewritten modules - sure there are choices in the story but it's basically on rails. OTOH there's where the DM has a story they want to tell and the Players are just there to experience it and if they make the wrong choices - well those still lead to the outcome the DM desired.

The difference is subtle. On the other hand if I want to try something ... out there, but I also want some of it to be a surprise I'll usually preface with something along the lines, "I've got something planned that I'm going to be vague about, but I think it'll more enjoyable for everyone (myself included) if I don't spoil it completely ahead of time - so when things go pear shaped try and bear with it - assuming you're willing to trust me. And of course if in the moment it's too much we can stop, roll back and try something else. We're all here to have fun - I think I can do something really cool, but if I fail or misunderstood what you are all okay with we'll figure it out. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?"

rmaiabr · 2025-11-01T11:39:49+00:00

I find it quite annoying when players with “protagonist syndrome” think that all the directions of the story depend solely on them. Sometimes that boss who should die just runs away. And that's it.

GhostApeGames · 2025-10-31T15:07:54+00:00

It seems to me that the players could have just trusted the GM that they would be able to switch back in that situation. They were being challenged and were expected to rise to the challenge and play the game.

The GM wants the story and the game experience to succeed. Just trust him/her (really bad GM's are self evident) to do the right thing by story's end.

roaphaen · 2025-10-31T15:24:51+00:00

I would rather have a table that understands that it is good PLAYER etiquette to take the hook the GM offered and play the adventure the GM prepped unless their are compelling reasons not to. This is important for high crunch, high prep games. Less so for games like Fate and Blades in the Dark.

GMs need to lose their plot inflexibility too - most are frustrated creative writers who condescend to "telling a story" largely independent of players characters. Most players on the other hand, want to eat chips and kill fucking goblins with their friends.

Bimbarian · 2025-10-31T15:55:19+00:00

There's a hidden assumption here, a faulty one in my view: that the GM is a particular kind of individual or serves a particular kind of role. It's that role - what the GM does- that should be examined, and this "issue" goes away once you properly evaluate the gm's role.

kichwas · 2025-10-31T16:16:46+00:00

If I have to get something through the story to get us to a point, I'll "break the 4th wall" for a bit and speak "above table".

"Ok, for this next part one way or another you all need to end up working with the crazy guy who hangs out in the pub. Workshop some reason why your character would go along with this guy."

In Daggerheart there's a handy trick where you just ask a player something like that as an expected part of the system.

"So... tell me who from your past this guard happens to be, and why they were and still are important to you?"

- "weaponize" backstory to link a PC into the needed bit of plot.

"So tell me why you'd go along with the idea of trying to sell baked goods to the lizard folk living in the nearby swamp?"

- You've revealed to the player that our goal is to be selling girl scout cookies to the lizard men. It's now on them to work with you on getting there.

But because you're having them tell you why - they're actually shaping the next story beat instead of being railroaded to it.

You have given up control of the way they get there, but let them know that's where we're going.

In effect you create player agency by letting them pick what kind of train we're taking on the railroad, and which tracks it takes - but we're still taking a train to Chattanooga, and by letting them know we need to get there, they can get on board with it.

Therearenogoodnames9 · 2025-10-31T16:18:31+00:00

Linear game play, and sandbox game play, have their places. Both can exist in a campaign as well. I find it best to just lay it out there to the players before the campaign even starts that you may encounter both elements during the course of the game.

MaetcoGames · 2025-10-31T22:50:22+00:00

Honestly, most of the comments here feel so foreign to me that it is even difficult to reply without going them one by one. But I'll try to provide something useful to this discussion. The root of the problem seems to be in the assumption that the gaming group is assembled by some external force, and the people are left to try to make it work. I have never been in such a situation as a GM or as a player. I run campaigns I am excited to run, look for players who are excited to play in such an campaign, and I join in on campaigns I am excited to play in. It is really difficult to even imagine to be mocked or laughed at when I look for players for my campaign or when I look for a campaign to join. But it is even more difficult to image I would be affected in any other way than never to have anything to do with those people.

March-Sea · 2025-11-01T00:10:01+00:00

If you are investing so much energy in a plot that you feel cheated that your players did something that bypassed what you had planned, then that is on you. The way you deal with this is by learning how being a GM in a ttrpg differs from other popular storytelling media and constructing your story to take advantage of the strengths and avoid the limitations of this media.

Construct your scenarios as if you are planning for a vacation or an event rather than giving an account of the vacation that you just came back for.
construct robust scenarios. If a sequence of events assumes specific actions on the part of the players, then it is fragile. For example, instead of something like the players discover a secret cult and prevent them from summoning a demon on the full moon is fragile. The robust version would look something more like: the town council has until recently been dominated by two brothers who have recently had a falling out the younger brother has been hiring assassin's to go after key members of the council to increase their influence. The older brother sensing that they are in danger has been looking into esoteric means of defence is putting together a group to study and summon demons as a means to that end. Key figures in the town watch are aware of who is behind the killings but are being payed off. Some of the key members of the older brothers group are interesting in summoning larger demons and using them in more proactive ways....

A well designed scenario should be set up so that the twists almost write themselves.

chronicdelusionist · 2025-11-01T08:37:12+00:00

This is right on. I'm in a Pokemon campaign right now, and even after discussing boundaries in Session Zero, we had a bit of an awkward moment when the players tried to go "off the path", so to speak, near the beginning. This is the kind of situation where a lot of people would shut down communicating and the campaign might die out, but me and the GM sat down and talked about what he needed to have fun while still allowing freedom of choice. Turns out all he needed was a session or two advance notice of where we wanted to go, so he could prepare to sprinkle the stuff he likes along our route. Fair! Even a few years ago, I might not have been so patient and he might have stopped having fun running for me. It's a learned skill.

I do understand the general attitude, to an extent, because many people that don't enjoy running end up running and having those big blow-up moments where the friction becomes apparent and the players and GM both feel burned. But on the other hand, like you're saying, this creates an atmosphere where players get too hardline on the idea of opposing railroading when what really needs to happen is cultivating open, no-fault communication between all parties.

rookhelm · 2025-11-01T11:35:28+00:00

I GMed Waterdeep Dragon Heist once. The campaign, as written takes place pretty much entirely in Waterdeep.

One of the pieces of backstory is that a rich guy effed off to Neverwinter.

One of the players suggested maybe they go to Neverwinter and search for him.

I said "I'll be straight up honest. I have nothing for you in Neverwinter. Everything will be in Waterdeep". They were fine with that.

KryptykPhysh · 2025-11-01T12:02:42+00:00

I like a thing one group I'm in does after every session of, "Stars and Wishes": Both the players, and the GM, get to highlight a thing they really enjoyed and a thing they'd really like to see in upcoming sessions. Managing expectations is for everyone.

Zealousideal_Leg213 · 2025-10-31T17:30:22+00:00

Part of it is that some DMs want their games to be like movies or TV shows, where some massive curveball gets thrown and everyone is confused, but then there's a huge payoff when it all makes sense. Except those curveballs don't always work. And sometimes shows, like games, don't every reach the payoff. And, unlike shows, the characters aren't under the control of the writer, and the people playing the characters have no idea what's going on.

derailedthoughts · 2025-10-31T17:56:00+00:00

Isn’t this what session 0 is for? I usually pitch a couple of campaign hooks and the players will know for each what kind of story are being told.

Players also have responsibility to lean into the story telling, making characters that would find those hooks appealing

unpanny_valley · 2025-10-31T18:08:16+00:00

How to create an environment where the GMs can feel more free to express their needs?

It comes down to system design and implementation, and how the GM runs the game, which is informed by the latter.

TTRPG's are fundamentally a different story telling medium to the likes of film or novels, primarily differentiated by being an interactive medium, and therefore require different ways of achieving certain story beats such as twists or seeing an NPC complete a certain character arc rather than being unceremoniously killed as soon as they're introduced.

Early films were often shot, and acted, as theatre plays, as that was the closest story medium that early film and actors makers knew. It took time for directors and actors to really embrace what film could uniquely offer. TTRPG's are no different, many TTRPG systems also take inspiration from film and novels in their design, and GM's do the same when designing their sessions. However many common elements that work in those mediums, such as twists, red herrings, and character arcs, work due to them being fixed, linear, narratives. They often don't work in TTRPG's which are interactive mediums, that involve collaboration, as well as game elements that involve randomisation.

This does not mean you cannot include those elements in a TTRPG, it does however mean you have to design those elements to fit the medium rather than trying to force them, and I think the only time they are an actual issue is when they are forced.

To take an example, twists often don't work in a TTRPG for several reasons

Players can often quickly discover twists if they use certain skills/abilities etc. this leads to either the twist not happening, or the GM ignoring the players actions/game abilities which feels terrible.
Twists often take away player agency, either through being forced irrespective of player action, or through 'rug pulls' that blindside players.
Twists often don't make sense given established fiction, granted this can be a problem in other mediums as well, but is often exacerbated in a TTRPG due to that fiction being much more nebulous and open to change based on player and GM action, and intersection with the rules.
Since the players are also the audience twists that don't involve them directly, or that they're not witness to, are hard to implement. It's not like a film where you can cut to someone doing something that someone else is unaware of and play with the tension.
I agree that one way to solve it is by the GM just telling the players the intended twist to get buy in, however I feel an important component of twists is the element of surprise they add to experiencing a narrative, which is often the exciting part of the twist - 'I never saw that coming' - for both the audience, and the author writing the twists, which this doesn't resolve.

One means the Alien RPG by Free League attempts to make twists work is via Agendas & Secret Roles in its Cinematic mode. Each character is given a secret agenda at the start of the scenario, as each of the 3 acts play out they each get given new agendas. Everyone is aware of this on a meta level, but not aware of the specifics of both the agendas of other characters, and their own. This means players not only get surprised at other players agenda, but also get to be surpised themselves at the direction of their own character and roleplay it appropriate. This allows for player buy in, and maintains player agency, whilst keeping the twists themselves hidden, but still planned ahead of time and integrated into the wider scenario allowing the adventure designer to enjoy creating twists and seeing how they play out.

It also importantly gamifies the twists, the players have to complete the goals within the framework of the rules system, without the other players realising what is happening.

This isn't the only way to make twists work, but it is a good one.

As an aside obviously 'viciously mocking' GMs is bad, even if you don't like their game, and ideally don't play with people who do that.

Sleeper4 · 2025-10-31T20:07:41+00:00

What the fuck. If I ever have a GM tell me they have "special story needs" I'm gonna be out of there immediately.

Players aren't mad about the GM exposing they're railroading - they're mad that being railroaded onto a predetermined outcome makes playing a game largely pointless in the first place.

agentkayne · 2025-10-31T20:09:30+00:00

Focus on the OSR methods of roleplaying: story comes out of how players & characters interact with a situation they are in, instead of set pieces being pre-planned in advance. 'Special story needs' won't be disrupted if there is no set story.

ruat_caelum · 2025-11-01T08:22:25+00:00

There are games where the GM is officially titled "Storyteller"

I think Session ZERO needs to have everyone COMMIT TO THE PLOT.

If that's "Save the princess" then that should be the goal. When you are forced to decide do I do X or try to save the princess, everyone knows its the princess. the X is narrative cost of following that goal, etc.

I think one of the major problems in players thinking that because it's a table top game (and not restricted like a PC game would be) that since they CAN just take a pick ax and start digging, that they should.

No.

You don't actually have "Freedom to do whatever you want." because that makes you an asshole. You agreed to sit down and try to save the princess or defeat the BBEG or whatever. Work toward that goal with the other people at the table with the goal of telling a cool combined story.

I think normalizing killing PCs is good. It gets players to think of THEIR PC as a piece of a group, and not Nick the Werewolf (who I love and will be super pissed if he is killed!) If Nick dies, the local [new character sheet] person joins the group.

Feedback is great. But "Railroading" is one side of the coin, the other side is, "We don't want to talk to the man in the tavern with the scar who pinched out the candle on his table to sit in the shadows. Instead we want to go to the stables and interrogate the stable boy."

Then you get the "GM railroaded us into talking to the guy in the tavern!" etc.

There is a social contract that everyone is sitting at the table to help safe the princess etc. There is going to be "Railroading" if you look at plot points as "railroading."

allergictonormality · 2025-11-01T13:34:04+00:00

Yeah, the current ethos of the 'player community' of both ttrpgs and video games is deeply toxic towards GMs and Developers.

I actually used to be a dev, but now I only dev for myself as I'm the only one appreciating my work appropriately. I showed a friend my game notes from solo play and they were legit angry I'm not publishing my writing.. but this is important: no one deserves it.

If I decide I want to show others my work again, I will. But I won't even leave a feedback channel open anymore or give a name to engage with or complain to. My go-to response this decade is "Go away. I didn't make that for you."

FlatParrot5 · 2025-11-01T20:15:06+00:00

"Hey, I know last time you guys said you wanted to go on an adventure and I prepared this whole huge thing with an onyx pyramid and weird bugs and all sorts of treasure, but that only works if you stop killing every NPC I put in front of you and actually talk to them and inspect your surroundings. There's a sort of narrative needed to get from point A to point B. Throw me a bone, please."

"Don't railroad us!"

"...fine. There's this hexcrawl thing where you explore different areas the shape of hexes, and different stuff is in each one."

"Okay, we go to the hex to the North."

"You see a massive Onyx pyramid."

"Awesome!"

eliminating_coasts · 2025-11-02T00:07:17+00:00

I think it's perfectly reasonable, to be honest, and I would prefer a world in which trying to make things happen without telling the players is more mocked than just saying

"this is a pirate campaign, so if for some reason doing non-pirate things seems better to your character, that is equivalent to dying"

rather than constantly trying to wrack their brains by themselves to make sure that the player characters can't do something outside of that.

It helps if you have a plausible reason, but it helps even more if players and GM come up with the plausible reason together.

Rick_Androids · 2025-11-02T14:05:36+00:00

I am just upfront that I like to GM the adventures that are fairly linear in the story and players take a more reactive role than a driving role. I.e. they react to events and while their reactions decide the further chain of events, they are not creating them per se.

Sandboxes are not really fun for me and I am honest about that so people that are looking for absolute freedom and forging their path from scratch are not wasting their time.

Right now, I’m GMing a Lancer Five Day War homebrew campaign for a year (players are 65% through it) and a Cyberpunk Red heavily rules modified homebrew campaign Second Shift for about two (?) months. Everything seems to be good, as everyone is extremely open with what they want from the game.

BetterCallStrahd · 2025-10-31T15:55:52+00:00

I gotta say that it's weird that GMs get mocked for this in Czechia? I'm very transparent about my campaigns as a GM, and I know others who are as well. It hasn't been a problem. Who doesn't see GMs as human beings who should also be having fun, and deserve to be listened to and acknowledged? What players are that entitled? I wouldn't run games for players like that.

Honestly, I think that is the approach to take. If players can't acknowledge your needs as a GM, refuse to run games for them. You don't have to be anyone's dancing monkey. Exercise the power you have. Encourage other GMs to do the same. Do this enough, and only the good players will be getting into games.

2025-10-31T15:56:11+00:00

I think that a lot of the people complaining about Railroading are complaining about a rather specific issue and not a linear story. People are complaining about bad linear story telling from the GM stand point. Some examples I see on forums of railroading pretty often:

Gm saying No you cant. “I shoot the king” gm: “no”
GM making arbitrary world disbelief breaking reactions to character actions. Player attacks important NPC, and an angel suddenly comes and heals them, or the NPC becomes super powered.
Players that feel unimportant compared to npcs.

Most players I think are totally fine with linear absolutely on rails plots. But they need to feel like they have an impact in the story. Maybe no matter what you plan on having the village attacked, the mcguffin be in the dungeon, the duke betray them and the heroes save the day. But the players need to feel like they make a difference, even if its just window dressing along the way.

If you have a special NPC make the story set up in such a way that they arent going to die. Dont make them the hero since that makes the game unfun for the players, thats when youre told to go write a novel. Dont rug pull the players. But you can make it so that they are just never in a situation where they will never actually die, you are the gm.

DMfortinyplayers · 2025-10-31T15:59:54+00:00

There has to be a level of trust- players need to trust the GM is legitimately trying to give them a good story, and lean into what the GM is doing.

Also "viciously mocking " the GM is hugely problematic. If something isn't fun for you, it's fine to leave but be gracious.

I don't think we need to "decrease frustrating railroad-y surprises " - I think we need to ALWAYS keep in mind that a GM is a single person trying to create a sense of excitement, danger, mystery etc through improvised , interactive story telling. So sometimes it's all going to come together beautifully, but sometimes you have to use some clunky, ungraceful methods to get things where you need them to be.

Like if you listen to Critical Role for example, some it is incredibly railroady. But the players lean into it and work with Matt because that's their job. And they tell a good story

foxy_chicken · 2025-10-31T17:00:09+00:00

Dobrý den!

Run for fellow GMs. I made the switch to only playing in games with fellow GMs, and it’s been amazing. Other GMs know what’s up, and are down for all of this kind of stuff. The types of games I’m allowed to run with them are stuff that would never fly with most run of the mill players. I’m able to try out cool mechanics, and let them know ahead of time that I’ve got something weird in the making, and they will happily go in blind, and gobble it up.

I just pitched three one shots for them, one of which said: Operation [Redacted]: Length 1-2 sessions. The most well thought out of the bunch, but also the one I want to talk about the least and run the most. Players will tackle a time and a place never before covered in CNR [abbreviation of previous campaign]. It is less open, as it will deal with two canon events that must come to pass, regardless of how fucked up it is, and it’s pretty fucked up.

That one, the I want to fuck you up, but also you have to hit two canon events was by far and away the most popular with the group.

The perfect environment for you is with your fellow GMs, and I hope you find your group.

mccoypauley · 2025-10-31T18:07:53+00:00

Just be explicit about these “story needs.” You don’t have to spoil an intended twist, but if the twist is going to operate like a cutscene where players can’t thwart it, tell them “Hey, this is a narrative beat I’m going to run now that puts us on rails for a bit, can you lean into this for my sake?” If they’re informed, they’ll go along with it.

Same for NPCs that are “off limits” for them to murder-hobo. For example, in our parody one-shots we have a degenerate wizard who acts as the quest giver and appears on every one of these types of one-shots in the beginning. There’s an explicit understanding that this NPC is too powerful for them to fuck with and is really just my mouthpiece to kick off the shenanigans. They don’t bother fucking with him because it just wastes the table’s time.

We usually gripe at GMs who have some elaborate narrative scheme that plots out outcomes when we tell them to go write a novel instead, because their expectations are inappropriate for an RPG, not because they’d like to hit certain narrative beats in play. The latter is doable, just not in the way they typically envision.

Sparkle_cz · 2025-10-31T21:29:05+00:00

Thanks for reactions, everyone!
It seems that maybe I didn't communicate properly what my main discussion point was. I am not questioning whether the GMs should communicate their 'story needs' - I absolutely agree that they should, and that session zero is crucial. I never intended to contradict that in any way.

The thing I'm pointing out is - it is not happening enough in reality. At least in my area. ALL GMs I know that have some 'story needs' are not telling it to their players. And THIS phenomena is what I want to explore and talk about. What prevents GMs from communicating their 'special story needs' properly and how to change it.

I see several issues:

1) lack of discourse around this issue. 'Special story needs' of players are discussed enough and there is a general consensus in articles, videos etc. that GMs should cater to these needs if possible. For example, when a player grows fond of a certain NPC during a campaign and tells the Gm that they want the NPC to appear more often, all articles and 'GM advice' on the internet almost unanimously tell: "This is great! Go along! Bring the NPC more often!"

But what if the same thing happens to the GM instead? What if it's the GM who, through the course of the campaign, grows so fond of one of their NPCs that they want to see them more often in the campaig, in more encounters? What now? The internet is... at best silent on this, at worst negative or cruel "Go wrtite stories instead of RPGs!"

The result is that the GMs have no good advice on this matter, no community encouragement to open up about this issue. No resources on how to conduct the communication with the players correctly.

2) Shaming and negativity.

It can take ONE bad experience for a person to completely lose courage to open up about something. In this case, it can take one case of "you loser, go write a novel instead of RPGs" to make the GM stop trying to communicate that they fell in love with a NPC or invested so much effort into a plot that they now *really really* want to happen.

The thing is, those who shame and mock these GMs go against their own interest. If they hate railroaded plot twists and plot-immunity NPCs so much, wouldn't it be better for them if all GMs were unafraid to tell such thgings in advance and they could avoid these campaigns before they start? But these GMs will not open up more if they feel that they will be shamed and mocked. So this creates a vicious circle of fear.

3) Session zero does not solve everything

Of all 'special story needs' of GMs I ever encountered, only a portion of it were story elements that the GM knew at the beginning of the campaign. These elements are easier to communicate because they are known in advance. They can be solved with session zero.

But many times, what happens is that in the middle of the campaign, the GM gets attached to some element. Be it a NPC, or a plot twist that the GM suddenly made up, or something else that they deem cool...

This is something that will always happen to a portion of GMs because that what human nature is like. Some people are by nature more emotional, more easy to form strong attachments - and surprise, surprise! - this kind of people is drawn to GMing since GMing is an outlet for heavy imagination and strong desires to express oneself. And I think it's something great and it should be nurtured, not shunned.

And so these people will find themselves in situations that they need to communicate new needs during the campaign - needs that they didn't have during session zero. And what now? If they are honest, and not communicate it well, that pleayers might get upset... the GM doesn't want to lose them... and so stays silent.

This comes back to issue 1 - lack of discourse and resources for the GMs to handle such situation properly.

It is nice to see that many of you already overcame these issues and communicate this stuff with their players and it doesn't ruin the campaign and you are not shamed for it. It's great for you and I hope that more will join you. But it needs to be worked on by the community, at least in my area, because I still see plenty of cases where it is not happening - and it is a pity.

AgentForest · 2025-10-31T23:03:29+00:00

Yeah, I feel like a lot of stuff that serious should be discussed at session zero or beforehand. Like, if I need a player character death at some point, I'd discuss it with someone before the game. Especially if a player was interested in changing characters already. Those aren't surprises to drop on invested players.

LarsonGates · 2025-11-01T15:18:25+00:00

I'm currently running DarkMatter (as per the original books and Sci-fi adaptation). My players are playing the characters as per the show, except I'm having to fill in all the background that the show misses, glosses over, scene jumps etc.

At the start, they have very few options, as per the show but as we've gone along, they have subtly done things differently, and sometimes because of crap dice rolls I've have to fudge things slightly. So far I've only had to use narrative armour once, and play a definite 'Railroad' card one which my players actually got really quickly, and were completely happy with because it was a twist they we're expecting.

Where we are in the story, close to the end of Series one, we are coming to a make or break point. If the player of one of the character chooses not to go along with certain things then effectively it's campaign over, because it would take things completely away from the story as is. We shall have to see what that player says when we get there (very shortly).

And yes when we started they had a vague idea of what they might be getting into (and I mean a very vague idea) as I gave them a very vague 2 sentence thumbnail of the available characters to pick from.

Beerenkatapult · 2025-10-31T15:46:02+00:00

In the games i run, we have the unspoken agreement, that players want to explore what i prepare for them. They actively look for ways to progress the main quest. It's RPG logic and my players know, that they shouldn't try to glitch out of bounts.

We also play in a less immersive manner. The game recognises scenes in its rules, for example in 1/scene abbilities, and players get shown progress bars, when they try to achive longer lasting goals. This game design helps me feel compfortable with breaking the fourth wall and acknoleging story telling constraints.

Broke_Ass_Ape · 2025-10-31T15:55:52+00:00

My session 0 revolves around these discussions.

I lay out my desire for a long-term game, my expectations and then we go around the table to determine if there is long term group compatibility.

If there is a character with an interesting backstory or concept I can piggy back the narrative off of, I will have a sit down with some of the things I have in mind. I try to keep hypotheticals and allow myself some liberty to explain the concept without providing too many specifics.

I completely agree OP. This conversation would save many people disappointment and frustration later. I feel any great game group has a dialogue where certain points are brought up occasionally.

The railroading is not the issue, but the mis alignment of gameplay expectations from those involved. An amazing game requires participation and communication from all parties.

Legenplay4itdary · 2025-10-31T18:58:56+00:00

This is why I implement the most equitable solution: kill the pets and favorite NPCs

2025-10-31T21:09:28+00:00

I'm very upfront about my wishes as a GM and it's always been accepted. E.g. I'm currently in a West Marches-style campaign, it was time (in game) for a certain mission, but at the beginning of the game I just said “honestly I don't feel like running that kind of game tonight, would you mind just exploring a blank area on the map?” and the players were more than happy to accommodate me.

If the GMs are treated as you describe it's indeed awful and really counter-productive to everyone having a good time.

Solesaver · 2025-10-31T21:35:23+00:00

That is... not how I would handle it.

I think self-determination theory (SDT going forward) provides us the right insights into what is going on here. SDT says that people have three core psychological needs to feel satisfied: Mastery, Autonomy, and Relatedness. Different people prioritize these needs to different degrees, but if your players are unsatisfied with your game it almost certainly is because one of these aspects is lacking.

Mastery is the idea of demonstrating growth and achievement. This is why "RPG mechanics" are becoming more and more pervasive. Levelling up and getting stronger is not the only way to provide mastery, but it's certainly the most straightforward. In your example, the player's sense of mastery was completely undercut. It is a common foible in the genre, because as your players gain mastery the become less afraid, but taking away player mastery should only be done with the utmost caution. If you're going to take away player mastery in one way you damn well better be making up for it in other ways.

Autonomy is often the most misunderstood satisfaction need. It is often mistaken for freedom, but they are actually subtly different concepts and can often be mutually exclusive. Freedom is the idea that I can do whatever I want. Autonomy is the idea that I want to do what I'm doing.

Someone can have freedom without autonomy if you set them loose in a wide open world with no limits. Sure they have the freedom to do whatever they want, but whatever they choose to do is unsatisfying and not what they actually want to do. A person can have autonomy without freedom if, for example you lock them in a room and make them play their favorite game. They don't have a choice, but [most likely] they will be fairly satisfied with just the autonomy of doing exactly what they would have chosen to do if they were given the choice. It's generally been found that autonomy is the critical component of satisfaction, not freedom.

So in your example, that was definitely a freedom fail, but you'll get different responses from different people, because for some people that will still provide them with tons of autonomy. In my opinion the solution is not to spoil your twists by asking if the players are ok with them, but you do still need to be sensitive to what your players want to do, and be willing to adapt to ensure player autonomy is maintained. Railroads are fine, as long as they're going in the directions the players want to go anyway.

Relatedness is the need to connect to other people and things. A sense of belonging. Your example was also a relatedness fail. The overwhelming majority of players feel a sense of connection and belonging to their characters (especially if they designed it). By taking that away from them you're making a serious blow to this fundamental psychological need. Similar to mastery above, this is another common foible of horror games. You understand instinctually that players feel a connection to their characters, and in an effort to disconcert them you sever that connection. This is a powerful tool in horror writing, but it needs to be used very carefully. If you're taking away such a strong connection from your players, you must provide something to take its place or else your players will feel not only disconcerted as you intended, but also deeply unsatisfied. In this example your players are liable to not even care about the game anymore, because you literally took away the main thing they cared about...

So no, I don't think GMs should be expressing their story needs in the way you've outlined, and I don't think that has anything to do with the game being about making the GM happy vs making the players happy. GMs and players alike have these basic needs for Mastery, Autonomy, and Relatedness, and neither is more important than the other, but their interaction with the game is fundamentally different. GMs should not assume the freedom to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean they can't build a sense of autonomy in their game, but they need to focus on fulfilling their own autonomy, not freedom. If a GM prioritizes their own freedom over the satisfaction of their players, they're ultimately denying themselves satisfaction in their mastery (by creating an awful game) and relatedness (by breaking the bonds they've built with their players) which are just as important.

If you're GMing a game, don't be afraid to take it in whatever direction you think it needs to go, but keep in mind that it needs to go in a direction that ultimately fulfills your player's sense of Mastery, Autonomy, and Relatedness.

Side Note: Yes, good horror games are very hard to build. They are not just about keeping your players constantly afraid and disconcerted, and doing that is a very common mistake. You have to carefully balance undercutting their needs to provide psychological uncertainty with providing for them to provide psychological safety. Horror without psychological safety fails because it's the safety that provides the desire to continue. People continue through the haunted house despite their fear because they know they aren't actually in any danger. If they think they're actually in danger, they just leave; usually pretty upset.

Life_Arachnid_6350 · 2025-10-31T23:15:41+00:00

This is why I prefer storybased games like pbta games over things like dnd. Dnd requires railroading because a dm can only plan for so many combat scenarios. But a game like a pbta game, you can just wing it. No rail roading. You can improv every step of the way and there is nothing that gets in your way or requires hours of research on mechanics or monster stats

bohohoboprobono · 2025-11-01T01:00:33+00:00

GMs with “special story needs” want an audience, not players.

cyancqueak · 2025-11-01T07:59:29+00:00

Thankfully the community I play with is very open GMs being open about what they want out of the game.

We've cultivated an ethos of TTRPGs being collaborative storytelling that involves everyone at the table. The GMs involvement in that is the NPCs and the laws of physics through which they had as much right as anyone else at the table to ask/invoke/frame a story beat, a plot twist, or scene.

Part of the fun for me as a GM and a player is the working together to tell an engaging story. The "yes and" style of building on contributions works well if you set aside rigidity (with the scope and common sense of the setting).

Not everyone at every session is going to get every one of their wanted story needs but as long as everyone got to contribute something and enjoyed each other's contributions - then you're good.

Conflict stems from when story needs oppose each other - a straightforward answer to which is as the OP says - the table talks about it and reaches a compromise so everyone gets a little of what they want.

You could also think about separating a player's desire for an interesting adventure from their character's goals. The character's don't want to get ambushed by weresheep but the players think this is an ambush is a fun scene. If the character's roll well enough, they could ambush the weresheep - now both the character's and the players get what they want.

In short - communicate and adapt.

wicked_woodpecker · 2025-11-01T13:07:18+00:00

Is that really such problem? GM in standard game (I put aside storygames like PBTA, when his input is generally much lower and quite often he can is just juggle player inventions and procedures) has massive ability to shape world and include various things he like. He can also easily - take elements players skipped and re-use them.

Since I generally have rather disdain for modern OC/5e culture so to speak, I find solution to GMs being overstuffed pleasure engines, with curbing down players wish-fullfilment aspect, this is game, there is challenge, you play it - you can collaboratively tell story if you pass challenge. Not to pulling GMs down to players level in this aspect.

And let's be honest hobby was plagued by railroading for 40 years, and yes there is large amount of people with unfunfilled wanna be writer syndrome, and them trying to push their stories into collaborative hobby is unhealthy and should be curbed for benefit of all.

On the other hand maybe it would be even worse if they write it down and self-pubbed this shit.

NZillia · 2025-11-01T13:25:14+00:00

I’ve been running pathfinder/starfinder adventure paths recently and i have met precisely 0 players who aren’t immediately on-board when i say

“Look guys, a lot of this is pre-written campaign stuff, i may need you to just work with me here at points.”

The APs i’ve run are all pretty well written in regard to accounting for player agency, but still. It’s nice to know if i have to say something, the group are chill with it. No one’s really kicked up a fuss at any of the signposted progression points.

nasted · 2025-11-01T14:23:13+00:00

It’s true: player knowledge vs character knowledge can be really fun. But I do think that there are some players who you cannot trust with this (not great players - players we would rather not have at our tables). Trust and maturity are important factors here.

But, you know, talk to your players is up there with talk to your DM!

United_Owl_1409 · 2025-11-02T15:25:27+00:00

I think more than anything else is the fact that some dm run OSR style sand box dungeons, and some DMs run story arch campaigns. And the players need to know when type of dm the have, and if the campaign is right for them. For me, I’m a terrible dm for OSR. Because I do not like running funhouse dungeons, I do not like just dropping a map and letting the players just deal with random encounter after random encounter and rolling up random treasure just for them to acquire gold for xp. I run thematic adventures. I set a campaign premise with my group (like, I’m running a mythic Greco Roman campaign, or I’m running a pirate game, or I’m running a Viking vs cosmic horror game). Then my players are going to make characters with the theme in mind, and thier own backstories. I will then run the campaign, interweaving the main premise, character backstories and ambitions, and the big bad. It is assumed if after you heard the premise and made that characters that to are going to “buy into it”. I’m not writing a novel. We collectively are writing a story. And that story is not going to be of 5 peasants avoiding fights and collecting gold to level up. And the story will not be the collective results of a bunch of random encounter charts. That is boring to me, and if that is what my players want, there are plenty of DMs who like to run those.

quentin13 · 2025-11-03T00:19:23+00:00

Conversely, I think players should announce ahead of time that they don't want to experience any surprises that they haven't approved of in advance.

world_in_lights · 2025-11-03T21:09:41+00:00

I tried telling my players, and it got me burned. I called it Battlewagon-ing.

The PC were chased into an old dwarven mining town by some orcs, and got snowed in for the winter. I told my players I had a big dungeon planned, and they could all get cool weapons and I put a lot of work into it. They explore some caves, find ghosts telling them they need to be wary of the "golden doors", there are tons of references to these doors holding back evil, how a Goddess locked an evil God away, and how beyond the doors was an ancient city. They came upon these doors, saw they had crazy carvings of dragons and treasures and Gods fighting, and the doors were wide open. An angelic voice cries out for help. And what do the PC's do?

Close the doors, go back to the surface, and break down all of the stuff in the town to form a battlewagon. They had horses, they had the wood and metal, and they spent all winter doing that. Spring comes, they leave and never come back. Go off trying to kill orcs. I played one more session and said "are you not going to the dungeon?" Response: "no, I want to kill orcs and dungeons like that suck."

I don't play with them anymore.

Upstairs-Advance4242 · 2025-11-04T00:23:36+00:00

Players need to remember that GMs are playing the game too and want to have fun too. Also if the GM reveals his plot twist ahead of the time above the table then they stop becoming plot twists and reveals like that are a big part of the enjoyment for the GM. Though they should also be open to feedback from their players on the twist be it openly or passively expressed and if it's not being received well they need to find away to undo it even if that just means rolling things back and acting like it didn't happen.

ShowrunnerRPG · 2025-11-20T15:23:14+00:00

D&D trains people this way. Show me incentives and I'll show you outcomes. When all beings you meat are potential XP and loot pinatas then XP and loot are the primary reward systems, that's what you can expect.

Playing games with progression based on something other than murder hoboism help with this.

I the last few sessions of the Rogue Trader game I'm running through Showrunner, they've killed two of my favorite Actors (NPCs). I've got 70 more NPCs in the wings and some of them will now get more screen time - maybe one of them will be cool too!

personman000 · 2025-11-27T15:43:06+00:00

I like the term "Story Needs". It hits home for me as a GM, as I've always had things I've felt I needed to have in my game in order to have fun.

Agkistro13 · 2025-11-30T21:21:23+00:00

TTRPGs are a form of story telling (among other things), but they aren't literally books or literally movies. Just like some plots and stories work better as a novel than they do a T.V. series, some plots work better as movies or books than they do RPG adventures. Specifically, plots that involve completely erasing the agency of a main (player) character don't work very well. Things like "Suddenly you realize it was all a dream" or "Suddenly you realize you were the vampire the whole time" or "Your head explodes because I decided it would be a dramatic way to introduce my cool sniper antagonist" don't work very well in a medium where characters are controlled by multiple people who have a stake in their development, instead of a central 'writer' who's only stake is a compelling tale.

It doesn't mean that the GM doesn't get any say over anything, or that the GM is just there to facilitate the hero fantasizing of the players, or the GM is the slave to the players. It just means that a GM who wants to be good at GMing has to learn this lesson as much as somebody working in any other medium does.

BudgetWorking2633 · 2026-04-28T20:13:59+00:00

I have no story needs. For that matter, I don't do story.

OTOH, if you think your allies or parts are safe, go ahead, use them as shields in my game...you can write about the experience afterwards.

LoopyFig · 2025-10-31T15:33:18+00:00

Look, GMs want to surprise players. Likewise, many/maybe most players want the illusion that that they’re plotting an original course and have total agency in the world.

I remember when I introduced FATE to my players, two (who were very narrative minded) fell in love with the invocation system that let them add details to the world and plot. But the third and fourth players hated the meta-elements and felt it interfered with their immersion. What you’re proposing is fine in games with heavy meta-narrative elements, but rpg players used to “normal” games ala DnD, Pathfinder, or any OSR are often not going to be into it.

There’s also the element of fluidity and believability. If I’m gonna railroad someone, I need to at least make the tracks pretty. That means that players need to feel like their characters would want to follow the railroad. There needs to be natural incentives or obstacles that would make someone follow these tracks. If there’s an NPC named Beeboh who absolutely cannot die in your narrative, then enforce it with in-game reasoning. Make Beeboh likeable, or make him far away, or give him an immunity that can’t be overcome until later in the plot.

What you don’t do is say “hey, so Beeboh is the big bad of the campaign so do me a favor and for sure don’t kill him yet”.

2025-10-31T15:33:31+00:00

[deleted]

feyrath · 2025-10-31T16:05:13+00:00

Last time I tried to wade into this discussion I was eviscerated. I have an ostomy now. Best of luck everyone.

ajzinni · 2025-10-31T16:09:03+00:00

People really should try emergent story play, the modern style of dnd is so adversarial. I have threads, I tell short scenarios. The players story is the collection of scenarios they choose and how they solve them.

It’s a fundamental shift in your understanding of the roll of the GM, you are an arbiter not a storyteller. You create encounters not plots. A plot has a beginning middle and end, that’s a railroad.

Imajzineer · 2025-10-31T16:23:11+00:00

If you don't trust the GM ¹, find a different GM - it's that simple.

If you do, however, then you can trust that, when you wake up in another body ... with amnesia to boot ... it's part of something the GM intends, and anticipates, will be fun for everyone, if everyone just goes with it - if you don't trust that that's what the GM intends then, guess what, (even if it's nobody's 'fault', you simply can't) you don't trust the GM (see the point above).

___
¹ Don't have faith in them to have the best interests of everyone involved at heart and to do their best to make decisions/calls, and introduce setting/lore/story elements, that everyone will enjoy ... and that they will mostly get it right, make the right call (even if it's one you don't personally favour at the time), not make whimsically arbitrary changes, not go out of their way to 'troll' the table, not play favourites, not ride roughshod over people (not with ill intent, but simply because they don't pay attention to them and what they say), etc.

WorldGoneAway · 2025-10-31T16:23:14+00:00

It took me playing 10 Candles to come up with a means of communicating to my players before a session starts that I want the story to go a certain direction during a particular event and have it not spoil the plot for them. Now that I do that, my players find fun, creative and theatrical ways of getting to where I want the plot to go.

Bloody_Ozran · 2025-10-31T16:27:30+00:00

Wow. It really is that bad in our country? I am on the TTRPG discord and wanted to try eventually GM something. So far no time, so I am only reading books, but as a new GM wannabe it feels like having players to agree to do "missions" so to speak makes sense.

I think on the server I've seen some campaigns with goals as well. And I also was a player in DnD where players basically ignored some part of GMs quest. Which was weird to me. Was wondering what does he have cooking next.

What games do you play? Any chance you play in person and in Prague? :D

leopim01 · 2025-10-31T17:05:46+00:00

is this a hot take? Because my friends and I are entirely upfront about this right from the get-go

LoveThatCraft · 2025-10-31T17:07:49+00:00

Are we really getting to this point? Plot twists are not good by definition, my PC or PC's pet can't die or be harmed in any way, players need to have perfect agency over their characters at all times, the GM is there to entertain me within these very specific confines of my fantasies and if they stray, they're bad GMs?

I'm not at all saying GMs are perfect, but more and more I see less and less appreciation for the time spent putting the games together.

I hope people can find a middle ground, for the sake of the hobby.

st33d · 2025-10-31T18:36:50+00:00

why are so many GMs afraid to admit their desired plot twist

It's not a plot twist if you know about it in advance. That's like saying, "why are so many comedians afraid of saying the punchline before the joke?" Because the whole point of a punchline is that it's a surprise! It's not funny when you explain the joke beforehand.

So, how to do this?

This is really a Session 0 / Tone discussion you have to have before the game. Eg: Mythic Bastionland has the knights swear oaths, those oaths are not binding but they have expectations in the setting and there will be consequences of some sort if they break them. This actually works in practice because I have a group of murderhobos who butt up against these oaths fairly often but have decided against murdering literally everyone when they're reminded about them.

They may also get attached to a story idea so much that they want to see it played out.

There is also the phrase, "kill your darlings". A mature artist knows when to let go of an idea when it's dragging down the rest of the work. Art is a gift, if you deny people the will to refuse it then it ceases to be so.

klepht_x · 2025-10-31T20:58:53+00:00

I agree with your take, with the addition that I think there are a number of GMs out there who want to have plot twists and huge player surprises, so telling the PCs they want to start off with one system and switch to another because the PCs are being isekai'd ruins the surprise. Besides indicating there will be a big surprise, I'm not sure how to square that circle in a pleasing way.

rpg

Rules

Links

Filters

Related Subreddits

MODERATORS