@theAngryDM writes on a subject near and dear to our hearts over at Madadventurers.com.
Read it here!
Big takeaway for me: If the players knew the situation beforehand, would it still be a challenge? If the answer is no, it's a Gotcha!
Daganev wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Even Gotcha! can be fun in moderation. The trick is to avoid frustration. I've come to expect it in D&D. If you can imagine it, the truly unexpected will happen, sooner or later 
.
I personally think it's best to telegraph the threat the majority of the time however. This gives the players the benefit of the doubt. Let the players to see evidence of the pitfall and determin what it means, don't just dump 'em unceremoniously in a pit. It's more exciting sometimes if they're actively poking around with a 10 foot pole (provided the poking doesn't become a distraction from 'moving forward').
Still, I'm not adverse to the occassional Gotcha! It's part of D&D in my mind.
bawylie wrote:
Nice read. Thanks for sharing.
kalil wrote:
The Angry DM is awesome and insightful once again.
Karnos wrote:
The extra cool thing about this way of thinking is that it provides legit challenges and novelty for experienced players. I don't enjoy pretending to discover something. I'd rather be in new situations, even if they involve very familiar monsters. Designing encounters this way isn't easy, but that's some new fun for the DM too.
I generally dislike gotchas because it provokes pixelbitching type play - wandering around poking everything with a 10-foot poles, spending 20 minutes discussing how to open every chest, all that sort of play that I just find incredibly tedious. Even if the characters don't know about it, as a DM I'll usually try to tell the players.
Plus, I tend to find it a lot more interesting both as a player and a DM when the playeers know about the possible problem and can work out a solution, than when rocks fall, everyone dies.
I don't feel like encouraging this blog, so I am simply responding to what you wrote as if it was true.
bawylie wrote:
That's a good article and definitely brings up some well thought-out points. Before I offer any alternative thoughts, I want to make it clear that it was worth reading and a good guide to initial encounter design.
It does suffer, a bit, from hyperbole, though. That tendency to exaggerate to make a point in hopes that it can't be denied.
For example: Not every trap has to be in the center of a room, with easy work arounds. Honestly, that's insulting the intelligence of the creatures of a lair and the players' ability to overcome hazards.
Anyone remember Keep on the Borderlands and the Caves of Chaos from the old days? Kobold Lair. Before even the first chamber. An intersection with a trap. Why? Because kobolds are sly and notorious for their use of traps as deterrents to invasion or as weapons for survival.
Maybe it's the new generation but, man, there seems to be a lot of hand-holding we are expected to do as DMs these days. Players can't discover for themselves, we have to be absolutely sure that they are given everything they need to succeed before hand or else it's our fault for being a poor DM.
I agree, the Green Slime is a horrible creature that should never be used without warning and adequate indication of its dangers. No denying that. It's similar to having a medusa somewhere without at least giving the players warning (legend, lore, too-life-like statues, etc) that they are approaching one of those dreaded save-or-die situations.
But, really, you'll never convince me that players need everything spoon fed and set up for them or else you are a failure as a DM.
So, yes, it's a wonderful tale of how a gas mine with trolls created a perfect set-up for the genius of the players. Well done. Very customized to ensure party success and morale.
Thing is.
That gets boring after a while. Oh, look, we destroyed another room we could plan for and was spoon fed to our abilities.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of players that are quick thinkers capable of adapting to the situation as it arrives. You don't have to give them connect-the-dot encounters to allow them to succeed.
I know I am sounding very critical, and I really don't mean to. It's a good article with really good points. But it paints a very one-sided picture about how important it is for players to be telegraphed everything to ensure "fairness."
Who ever said that the Kobolds of Cave A had to be fair?
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Karnos wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
This is a pretty good article, but I would argue that information gathering is in of itself a valid challenge. A troll may become trivial if you know its weakness, but why not include a way to learn its weakness instead of assuming players know it? You could do it as part of the fight, or provide an NPC in town that warns them of the troll, or a babbling freed prisoner, or an ancient grimoire. If they're careful and cautious and don't rush into battle before gathering all the information, they're at a disadvantage, but if they find all the clues, it's an easy fight.
bawylie wrote:
At any rate, a DM who declares "you're all statues now because you didn't figure out all the clues" is not going to be a DM for very long.
Karnos wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I see dead people. The real gotcha is when the party goes into a dungeon where their life will be in constant jeopardy and they don't bring several level 1 cleric torch bearers to keep bless on them constantly and to drag the bodies out if things go wrong.
Karnos wrote:
Okay, I actually read the article. I like some of the ideas, but there are aspects I have major issues with.
For example, the basic statement- “would this still be a challenge if the players knew absolutely everything about it?” is incredibly deceptive. Why? Because the author's idea of a challenge includes shooting a green slime from range with ray of frost, with zero risk of failure, or even harm, befalling the party.
Based on *that* idea of challenge, nothing is really a gotcha, because apparently something as trivial as a 4-5 rounds worth of a timesink is considered a challenge. Not what I would call a challenge, but that is the author's choice.
The rest of the article described a style of play in which obvious clues are sprinkled around, along with situations that, when discovered for what they are, are trivially easy to complete, as long as you catch and follow the clues! TBH, it doesn't sound like a style I would enjoy playing or DMing fulltime. As a player, I've seen that sort of thing in a lot of computer games. Okay, I have the x & the y, but I need to kill the giant ettin. Oh, maybe I need to use them with z and... ah ha, that was it, victory! The playstyle tries to make the player feel smart by figuring out the puzzle, but it's really the sort of puzzles where the obvious answer is thrown in your face and even if you have a viable solution, if it isn't the intended obvious answer you will get punished for using it.
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
"challenge is about forcing the players to create their own victories"
i like that. I'm burning it into the walls of my DM-mind-palace right now.
Karnos wrote:
I read the entire article. It looks like something Iserith would say .
I would only classify a gotcha as something that the players cannot avoid. So I never use those sorts of gotchas. Gotchas though that can be avoided via pixel bitching are just player skill in my game. I don't require my players to state everything up front. My groups create "party" stances/formations that adopt a certain posture. Their highly worried about traps posture would easily find the green slime. We don't spend hours on it. We do behave in a way that I feel seems authentic. You can guarantee if I was dropped in a fantasy world and forced to go through a dungeon that I'd be pixel bitching the crap out of that thing and twice over for good measure.
I always try to view the trap from the creators perspective. If it blocks a passage then their has to be a way around it for the creator unless it's a dead end intended entirely as a trap for intruders.
The more exotic a trap the more likely I am to telegraph it. If it's a pit in the floor, then it has to be found via pixel bitching techniques mentioned above. I don't just give it away though so much as just make sure the environment is clear to the players so they can make the right inferences. So maybe telegraph is the wrong word.
I do dislike the AngryDM's blanket statements of fact concerning gotchas. I've read some of his stuff over the years but never something so in your face offensive.
emwasick wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Let me if I can revisit this when I am not rushed to get to breakfast by my wife. 
A gotcha is something that is only a challenge BECAUSE it was unexpected.
I think there are situations in which the party deserves encountering that green slime as a so called "gotcha". If they just charge through each room without a care or a player insists on wandering off with the intention of starting a combat encounter they deserve it. I'm not required to give them any warning. With that said, characters die all the time. A green slime is most likely not going to kill a PC, so as a DM I'm not going to worry too much. On the other hand, if the party has a means of resurection, I really don't care at all..
I also think that if the situation is plausible then it's not the result of bad DMing. A symbol of death (SoD), placed on the wall is most likely not going to make much sense, but if the players are chasing a necromacer through his lair, he just might create a "gotcha" out of that spell. Now if I was DMing, I might give the players a chance to detect some of the spell components used (diamond and opal dust ) on the floor and give them a spellcraft check, but I'm not required to do that.
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
pixelbitching
Much, much better way to put it than pole 'poking' .
That'll stick with me, even if li'l else from the thread does.
BTW It helps when you play D&DHD ('high-def') .
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
On a more serious note, I was also gonna add that in my XP pixelbitching can be avoided (most of the time at least) by just by letting the players know, up-front, that "Hey, there won't be a lot of Gotcha! in these games." Not to imply there won't be any o' course. So, there's not gonna be a lot of need for pole poking --just whenever I give 'em a nod, that's the que.
For better or worse, Gotcha! is part of D&D (people just seem to expect it). So as DM, I try not to frustrate them but by the same token, I don't want them frustrating me (and each other) with pixelbitchin'. Basically, when there's something to *look out for* I see it as my job (as DM) to draw their attention to the fact that *something* is up. It's their job (as players) to determine what that is, exactly.
Anyway, this is how I tend to operate in our games. Not sure where that places in relation to the philosophy of the original article (I only skimmed it); I did like it though. Thanks Bawylie for the link. Sorry for the quick double post BTW.
Karnos wrote:
I think a lot of the disagreement on this subject comes from different ideas on what things mean. (ie a challenge doesn't mean a difficult challenge)
On the earlier post about traps and kobolds I see it like this.
If the players walk into a kobolds lair and run into traps, even traps like one that is in the middle of an intersection and nearly impossible to avoid, I don't feel that's a "gotcha". They have every reason to assume the kobolds have traps everywhere.
However, if you have a 30ft pit trap filled with acid in the middle of the innkeepers basement, and the players were only expecting rats, that's a "gotcha".
The difference to me is the question "is it reasonable to assume traps?" followed by "is it reasonable to assume this deadly and sophisticated of a trap?" If your group always assumes traps, good, if your commoners have filled their field with land mines because you thought it was funny. Well, that's probably a gotcha. If they are renowned inventors, under siege by a deadly enemy, and there are scorch marks and holes on the edges of the field, it could be acceptable.
Crossing a land mine field is a challenge whether you know there are landmines or not.
Also, not telling your players there is green slime on the ceiling just because they didn't say "we check the ceiling" means you are assuming the characters don't know enough about adventuring to look at the ceiling. As a player I assume if there is something obvious like slime dripping from the ceiling, the DM will mention it. If they say nothing I assume it is unremarkable and unimportant.
Artifact wrote:
The whole article seems like a specific example of the general and famous principal of good adventure design, "failing forward."
Falling in a spike pit or having a green slime fall on your head is one of two things: either you're not moving carefully (so you don't get perception checks) or you're failing your checks to notice the danger. In either case, the result of your failure shouldn't be a horrible character-killing event, any more than one failed diplomacy roll against the local merchant should get the entire party hanged. Players should be able to "fail forward," learning from their mistakes, paying a reasonable price for them, and moving forward.
Chaosmancer wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
@Shaderaven,
Instead of Awful DM no-nos, maybe it's helpful to think of Gotcha!s as incomplete challenges that could be (ought to be) improved.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Here's a thought that first came to mind after seeing The Matrix, years ago. At the start of the movie, Neo is a mundane office worker. Then, the Agents come looking for him. It occurred to me that no matter what he did (even with the on-phone help of Morpheus), Neo was gonna end up being captured by the Agents. That's a Gotcha!, yeah?
So now, the others have to deal with the fact that they didn't get to Neo first. It was 'pre-ordained' that he be captured; nothing they could have done to prevent it (Gotcha!). The movie wasn't over, the story still had to be told, things just took a *different* course. Step one: Remove that funky 'bug'. Step two: Introduce Morpheus and the others. Heck, they didn't even have to spring Neo from custody, the story just sorta went with it --somehow .
I guess what I'm getting at is that Gotcha! doesn't have to be the end of the road. It's a speed bump, providing just enough of a jolt to be exciting. Too many speed bumps are frustrating though, so best to avoid that route whenever possible.
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
My takeaway from this thread:
I think it's amazing how many otherwise reasonable people think it's perfectly acceptable to call a style of play they dislike a word that is clearly deragotory. Like, you're not even trying to hide your bias.
Pixelbitching is outright an insult and you all know it. Why do you think it's acceptable? You'd fight tooth and nail against me calling narrativist styles anything remotely comparable.
I don't think the capture was a Gotcha! It was a railroad.
"How are you going to make a phone call when you have no mouth?" is a Gotcha!
Neo was unaware of the "rules" of the matrix and they were used against him malignantly. However, once he became aware of that sort of crap, other weirdo stuff ("You think that's air you're breathing?" & superman flight) is legitimized.
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Artifact wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Narrativism doesn't come into play for any of this.
Pixel Bitching has been part of our gaming lexicon since before Diablo 1.
Its not a play style, it's an annoying byproduct of messy design.
Emerikol doesnt like the term, but when we drill down to it, even he agrees that the behavior described is tedious. Instead, he and his players assume all that stuff is going on without requiring everyone to play through every single bit of it. Playing every bit of it WOULD be pixel bitching.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thanks for the link, bawylie; I agreed with most of what it said, and those parts I didn't agree with gave me something to think about.
To everyone else, I decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
What term best describes your playstyle, ankiyavon?
Poke-n-prod is what I've always called it. Pixelbitching is a new word for me but I agree, it's not for everyone. Just curious if there's a more universal term.
ankiyavon wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I think the "slap-n-tickle" is a better option than the "poke-n-prod," but then "gotchas" take on a whole new meaning in that context.
I didn´t read all, but I really start digging the investigation and perception as different skills:
Passive perception 15+ : you notice the green slime and maybe even some bones on the floor
passive perception 14-: make a perception vheck if you look around actively. You may notice green slime
Investigation 15+: you are sure that the bones and the slime are connected
ankiyavon wrote:
It's not that I'm not willing to discuss, it's that I've been playing with the same bunch of jerks (not players, JERKS!) for years now. When it comes to Dm-ing and not providing Gotchas, I have a very specific skill set which would probably be a horrible, horrible fit at any of the thousands of tables across this broad land of ours, but is totally suited to my home game.
Speaking seriously, I came away from the article thinking about how, ever since they introduced the skill system in 3e, there's been a whole new sort of save-or-die called "failed your Spot/Perception/Whatever check." I think if the same skill is used to define surprise in combat and avoid hazards (that fuzzy area between traps and combat; Green Slime, Brown Mold, etc) then you're playing with fire in terms of Gotchas, because it's so easy to say, "Failed your spot check, apply maximum damage!"
. . . Not that a responsible DM would do that! 
ShadeRaven wrote:
Qmark wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Or for another bad anology, Lucas popping a vein when someone in the party suggests abandoning Yavin and setting up again on Dantooine, where the Empire just got done not finding a rebel base.
I think we've somehow derailed the thread into a whole 'nother thing entirely, when it's really about DMs plopping slimes on players heads just to be a 70s-style ass about it.
Qmark wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Let's say you didn't use Passive Perception. What do you do to resolve an ambush, under the following constraints?
1.) You must telegraph (somehow, some degree)
2.) You don't want to tip off the players as to the timing or location of the ambush (so you can't ask them to make Wisdom (Perception) checks.
3.) The only time you can call for a check is if/when a player takes an action and the outcome of that action is in doubt.
How about it?
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Apologies for jumping in on a mature thread and possibly repeating something that has already been said...
I think this issue really boils down to the fundamental mechanic at play in a tabletop RPG– that the DM describes the setting then allows the players to make choices in reaction to that setting. It's choice that is the key concept here. I don't mean choice in the Quantum Ogre sense of "players should get to choose what happens to their characters" but rather choice in the sense of "players should be able to be meaningfully proactive or reactive to what the DM describes."
I think part of what Angry was getting at when he talked about the "challenge that is still a challenge if the players know about it" is really just using another description for choice. If the players know there is a pit in the random intersection ahead, then they wouldn't really have to decide between falling into the pit or not falling into the pit. As long as falling in the pit and taking damage is the core mechanism of the pit (or rather, the core reason for the pit being there), it doesn't really represent a choice for the players, hidden or not. There isn't even a meaningful choice to be made after falling in the pit– you take your damage, then climb out. Now, you might just decide to have the players walk around poking the floor with their 10' pole, perhaps making them do a Search check each time they do. But that isn't really a choice either. If you have it so they simply find the pit if they poke it, then they know the pit is there, and its not a true choice for them to avoid it. If you are making them run Search checks, then you are in effect saying "If you roll this dice and get under a certain number, I might make you fall in a pit." In either case, the core mechanic of the pit isn't a choice, and thus it isn't a challenge. You aren't actually giving your characters a meaningful choice proactively– you are just making them take random damage or making them say a catch-all phrase to you to skip over the "challenge" entirely.
Now, where I think Angry didn't take the idea far enough is that you can have a hidden pit (or whatever) and not give the players any kind of clue that its there and still avoid the pit being a Gotcha as long as you make it so the core mechanic of the pit *isn't* simply you fall in and take damage. Let me make the pit example a bit more evocative by way of explanation. Say your players are delving deep into some forgotten underground city, and come across an ancient stone bridge over a chasm. Now, as a DM, what you want to have happen is you want the players to start crossing the bridge only to have it crumble beneath them, trapping them down in the lower levels of the chasm. You are doing this because you want the challenge to be "find a way to safety." You still have the same idea– there is a pit that the players can fall into– but the core mechanic of the pit now isn't just to cause damage, but rather to put the characters into a dangerous situation they they have to figure out how to get out of. They can take meaningful reactions to the event, so they still have their choice.
Now, if you really wanted to be a good DM, you could extend the scene a bit, and let your players know that the bridge might be unsound before crossing (eg. "The stonework in this ancient city looks brittle. You wonder if you are the first people to lay eyes on it in a thousand years"). If they get to the bridge and cross, then it crumbles like normal and you've satisfied your goal of getting them trapped while making the experience meaningful. If the players instead decide to poke the bridge with their pole and find out that it is unsound, then they feel pretty good that they've avoided the fall. However, you now haven't gotten them to the bottom of the chasm. What to do? Simply have something else occur! They hear an ominous growl from the tunnel behind them, or the tremors from the collapsing bridge have dislodged a stone that has blocked their passage back. Now they have to go down (or suffer some bad consequence), but they still can make meaningful choices (how to climb down safely, etc.) and can still feel like their original choice (to test the bridge) was meaningful since, well, at least they can climb down into the chasm without falling and taking damage now.
What is wrong with Passive Perception?
I think it is great:
1) When a creature is attempting to sneak up on the heroes, you don't need to give it away by saying, "Everyone make Perception checks." If you roll high enough, the Players don't know anything, which is perfect. If you roll low, some or all of the Players get a message and can decide how to act.
2) It elegantly handles the issue of exploration. As Emerikol said, anyone placed in a dungeon is going to be checking EVERYTHING. His group uses a list of "Dungeon Exploration Procedures" to handle this. Passive Perception does the same. Consider a situation without it:
First dungeon - players don't say anything, surprised by a pit trap.
Second dungeon - players describe in detail how they examine every square inch of floor, surprised by dart trap in the wall.
Third dungeon - players describe in detail how they examine every square inch of floor and walls, surprised by falling slime from the ceiling.
etc.
Eventually you have the group taking 10 minutes to examine every 5 ft square, and STILL missing stuff. "Ah-ha!" declares the triumphant DM. "You forgot to say that you examined the underside of the door knob!" And now you add a new thing to the list.
Passive Perception gets around all that.
I think the key is to realize that there are second order challenges. "Can you find the pit trap" is a first order challenge. It requires no cleverness beyond thinking to ask the right question at the right time. It thus becomes rote memorization: describe in detail the list of things you do in every situation. A second order challenge asks, "Ok, now that you know THIS, what are you going to do about it?"
I long ago decided that secrets are meant to be discovered. The point of putting a secret door, hidden trap, disguised treasure, etc. into an adventure is for the Players to find it. The fact that it was hidden gives some information and leads to questions: who hid it, and why? What is its purpose? A secret door (or other concealed object) that isn't discovered is pointless.
Arithezoo wrote:
I see Passive Perception not really as something that would (or should) get a lot of use during play, but rather as an easy reference for the DM when designing encounters. "I want to set up an ambush for the party, what creatures should I use?" is a lot easier to figure out when you can just glance at a number on a character sheet. And it gives the DM something to fall back on if they are ever confronted with a player complaining that their super perceptive character should have been able to spot that goblin a mile away even though they didn't roll for perception.
EDIT: Also for situations where I want to be lazy and let the dice decide if the players notice something or not.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
vacthok wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I'll also add that an example of "Gotchas" done right is the Mines of Madness module that was released with one of the playtest packets. The very initial Outhouse trap is brilliant: it telegraphs itself (the sign *does* say "Keep Out!") but does so in such a way that it almost invites players to trigger it. When the trap is triggered, the consequence is hilariously lethal, but it still manages to (A) set the tone for the entire adventure, (B) open up an area for the players to explore, and (C) even change how a future encounter plays out and telegraph *that* danger instead.
The whole scenario is packed with traps like that, and it is *supremely* fun to run!
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
No, by definition, a riddle cannot be a Gotcha! A riddle is a question that answers itself cryptically.
Because it contains everything required to solve itself, a riddle can't be a Gotcha!
bawylie wrote:
Noon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Noon wrote:
emwasick wrote:
So I'll restate what I said earlier with more details 
In a computer game, gotchas are really not the best way to do things. They are generally always a bad way to do things, because it leads directly to save/reload with no sense of accomplishment to the player. Even more so, it causes the player to save/reload often, and almost never leads to the player being "more careful" or anything of that sort. It's just another point to hope you saved at the right point. And if there are pre-set save points, then it only frustrates players who have to play the same thing over again.
However in an open ended roleplaying game, gotchas for some groups of players are lots of fun. There is now slime disolving a party member, how do we fix it? Ahh that lovely sense of panic sits in, the emotional roller coaster is fun, we will find a way out of this, and if we don't, and we don't have fun, we will tell the DM and they will never put us through it again. We've now learned what we like and don't like. Gotchas are only a problem for players who don't like them. It's a choice, and not one that others can declare to be good or bad. But for video game design, they are certainly bad, because for 80% of the audience, they serve no good purpose, and you can't easily reprogram the game to take them out.
Consider this contrived example:
DM: You see a cave. Outside the cave is a sign saying "Beware of the pit trap in the entrance"
Elf: We go into the cave
DM: Make a Dexterity save
Elf: I roll 4
DM: You miss your footing and fall into a pit. Roll 1d6 for damage.
Elf player: That's not fair. My character doesn't know anything about entrances.
DM: Huh?
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
emwasick wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Qmark wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Personally, I strive to design my dungeons without the party in mind at all. I want to create an environment that is consistent with the world and those who built/inhabit the dungeon. Obviously within reason I want it to be level appropriate though I admit I blur that more than many of you do. I want my players believing they are in a real world (or at least suspending their disbelief for a short while) so I don't want the game showing any more than it has to show.
If I were infinitely fast at creating dungeons, I'd just create everything in the world up front. I'm not. My goals though in all fairness are not to ever target the PCs nor is it to cater to them either.
I'm fine with things needing to be hidden in order to be a challenge (or gotcha) both as a DM and player. Some riddles, puzzles, traps, hazzards, secret passages, poisons, curses, diseases, cursed items, ambush with weak monsters etc.. can see their purposes or challenge defeated if told of them in advance.
So i don't share all the sentiment expressed by AngryDM on the subject.
Noon wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
kalil wrote:
bawylie wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
kalil wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
kalil wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
kalil wrote:
Riddles are so meta...
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I don't understand your bulletproof argument, so I cannot agree with it.
For the 1 cp thing to work, that cp has to be enticing. If it's as ubiquitous as the penny, then a single cp isn't a sufficient enticement - I can get one anywhere, at very little personal risk.
IMO the point of an enticement is that it must be enough that it causes someone to credibly assess the level of personal risk against the reward. 1 cp doesn't hold up, for me.
(You also make the point that using a cantrip isn't challenging. That's true, but that misunderstands the challenge. The challenge is still to bypass the slime. The solution is the cantrip. It's a good solution, and the players found it through learning, then applied the knowledge. That seems like good gaming to me).
So it doesn't turn the "whole theory" into absurdist bunk. What you've done is created a literalist argument and defeated it. If that's good enough for you, then okay! But it's a sham position you've taken down, and that's obvious to anyone.
As for me, I'm not interested in how you play your game. Nor am I trying to tell you how you should structure your challenges. You have my blessing to run whatever game you like, however you want.
Anyway, enough from this right-wing-anarcho-leftist-hippy-Christian-(and whatever else I get called around here). Happy gaming!
Probably best to move on anyway bawylie, I think I saw Anthony Edwards lurking with a paintball gun, so...
mboss77 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Karnos wrote:
emwasick wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
First, regarding Green Slime: I think this hazard is best used as a "how can you get past this?" challenge, rather than a "ha ha! you didn't specifically say that you were looking UP!" punishment. Honestly, how hard is it to notice a strange green ooze covering the ceiling? So whether you give abundant clues and opportunities for the players to figure out the abilities and weaknesses of the Green Slime beforehand, or if you just spring it on them ("The hallway ahead has a green slime coating the entire ceiling"), they have to decide: deal with it or turn back.
Next, for what its worth, 4th Edition talked about "Gotchas" and game transparency in the DMG and in Dragon 375.
DMG (pg 26-27):
"Gotcha!" Abilities: Pay attention to monster abilities that change the basic rules and tactics of combat, and give players the cues they need to recognize them. Describe the ability as it might appear in the game world, and then describe it in game terms to make it clear.
Game States, Conditions, and Effects: Since PC abilities can sometimes hinge on a game state, condition, or effect that affects their opponent, make it clear to the players how their enemies are doing. Be descriptive, considering the source of the condition, but also be explicit.
Hazards, Traps, and Obstacles: Be sure to include any important setting details the players need to know. If the PCs can sense a hazard or obstacle, you should emphasize that element. It's better for the game if the PCs sense hints of impending danger. Tell the players how dangerous something looks, or tell them the PCs aren't sure how dangerous something is, and more investigation might be required. A little prompting can go a long way. Further, knowing that something might be dangerous actually builds tension and fun. A hazard that springs out of nowhere has none of that appeal.
That last part perfectly illustrates how to use the Green Slime.
Dragon 375 (pg 15-20):
Not surprisingly, the main point is that the DM should "Do whatever makes the game more fun for the most people at the table. In other words: Fun = Good; if Transparency = Fun, then Transparency = Good."
It then describes how to tailor transparency to your gaming group.
Once again, this illustrates the silliness of most of the arguments on this forum. One person explains how they do things, and another person gets mad, saying, "I'd never play in a group like that!" But that is missing the point. You DON'T play in a group like that. You play in YOUR group. Transparency, like all other aspects of DMing, must be tailored to each individual group.
There is no "right" or "wrong" way beyond what your players like and don't like.
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
That's a Mischaracterization of Iserith's point.
& Oreth, that's a semantic, legalistic argument, again. Ignoring the overall point for nitpicking definitions. I refuse to believe you can't or don't understand the larger concept.
My favorite bit from the article is:
This comes up frequently in arguments about metagaming. Take the classic troll argument. In D&D, a troll almost instantly recovers from all injuries not caused by fire or acid. Any player that knows that will immediately start lobbing flasks of flaming oil at the troll while the wizard throws flaming spheres and acid arrows. So, the average DM freaks out and screams “your characters can’t possibly know the weakness of trolls, stop ruining the game with your metagaming!”
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
[quote="Orethalion"]
bawylie wrote:
I, apparently, do not use troll enough in my campaigns. I did not realize the troll was so, well, trolling.
Do I contradict myself when I saw I do not like the punch line to theAngryDM's prose but I agree that a DM should never pass judgment on whether or not a PC can know something so ordinary as if trolls can regenerate and how to overcome it?
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rakshasa? If we're referring to the crossbow bolt with a bless spell on it, the playtest rakshasa required that to crit in order to work. So players would have to find a way to increase their critical hit range with a crossbow to make that a more reliable tactic. So even knowing it ahead of time, they're likely going to have to expend some resources.
Not to mention that the rakshasa of the playtest has dispel magic as one of its spells, so it can just hit the crossbow-wielding character that is blessed with it and negate the spell. Or have it and all of the rest of the creatures in the scene focus fire on the cleric to try and break his concentration to end the bless spell. You can also have it cast blur on itself as well (or mirror image if that gets added to the spell list).
Or you can add some cool terrain features like whirling sandstorms that impart disadvantage to ranged weapon attacks. (This would be not unlike the trolls in the mine with explosive gas pockets.)
I'd never have to tell a player to "stop metagaming!!11!!" or give him a stern warning after the game.
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos,
Insofar as you've admitted to trying to bait me prior to this, I don't feel you're trying to discuss these things in good faith.
Im simply not into arguing for the sake of arguing and I don't think you and I can have a productive discussion.
So the only sensible thing I can do is to bow out from discussing this with you further. Sorry.
Best,
-Brad
See what I mean, folks?
edit: Now adding "rabid dog" to the list of things I get called in this forum. The list is rounding out nicely.
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
animea90 wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I dislike player metagaming. I don't though attack players when they do it. I create a world that makes it hard for them to do it. I create a lot of my own monsters and I refluff and reenvision a lot of others. I never just say they see a beholder or a troll. I describe it. And sometimes, I change up something's appearance.
In the long run metagamers in my world end up worse off.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
My collecton of Rot Grubs and Book Worms are not very happy with this guy.
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
emwasick wrote:
bawylie wrote:
zgrose wrote:
I think there is a lot of good advice in AngryDM's blog entry, but I would never judge a DM or adventure badly if it had interesting "gotcha" moments. With the right group of players, who expect bad things to happen and even look upon character death, when the PC is roleplayed according to the PC concept, as a notch on the player's belt, "gotcha" moments can be celebrated. That said, to me there are two things that stop something from being a "gotcha" situation. First, there is telegraphing as others have mentioned. The other one is using Wisdom perception (including passive perception) properly.
Prior to using passive perception, as DM, I didn’t want to make exploration something that the players were doing. For example, the rogue player states that he looks carefully into the room before they enter. Relying on players to make this decision at every corner and every room with each 5’ step they take becomes tedious. Instead, I wanted the rogue player character to make the decision. The only way to achieve that was to give him a perception check as he neared the open door, so over time, I just asked every player to roll perception checks whenever they moved into or near a new location. Sometimes I’d use the information, sometimes I wouldn’t. It worked well because I used the perception check so often, the players could never guess which ones were “real” and which ones were just for setting the mood. It also helped me point out details and give hints to telegraph possible dangers. Although it worked, it was a lot of dice rolling, which slowed down the flow of the game.
Since I’ve adopted using passive perception, I don’t have to call for all those rolls. All I do now is narrate and see which PCs are in position to see/hear/smell something, and viola – reveal more or keep more hidden.
Passive perception works especially well when creatures roll stealth secretly. But, some argue that traps with pre-set DCs make passive perception “automatic” success or failure, which is boring (and of course would seem more like a "gotcha"). Here’s my solution. Don’t make pre-set DCs for traps. Make a d20 roll to determine how well the trap was made or disguised. If you like, you can even add proficiency and ability score bonus for the skill of the builder. Those crafty kobold traps (d20+2)….but wait…that clan had a trap master, those traps are d20+6. Watch out for the trip wire the 10th level rogue set; it’s d20+8.
bawylie wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TheAngryDM wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
No group, or player, or DM is universal.
What one sees as a "gotcha", someone else won't. Some are going to complain about anything that doesn't involve their character knowing everything so they can always have the best results, while some just see it as part of the game and interacts with it accordingly.
Nobody should be judged on how they DM unless it is something blantantly uncalled for.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I would say one should avoid Gotchas that can easily result in character death or make the fight extremely unfair, but they can be used in small measures to make a battle interesting. I remember one of our favorite fights was against this water snake from the 4e Tomb of Horror. The party didn't have a lot of warning about it (they had found a cryptic clue suggesting that the treasure in the lake was guarded), but when the creature attacked my players enjoyed having to change their tactics to counter the monster's strategy (IIRC, it grabbed one player at a time, merging with the water and trying to drown them). The fight was pretty fast, but it was a nice change of pace from the usual "swing your sword at it" gameplay. I agree that telegraphing is important to avoid particularly dangerous Gotchas, but sometimes it can be fun to watch your players adjust to a new element mid-fight.
Lord_Markelhay wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
In retrospect, pixel hunting was a poor metaphor on my part, because the whole "one and only one pixel to proceed" bit was not applicable to the "gotcha" discussion. I'll try again.
Suppose that you're in a class, and the instructor says "there will be a text next week on chapters 1-3." You study chapters 1-3, but when the test rolls around there's a question based on material in chapter 4. You're likely to feel pretty pissed, you weren't prepared for chapter 4 and you had no reason to expect that you should have been. A gotcha is the same way. You feel you had no reason to expect that you needed to mention "I'm checking the ceiling," or some such, so it isn't fair. In the same way that you expect a professor to warn you what material is on the exam, you expect the DM to warn you what sort of threats you might face. Different people have different expectations about the specificity of that warning. Maybe "you're in a dungeon designed by people who wanted to kill intruders" is enough. Maybe you want to be warned that this room specifically has a trap in it somewhere. That's a question of preference. The less specific the warning, the more time you're going to need to spend preparing for it. If you've got to search every square inch of the dungeon 5 different ways to be reasonably assured of not getting killed, it's going to take a while (just like if the professor said "I reserve the right to test you on any material known to man" it would take you a while to study). If on the other hand, the DM gives you a melted toad covered in green slime, you can really focus your preparations down to defeating that one challenge. You don't need to poke everything with a ten foot poll or describe in minute detail every direction you look, you already know the threat is on the ceiling and you just look up (just like you can limit your studying to chapters 1-3). How specific the warning should be depends on how much time you want to spend preparing for threats you won't actually face, which is a question upon which reasonable minds might differ.
Regardless of how you answer that question, though, a gotcha occurs when the threat is outside of the range you felt warned about. It is subjective, and different people can have different interpretations of the scope of threats they were "warned of." But that, to me, is the gotcha, the fact that the threat (seemingly, to you) was something you didn't know you were supposed to be preparing for. If you know that failure to scout ahead can result in being ambushed on the road, it's not a gotcha even if you weren't expecting to be ambushed right now. If you don't know that failure to tell the DM that you're checking the ceiling can result in green slime killing you, it's a gotcha (to you, but wouldn't be to someone who did know to tell the DM he's checking the ceiling). The key take away, though, is that the necessary information is about the existence of threats, not how those threats can be overcome. Just like the professor doesn't need to give you the questions in advance, or tell you which subissues within the tested chapters he will ask about, or even tell you how to study. You might even be fine with pop quizzes where any and all material covered even in assigned reading not yet discussed in class is fair game. But you'd probably want to be warned in advance that such pop quizzes could occur. It's up to the players to actually do the studying: to decide what precautions would be a good idea against the range of potential threats, to explore the skeletal toad to figure out that the slime is vulnerable to cold, and work out how to use that vulnerability to overcome the challenge. But they are more likely to enjoy the game if, after the encounter, they are left feeling "I should have known better" or "I'm glad I did know better," than if they are left feeling "I had no way of seeing that coming." Partly because the latter feels unfair, and partly because you've lost an opportunity to enjoy creatively preparing because you did not know you were supposed to be preparing for something. Mind you, figuring out the information needed to prepare can be a kind of preparation, and it can be fun. But you at least need to know that you need to figure out the information. You don't need to be told the answers, just that you need to look for them.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
emwasick wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
One thing that strikes me is IF (note the IF) you're one of those 'anything can happen!' claim making sorts of players (or DM), if you don't want the slime on the roof - well, that's one thing that can't happen in your game (without complaining occuring). Probably along with a whole bunch of other stuff.
If you're prepared to admit a whole bunch of things are precluded from play though, then no worries.
Noon wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Fake difficulty comes from a few different sources:
1. Removal of player skill from outcomes. This was constant in classic D&D modules - no matter what players did, at least a few times in an adventure, they'd hit a point where the module said "Save vs. Death or die." That's fake difficulty because the player isn't challenged - they die, or they don't, with no input other than the choice to play in the first place. Choices made without signposting can contribute to this - if the right passage and left passage look the same, but the right leads to a Save vs. Death or die and the left leads to a normal encounter and some treasure, the player didn't have a meaningful choice (they picked randomly - essentially the same as having the dice make the decision). The green slime tends to be an example of this form of fake difficulty - without signposting and without the GM assuming the PCs are competent enough to look around everywhere when the players say "We move cautiously" or something similar, player skill is removed from the equation and thus PCs die or don't without any input from the player.
2. Other stuff. I already made my point; why would I keep talking?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
kalil wrote:
It's funny. I believe if we all were forced into these old school adventures (forget the monsters for a second) and had to go through these trapped areas that we'd find out real quick that some skill is involved.
That is the problem. Those who hate the old school play experience encountered these things as truly random events most of the time. They were truly random events though in the games of people who did like old school play though. Yes you had to prepare and over time that involved developing cautious approaches that eventually at least in my game became systematized. For all the reasons that such things would.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Another common form of gotcha I've seen in games: The GM and players having different ideas of what a player's declarations of actions mean. This goes back to the "pixel hunt" question from earlier.
I never make my players specify where they're looking, only that they're looking. I assume that a competent group of adventurers moving cautiously through a corridor are looking everywhere - at least as well as their Perception rolls dictate - and thus they don't need to specify that they're watching the ceiling. Perception proficiency and/or a decent Wisdom tell me their character knows to look up once in a while.
Other GMs have different attitudes. That's fine - I think it's a little silly, but it's fine. But having a player whose expectations are more in the vein of what I do informed via character death that a campaign is being run in a less-friendly way? Gotcha.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
As someone full of "grognartude" (actually, I have enjoyed every edition, but understand that defending the old automatically labels you), I am going to rally around my old buddies (the 1970s & 1980s modules).
In a "medusa" scenarios that come to mind, even the Gotcha!(s) were give a post-gotcha! out. The trove of the basilisk that just happened to have 2 doses of Stone to Flesh lying in wait. Details on how to rescue someone from a Soul Jar (further questing). Etc.
A Gotcha! itself doesn't have to end there. It can be a plot device (not one you want to use often, but it should be in the tool shed), for instance, that advances the story in some manner.
Plaguescarred wrote:
An old-school Fake Difficulty.
Elves had a base-rate to detect nearby secret doors. One adventure in particular had secret doors that shut down that ability completely. There was no in-game reason for it - it was purely a contrivance to make secret doors N% harder to find. There was no alert given to the players that rules of the game had changed, nor facts of the world. They played as normal, the ground shifted under them without telling them. Fake difficulty. And a Gotcha! for using their ignorance against them maliciously.
Now, while not everything in the S series is a crap Gotcha! or fake difficulty, it was the beginning of dungeon design and by modern standards, it's now a mess. There's a TON of GREAT stuff. But they're also riddled with fake difficulty and Gotcha!s. Okay for then. Nobody knew how to do it better. Not so good anymore. Those particularly egregious offenders can be re-written to be the same difficulty only allow now for skilled & smart play.
Complaints about old school dungeons doesn't mean the whole thing is crap. We can like some things and recognize that others need drastic improvement.
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Tomb of Horrors, as it was originally designed, is sort of an entity in-and-of itself (in my opinion, at least). The Kobayashi Maru of AD&D.
I think it's a bit unfair to label all the "S" series as such. I plan on converting Expedition, for instance, to 5E and giving it a facelift for fun. I expect the players to enjoy it when I do so.
bawylie wrote:
I've converted The Siniester Secret of Saltmarsh for nearly every edition since its publication.
It's an excelent starter game, and a good balance between investigation, socalization, and combat. Heck, the module is practically a Scooby Doo adventure!
Jinkey!
I counter the Tomb of Horrors "gotcha's" by straight up telling people " This place is built with ridiculously difficult traps that will kill you with little warning. You're character will die, your back-up will die, and there's a good chance your third stringer will die. Approach with extreme caution."
Of course, I've never had the chance to run it, so I'm mostly going off of it's rep, but anybody who's been told that's what this place is and goes in anyways is expecting that sort of nastiness. Making it an unnamed random tomb in your normal game would be incredibly unfair... in fact, if a DM put us through the Tomb without letting us know what was happening that might qualify as a crime in some states
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote: