Joel is the perfect example of an awful Reddit DND 5e Game Master

[CountCapacollo]

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

[Robinson Drake]

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

Queltis původně napsal:

Every GM will try to get you back on track to the story they were attempting to tell. The good ones are just capable of being subtle about it.

No, back on track is not the same as "I designed the story like this and your decisions don't matter".

That's awful GMing and you're perpetuating it.

Have you done any?

Have you done any that's not 5E?

You know that other systems explicitly instruct the GM to pick up and drop the players about as needed and this is considered suitable protocol?

That's from Call of Cthulhu 7th Ed... and regularly, when my players kept trying to sniff out more story than there was, I'd just drop the foot, cease that nonsense, and redirect them or forcibly get the story going again.

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

Yeah no, that's nonsense. That's what deranged GMs tell themselves to cope with the fact they're in fact bad GMs and don't let the story organically evolve with their players.

It smacks of a lack of perpetration, bad design, not reading the books, and not knowing what a GM actually does. TTRPGs are NOT a choose your own adventure book with only two selections.

Good GMs setup the environment, the world, and then let things play as they go.

"Good GMs do only what I think they do! Me, the Grand Poobah Arbitrator!"

Not everyone runs a sandbox, you wannabe-grognard.

[Ishan451]

Robinson Drake původně napsal:

Not everyone runs a sandbox, you wannabe-grognard.

Even in a Sandbox you try and steer the group, as after all you will always try to tell a cohesive story and likely you spend a few hours preparing the combat encounter you had planned.

A good Sandbox respects player choices but all roads lead to Rome. "LOL oh so random" adventures are generally considered even worse than railroading.

[Mother Heffer]

Axis of Lint původně napsal:

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

Because Helldivers 2 is analogous to 5e in what way exactly?

The "storytelling" in this game does exactly what it needs to. It provides a basis for us to kill more bugs and bots. Does it really matter if we lose a certain planet or gain a certain planet?

Yes, because there are rewards on the line.







Also, is this really that hard? This isn't about telling a story, it's about stretching a paper thin game loop as far as it can stretch, pretending that there's a narrative when they're doing nothing beyond adding more screens to King Koopa's castle and calling it "story."

[Das Twit Ja]

after playing the first helldivers I can safely say that, it's not about Joel actively trying to make things harder for us but rather, trying to keep things interesting and making things thematic while attempting to keep some sort of storyline cohesive so that they can make a predictable release of content.

I don't know if you're just trolling or if you're actually upset, but in case you are actually upset, please understand that content of any kind requires actual work and devs whom are working on a live service that's actively changed by it's player base will not be able to make any sort of cohesive game if they just keep it 'open and wild'. SO yeah, Joel will try to sometimes 'railroad' the player base. Like when there was a lot of automaton updates and content, he had a lot of major orders against automatons.

Even now, the game is consistently and constantly struggling with massive amounts of bugs (heh), so the devs are pushed to the limit. If you do not think that's a valid reason for major orders being the way that they are, then that's fine to disagree. I think you'll find yourself in the minority though.

[Docaheal]

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

Citing dnd 5e has a reference for a ttrpg only mean you arent fan of deep thinking, so I disagree with what you are saying

[Thorstorm]

Hand's Hermit Permit původně napsal:

Bro, we're really getting mad about the fake handling of a fake war. It's just not fake in the way you want it?

It's like playing Cops and Robbers when you were 5 and complaining that someone isn't following the made-up rules of the made-up RP game. You're having a pretend war and a pointless grievance within it.

No one's getting mad but you lmao
OP made some good points.

The campaign/war is part of the fun of this game you dimwit.

[Wutever]

Das Twit Ja původně napsal:

after playing the first helldivers I can safely say that, it's not about Joel actively trying to make things harder for us but rather, trying to keep things interesting and making things thematic while attempting to keep some sort of storyline cohesive so that they can make a predictable release of content.

I don't know if you're just trolling or if you're actually upset, but in case you are actually upset, please understand that content of any kind requires actual work and devs whom are working on a live service that's actively changed by it's player base will not be able to make any sort of cohesive game if they just keep it 'open and wild'. SO yeah, Joel will try to sometimes 'railroad' the player base. Like when there was a lot of automaton updates and content, he had a lot of major orders against automatons.

Even now, the game is consistently and constantly struggling with massive amounts of bugs (heh), so the devs are pushed to the limit. If you do not think that's a valid reason for major orders being the way that they are, then that's fine to disagree. I think you'll find yourself in the minority though.

Their money is not tied to content. Their money is tied to making Warbonds. They CAN let people go wild.

They could even break the 4th wall if things go to too badly and tell the playerbase outright that X things are locked behind story. We'd be in Cyberstan in less than a week if Arrowhead announced that Illuminate are ready and waiting for story progress to drop.

The only limiting factor would be that Cyberstan and / or Illuminate are not even close to being production-ready, in which case why even initiate this part of the campaign? Just send us to kill some bugs or something. Make us do more side-quests. Nobody would care. Instead we get hit by a huge counter-offensive out of nowhere on BOTH fronts.

Also, frankly, It's not the playerbase's fault that the game is a buggy mess of spaghetti code. It is extremely clear that Arrowhead either has massive structural problems or literally has no QA. 8/10 bugs that are in the game should never have made it past initial testing. Like, how are explosions pulling people inwards? How do you miss that as a dev, let alone a QA tester?

[Bill Waggoner]

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

Tf are you on about? This latest order? Did you moan about it yesterday when you got free medals?

No? Imagine that.

[Mother Heffer]

Wutever původně napsal:

Das Twit Ja původně napsal:

after playing the first helldivers I can safely say that, it's not about Joel actively trying to make things harder for us but rather, trying to keep things interesting and making things thematic while attempting to keep some sort of storyline cohesive so that they can make a predictable release of content.

I don't know if you're just trolling or if you're actually upset, but in case you are actually upset, please understand that content of any kind requires actual work and devs whom are working on a live service that's actively changed by it's player base will not be able to make any sort of cohesive game if they just keep it 'open and wild'. SO yeah, Joel will try to sometimes 'railroad' the player base. Like when there was a lot of automaton updates and content, he had a lot of major orders against automatons.

Even now, the game is consistently and constantly struggling with massive amounts of bugs (heh), so the devs are pushed to the limit. If you do not think that's a valid reason for major orders being the way that they are, then that's fine to disagree. I think you'll find yourself in the minority though.

Their money is not tied to content. Their money is tied to making Warbonds. They CAN let people go wild.

They could even break the 4th wall if things go to too badly and tell the playerbase outright that X things are locked behind story. We'd be in Cyberstan in less than a week if Arrowhead announced that Illuminate are ready and waiting for story progress to drop.

The only limiting factor would be that Cyberstan and / or Illuminate are not even close to being production-ready, in which case why even initiate this part of the campaign? Just send us to kill some bugs or something. Make us do more side-quests. Nobody would care. Instead we get hit by a huge counter-offensive out of nowhere on BOTH fronts.

Also, frankly, It's not the playerbase's fault that the game is a buggy mess of spaghetti code. It is extremely clear that Arrowhead either has massive structural problems or literally has no QA. 8/10 bugs that are in the game should never have made it past initial testing. Like, how are explosions pulling people inwards? How do you miss that as a dev, let alone a QA tester?

Their money is definitely tied to content. They need people to believe that there's more content to use warbonds on.

Bill Waggoner™ původně napsal:

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

Tf are you on about? This latest order? Did you moan about it yesterday when you got free medals?

No? Imagine that.

Dude, consumers are supposed to enjoy things that benefit them, and not enjoy things that they don't like.

[Robinson Drake]

Ishan451 původně napsal:

Even in a Sandbox you try and steer the group, as after all you will always try to tell a cohesive story and likely you spend a few hours preparing the combat encounter you had planned.

A good Sandbox respects player choices but all roads lead to Rome. "LOL oh so random" adventures are generally considered even worse than railroading.

Yes, keep talking, please. It helps give me the evidence I need to not pay your opinion any mind. My job is definitely 'storyteller' and not 'also a player', always, sure!

A sandbox is a sandbox. There's levels of semantics, but honestly, I've run a lot of sandbox-style content and I can tell you ... haven't. You 'might' think you have, but I think you put horse blinders on if you did since you're so singularly minded. What you're talking about is a hybridised sandbox with a tourguide GM. I once ran a sandbox until my players literally asked me to hand them a more distinct plot, which I had prepared all along... A bit different than "I wedged them into a plot I prepared."

If you wanna debate, drop the use of absolute terminology. They do you zero favours. In a sandbox, it depends on many variables. My last big sandbox run, it was literally a single objective in a big city, and the players determined how to achieve it. I was effectively just a mediator for their ideas; the only fights that were prepared were the big gun bosses, and they intelligently killed him anyway. I did not "always" try to tell a cohesive story, because I didn't have to. I gave a consistent GOAL, and they made their own story!

Go figure! ;) Now go away XD

[Dr. Jan Itor]

Wiawyr původně napsal:

Queltis původně napsal:

Every GM will try to get you back on track to the story they were attempting to tell.

That's not what a GM does. The players create the story as they go, the GM creates the setting and framework for the players to do so.

So a messy yawnfest, yeah sounds about right if you like boring TTRPG sessions.

[hotmatrixx]

Key původně napsal:

I don't entirely get the "reddit" part of the insult, are reddit GMs particularly bad, or?

Nor do I; Reddit GM's tend to be there because they care about their games; and spending time reflecting and conversing with other, like minded individuals could only improve their skill. Right? ... RIIIGHT?

[YMD]

This is why people should never release their names to the public. They'll always become the target of online harassment.

[Shaabhekh]

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

1) Thats because it *IS* his story.
2) Thats how games work, players wins something, next challenge is a bit harder, rinse repeat until the player is unable to beat it, level it out, rinse repeat.
3) Pretty much is...

The whole 'we influence the story' is probably overstated by many and considered completely false by others.

Fact is, Joel/Devs/Whoever, has a story in mind to play out - this story is going to happen pretty much one way or another. If a defence MO comes out and looks impossible, its by design, because the storyteller is conveying the futility of the situation, the strength of the opposition etc - we, as players, *can* influence this aspect of the story because we can choose which planets to defend, thus we could choose to defend A and B and allow the Bots to expand sideways, or we defend C and D and allow the Bots to strike deeper towards Super Earth.

We can influence the strategy to some degree - we can also influence the story/lore to some degree too - think back to the Terminid TCS mission - we completed it and our reward was bug mutations creating the shriekers. Now, had we failed, i believe we would have still gotten the same outcome, but the *story telling* would be different to some degree (in this example, its still mutations, lol, so not the best example im afraid)
That being said, i dont know that for sure; perhaps failign the TCS missions would have prevented the Shriekers from being introduced as early as they were, maybe another bug type would have been introduced instead /shrug


The galaxy map has a large number of sectors, each with a handful of planets, they are not all going to stay under our control during this 'playthrough' of the story; if they did, there would be no point to having them on the map.

There is going to be a lot of 'back and forth' from us and the other factions - 1 step forwards, 2 steps backwards; at least until a particular turning point of the story when we will gain an advantage (whether by design or because the community comes together to beat an impossible MO or similar)


Edit: HD1 had multiple playthrough campaigns but im not sure if they all followed the same pattern or not, can anyone comment on that?
If HD2 also has multiple startovers, whats to say Joel isnt replaced by Katy who has their own way of doing things?

[Mother Heffer]

Wutever původně napsal:

Das Twit Ja původně napsal:

after playing the first helldivers I can safely say that, it's not about Joel actively trying to make things harder for us but rather, trying to keep things interesting and making things thematic while attempting to keep some sort of storyline cohesive so that they can make a predictable release of content.

I don't know if you're just trolling or if you're actually upset, but in case you are actually upset, please understand that content of any kind requires actual work and devs whom are working on a live service that's actively changed by it's player base will not be able to make any sort of cohesive game if they just keep it 'open and wild'. SO yeah, Joel will try to sometimes 'railroad' the player base. Like when there was a lot of automaton updates and content, he had a lot of major orders against automatons.

Even now, the game is consistently and constantly struggling with massive amounts of bugs (heh), so the devs are pushed to the limit. If you do not think that's a valid reason for major orders being the way that they are, then that's fine to disagree. I think you'll find yourself in the minority though.

Their money is not tied to content. Their money is tied to making Warbonds. They CAN let people go wild.

They could even break the 4th wall if things go to too badly and tell the playerbase outright that X things are locked behind story. We'd be in Cyberstan in less than a week if Arrowhead announced that Illuminate are ready and waiting for story progress to drop.

The only limiting factor would be that Cyberstan and / or Illuminate are not even close to being production-ready, in which case why even initiate this part of the campaign? Just send us to kill some bugs or something. Make us do more side-quests. Nobody would care. Instead we get hit by a huge counter-offensive out of nowhere on BOTH fronts.

Also, frankly, It's not the playerbase's fault that the game is a buggy mess of spaghetti code. It is extremely clear that Arrowhead either has massive structural problems or literally has no QA. 8/10 bugs that are in the game should never have made it past initial testing. Like, how are explosions pulling people inwards? How do you miss that as a dev, let alone a QA tester?

Their money is definitely tied to content. They need people to believe that there's more content to use warbonds on.

Bill Waggoner™ původně napsal:

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

Tf are you on about? This latest order? Did you moan about it yesterday when you got free medals?

No? Imagine that.

Dude, consumers are supposed to enjoy things that benefit them, and not enjoy things that they don't like.

Shaabhekh původně napsal:

Oops All Eagles původně napsal:

All the hallmarks are there.

1) Rail roads you into his version of the story, despite whatever efforts you take
2) retaliates against you for struggling against it in the first place
3) thinks the game is Game Master vs Players

Joel needs to read some AngryGM on what it means to be a good Game Master.

1) Thats because it *IS* his story.
2) Thats how games work, players wins something, next challenge is a bit harder, rinse repeat until the player is unable to beat it, level it out, rinse repeat.
3) Pretty much is...

The whole 'we influence the story' is probably overstated by many and considered completely false by others.

Fact is, Joel/Devs/Whoever, has a story in mind to play out - this story is going to happen pretty much one way or another. If a defence MO comes out and looks impossible, its by design, because the storyteller is conveying the futility of the situation, the strength of the opposition etc - we, as players, *can* influence this aspect of the story because we can choose which planets to defend, thus we could choose to defend A and B and allow the Bots to expand sideways, or we defend C and D and allow the Bots to strike deeper towards Super Earth.

We can influence the strategy to some degree - we can also influence the story/lore to some degree too - think back to the Terminid TCS mission - we completed it and our reward was bug mutations creating the shriekers. Now, had we failed, i believe we would have still gotten the same outcome, but the *story telling* would be different to some degree (in this example, its still mutations, lol, so not the best example im afraid)
That being said, i dont know that for sure; perhaps failign the TCS missions would have prevented the Shriekers from being introduced as early as they were, maybe another bug type would have been introduced instead /shrug


The galaxy map has a large number of sectors, each with a handful of planets, they are not all going to stay under our control during this 'playthrough' of the story; if they did, there would be no point to having them on the map.

There is going to be a lot of 'back and forth' from us and the other factions - 1 step forwards, 2 steps backwards; at least until a particular turning point of the story when we will gain an advantage (whether by design or because the community comes together to beat an impossible MO or similar)


Edit: HD1 had multiple playthrough campaigns but im not sure if they all followed the same pattern or not, can anyone comment on that?
If HD2 also has multiple startovers, whats to say Joel isnt replaced by Katy who has their own way of doing things?

So what is the player's role, then? Where do the players fall in this whole scheme?