Common GM mistake of allowing a roll before asking "How?"
- I want to bamboozle the guards!
- Tell us how that looks!
- [elaborate cover story]
- OK, that sounds ridiculous but plausible, roll the dice!
Watched the DnD movie with my daughter. It was fun, though weirdly felt a bit railroady in certain moments. I would not liked this campaign as a player, especially the GMPC.
After removing the cat aspect out of Aslan, now a new problem-thought came to mind to remove Klingon out of them. Hoping what is left is an impenetrable mess that will make them very alien, but still allow some understanding. Why I do this to myself is a mystery. #TravellerRPG
Hidden benefit of reactionary style is that one, if so inclined can put the story/plot in front of the group, and if they weer of the GM has still all the tools avaliable to follow along, which is something that narrative style GM can't afford, assuming tools are not in place
When running a set story/plot best approach is to "pull" the group along the motions - GM setting things up in "front", players reacting. Randomness is the worst enemy of that approach, as once players weer off, now GM has to "push" or railroad them back to his prepped narrative.
Me: "I roll on random tables and Oracles to generate things on the fly for my sandbox game."
I don't know how to explain this more simply. Invariably, someone comments with a wall of text about how what I am currently doing is impossible despite the fact that I do it every week.
Pushing is much harder to do without friction. Sandbox play has a GM reacting to players "behind" them so to speak, and random rolls tables are the world and stoey potential, and are absolutely necessary. Many people arguing don't realize the distinction between two approaches.