Saturday Night and I'm a player (gasp!).
The DM has prepared some good adventure. Having become notorious, my character now has a substantial bounty on her head. As would-be admirers offer protection, she instead displayed her fearlessness by taking to the streets in a "come at me bro" scene. When no Attacks came, she followed one of the other PCs down a side alley.
"Roll perception" says my DM. My character is being stalked now and she looks for the nearest escape route. Fortunately she makes it out.
Later, she's out trying to reclaim lost territory (in force with another PCs and several soldiers). On the doorstep of that building we're reclaiming is another bounty hunter. My character attempts a charm - but the bounty hunter is immune. The hunter draws down and my character leads him off, away from the other PC in whom he's not interested (but I don't want to grief kill them).
"Roll Dex to get away clean" says my DM, and my character gets away clean.
Now, I'll happily admit, the writing was all very good. Nice scenes. Good scenarios. Not too expository and not too actiony. But can you spot what went wrong?
bawylie wrote:
Here’s what I got.
The DM should have asked what your passive perception was instead of making you roll unless you said you were actively looking for trouble.
The bounty hunter shouldn’t have been immune to your roll. The DM should have had a high DC as per the skill modifiers in the PHB. (Top Pick)
One Dex roll to get away seems a little slap dash to me. But if your DM was trying to limit the amount of game time he/she was spending on just you. I can see why they would want to simplified your escape.
bawylie wrote:
Good catches, Theros. The DM shouldn't be calling for my actions. I should. The Bounty Hunter COULDVE been immune to my charm, but that kind of shutdown needs Telegraphing - otherwise you're pulling bullets out of the air. If, for instance, he was described as Fey or if the DM had simply told me, Before I acted, that Charm was a risky proposition, that would've put me in a position to evaluate my options. As it was, he plucked bullets out of the air.
One Dex roll to get away. Forgiveable for the sake of expediency. However, getting away wasn't all I was doing. I was leading a bounty hunter away. Deception. Meaning I wasn't "getting away" so much as looking like I was getting away. But it was handled like an escape.
Anything else? (Yes, whiskey might've helped. The DM brought microbrewed craft beer - a chocolate & peanut butter infusion into a very dark, hoppy affair. It was okay. I think I'll leave peanut butter and chocolate to the good folks at Reece's).
If it was me, I would have targeted your ally to get to you. Your character sounds like a slippery fish with the skills to go wild all night long. It does sound like she cares about her companions however. Targeting them would serve two purposes.
- It would give more game time to the other players. Including them in the hijinks ensures everyone gets to play and would force the party to always be evolving. Improving the game experience.
- It raises the stakes of your actions and creates opportunities for the DM to start developing his/her own schemes instead of reacting to the PC’s. I can think of no better way to develop antagonists then with a good old fashion monolog to a captured PC. It can also lead to the other players using their own unique skills to escape and thrive. While forcing you out of your comfort zone into situations your character might not be the best at.
Not a bad plan. (As it was, my personal screen time was probably a half hour at most, out of a 5 hr game with 4 players).
Heres what went really wrong for me. I participated in a 5 hour story; without actually playing a game. I made 4 rolls all evening. 3 were at the DM's direction. Any decisions I made were worked around altogether. Any agency I had was shut down. The only options left to me were to participate in disaster or draw it off.
DMs, your writing should be spectacular (as this story was). But this is a game, too. Often, you'll see a lot of DMs and players bitch about something being gamey, or worry about the MetaGame, or the "realism/immersion" crud. You focus on removing the "game" from your RPG, and no matter how great Everythjng else is, I will hate it. It will be boring.
I love stories. I love tales and films and books. I also love games. And playing. When I come to play, I'm there to play. Not to hear a 5 hour story. Do not ignore the Game. Do not remove the game. Do not let concerns of gaminess override the ability of the participants to actually play. That doesn't mean you have to write crap stories. It does mean you have to leave room for me to play in it.
Sounds like onetrueway? It is. I had a bad game (even though there was a lot to appreciate). I don't want to do that again. I don't want anyone else to run a game like that for anyone else.
I think this is often an issue of the DMs preparing a story instead of preparing a game scenario. Story comes last as a result of play - which is not to say it's unimportant. Far from it. It just means that playing the game generates stories on its own. Making memorable stories requires some flourish by the DM and players and is a goal of play.
Some people look at my example scenarios and encounters and say "It's very boardgamey" or the like. To that I say - good! Because those are games used to create stories by playing in them. As tools for the DM, if they are easy to run as a boardgame, then I feel like I hit the mark: easy to run, fun for players to play, and a story is told as a result.
bawylie wrote:
Ahhh,
That's a shame. I hate when I get stuck in someone elses novel too.
Breaks my heart that you missed your chance to actually play.
To be completely fair, this DM's writing has been poor in the past. He really worked on it and it was fantastic.
After session he told me he'd read my blog for writing advice (and I had an oh F@%# moment, bc I feared I've been pushing this type of thing inadvertently, hence my recent 101 post). But we talked it through and went over his prep. I told him to write "What do you do?" about 25 times all over the prep work, and he saw how that would've completely changed how the game ran. And he was pissed he missed the opportunity. I'm not trying to trash this DM. God Bless him for trying (and for listening to me complain!). I am just putting this out as a giant red flag.
Stop writing solutions or alternate paths in your games. You're prescribing actions actually removes my ability to invent something. Write obstacles and questions, not paths and answers.
That seems to be a pretty common mistake - when GMs focus too much on the writing and story, then they have a "script" that they want to railroad the players through.
Anyone struggling with the concept should consider looking towards Dungeon World and it's Fronts - they spell out a method of adventure design that it sounds like would really help him out - it will also show him how to practice his writing without creating a railroad. Here's the very basics:
Fronts are secret tomes of GM knowledge. Each is a collection of linked dangers—threats to the characters specifically and to the people, places, and things the characters care about. It also includes one or more impending dooms, the horrible things that will happen without the characters' intervention. 'Fronts' comes, of course, from 'fighting on two fronts' which is just where you want the characters to be—surrounded by threats, danger and adventure.
Fronts are built outside of active play. They're the solo fun that you get to have between games—rubbing your hands and cackling evilly to yourself as you craft the foes with which to challenge your PCs. You may tweak or adjust your fronts during play (who knows when inspiration will strike?) but the meat of them comes from preparation between sessions.
Fronts are designed to help you organize your thoughts on what opposes the players. They're here to contain your notes, ideas, and plans for these opposing forces. When you're in a bind your fronts are where you're going to turn and say, 'Oh, so that's what I should do.' Consider them an organizational tool, as inspiration for present and future mayhem.
When you're building fronts, think about all the creepy dungeon denizens, the rampaging hordes and ancient cults that you'd like to see in your game. Think in broad strokes at first and then, as you build dangers into your fronts, you'll be able to narrow those ideas down. When you write your campaign front, think about session-to-session trends. When you write your adventure fronts, think about what's important right here and right now. When you're done writing a few fronts you'll be equipped with all the tools you'll need to challenge your players and ready to run Dungeon World.
Here's how a front comes together:
- Choose campaign front or adventure front
- Create 2-3 dangers
- Choose an impending doom for each danger
- Add grim portents (1-3 for an adventure front, 3-5 for the campaign front)
- Write 1–3 stakes questions
- List the general cast of the front
Thank you. I've DM-Ed dungeon world for him. And ive let him see all my prep, the principles and agendas & fronts. He's implemented a lot of it. But leave this guy aside. The bigger issue is just what you said: focus on story to the detriment of game.
Agreed, and here's something that doesn't get mentioned as much - it is *so* much more fun for the GM when he doesn't know the outcome of the adventure either. The least important thing about your game is the plot!
iserith wrote:
I wouldn't day story is the least important part of my game. IMX story requires deep understanding of its tropes, conceits, and construction. It requires careful cultivation and management (especially among 5-6 simultaneous authors). Story needs just as much care as game, for me.
To me, the story of DnD is the idea the DM presents (because you have to start SOMEwhere), and what the players do to actually develop said story. I make a framework, but it's up to the PCs to actually DO things! And that's why I love it so much, because we're group-storytelling and no one has any clue as to what will happen next, much less how it will end (not even the DM!)
Sorry you had to do that. If were I in the mood for it I'd probably be okay with a game like that, but not very often, and certainly if I wasn't prepared for something like that. Interaction as a DM or PC is one of my favorite things about DnD. Sure I love the combat and am very "good" at it (and making effective combatants). But it's the fun goofy interactions that make me keep coming back, if only for the fact that me and my friends are creating this storied and dynamic world. One where we see the repurcussions several campaigns down the line!
Maybe "the least important" is a bit of hyperbole, but plot is definitely the most overrated in my opinion. The point is that all of your writing and pre-planned ideas in between games are nothing compared to the excitement the players can generate for themselves naturally when you are all at the table, so when they are engaged like that you should be willing to tear apart and rearrange your adventure ideas at a moment's notice to keep up with what the players are truly interested in.
bawylie wrote:
The DM just needs more practice, and to ask "what do you do?" more. His next session will likely be quite different. Good on him for giving it a go. This hobby needs more new DMs first and foremost.
bawylie wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
I guess my technique is to have a good story background and some cool scenes planned and a little bit of preparation for certain scenarios, from there I just go with what the players tell me they want to do and then react accordingly. Too much preparation leads to hurrying up the little stuff to get to the prepared stuff... this is where I think cool opportunities can be missed.
bawlie, your DM had some great opportunities for some cool scenes to bring your character and the game to life and he just didn't capitalize on them.
My first major campaign as a DM was with two characters, one good (A Knight) and one evil (A Warlock), wanting to achieve the same goal, the eradication of an evil cult. The cult had been out ransacking villages and collecting slaves for doing the dirty work or they sold them to gain money to fund their exploits.
The two characters were on a quest to an underground city (Skullport) to participate in a tournament to win a magic item they needed. While walking through the main square of the city, the knight spotted a familiar face up on the auctioning platform, it was his niece who had been taken as a slave and sold to the city and now the city was selling her to the highest bidder. This scene had nothing to do with the main story and could have been quickly glanced over, but it turned out to be a scene the players still talk about 16 years later.
The knight went up to auctioneer and ordered him to release his niece, the auctioneer looked at the night and smiled slightly and then leaned down and whispered, "family eh... I suggest you bid high."
The knight and another bidder kept outbidding one another until the knight ran out of money, that's when the player playing the evil character passed me a note that said he raises his hand and places a bid of a number of GP over the last bid. I narrated it as someone in the group of gathered poeple raises a hand and yells out a bid of a high amount of GP that no one counters. When the knight sees it was the warlock he goes to him and thanks him, the warlock's response, "no need to thank me, I didn't do it for you."
At the end of a session I used to ask for criticism on what the players would like to see happen in the game and things I could have done differently. I like to see scenes like the example above happen, but I have to admit, it was because the players wanted scenes like this in the game I was running and I'm glad they told me. There were many other scenes like this in the same game and I think it was because I never overplanned things, I had a skeleton of an idea and I wanted the players to make the story and to create the game they wanted to play in.
I sense something else: Your DM might be intimidated by you. In all cases he let you off easy with virtually no conflict. Either this was one boring scenario or he pulled his punches. I am betting on the latter.
I wasn't there so I don't know, but when I have been intimidated by a player (for any reason) I did exactly that-- handwaved with rolls all situations that I felt would initiate conflict with the intimidating player. I was good at covering for this, and it looked simply like a easy ride or scripted scenario from the other player's perspective.
Keep in mind, to be intimidating, you don't have to be a jerk, for there are many reasons a person can be intimidated unbeknownst to the other party. You DM for this guy right? It could be the simple fact that you're his usual DM.
I should point out the posting his failings on a public forum will not ease the intimidation factor any. In fact, I could be all wrong about him being intimidated, but should he see your OP now, he might just become gunshy about DMing for you in the future. 
Btw did you feel the consequences of your actions? Because I heard somewhere long ago that consequences of players actions show them that DM actually cares, and well it’s fun when the guy you bullied comes a couple days later with his friend to “tech” you a lesson : )
As the story goes, I’m trying to make structure of my scenario/campaign, and then let the player write the story in it.
TrueManiek wrote:
Still sounds like he didn't want to put in the effort required. The question is why, especially given how experienced you say he is. The big thing I noticed was that this was a mostly solo scenario about your character. What were the other players doing during this time?
This would also explain the assumptive handwaving with rolls you describe. He probably just wanted to get on with the rest of the game. This, of course, sucked for you, as your actions seemed to have been poo-pooed. The other players, however, might be happier for it. When a player goes on a personal quest, the others sit around bored-- except the one guy who helped you in this case. I have no idea how long all this took, but if it started taking some time, the DM might have been pressured to move things along.
So the big error I see is that the DM and the player involved (you) didn't involve the rest of the party so that all could be entertained. The DM seemed to have erred on the side of, "get it over with as quickly as possible," and that is unfortunate for what you describe could be a fun adventure for all at the table. Next time, instead of taking soldiers, take the party.
Now, here is where it gets tricky-- what if the other players don't want to go with you, or you don't want them along? This puts the DM in an awkward spot. If he takes the time and gives you the effort and responses your actions deserve, the others may sit for an hour or more. Or, he can quickly go over the highlights, resulting in the shallow play you describe above. Both options stink for someone. The only solution here is a solo game between you and the DM, so your gangster can roleplay, gain and defend all the turf she wants without taking game time away from the other players.
There is another way, the ability to smoothly scene swap, while everyone is playing solo everyone is still active, but I find very few DMs are capable of that. That is what I would have done. Also, should your quest started to really eat away time, I would be trying to intregrate the rest of the party into the events you describe. Heck, I would straight up ask you for help on that. Should you not help, or insist on going it alone, you might just get the shallow highlight reel unless things can be resolved quickly.
Another fun thing would be enlisting the other players to play the various NPCs you would likely encounter, but many players are not comfortable doing this, which can leave the DM in a tight spot too.
There is another possible reason for this to happen: Your DM just didn't give a squat about what you were trying to do. This is very common and the most likely reason of all why he did what he did. Since this seems to bother you enough to post about this, you need to talk to him....
...I know you are trying to "educate" us posters who might be DMs via this OP and that's fine. I am simply responding in kind as to the various reasons as to why this type of play can occur.
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
@Kishri
My "screen time" took less than 1 hour out of 5. There were 3 other players who carried the action. I was mostly background, bc I got shut down and chased off whenever I tried to be somewhere he didn't want me to be. 4 rolls in 5 hr session, asked for by the DM.
My question was „did you feel the consequences of your actions?” But I guess it is redounded now. You said you made yourself a lot of enemies, and there wasn’t many actions you took either way… (from what I gathered)
bawylie wrote:
Congratulations on 6000 posts Bawylie
Theros wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Hurray for meaningless dice rolls and process-sniffing!
Still, I don't want to take the guy over the coals - just illustrating the pitfall of putting story over game, or process over play, etc.
bawylie wrote:
I did ask him. He hadn't even realized he was doing it.
He'd written his own material.
He nicknamed himself Lawful Angry (or maybe his brother did?) but it's one of those things where it's teasing yet true.
I have no rival but myself.
Are you going to keep playing?
Theros wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Timborama wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I didn't raise it during game bc I have no desire to sidetrack the DM.
After session, the DM asked for feedback and I gave it.
The feedback I'd give then would be that it shouldn't be 'sidetracking' to correct the DM at the time when he misshears you.
Which would likely get "It's okay if you want to correct me when I misshear something, right when it happened"
Noon wrote:
I think it would be more teling if the issue continues into the following games. I didn't/don't see one game being a problem at all.
In Bawylie's defense, I could see him being quiet so not to disrupt the game, as what he describes is not a game breaker, just an annoying situation. The other, since he was waiting for feedback/resolution on scenes, he couldn't know if his actions were going to be addressed until the game was over (when it was obvious they weren't).
Now, Bawylie, should it happen again, and you post again about it, and you said nothing during game, you are getting your just desserts-- and I might hit you with the Shotgun of Speculation again. 
You're right - one game is not a systemic problem.
However, it's a pretty handy illustration of a common problem. DMs need to let the players actually play. By that I mean make meaningful decisions. Rolling dice isn't sufficient on its own, especially when directed what to roll (saving throws exempt, situationally).
bawylie wrote:
He cared enough to ask for feedback. And to admit it and express regret for having dictated decisions instead of asking for actions. You seem to think I'm lying, though, so I'm done here. Thanks.
I don't see any reason why you would need to be warned about that NPCs immunity to charm. That's just the risk you take when you cast any spell against a creature or NPC you know nothing about. I'm not sure why you would be expecting that the DM warn you. Immunities are mostly discovered through trial and error or via knowledge checks /information gathering.
The DM is also not required to use Passive Perception. He can alway ask for a roll or roll it secretly for you. The passive checks are simply a tool for the DM when he wants to speed things up and avoid using dice (as per the PHB). In this case, the DM thought there might be a chance that you didn't find a good escape route. We don't know what would have happened had your character failed that perception check.
With that said, it sounds like the players and the DM were making several assumptions and not being clear with each other.
This wasn't a situation where I knew nothing about the bounty hunter - it was humanoid, non fey, non magical, and appeared to be a human. There wasn't a saving throw or any indication of interference - just immunity, when all in-game evidence suggested nothing of the sort. Charm didn't work because the DM didn't want me to charm the bounty hunter - he wanted me to fight it.
bawylie wrote:
I think Bawylie’s saying that the DM gave no in game evidence that there was anything special about the bounty hunter before or after the charm. I consider it good form for the DM to mention when something isn’t normal. For instance when that player attacked the illusion of the ogre, he should have had some feedback from you that something wasn’t normal about it after the first attack failed. The players trust you to give them tactile feedback during the game, not have an excuse after they’ve made fools of themselves.
Just a thought.
Nah, that trust was abused. It was a railroaded game full of Gotcha!s. And not fun, for that reason.
Theros wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Theros wrote:
None of what I experienced was immersive. I didn't appreciate the gotcha or the railroad. It was off-putting, because I wasn't given an opportunity to actually play - just to throw dice whenever instructed. And the one decision I did make was shut down.
Thats a bad game. Don't do it. It sucks.
bawylie wrote:
Next session of this game is 10/25/14