Basic Background: I've been in a 4e game for alittle over 2 years now, and while I think our group could work better together, we have a good time. One of our players used to play a knightish Mul Fighter who was abit headstrong, but very loyal/protective. He recently changed over to a new character, a bodyguard Dragonborn Warden, who so far is also headstrong but seems less moral.
Reckless Act: So in last night's session we were in a new city trying to uncover a hidden artifact. We had no leads with local merchants, but we found a gnome university professor who seemed to have heard of it. In the short time we talked to him he showed mastery at a few spells, and could see through our disguises. We scared him off while trying to maintain our deceptive cover story, so we decided to leave a note at his office apologizing for the deception and asking if he could contact us. We were about to leave, when someone suggested that we ransack the office so the gnome would think others were also after the artifact and he would come to us quicker. Another and I said that was foolish because a) there actually were bad guys also after it already, b) we shouldn't push our luck trying to deceive our only lead again, and c) he showed extra ordinary magic ability and probably guards his office. We seemed to all agree, when suddenly the dragonborn player: announces he was bored, says he wants to ransack the office, kicks open the door setting off a magical explosion which hits the whole party, then while we attempt to put out the flames which engulfed the office he jumps out the window and runs off, leaving us to deal with the university guards. He might as well been yelling "Leeroy Jenkins!" the whole time.
Problem: So now our party is in a much tighter spot then it could have been. I'm confident that we will get out of it and push on, yet I am concerned about the dragonborn player endangering us again. If we are in a dungeon crawl or surrounded by enemies he can charge around all he wants; but it seems very rude when we role play and he does the same thing. One the one hand, I'm not sure if I should say something player-to-player about him being more of a team player. And on the other hand, I'm not sure how my kindhearted Halfling Chef Fighter should react in-game. The DM after the game said he didn't think it would be out of line for my character to give him a talking to, but my character's never done anything like that before and I have no idea how to approach it.
Any advice on how to handle this in-game and out would be much appreciated!
As far as "endangering"... you're adventurers. You should be PUTTING yourselves in danger and loving every minute of it. Now, there is no excuse for him blocking YOUR idea if you want to do something in particular such as talk rather than fight. Again, "Yes, and..." solves this issue. The key is getting everyone on the same page.
This is NOT an in-game issue. It should not be handled in-game. It's not just him that's not being a team player. It's the rest of you as well.
We were about to leave, when someone suggested that we ransack the office so the gnome would think others were also after the artifact and he would come to us quicker. Another and I said that was foolish because a) there actually were bad guys also after it already, b) we shouldn't push our luck trying to deceive our only lead again, and c) he showed extra ordinary magic ability and probably guards his office.
Emphasis mine. This is where the problem starts. Rather than accept the idea of that player and build on it to make it better, it was picked apart and shot down. This is very common in gaming groups and is a sign of failure mitigation. Every plan has to be perfect else we pay the price. Well, the thing is "the price" is interesting. It's where the action and drama is. Not every plan need be fullproof and talking it to death will result in pacing problems in the game and ultimately bored players. Bored players, as you see here, lash out.
Our group would have handled it this way:
PC1: Hey, maybe we should ransack the place a little to make it seem like others who are also interested in the McGuffin are hot on the trail.
PC2: Yes, let's do that. Just make sure to be careful not to really damage anything or set off any traps.
PC3: Be quick about it, too.
PC1: Okay, I start ransacking a bit, just to back up our story and maybe create a sense of urgency in this NPC.
DM: Okay, sounds good. It seems like failure might be interesting here and you're definitely gaining a benefit from the attempt, so I'm going to call for a skill check. If you succeed, your ruse works and the NPC will be more agreeable. If you fail, you set off a trap of some kind and will have to deal with it. Agree?
PCs: Yeah. What is that, a Bluff?
DM: Yeah, Bluff, Thievery maybe. Stealth to cover your tracks? Whatever you think works here, just tell me what you're doing before making the check so I have some fictional context to work with. If more than one of you are working on this, we'll make it a group check. If half of you make it, you succeed.
PCs roll and we play to find out what happens.
We seemed to all agree, when suddenly the dragonborn player: announces he was bored, says he wants to ransack the office, kicks open the door setting off a magical explosion which hits the whole party, then while we attempt to put out the flames which engulfed the office he jumps out the window and runs off, leaving us to deal with the university guards. He might as well been yelling "Leeroy Jenkins!" the whole time.
The trap and ensuing magical explosion strikes me as blocking by the DM and "punishment" for the dragonborn's actions. See example above. DM asked the party what failure might look like and got the players to buy in. They knew the risks explicitly and decided to do it.
If we are in a dungeon crawl or surrounded by enemies he can charge around all he wants; but it seems very rude when we role play and he does the same thing.
First, combat IS roleplaying. What you're referring to is in-character interaction with NPCs.
Yes, it is rude if you want to talk to an NPC or monster and he smashes it. That's HIM blocking YOU, just like in scene you cited above it was you guys blocking another player. Neither is acceptable if you want a smoothly running game with good pacing.
The DM after the game said he didn't think it would be out of line for my character to give him a talking to, but my character's never done anything like that before and I have no idea how to approach it.
It's not out of line for your character to take issue with his character. But really the problem originates with the players, not the characters. So you really need to discuss it as a group. The "Yes, and..." approach solves ALL of these issues. It's not an in-game problem.
Here's some advice to give to your DM as well with regard to PC planning:
Encourage your players to accept the ideas of others. If someone comes up with a plan, address it as if it's the only plan and ask the players to add onto it, not come up with their own separate plans. If everyone comes up with a plan of their own, that likely means that you've spent WAY too much session time on the issue. It also means that - since only one plan is likely to be used anyway - 4 other people get the shaft. It's better to back the first plan that comes up and add your own spin to it rather than say why it can't work and come up with something else. This way, everyone gets their ideas included and the game moves forward.
Good luck, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions on this approach.
I recommend talking as a group about how to make failure interesting, instead of boring and punitive. This doesn't mean that things can't be realistic: yes, obviously this NPC would have kinked the office, but it doesn't have to be an explosion. It could be the room filling with gas (is it real or an illusion?) giving the players scant moments to do what they're planning. The gas (if it's real) won't kill them or knock them out, but will do something interesting. If the DM can't figure out what that should be, then they should ask the players. If no one can think of anything interesting for the failure, then it just shouldn't occur, or should occur but be handled in some way.
There's realism, then there's "realism." Realism is the room being trapped. "Realism" is the room being trapped in such a way that even if you set off the trap it's a scene everyone feels good about engaging in, a scene that you'd watch on TV and think, either "Wow the hero was so cool he handled that foreshadowed trap so easily it was done off-screen" or "Wow, the hero really stepped in it, but it's cool watching him get out of it."
I don't believe it was a problem of saying "yes, and" and I don't think it's the answer to every problem like iserith and centauri often claim. I think the problem is that the player really was bored. From the sounds of it, he wanted action so he created it. Clearly, some players were not interested in sacking the office, forcing them to do so was not cool.
If the player wants to do that kind of action, where he forces the rest of the party to do what he wants, then let the character deal with the consequences. It makes no sense to fight the guards who come to deal with the offending character for him as he runs away. Instead tell the guards what happened and who actually tried to break in the office and offer to help them catch the offender. By dealing with the consequences yourselves you're only re-inforcing that the behavior is ok within the group. Show the player that it's not ok, and deal with it head on instead.
The whole you get what you want, he gets what he wants just doesn't work in this situation. The majority of the group had no interest in sacking or entering the office in the first place. The one player forced the rest. That's not acceptable and it's not very nice.
The game is about collaboration, what this player did is not that at all. "yes, and" does not solve this issue. iserith and centauri also often seem to think that everyone buys in to their specific style of play and that everyone should convert to it. So they push it all the time to everyone for every problem. Nevermind the fact that some problems don't actually apply.
I don't believe it was a problem of saying "yes, and" and I don't think it's the answer to every problem like iserith and centauri often claim.
I swear I don't even need to read people's posts because they always say the same thing, its infuriating
especially in this situation where it isn't on the players to bend over backwards and compromise when there exists no mandate for them to do so and they tried to handle it as a party is supposed to do
I agree that allowing the instigator to jump out a window and escape the consequences was a poor play on the DM's part, that is just going to drive a wedge between him and the other players so that they make threads like this. Its on the DM or letting him get away with it, and then on the players for letting him get away with it.
Mostly, of course, its on the player, sure he has less interest in non-combat and roleplaying, but that doesn't mean he should ruin it for everyone else, and then fleeing when the action he craved arrives just makes no sense to me.
Heh, Noctaem, I watched your group debate whether and how to attack some goblins in a cave for 30 minutes one time. Ended up that one character just went in and attacked. If memory serves, that was you. This is a common issue in RPGs. It's because of people blocking the ideas of others and round and round it goes. "Yes and..." would have saved you that 30 minutes. Someone would have said, "I want to attack these goblins." The rest would have said, "Yes, and..." and the action could commence with embellishments as provided by people with the "and" part of that approach which might have included sneaking up or bluffing to get closer, etc.
Now, I don't doubt that some people enjoy that 30 minutes of debate. I sure as hell don't because it kills a game's pacing and eats up time better spent on heroic action and moving the game forward. ("Action" isn't necessarily combat either.) So please, there's no need to poopoo our advice. Yes, we offer it as a solution to many problems because it is a solution to many problems. A solution not the only solution. It's up to the OP to decide if it's right for their group.
If you don't like to see us posting this kind of advice, you can always block us. There's no need to be nasty. And anyway, collaborative play and the "Yes, and..." approach is in the 4e DMG and DMG2. It's not like we made it up ourselves.
Now, I don't doubt that some people enjoy that 30 minutes of debate. I sure as hell don't because it kills a game's pacing and eats up time better spent on heroic action and moving the game forward. ("Action" isn't necessarily combat either.) So please, there's no need to poopoo our advice. Yes, we offer it as a solution to many problems because it is a solution to many problems. A solution not the only solution. It's up to the OP to decide if it's right for their group.
If you don't like to see us posting this kind of advice, you can always block us. There's no need to be nasty. And anyway, collaborative play and the "Yes, and..." approach is in the 4e DMG and DMG2. It's not like we made it up ourselves.
The problem in our group was not a "yes, and" as again you fail to see, the problem was indecision about how best to approach the situation. Overplaning and trying to figure out every little problem that could come up. It wasn't people blocking other peoples ideas, it was people coming up with ideas non stop and everyone being paralyzed by the fear of something going wrong. It was a group of new players and seasoned veterans. And of course we all know that baldhermit is a killer DM ! ;)
I have no interest in blocking you, I will however continue to point out that your methods are not a one stop answer to every problem. This is what you and centauri just don't seem to understand. Not everyone uses your game format and not every group is open to it. Stop trying to force it down everyone elses throats and I won't have to point it out to you everytime you try. Yes there is a text in the rules about going along with ideas from the players and adding to them to suit your taste as a DM. That being said it's not a solution that applies to every problem.
It doesn't matter who advanced the idea to ransack the office, what matters is the player who acted and did it when the majority did not want to go down that path. This is the key difference between the situation of the OP and the situation of my group which you're either ignorant about or willfully ignoring.
especially in this situation where it isn't on the players to bend over backwards and compromise when there exists no mandate for them to do so and they tried to handle it as a party is supposed to do
I don't see that there's no mandate, and I don't see that what this party did is what they're "supposed" to do.
There is a tipping point for anyone's patience around the game table. This is a real thing. A person might like any one aspect of the game, but if it's not going anywhere interesting patience is going to wear thin somewhere, and someone is going to want to cut through it. I don't approve of the way this player did it, but I also can't really blame him.
Mostly, of course, its on the player, sure he has less interest in non-combat and roleplaying, but that doesn't mean he should ruin it for everyone else,
Unless the DM consults with the players on what the outcome to a particular action should be, it's entirely on the DM if a particular outcome "ruins" anything for anyone. Basing an adventure in a civilized area tends to limit (though it doesn't have to) a DM's ability to have interesting outcomes to action situations, so that only made the DM's job harder.
and then fleeing when the action he craved arrives just makes no sense to me.
It does to me. He was tired of the failure mitigation and wanted it to end. He wanted action and reaction. And he got it. Why stick around after that? Why did the other players stick around?
No one is backing anyone's play here. What if the original plan to ransack the office was backed 100%, and even added on to? They go in, the place blows, everyone reacts. What if the dragonborn leapt out the window in that scenario? What if in adding on to the plan, and in the DM making some hasty plans for interesting failure, it was established that it wouldn't be necessary to run away in order to keep having an interesting game?
misrepresenting a past event eh ? The situation you're referencing is nothing like the one the OP presented. The key differences are that 1) the party was going in the caves as a group, everyone wanted to go kick some goblin butt. We didn't have a situation where one player wanted to go commit a crime and the rest we're not interested. 2) the issue was how to go about it, after 30 minutes of back and forth I decided to just make something happen because even the DM was getting bored out of his mind and messaging me on skype. I wish you would actually take the time to know what you're talking about before throwing out this kind of nonsense just to try and undermine someone else.
The problem in our group was not a "yes, and" as again you fail to see, the problem was indecision about how best to approach the situation. Overplaning and trying to figure out every little problem that could come up. It wasn't people blocking other peoples ideas, it was people coming up with ideas non stop and everyone being paralyzed by the fear of something going wrong. It was a group of new players and seasoned veterans. And of course we all know that baldhermit is a killer DM ! ;)
I disagree and I was not undermining you. I'm simply pointing out how common this situation is. I just observed it going on in another group I joined. It was fixed with "Yes, and..." once it was pointed out as being a problem. The group no longer has an issue.
And yes, the situations are very similar. And both situations would have seen improvement with the solution we have offered. These kinds of things simply don't happen with the approach we're suggesting. Thirty minutes of discussion on how to go about it, whether you want to think about it the way I prescribe or not, is a form of blocking. You don't see improv actors doing this. Someone makes an offer, someone else accepts with embellishment. That's how it works. Decisions are made quickly, the game moves forward. Now, that might not be your preference. Some people really like that debate and planning. But others don't - like you and bald hermit (after a certain point) or this dragonborn fellow. The solution I suggest, straight from the 4e DMG and DMG2, is perfectly valid in both cases. It cuts down on the debate, gives everyone at least a bit of what they want, and moves the game forward.
I have no interest in blocking you, I will however continue to point out that your methods are not a one stop answer to every problem. This is what you and centauri just don't seem to understand. Not everyone uses your game format and not every group is open to it. Stop trying to force it down everyone elses throats and I won't have to point it out to you everytime you try. Yes there is a text in the rules about going along with ideas from the players and adding to them to suit your taste as a DM. That being said it's not a solution that applies to every problem.
Good, because I have no interest in blocking you either. I like you and have respect for your opinions. I changed a number of my own approaches because of your input. Still, I will point out that while we do offer it as a solution to many problems, that doesn't mean it's the only solution or that we're saying it's the only solution. I leave it to others to present different viewpoints. The posters can then choose what works for them. We're certainly not forcing it on anyone. That's just a problem of perception of individual readers.
It doesn't matter who advanced the idea to ransack the office, what matters is the player who acted and did it when the majority did not want to go down that path. This is the key difference between the situation of the OP and the situation of my group which you're either ignorant about or willfully ignoring.
I'm not saying the dragonborn player is blameless. I'm saying that I understand where he's coming from. You and bald hermit do too, right? My solution is to address this BEFORE it becomes a problem, not how to deal with the aftermath. Because by then, it's probably too late.
so people don't agree with your philosophies and you try to change the subject of the thread?
have more respect for the OP than to rehash old events or start going into "What if"s. I don't care about "What if" I'm trying to help the OP, not force some agenda
I'm trying to help the OP, not force some agenda
Then get on with it, and don't worry about the advice others give. I'll try to do the same. If anyone would like clarification on why "Yes, and..." is a good idea, and why interesting failure should be advanced as an idea for the DM, I'm happy to dicuss it further.
I'm trying to help the OP, not force some agenda
Then get on with it, and don't worry about the advice others give. I'll try to do the same. If anyone would like clarification on why "Yes, and..." is a good idea, and why interesting failure should be advanced as an idea for the DM, I'm happy to dicuss it further.
that's the whole point. "yes, and" is not the answer to this problem. The DM did give interesting failure and consequence, as far as we can tell and it would be assumption to say otherwise. you have nothing to substantiate that claim.
It's a vicious cycle. Failure is punitive or uninteresting, so we have endless conversations blocking the ideas of others in the interest of mitigating that failure. One PCs has enough of it and does something contrary. The rest of the players get miffed. This is SO common in gaming groups. I think it's the expected norm, frankly, when it doesn't have to be. Once it's pointed out to them and the techniques provided to how to get everyone working in tandem, it simply goes away!
@Broc6000
After reading your post I'm going to probably ask a few more questions for clarification and I will try to assist you. I may give some of my own examples as well. Bear with me here.
You stated that you were being deceptive with the NPC already, suggesting to ransack the office is simply a another form of deception.
The Dragonborn character who you described as being reckless and headstrong charges into danger.
You already briefly described this character as charging in combat. Sounds that this character charges headlong into roleplaying actions as well.
Question for you: If there had been no magical trap, no guards, etc, would you still be upset at the Dragonborn character? What if you did ransack the office and found the information you needed? Would the Dragonborn's actions still have been a problem?
I run a game with a reckless character in it. I also used to player a reckless Rogue/Barbarian Halfling in an old 3.0/3.5 game. It has been my experience that for the non reckless characters it's not the reckless acts that they have issue with, it's when that recklessness acts have negative consequences. The glass always seems to look half empty when things aren't going the way you want them too.
I would suggest talking this out in-game. If the Dragonborn character believes himself to be honorable, then simply ask him if leaving his allies in the midst of danger is honorable to him.
Out of game you need to be clear and understanding. Most of all don't look at only your own opinions. Talk, then let the other player talk, then repeat. Comment on what they say to make it clear you hear and understand what they are saying.
Pick in-game or out-of-game don't do both.
I would approach the other character/player as you would want to be approached yourself.
Oh and for the record, I interpret the spell on the door to suggest that the Gnome has something to hide. It could have just as easily been a spell that made the ink vanish from everything in the room that would have been just as effective. Fire is a very aggressive way to protects an office filled with parchment and scrolls.
Question for you: If there had been no magical trap, no guards, etc, would you still be upset at the Dragonborn character? What if you did ransack the office and found the information you needed? Would the Dragonborn's actions still have been a problem?
Thanks for asking these. I was trying to get to this. Without any consequence, this problem goes away entirely. It's replaced by the problem of players wondering why the room wasn't trapped, so it's not the ideal route to take.
If a group (or, more typically, just the DM) can't figure out an interesting way for something to fail (as well as accommodating everyone's idea of what's "realistic), then failure might as well not be an option, because failing in a frustrating way erodes trust at the table.
1. Players to dragonborn's ideas
2. Dragonborn to other players ideas.
It's hard to run with a collaborative approach as in "yes and" if the DM has you on railroads or doesn't want you to take a certain action. So a lot of it might have to do with the DM's game as well.
Yeah i'd say the dragonborn guy was being a little rude, but you can't ignore his boredom and say it doesn't have any value. The game is best when everyone works together to have fun results.
What would I do? I'd talk to the whole party about having more fun reacting to fellow members and making that fun over trying to force someone to do what you want.
For starters blocking was done by several people here.
1. Players to dragonborn's ideas
2. Dragonborn to other players ideas.
It's hard to run with a collaborative approach as in "yes and" if the DM has you on railroads or doesn't want you to take a certain action. So a lot of it might have to do with the DM's game as well.
Yeah i'd say the dragonborn guy was being a little rude, but you can't ignore his boredom and say it doesn't have any value. The game is best when everyone works together to have fun results.
What would I do? I'd talk to the whole party about having more fun reacting to fellow members and making that fun over trying to force someone to do what you want.
We have nothing saying the dragonborn had his ideas "blocked" or vice versa. This whole "blocking" thing was added to this thread by forum members and not the OP. We have no idea if this is correct or not and it shouldn't even be a factor. The actions of the player are what matter, not what we can only assume upon.
I agree with iserith, Centauri that we should be more open to everyone's ideas. As long as players are interacting the game is going forward which is the whole point.
Noctaem and Chainsawhand's points defiantly hit closer to my thinking on the issue. The fact that the dragonborn ignored what the group just talked about, and that he left the group right after doing it changes the act from "different" to "detrimental".
@Grimli- If there had been no trap, I would still have been frustrated.
There was no reason for the destruction of the only person's property who could help us. I could play video games all day where no matter my intentions as long as I complete A-B-C i'll get to my goal, yet D&D is about interaction and strategy. If we disregard moral alinement and consequences then what's the point? Might as well just play a game that's a constant dungeon crawl. The previous session was one long encounter, and it was fun (on a lightning train, fighting car to car, big bad at the head, diffuse a riddle bomb, try to stop the run away train, leap off at the last moment). So this session was tailored to suit more roleplaying. We all did try many different approaches to find the artifact, and finally when we got a lead the dragonborn wants to sack the place? Just seemed live a very counter productive maneuver, regardless of the fact that there was a trap involved.
The DM runs a great game, and though sometimes I do disagree with his style, he is a very by the numbers DM and sticks to it. While I've been bothered about combats going on too long, no one has ever complained about his consequence determinations. He doesn't play favorites or change the context just to make it easier on us. I feel like expecting him to try and work everyone's ideas into the game to create a positive/interesting is alittle much. Sometimes players do dumb/boring things, so dumb/boring things should happen.
I am welcome to continue talk about what happened in my session, yet my whole point in posting was asking what should happen from this point on. So any new posters please comment on your advice on what I should do now before commenting on what we "should" have done.
After reading what you guys posted so far, I believe it isn't fair to question the dragonborn players choices and gameplay style. I will take it in game. So this leaves me with how my friendly/kind/protective Halfling cook should brooch the subject to either the dragonborn himself or the party.
@Grimli- If there had been no trap, I would still have been frustrated.
Why is that? I mean, apart from the frustration that comes with making a plan when no plan turns out to be necessary.
Which makes me wonder: was there a trap before the players talked about there being a trap, or did the DM place that because he agreed that it made sense?
There was no reason for the destruction of the only person's property who could help us.
You said there was: "so the gnome would think others were also after the artifact and he would come to us quicker."
There were also reasons NOT to do that, but this is the nature of choice. Just about any choice has pros and cons, and consequences. But game choices have in-game and out-of-game consequences, as well as the overall cost in time of debating them.
I could play video games all day where no matter my intentions as long as I complete A-B-C i'll get to my goal, yet D&D is about interaction and strategy. If we disregard moral alinement and consequences then what's the point?
I don't know, but that's not really in question. No one is saying the PCs shouldn't fail. We're saying they should fail in interesting ways.
We all did try many different approaches to find the artifact, and finally when we got a lead the dragonborn wants to sack the place? Just seemed live a very counter productive maneuver, regardless of the fact that there was a trap involved.
Nothing is the game needs to be inherently one thing or another. All it needs to be what someone wants is for everyone else to back it up.
While I've been bothered about combats going on too long, no one has ever complained about his consequence determinations.
This consequence was not enjoyable, it seems. Any complaints are being leveled at the player, but the DM chose the consequences.
He doesn't play favorites or change the context just to make it easier on us.
Interesting doesn't need to mean easier.
I feel like expecting him to try and work everyone's ideas into the game to create a positive/interesting is alittle much. Sometimes players do dumb/boring things, so dumb/boring things should happen.
For their own sake? This doesn't strike you as a waste of time? I'm really not clear on the purpose of this.
I mean, things the players want to have happen should, in general, happen, at least in broad strokes. But who wants boring things to happen? Who has that kind of time?
I am welcome to continue talk about what happened in my session, yet my whole point in posting was asking what should happen from this point on. So any new posters please comment on your advice on what I should do now before commenting on what we "should" have done.
Ok. In future, back the first idea you hear, as if it's the best idea you ever heard. Add any suggestions you have, unless they contradict or block the original idea. If your ideas and suggestions get blocked, notice how annoyed that makes you and take pride in the fact that you're not doing that to anyone else.
After reading what you guys posted so far, I believe it isn't fair to question the dragonborn players choices and gameplay style. I will take it in game. So this leaves me with how my friendly/kind/protective Halfling cook should brooch the subject to either the dragonborn himself or the party.
Nothing. No harm, no foul.
I don't know the best way to handle it if the dragonborn player is doing something you don't like, but the absolute worst way is to handle it in-game. His character has no reason to compromise with yours, or nor the player to change how he's played, so it's likely to end up with in-character threats and retaliation.
Also, tension in the game may have been higher simply because we tried many different approaches to get the artifact and nothing was working. Only at the end of a 3 1/2 hour session were we making progress and then the crazyness insued.
Can I ask what was preventing your other approaches from working? And how many approaches were tried and discussed in that time? How long for each discussion?
There was no reason for the destruction of the only person's property who could help us. I could play video games all day where no matter my intentions as long as I complete A-B-C i'll get to my goal, yet D&D is about interaction and strategy. If we disregard moral alinement and consequences then what's the point? Might as well just play a game that's a constant dungeon crawl. The previous session was one long encounter, and it was fun (on a lightning train, fighting car to car, big bad at the head, diffuse a riddle bomb, try to stop the run away train, leap off at the last moment). So this session was tailored to suit more roleplaying. We all did try many different approaches to find the artifact, and finally when we got a lead the dragonborn wants to sack the place? Just seemed live a very counter productive maneuver, regardless of the fact that there was a trap involved.
The DM runs a great game, and though sometimes I do disagree with his style, he is a very by the numbers DM and sticks to it. While I've been bothered about combats going on too long, no one has ever complained about his consequence determinations. He doesn't play favorites or change the context just to make it easier on us. I feel like expecting him to try and work everyone's ideas into the game to create a positive/interesting is alittle much.
Some perspective that might help you address the DM about the game: As I suspected with the magical explosion, the DM appears to be doing his fair share of blocking ideas. I'm basing this on your account, especially, "Also, tension in the game may have been higher simply because we tried many different approaches to get the artifact and nothing was working. Only at the end of a 3 1/2 hour session were we making progress and then the crazyness insued."
What it sounds like is the DM has presented you with a problem (quest, adventure, combat encounter, interaction scene, etc.) and has already chosen what the solution will be. He's got it prepped and everything. Naturally he keeps that hidden - we DMs do so love our reveals, right?
So, you guys are doing your thing, using your moral alignments, considering consequences, interacting, and strategizing. You come up with a potential approach to the problem being presented. You execute. It doesn't match the solution the DM has in mind, so you're blocked. Stuff doesn't work. Doors won't open. Gnomes run away from you and his shop blows up. In short, you were on the wrong trail and weren't picking up on the cues the DM was giving you to get back on the path. All that cool roleplaying and decision-making really didn't matter, at least in terms of your efficacy at dealing with the adventure. It wasn't ever going to work anyway.
I'm not saying that to be mean. I remember running games like this and I have seen plenty of other DMs do it. It's an easy mistake to make and it's a common complaint on the forums. DMs should be creating problems, but not the solutions. All your moral alignments, considering consequences, interacting, and strategizing need to mean something because, you're right, that's what makes D&D the game that it is. The DM should be saying "Yes, and..." to your ideas about solving these problems he presents you and then asking for the appropriate die rolls to determine success or failure. If you don't need to guess at a single solution every time, there's no need for lengthy discussions and dead ends. Or bored players.
After 3 plus hours of your cool plans and ideas being blocked, can you really blame the dragonborn?
Sometimes players do dumb/boring things, so dumb/boring things should happen.
Awesome line! I wonder why I've never seen that quote on any D&D marketing materials. It sure wouldn't sell many games that way, right? Your games don't have to be that way. If you want it that way though, that's your call. Nobody can gainsay you for having the wrong kind of fun.
I am welcome to continue talk about what happened in my session, yet my whole point in posting was asking what should happen from this point on. So any new posters please comment on your advice on what I should do now before commenting on what we "should" have done.
I wish I could suggest a good way to broach this subject with the DM. Even perfect strangers in internet forums get at each other's throats when you suggest something different than they're used to. Even something as simple as "Give the players' solutions a fair shake." DMs can also run perfectly good, entertaining games in the style he's doing it in, but it requires some non-transferable skills to be acquired through practice. And a great deal of player buy-in. He doesn't have that from the dragonborn player. It's probably not even really combat he craves... just simple progress.
I can imagine such a conversation not going well with someone you're sitting across the table from. I do feel for you though. It sounds like you really want this to work. I have no advice other than to cut the other players some slack. This is a DM-related issue in my opinion.
After reading what you guys posted so far, I believe it isn't fair to question the dragonborn players choices and gameplay style. I will take it in game. So this leaves me with how my friendly/kind/protective Halfling cook should brooch the subject to either the dragonborn himself or the party.
You're right. Almost assuredly, this problem's source is with the DM. Everything else is a symptom. I wouldn't give the dragonborn too hard a time in-game in light of this.
Suppose the healers do not heal said Dragonborn for a few battles?
Suppose the allies do not assist?
Solo fight? sit this one out and let the Dragonborn handle it. After all, said player left you alone to deal with the side effects of the mess he created.
A player being bored is no excuse for ruining the session for everyone else.
The DM's fault? Is it the DM's fault if the player(s) do(es) something stupid and a perfectly reasonable result happens? Kicking in the door of a high-level arcanist's office? Yeah, he's going to have wards, traps and protections. Did anyone LOOK for them (Basic Arcana roll)? No?
Sometimes the players Don't get it. That happens. Sometimes the players get it all too soon. Since I'm the note-taker in the group, sometimes my Dwarf Fighter figures out solutions to riddles and traps that the Arcanists or Priests should have done. Was there an alternative? Sure, an agent/angel/messenger could have been sent by the DM/Gods to present it to us.
Other times, I have built what I thought was a straight-forward riddle and had the players not get it, but side track onto some side plot. OK. We take a side track. They still have to solve the riddle/puzzle eventually. That's the DM improve section. Takes work and practice.
Well, I hate to say it, but there are ways that border on Player-vs-Player that might also had an effect.
Suppose the healers do not heal said Dragonborn for a few battles?
Suppose the allies do not assist?
Solo fight? sit this one out and let the Dragonborn handle it. After all, said player left you alone to deal with the side effects of the mess he created.
That strikes me as passive aggressive. If you don't want someone to do something, just tell them, one mature adult to another.
A player being bored is no excuse for ruining the session for everyone else.
I don't believe anyone here is saying that it is. There's plenty of "blame" to go around though that's kind of a strong word in light of the other things at play here.
The DM's fault? Is it the DM's fault if the player(s) do(es) something stupid and a perfectly reasonable result happens? Kicking in the door of a high-level arcanist's office? Yeah, he's going to have wards, traps and protections. Did anyone LOOK for them (Basic Arcana roll)? No?
What I'm saying is that no matter what plan they came up with, it was going to end in the contextual equivalent of a gnome running away and an exploding ward. Three hours of dead ends is almost a sure sign of an invisible railroad. Now, railroads in and of themselves aren't inherently bad and un-fun, but you do need to have player buy-in to make it work and some good GMing skills in obfuscation and redirection. The players need to understand that their "crazy" plans might not just work, no matter what, because they're not on the right path. It sounds like the DM didn't have those or was having an off night.
Sometimes the players Don't get it. That happens. Sometimes the players get it all too soon. Since I'm the note-taker in the group, sometimes my Dwarf Fighter figures out solutions to riddles and traps that the Arcanists or Priests should have done. Was there an alternative? Sure, an agent/angel/messenger could have been sent by the DM/Gods to present it to us.
Other times, I have built what I thought was a straight-forward riddle and had the players not get it, but side track onto some side plot. OK. We take a side track. They still have to solve the riddle/puzzle eventually. That's the DM improve section. Takes work and practice.
Plans can fail and consequences can ensue, absolutely. But they needn't be boring. And they needn't be a dead-end. This is discussed in 4e DMG and DMG2 at length, especially with regard to skill challenges.
I agree with you on the DM's improvisation abilities. They help even if you're running a railroad, so you can keep things entertaining while the players are off the path. (I myself do not endorse railroading, but if that's your bag, go for it. I did it for years.)
Well, I hate to say it, but there are ways that border on Player-vs-Player that might also had an effect.
Suppose the healers do not heal said Dragonborn for a few battles?
Suppose the allies do not assist?
Solo fight? sit this one out and let the Dragonborn handle it. After all, said player left you alone to deal with the side effects of the mess he created.
With the goal of... what? Revenge? Make his game boring, because he made our game boring? If you don't want to play with him, talk to him. Set the game aside, and talk to him. I can't be the only one who has ever seen in-game get-backs and passive-aggression just blow out of proportion something that could have been resolved with an out-of-game talk.
A player being bored is no excuse for ruining the session for everyone else.
He didn't ruin it for everyone else. They had an adventure. They got in trouble. It had potential to be exciting. If it wasn't then why?
The DM's fault? Is it the DM's fault if the player(s) do(es) something stupid and a perfectly reasonable result happens?
The DM controls the world, at least until they decide to get player input on the world, but don't get me started on that. There are interesting reasonable results, and uninteresting ones. This one seems to have been uninteresting, and, in hindsight, should not have been chosen. There are ways to find out whether the players will enjoy a particular outcome, and no reason to give them an outcome they won't enjoy.
This, I might as well note, is not the same as giving them a successful outcome. Most people have trouble or consequences they'd be interested in seeing. Give them something along those lines.
Other times, I have built what I thought was a straight-forward riddle and had the players not get it, but side track onto some side plot. OK. We take a side track. They still have to solve the riddle/puzzle eventually. That's the DM improve section. Takes work and practice.
Indeed it does, as well as, along with any improv, lots of accepting and adding on. What you suggest is an interesting outcome: the players are on some side plot. Great. Game on. Some DMs, possibly the one in question here, aren't prepared for that, haven't done the work or practice, and don't allow the players to find anything else interesting if they're not finding the thing they're supposed to.
Interesting consequences.
Well Broc6000, I have no advice really except what I would do in your situation. If your player was my friend on my table, I would tell him, "Wuz up with that bro? You blasted us with the trap, alarmed the guards and dug out. What kind of barbarian are you!", usually while I'm laughing about it. I don't take anything too serious while gaming. IMO "too serious players" tend to "ruin" the game for everyone else more then those who act recklessly to have fun. If he keeps doing it, whatever. I just roll with it. What happens, happens.
You can stop "cooking" for him if you like :p.
Either way, its really up to your DM to promote teamwork, game is moving forward at a decent pace, & every situation no matter what "playa's do" can be turned into a fun "thang", even if that means throwing out his "adventure plot" out the door.
Too much seriousness from either DM & Players is probably the #1 fun killer, playing DnD.
I think Iserith, Centauri advices are very good, but they are for the DM. This is a player in Player Forum, asking about how he should deal with this barbarian, so lets try to help a fella "playa" out. :p
Thanks, and you're right. It's advice a DM, especially this DM, could do with hearing. I offer it only to offer some perspective on what may be the source of these issues. Perhaps with that information, the player can arrive at some solutions on his own.
Well Broc6000, I have no advice really except what I would do in your situation. If your player was my friend on my table, I would tell him, "Wuz up with that bro? You blasted us with the trap, alarmed the guards and dug out. What kind of barbarian are you!", usually while I'm laughing about it. I don't take anything too serious while gaming. IMO "too serious players" tend to "ruin" the game for everyone else more then those who act recklessly to have fun. If he keeps doing it, whatever. I just roll with it. What happens, happens.
So you accept what the other players are doing and roll with whatever comes out of it? Good advice!
Too much seriousness from either DM & Players is probably the #1 fun killer, playing DnD.
Amen to that.
@Grimli- If there had been no trap, I would still have been frustrated.
Fair enough.
Clarification: do you have an issue with the Dragonborn's play style, or does your character have issue with the Dragonborn's actions.
There was no reason for the destruction of the only person's property who could help us.
You could argue that the Dragonborn by kicking the door in inadvertantely caused the fire. But there is no way you could have known that would happen. That fire was caused by the DM of his choosing of the trap in question. An alarm could have surficed in that instance.
We all did try many different approaches to find the artifact, and finally when we got a lead the dragonborn wants to sack the place? Just seemed live a very counter productive maneuver, regardless of the fact that there was a trap involved.
So it was the Dragonborn character who made the sacking suggestion? You weren't clear in your initial post on who's idea it was.
I am welcome to continue talk about what happened in my session, yet my whole point in posting was asking what should happen from this point on. So any new posters please comment on your advice on what I should do now before commenting on what we "should" have done.
Okay then here is my advice on the subject:
If your character has issue with the Dragonborn's actions then deal with the issue in-game. If you as a player have issue with the Dragonborn Player's actions then deal with it out of game.
If you as a player have no problem with the actions of the dragonborn character's player, and your character has no problem with his character, then it's easy to come up with in-game reasons for your character not doing anything to the dragonborn.
If you as a player have no problem with the actions of the dragonborn character's player, but your character has a problem with his character, then as player you two can come up with an interesting in-game approach for how your character treats his.
If you as a player have a problem with the actions for the dragonborn character's player (including the decision to play that character in a certain way), then you should only deal with this problem out-of-game. Dealing with it in game risks the game being wrecked by in-party squabbles that are stand in for out-of-game discussions.
Seriously, has no one else ever seen the destructive power of dealing with out-of-game things in-game?
You decide how your character acts.
If you as a player have no problem with the actions of the dragonborn character's player, and your character has no problem with his character, then it's easy to come up with in-game reasons for your character not doing anything to the dragonborn.
If you as a player have no problem with the actions of the dragonborn character's player, but your character has a problem with his character, then as player you two can come up with an interesting in-game approach for how your character treats his.
If you as a player have a problem with the actions for the dragonborn character's player (including the decision to play that character in a certain way), then you should only deal with this problem out-of-game. Dealing with it in game risks the game being wrecked by in-party squabbles that are stand in for out-of-game discussions.
Wise words. And so simple.
Seriously, has no one else ever seen the destructive power of dealing with out-of-game things in-game?
Not enough, clearly.
My post above is pretty broad, so I'll talk a bit now how this might have gone with our groups and where the problems started and could be resolved. Perhaps that will be a bit more illustrative and helpful.We were about to leave, when someone suggested that we ransack the office so the gnome would think others were also after the artifact and he would come to us quicker. Another and I said that was foolish because a) there actually were bad guys also after it already, b) we shouldn't push our luck trying to deceive our only lead again, and c) he showed extra ordinary magic ability and probably guards his office.
Emphasis mine. This is where the problem starts. Rather than accept the idea of that player and build on it to make it better, it was picked apart and shot down. This is very common in gaming groups and is a sign of failure mitigation. Every plan has to be perfect else we pay the price. Well, the thing is "the price" is interesting. It's where the action and drama is. Not every plan need be fullproof and talking it to death will result in pacing problems in the game and ultimately bored players. Bored players, as you see here, lash out.
Our group would have handled it this way:
PC1: Hey, maybe we should ransack the place a little to make it seem like others who are also interested in the McGuffin are hot on the trail.
PC2: Yes, let's do that. Just make sure to be careful not to really damage anything or set off any traps.
PC3: Be quick about it, too.
PC1: Okay, I start ransacking a bit, just to back up our story and maybe create a sense of urgency in this NPC.
DM: Okay, sounds good. It seems like failure might be interesting here and you're definitely gaining a benefit from the attempt, so I'm going to call for a skill check. If you succeed, your ruse works and the NPC will be more agreeable. If you fail, you set off a trap of some kind and will have to deal with it. Agree?
PCs: Yeah. What is that, a Bluff?
DM: Yeah, Bluff, Thievery maybe. Stealth to cover your tracks? Whatever you think works here, just tell me what you're doing before making the check so I have some fictional context to work with. If more than one of you are working on this, we'll make it a group check. If half of you make it, you succeed.
PCs roll and we play to find out what happens.We seemed to all agree, when suddenly the dragonborn player: announces he was bored, says he wants to ransack the office, kicks open the door setting off a magical explosion which hits the whole party, then while we attempt to put out the flames which engulfed the office he jumps out the window and runs off, leaving us to deal with the university guards. He might as well been yelling "Leeroy Jenkins!" the whole time.
The trap and ensuing magical explosion strikes me as blocking by the DM and "punishment" for the dragonborn's actions. See example above. DM asked the party what failure might look like and got the players to buy in. They knew the risks explicitly and decided to do it.If we are in a dungeon crawl or surrounded by enemies he can charge around all he wants; but it seems very rude when we role play and he does the same thing.
First, combat IS roleplaying. What you're referring to is in-character interaction with NPCs.
Yes, it is rude if you want to talk to an NPC or monster and he smashes it. That's HIM blocking YOU, just like in scene you cited above it was you guys blocking another player. Neither is acceptable if you want a smoothly running game with good pacing.The DM after the game said he didn't think it would be out of line for my character to give him a talking to, but my character's never done anything like that before and I have no idea how to approach it.
It's not out of line for your character to take issue with his character. But really the problem originates with the players, not the characters. So you really need to discuss it as a group. The "Yes, and..." approach solves ALL of these issues. It's not an in-game problem.
Here's some advice to give to your DM as well with regard to PC planning:
Encourage your players to accept the ideas of others. If someone comes up with a plan, address it as if it's the only plan and ask the players to add onto it, not come up with their own separate plans. If everyone comes up with a plan of their own, that likely means that you've spent WAY too much session time on the issue. It also means that - since only one plan is likely to be used anyway - 4 other people get the shaft. It's better to back the first plan that comes up and add your own spin to it rather than say why it can't work and come up with something else. This way, everyone gets their ideas included and the game moves forward.
Good luck, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions on this approach.
I can't agree at all. Sometimes, bad idea is bad. Just because someone comes up with an idea (ie ransacking an office) doesn't mean it's an idea that the group should do. To insinuate that the party should just jump at the first idea that anyone throws out is ludicrous.
I can't agree at all. Sometimes, bad idea is bad.
Yes, but in D&D it's impossible to be sure which ideas are bad. Adventuring should, logically, be a bad idea, but most DMs will facilitate it and make it fun. A DM can do that with any idea, but tends to abdicate that responsibility whenever the players want to do something the DM doesn't want them to do. Then, apparently, it's okay to make the idea a "bad" one.
Just because someone comes up with an idea (ie ransacking an office) doesn't mean it's an idea that the group should do.
The common tendency is to engage only in plans that the DM can't play "gotcha" with, plans that cover every possible avenue of attack. This is because the DM's retribution is openended, and doesn't tend to be guided by what would be interesting for the group. On that basis, there are really no ideas that the players should take. It all comes down to personal opinion, with no real statistics or any thing else to back it up.
To insinuate that the party should just jump at the first idea that anyone throws out is ludicrous.
Sure, the ideal is that the party would talk for a bit and find an idea that they are all behind. What can happen though is, because there's nothing the players "should" do, and the DM can make any idea "bad," the players get locked into an endless loop of discussion, and either never get anywhere, or finally land on an idea that is a massive compromise that's not much better than one of the first ideas. If you take the first idea and build on that (which step you appear to have left out) then the endless loop is short-circuited and the game can move forward, with everyone's involvement.
Once again, you should not have to bow down to the first idea that's thrown out there. We can go round and round about this, to no avail at all. While there is no magic formula, saying YES every time someone suggests something isn't the right idea either.
It's not "Yes," it's "Yes, and...." Accept the first idea (because it's not likely to be significantly worse than anything else, and keeps the game moving), and then add to it. Everyone can take part to make it the kind of plan they're comfortable with.
There were 3 key objections to the idea offered in this situation, but no one, as far as I can tell was in a position to really decide how much weight those objections should carry. We're dealing with fictional issues, with fictional risks, and fictional benefits. The only real things we're dealing with are how much fun something is, and how much time we have. The DM is the primary controller of how much fun something is, and can and will make even the most sound ideas boring, if that's what they want to do. Or make even the most ridiculous ideas fun, if that's what they want to do. I don't know why a DM would ever want to make an idea boring, but some do. So, the only think the players really control is how much time they spend. Spend as little as possible: accept, add on, and go.
Once again, you should not have to bow down to the first idea that's thrown out there. We can go round and round about this, to no avail at all. While there is no magic formula, saying YES every time someone suggests something isn't the right idea either.
It's not "Yes," it's "Yes, and...." Accept the first idea (because it's not likely to be significantly worse than anything else, and keeps the game moving), and then add to it. Everyone can take part to make it the kind of plan they're comfortable with.
There were 3 key objections to the idea offered in this situation, but no one, as far as I can tell was in a position to really decide how much weight those objections should carry. We're dealing with fictional issues, with fictional risks, and fictional benefits. The only real things we're dealing with are how much fun something is, and how much time we have. The DM is the primary controller of how much fun something is, and can and will make even the most sound ideas boring, if that's what they want to do. Or make even the most ridiculous ideas fun, if that's what they want to do. I don't know why a DM would ever want to make an idea boring, but some do. So, the only think the players really control is how much time they spend. Spend as little as possible: accept, add on, and go.
"Yes and" is still yes, and that's not always the right answer.
"Yes and" is still yes, and that's not always the right answer.
The "and..." is what makes it the "right" answer. Or, rather, as right as it can be because the DM is the one who decides if it's right. The DM can make a good idea boring, or a bad idea fun. So, the most "right" a group can do is to pick an answer and add to it quickly then try to enjoy the consequences.
"Yes and" is still yes, and that's not always the right answer.
The "and..." is what makes it the "right" answer. Or, rather, as right as it can be because the DM is the one who decides if it's right. The DM can make a good idea boring, or a bad idea fun. So, the most "right" a group can do is to pick an answer and add to it quickly then try to enjoy the consequences.
It's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree.
It's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Do you disagree that a DM can make a good answer boring and a wrong answer fun?
It's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Do you disagree that a DM can make a good answer boring and a wrong answer fun?
You're putting this into the position of the DM. The original post is from the perspective of the players. Therefore, I fail to see the relevance.
My original quote was from Iserith, who say the players were wrong for telling the other player that the idea to ransack the office was foolish. That is an incorrect statement. A debate among players about the direction they, as a party wish to go is /never/ wrong. Ever.
The DM's job is to facilitate that discussion and make sure it does not drag on for too long. Once their decision is made, then yes, the DM adjusts fire to that and drives on. But the players should never EVER have to agree to the first thing that another player suggests. The players should /always/ have a voice as to what's a good idea and what's not a good idea.
You're putting this into the position of the DM. The original post is from the perspective of the players. Therefore, I fail to see the relevance.
It's highly relevant. The OP made it clear on subsequent posts that the party had made little progress in three game hours. Based on the actions described in the original post, it wouldn't surprise me if that slow pace is because the DM either directly stymies their efforts, or they're afraid he will and try to come up with un-stymiable plans.
But there's no such thing. That flame trap wasn't part of the DM's original concept. It's exactly designed to fit in with one of the objections the players raised to the original idea, so it's more than possible that the DM merely picked up on that idea. The DM would have made the plan fail whether the character had charged in or not.
My original quote was from Iserith, who say the players were wrong for telling the other player that the idea to ransack the office was foolish. That is an incorrect statement. A debate among players about the direction they, as a party wish to go is /never/ wrong. Ever.
I could just as easily say that wasting in-game time over pointless risk-mitigation is never right. Ever.
But the players should never EVER have to agree to the first thing that another player suggests.
They never have to agree, there's just rarely going to be a good reason not no.
The players should /always/ have a voice as to what's a good idea and what's not a good idea.
And the "and..." gives them that voice.
The DM failed to facilitate the session well. I don't think that's open to debate.
Discussion is never a waste of time. You bring this up constantly in your posts. As I said, it's the DM's job to facilitate. Hopefully, we can at least agree that the DM did not handle this situation well.
There are lots of reasons to not agree. Such as, the party not wanting to deal with the repercussions of actually performing the act.
The and... does not give them that voice. It merely forces them to deal with the mess that another player may have made.
And...sometimes players need to learn to not make poor decisions. If they want to walk into a church full of Lolth's clergy and yell DEATH TO THE SPIDERQUEEN, by all means they can do that. They'll get a round of applause from me for having the cajoles to try something like that. After I give them that little clap, they'd better pray the gods of the dice are merciful, because I will not be.
You're putting this into the position of the DM. The original post is from the perspective of the players. Therefore, I fail to see the relevance.
My original quote was from Iserith, who say the players were wrong for telling the other player that the idea to ransack the office was foolish. That is an incorrect statement. A debate among players about the direction they, as a party wish to go is /never/ wrong. Ever.
The DM's job is to facilitate that discussion and make sure it does not drag on for too long. Once their decision is made, then yes, the DM adjusts fire to that and drives on. But the players should never EVER have to agree to the first thing that another player suggests. The players should /always/ have a voice as to what's a good idea and what's not a good idea.
Yes, and you're right that the party doesn't have to agree to the first thing another player suggests. For the good of the game, they should at least include that person's suggestion ("Yes") and then add onto to it to make it better ("and..."). Centauri makes the case very well here. The premise is that if someone says they want to do something, they're interested in that. Take the thing they're interested in and ADD to it. Don't take away from it. Doing so moves the game forward at a great pace and builds trust among the players.
Usually, when I see players shooting down ideas of others players is when they believe there is only ONE solution to the problem. If they do believe that, it's probably because the DM runs his or her game that way. And, in my opinion, that's a terrible way to run a game because it shuts down players' ideas and makes their choices near meaningless - at least, choices that aren't the right ones, "right" being the ones the DM has predetermined as "acceptable." That's pretty clear what happened in this particular scenario, which would explain in part why they spent 3.5 hours ramming their heads into walls and making no progress. So really, the players' approach to the game is a response to the DM's approach. Though truthfully, the round-n-round planning discussions are certainly ubiquitous in many gaming circles and an unforunate phenomenon on its own.
By the way, I inadvertently "Yes, and'ed" you in this post. It's catchy because it works.
To the O.P.
If the dragonborn player has a history of going and doing things like this (deliberately causing a ruckus when stealthy stuff is going on, antagonizing people in diplomatic encounters, etc...) someone should have a chat with them about the intended tone of the game, the importance of being a good teammate and well 'manners'. This should be an Out Of Game conversation. If you have a good relationship with the player talk to them some time in a fairly neutral, low key, circumstance. Maybe mention how it was really rather frustrating because xyz. If you don't have that kind of a good relationship talk to the DM or a player that does. If this is really coming up a lot it would probably be causing a lot of problems with many people in enjoying the game.
If this is a rare event a OOC 'dude, that was not cool' and then your PC(s) giving them a hard time for *a* session would be understandable.
Isreth:
No. This is a group game and one person haring off and causing havoc with the groups roleplay plans because they are bored is inappropriate. It messes with everyone having a good time, and when part of a pattern results in lots of ticked off people. This is not really an issue with the DM running the game, this is an issue with a player choosing to be a bad team player. You do not get to have your way just because you want it; you do not get to ruin other people's enjoyment of the game just because you want it.
The DM failed to facilitate the session well. I don't think that's open to debate.
I wouldn't debate it, but I bet the DM in question would.
Discussion is never a waste of time.
At some point it is.
There are lots of reasons to not agree. Such as, the party not wanting to deal with the repercussions of actually performing the act.
Doesn't hold much water. What are they worried about? What failure are they trying to mitigate? D&D is all about repercussions.
The and... does not give them that voice. It merely forces them to deal with the mess that another player may have made.
The and comes up front. It can be "and I'll try to disarm any traps," or "and I'll be the lookout," or anything else that they think might mitigate frustrating failure. Both of those deal with the only real objection to the original plan in this case: that there might be traps. When has the possibility of traps ever been a useful dissuasion anyway?
And...sometimes players need to learn to not make poor decisions. If they want to walk into a church full of Lolth's clergy and yell DEATH TO THE SPIDERQUEEN, by all means they can do that. They'll get a round of applause from me for having the cajoles to try something like that. After I give them that little clap, they'd better pray the gods of the dice are merciful, because I will not be.
Why not? Why would you do anything other than give them an extremely enjoyable game, no matter what course of action they chose. What do you mean that you won't be merciful? That they should expect their characters to die or suffer some other frustrating fate? How does that not make the game boring for you as well? Their decision was not inherently poor, you are choosing to make it poor and exactly how poor to make it, to teach them a lesson. So, what's the real lesson you're trying to teach?
Isreth:No. This is a group game and one person haring off and causing havoc with the groups roleplay plans because they are bored is inappropriate. It messes with everyone having a good time, and when part of a pattern results in lots of ticked off people. This is not really an issue with the DM running the game, this is an issue with a player choosing to be a bad team player. You do not get to have your way just because you want it; you do not get to ruin other people's enjoyment of the game just because you want it.
You're missing some stuff. Understandable - this thread is a long one already.
To recap, the idea to ransack wasn't the dragonborn's. And nobody's saying he's blameless here, certainly not me. He was blocking ideas by way of his actions just like the players were originally blocking the idea of the player who wanted to ransack in the first place. What I am saying is I know where he's coming from. He was clearly frustrated after spending 3.5 hours discussing plans with no real progress. So he acted out. Again, not cool. But understandable. Everyone did their part to make this session go awry.
However, it is VERY much an issue that stems from how the DM is running the game. You'll note that when the game was moving apace previously (lightning rail scene iirc?) there were no problems. When it became a game of "guess the DM's solution" and 3.5 hours of blocking occurred, then there was a problem. It's not a difficult thing to pinpoint. I've seen it done. I've done it myself. It's a thing that happens very commonly.
Under your approach, it simply does not matter, because you'll make it good. Under my approach, the players will be excited because there is a chance for failure, and there will be real consequences for for making foolish choices.
What I mean by I will not be merciful is if the dice say they die, then they die. In most situations, I'd probably fudge things here and there...I doubt I would let them straight up die due to the dice gods lack of mercy. If they do something there should be little hope for them to survive, then...if the dice say they die, they will die.
let me put it to you this way: I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. If it seems unrealistic, it probably is. For example, if you jump off the golden gate bridge, the chances are good that you will die. If one of my players jumps off the golden gate bridge without some means to avoid the splat...guess what? They're likely going to die and I'm not going to intervene.
In the case of the original poster, there is no "and..." that's going to make the guy they want to help him grateful, for having trashed his office.
because I believe that decisions and repercussions enhance the game
Me too! I let the dice decide the result of the PCs' plans with collaboration to make failure interesting. That "interesting failure" might just be death, if everyone finds it interesting, which they do with surprisingly frequency.
Under your approach, it simply does not matter, because you'll make it good. Under my approach, the players will be excited because there is a chance for failure, and there will be real consequences for for making foolish choices.
I don't decide what is foolish or not. The dice do. Thus, no plan is really foolish. It's just a plan. If the dice turns out that the foolish plan works (a literary staple, no?) then it does. If it fails, it fails. Collaboration will determine what that failure means in context with an eye toward keeping it interesting, not punitive or boring.
What I mean by I will not be merciful is if the dice say they die, then they die. In most situations, I'd probably fudge things here and there...I doubt I would let them straight up die due to the dice gods lack of mercy. If they do something there should be little hope for them to survive, then...if the dice say they die, they will die.
I agree! They should suffer the consequences if the dice don't go their way, provided the consequences are interesting. I got one up on you though... I NEVER, EVER fudge.
let me put it to you this way: I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. If it seems unrealistic, it probably is. For example, if you jump off the golden gate bridge, the chances are good that you will die. If one of my players jumps off the golden gate bridge without some means to avoid the splat...guess what? They're likely going to die and I'm not going to intervene.
Me either. Hmm, maybe our styles have more in common than you think...
In the case of the original poster, there is no "and..." that's going to make the guy they want to help him grateful, for having trashed his office.
The NPC you mean? What if the characters worked together to make the frame-up work instead of argue about how it couldn't or shouldn't? (Again, the DM is really the issue here. Players' actions were just a symptom.)
because I believe that decisions and repercussions enhance the game.
So do I. When they're interesting, rather than frustrating.
Under your approach, it simply does not matter, because you'll make it good.
I try to choose my words carefully, so I'm sorry I give you the impression that I'd make it "good." I would make it interesting. They would not have to pray to the dice gods, because the players will enjoy the outcome whether they succeed or fail. That doesn't mean the characters necessarily will.
Under my approach, the players will be excited because there is a chance for failure, and there will be real consequences for for making foolish choices.
That, in and of itself, is nothing to get excited about, unless the failure is enjoyable.
There are no "real" consequences, only cool ones or frustrating ones, and no inherently "foolish" choices, just what the DM chooses to facilitate. Adventuring is a "foolish" choice, but it is one most DMs will facilitate.
What I mean by I will not be merciful is if the dice say they die, then they die. In most situations, I'd probably fudge things here and there...I doubt I would let them straight up die due to the dice gods lack of mercy. If they do something there should be little hope for them to survive, then...if the dice say they die, they will die.
Okay, and once you've killed them. Now what? The game is over for you and for them. What lesson have you taught them? That realism is more important than the game itself?
let me put it to you this way: I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. If it seems unrealistic, it probably is. For example, if you jump off the golden gate bridge, the chances are good that you will die. If one of my players jumps off the golden gate bridge without some means to avoid the splat...guess what? They're likely going to die and I'm not going to intervene.
But as you say, the chances are "good." Not everyone who does something like that will die, even in the real world. This is the basis of action movies: stretch the suspension of disbelief a little bit, or carefully leave out some physics to make things fun.
In games, DMs get to make a choice: describe a boring consequence, or describe an interesting consequence. If a DM can't describe an interesting consequence, then it's time to ask the player or players what they think would be an interesting way to proceed. It could be that they think the boring consequence would be interesting. That was not the case with the original group. There was clear frustation at the consequence the DM chose.
In the case of the original poster, there is no "and..." that's going to make the guy they want to help him grateful, for having trashed his office.
Maybe not, but that's only one outcome and not a particularly interesting one. What the PCs were attempting was to stage a break-in to make the NPC decide to give them something. Interesting success is: they succeed. If they fail, interesting failure could be a lot of things; such as the NPC putting the item in a safe spot, which entails futher adventure to try to reach. Or something. Anything.
I'm trying to be clear here: interesting consequences doesn't mean good consequences. Bad things happen to characters in stories all the time, but they're not boring consequences or we wouldn't read about them. Failure, yes; boring failure, no.
Edit: That post got away from player advice. I stand by just supporting the first plan anyone offers. Add to it as best your character can, and try to make it work. It probably stands just as good a chance of working as anything else and at least if it fails you saved some time.
I try to choose my words carefully, so I'm sorry I give you the impression that I'd make it "good." I would make it interesting. They would not have to pray to the dice gods, because the players will enjoy the outcome whether they succeed or fail. That doesn't mean the characters necessarily will.
There have been a ton of great points by Centauri in the above posts. (Big surprise that I say that, I know.) This one is of particular note to understand what we're getting at. If your DM and group understands this approach, both success and failure will always be fun and interesting, no matter how the dice go. (Again, fun and interesting for the DM and players - the characters might really be taking it on the chin.) No single plan is better than another, not really, because both outcomes are cool. So you go for the one that seems like the most fun and then execute it and roll some dice to see how it turns out. By using "Yes, and..." everyone basically gets part of their own ideas into this plan, so that when it plays out, everyone's engaged by it. (People are engaged by their own contributions, no big surprise there.)
This has the side effect of short-circuiting those PC planning sessions where things get talked to death forever as each possible avenue of failure is examined, analyzed, and either avoided or mitigated. (Until the dragonborn just kicks in a door, that is.) This saves a ton of session time which can be used to move your game forward. Take that, add increased player engagement and action to your game, improved pacing, and more player trust. It's win-win all around. Now, I'm sure there are people who really like that planning and debate. More power to them if that's how they get their fun. It's not something I advocate.
A DM that creates problems for the PCs with a single (or otherwise limited number of) solution(s) is, in part, causing this issue. And if you, as a DM, insist on using this for your style of DMing, then "Yes, and..." isn't going to work for your group. Why? Because if their "Yes, and..." collaboration doesn't produce the result you're looking for (and it probably won't), you're going to have to block their ideas one way or another. That's no way to run a game in my opinion. I know it's very common and a lot of DMs don't even know they're doing it, I bet. I used to do it, quite unknowingly, for years. It "is like handing the players a map on which a specific route has been marked with invisible ink... and then requiring them to follow that invisible path." (credit) Of course, that "Yes, and..." wouldn't work for a DM that does this isn't an indictment on "Yes, and..." The single-solution approach to DMing is rife with issues that are seen all over the forums with some frequency.
In games, DMs get to make a choice: describe a boring consequence, or describe an interesting consequence. If a DM can't describe an interesting consequence, then it's time to ask the player or players what they think would be an interesting way to proceed. It could be that they think the boring consequence would be interesting.
...
I'm trying to be clear here: interesting consequences doesn't mean good consequences. Bad things happen to characters in stories all the time, but they're not boring consequences or we wouldn't read about them. Failure, yes; boring failure, no.
Right! Why should people playing a game for enjoyment be satisfied with boring or uninteresting consequences if they don't want them? And if they do want them, why is that?
Edit: That post got away from player advice. I stand by just supporting the first plan anyone offers. Add to it as best your character can, and try to make it work. It probably stands just as good a chance of working as anything else and at least if it fails you saved some time.
Yes, it has gotten away from player advice. Even so, I think that additional perspective is necessary to understand the full scope of the issue. It helps illustrate the causes which can help illuminate a solution which is ostensibly why people come here.
Right! Why should people playing a game for enjoyment be satisfied with boring or uninteresting consequences if they don't want them? And if they do want them, why is that?
I think the answer is that some people want a game that shows them what "really" would happen if they were in a fantasy world (or were making decisions for someone who was). Sometimes in simulation video games it's fun to knock over a building or something and see the little fire department scramble to deal with it, just to see the model doing its thing. I think that's sort of what's going on here: ok, you can burn down a building, but you're part of this simulation, and they don't have firefighters but they do have cops, so now you're going to see the Arrest Criminals portion of the simulation. It's not considered "boring," rather it's "just what happens." There's not meant to be any emotion about it, just execution of a simulation.
Where this all falls down, of course, is when the idea of "lessons" comes up, and when characters are killed and the DM and players finally realize that no one was bluffing and they really were prepared to shoot their own game in the head for the sake of the simulation.
Oh please. Let's stop pretending that a TPK is "shooting your game in the head". That story ends, and everyone rolls up new characters and starts a new story, just like any other champaign that ended.
Or the characters get resurrected years after what they were trying to stop has already happened (so as not to be a complete DexM-reset that takes away the danger and drama of having consequences),
or are resurrected on another continent where they are still powerless against what they were originally trying to stop (so as not to...),
or have been recruited by the gods for supernatural campaigns in the meantime until either of the above,
or they roll new characters just until they can resurrect their first ones,
or some of them play the new characters until they can resurrect the old ones while others keep playing the new ones (either by their old ones not being resurrected or just not being played again even if they are)...
BTW, I just realized that I used "until they can resurrect the Old Ones" in a sentence"
Oh please. Let's stop pretending that a TPK is "shooting your game in the head". That story ends, and everyone rolls up new characters and starts a new story, just like any other champaign that ended.
I think you're missing a key thing here that speaks to the broader point. Centauri isn't objecting to a TPK. Here's it's just a stand-in for any potential boring consequence pursued because that's what the simulation says you have to pursue above all other concerns. This was specifically stated by the OP in a very frank, if baffling way: "Sometimes players do dumb/boring things, so dumb/boring things should happen."
But why? We're playing a game, a game of choices and consequences (some determined by dice, others determined by fiat traditionally), and of considerations beyond the simulation which include how we choose to spend our time. Those consequences do not have to be boring. Why then do so many DMs choose boring consequences and why do so many players tacitly go along with it? Why not choose interesting or demand interesting consequences instead? This is one of the issues with this particular game in question.
I see nothing wrong with a TPK as long as it's not uninteresting, un-fun, boring, or punitive. As a DM, I don't create stories or plots, so there's nothing for me to lose. The players, however, potentially lose big if that TPK isn't cool as they have an investment in their characters and the story that has been created collaboratively through actual play. Thus I leave it for them to decide these matters. If the dice say TPK, I'm at least somewhat obliged to suggest that as an outcome, but as Centauri said above, "In games, DMs get to make a choice: describe a boring consequence, or describe an interesting consequence. If a DM can't describe an interesting consequence, then it's time to ask the player or players what they think would be an interesting way to proceed. It could be that they think the boring consequence would be interesting."
Of course, we're off-topic with discussing TPK. TPK wasn't really an issue in the OP's problem. But it is a useful example to understand the tyranny and ubiquity of boring consequence and why you don't have to accept it in the game for the sake of the simulation. Now, if you're using it to "teach a lesson," well, that's another problem, somewhat related, and seemingly at play here in the OP's scenario.
Of course, your objective is to play the game for entertainment and not bordom/punishment, but changin the outcome from it's natural course, even if that course is boring can potentially shatter the illusion. In short there is no saving a situation if it is not plausible.
You can avoid the TKP, as it were, but if doing so shatters the illusion then you've done even more damage. Imagine reading a fictional novel where the author discussed his own motivation for the characters actions rather then the character's motivation.
Not only that but you are removing a very large element of suspense and danger from the game, and promotes recklessness, after all they are in no real danger as strings can be pulled to alter the outcome if they are screwing up.
Fun and interesting may always be the chief goal, but suspension of beliefe/disbelief is also required and DMs and players alike can be backed into a corner in this regard, with no plausible solution to make the game interesting or fun.
That sounds logical, but it flies in the face of the fact we're playing in a fantasy game. Anything is possible, perhaps especially "the impossible." There's always an out... if people want it. If they don't, then they don't and that's fine if this is an outcome with which they are satisfied. But let's not ever delude ourselves into thinking that any situation has only one "plausible" outcome. That simply represents a lack of imagination.
Of course, your objective is to play the game for entertainment and not bordom/punishment, but changin the outcome from it's natural course, even if that course is boring can potentially shatter the illusion. In short there is no saving a situation if it is not plausible.
I refer you to the above. There IS no natural course or most plausible thing. There are consequences chosen, usually by the DM, from a nearly infinite number of possible consequences. Context eliminates some of them, certainly. But why would the DM chose the most boring ones? Realism? In a fantasy game?
You can avoid the TKP, as it were, but if doing so shatters the illusion then you've done even more damage. Imagine reading a fictional novel where the author discussed his own motivation for the characters actions rather then the character's motivation.
TPK's are just fine - if the players buy in. Otherwise, what's the point? What do you gain that you couldn't gain by a more interesting outcome, if the players want it? Something just as dangerous and complicated, but that allows the game to continue in an interesting way? Interesting to the players, but perilous to the characters.
Not only that but you are removing a very large element of suspense and danger from the game, and promotes recklessness, after all they are in no real danger as strings can be pulled to alter the outcome if they are screwing up.
You're restating what others have above and we've shown that this is not what the approach advocates. We're not pulling the characters out of the fire. We're simply putting them in fires that are more interesting than other fires. It's still a fire and the characters may burn. Point is, the players are more engaged in watching them go up in flames one way over another.
But if it stinks of deux ex machine and isn't believably, then it will fail, however interestign it might be, it must be believable by the players.
Of course one should go with the best, most interesting solution or consequence rather then the blandest, boring solution, but the more a DM gets pushed into a corner then fewer and fewer options will be left available and the harder it will be to keep them interesting. Especially if a player absolutely persists until he runs the DM out of creative solutions.
Iserith, that is all fine and dandy to say, in theory, but it all comes down to the situation and if the DM is creative enough to come up with a "plausible" solution that is also interesting and imaginative. If you can come up with a creative, interesting and imaginative solution that is plausible, then all well in good.
But if it stinks of deux ex machine and isn't believably, then it will fail, however interestign it might be, it must be believable by the players.
Of course one should go with the best, most interesting solution or consequence rather then the blandest, boring solution, but the more a DM gets pushed into a corner then fewer and fewer options will be left available and the harder it will be to keep them interesting. Especially if a player absolutely persists until he runs the DM out of creative solutions.
Every single thing you said here is completely obviated by bringing the players in on creating those solutions. (Something Centauri stated very eloquently above.)
There is no particularly good reason the DM needs to have the onus placed entirely on him. I'd like to think that I'm very good at coming up with creative, interesting, and imaginative solutions that do not smack of deus ex machina, but I know that I can't do that all the time. So, I ask my players for help. Five other brains at the table, working in tandem with my own, is a powerful, powerful asset to have when running a game. They're sure to come up with an interesting and believable outcome if I can't. And also, whatever they come up with already has their buy-in because it was their idea!
Of course one should go with the best, most interesting solution or consequence rather then the blandest, boring solution, but the more a DM gets pushed into a corner then fewer and fewer options will be left available and the harder it will be to keep them interesting. Especially if a player absolutely persists until he runs the DM out of creative solutions.
That's still no excuse to resort to a boring consequence. At that point, the DM should admit that they can't see an interesting way forward, and ask the players what would make sense to them. The players might be fine with a deus ex machina resolution or some result that strains credulity. They might be fine with what the DM assumed they'd find boring. But there's never an excuse to charge ahead with a boring outcome.
I don't give a dman if your hipster groups sit around in sandles or whatever hipsters clad their hoves with, discussing what they think an NPD should do in response to their hispter character's mistakes. Tolken never asked the Drwaves how they felt the Dragon should behave, or how they though the Wood Elf King would respond to their bumbling off the trail and interupting the elf parties. And I won't discuss how an NPC will respond to my players either.
If the player or players want to persist on persuing an action that will elad to a boring, and unenjoyable result, then f&$% him, that's exactly what he will get. If he didn't want that result then he shouldn't have persisted in his course of actions. I am not going to change their diapers for them.
Sorry you two, but my players aren't developmentally chalenged or simple minded nitwits. If the "plausible" cause is boring then that is life. Sometimes you keep landing on "go to jail" and never pass Go, but they've moved out of their parent's basements and their mommies have stopped holding their hands on the way to school and cutting the crust from thier bread for them. As a DM I am not going to baby them either.
I don't give a dman if your hipster groups sit around in sandles or whatever hipsters clad their hoves with, discussing what they think an NPD should do in response to their hispter character's mistakes. Tolken never asked the Drwaves how they felt the Dragon should behave, or how they though the Wood Elf King would respond to their bumbling off the trail and interupting the elf parties. And I won't discuss how an NPC will respond to my players either.
If the player or players want to persist on persuing an action that will elad to a boring, and unenjoyable result, then f&$% him, that's exactly what he will get. If he didn't want that result then he shouldn't have persisted in his course of actions. I am not going to change their diapers for them.
First of all Tolkien was a writer and played all the characters. D&D is a game that requires multiple people. Are you saying that you write the PC's actions and will only have fun if they choose your pre planned "fun result as a DM? Aren't the players supposed to be the Protagonists?
Let's all agree that generally the point of playing a game is to have fun.
If the DM actively doesn't want to run the game the players want to run (Even if he considers it boring) then the DM is massively blocking the players and not getting to the point of playing the game: to have fun.
I think we might be missing that. Realistically the whole "yes and..." approach is to maximize the amount of fun one group can have by not blocking another player's idea. If there are 5 players and they completely disregard one of them then only 4 players are having fun and the 5th has to wait until he can railroad the other PC's to his idea.
Sure, some ideas might be bad ideas, that's where the "and" portion comes in. You can add good components and then move forward and adventure.
I remember countless sessions where all the PC's would do would disagree for hours on how to do something, and this whether we like it or not, sometimes tends to boil over into out of game bickering. Easiest way to avoid that is to just jump and make whatever idea the most fun possible.
The DM is very important in this aspect, his job is to make the PC's choices as interesting and fun as possible. Interesting and fun don't have to mean easy. Personally I don't have fun with D&D until i'm bloodied or at serious disadvantage. So death and losing can be interesting and fun, but if everyone buys into the idea you've maximized your potential fun
Sorry you two, but my players aren't developmentally chalenged or simple minded nitwits.
Funny that you'd assume that we thought they were.
If the "plausible" cause is boring then that is life.
It's not life. This isn't life. This is a game, with results generated primarily (per tradition) by the DM.
Sometimes you keep landing on "go to jail" and never pass Go,
And if that possibility doesn't strike someone as enjoyable, then they don't play that game. If it's enough to keep things interesting without making things boring, then maybe they still would. Interesting analogy, considering how horrible a game Monopoly is widely considered to be.
As a DM I am not going to baby them either.
No one here would.
Tolken never asked the Drwaves how they felt the Dragon should behave, or how they though the Wood Elf King would respond to their bumbling off the trail and interupting the elf parties. And I won't discuss how an NPC will respond to my players either.
Sounds like you're confusing "character" with "player." No one's talking about consulting the characters. The characters might be utterly miserable. But making the players miserable is a waste of everyone's time.
If the player or players want to persist on persuing an action that will elad to a boring, and unenjoyable result, then f&$% him, that's exactly what he will get.
There is no such thing as "an action that will lead to a boring, and unenjoyable result." If there was, then the DM wouldn't have to provide it, it would just happen in the course of play. If an action leads to such a result, it's because the DM chose for that to be the result. Why would a DM do that?
(Edit: I could have phrased that better. But what's at issue are situations that could develop and play out in a number of different plausible ways but play out in a frustrating way because that's what the DM wants to happen.)
If he didn't want that result then he shouldn't have persisted in his course of actions.
Once a result is determined to follow from an action, sure I'll generally agree that the player must have wanted that result (or the risk of it) for persisting in that course. The issue is why a particular result is what follows. The answer in most of the problem cases is that the DM decided that would be the result. We don't have people in here complaining that their character died after jumping off a bridge. They're complaining that perfectly reasonable, interesting and adventuresome ideas are blocked by the DM, who threatens boring results if they pursue those actions. Please tell me why a DM would or should do such a thing, instead of coming up or collaborating with the players to come up with interesting stakes?
In the meantime, I hope you're feeling better. I've had days like that, too.
Sorry you two, but my players aren't developmentally chalenged or simple minded nitwits.
Did I say or imply that they are? That certainly doesn't sound like anything I've said or would say. If I'm in error, please let me know and I'll edit my post. I'm not into calling people names.
If the "plausible" cause is boring then that is life. Sometimes you keep landing on "go to jail" and never pass Go, but they've moved out of their parent's basements and their mommies have stopped holding their hands on the way to school and cutting the crust from thier bread for them. As a DM I am not going to baby them either.
We're not playing Life. Or Monopoly. We're playing D&D, a game where boring outcomes are a choice. If your players like boring outcomes, I'll not gainsay them. But then, my point is not to suggest what you and your players enjoy. Rather, I'm saying that you don't have to choose boring outcomes if you don't want to, and that there are great benefits by not doing so. Non-boring outcomes are not the same as "babying" players. We're not lessening the impact or cost to the character necessarily - we're collaborating on an impact or cost that is interesting to everyone. Mind, interesting to the players, not always the characters. The characters might wish they weren't in such a painful predicament!
I don't give a dman if your hipster groups sit around in sandles or whatever hipsters clad their hoves with, discussing what they think an NPD should do in response to their hispter character's mistakes.
I'm not sure what your point is with the hipster stuff. Perhaps you can explain further what you mean?
As far as discussing what an NPC may do in response to a PC's mistakes, this isn't anything different than players do all the time. Given a scenario with contextual import, they speculate as to how a possible action might turn out, how the NPC might react, etc., either mentally or vocally. What's wrong with the DM using what they suggest if what they suggest is a good idea? They're coming up with these ideas anyway as they consider plans in their decision-making process.
Tolken never asked the Drwaves how they felt the Dragon should behave, or how they though the Wood Elf King would respond to their bumbling off the trail and interupting the elf parties. And I won't discuss how an NPC will respond to my players either.
Tolkien was writing a book. We're playing an RPG which involves other people actively playing with each other, collaborating and using dice outcomes to write a story together. And though I'm no Tolkien expert, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the things that happened to the characters were by and large interesting. That's all we're saying. Outcomes should be interesting and, given that approach, players won't be tempted to failure mitigate all the time to the detriment of the game. This was, in part, the issue with the OP's situation. The dragonborn's actions were a symptom of a larger problem. Again, he's not blameless, but at least we can put our finger on where the problem is coming from.
If the player or players want to persist on persuing an action that will elad to a boring, and unenjoyable result, then f&$% him, that's exactly what he will get. If he didn't want that result then he shouldn't have persisted in his course of actions. I am not going to change their diapers for them.
Well, you sure showed that player or players alright. But what did you gain by doing so? You could just have easily chosen an equally harsh but interesting result that moved the game forward, rather than try to teach someone a lesson. Why would you want to be in that kind of adversarial position with your fellow players?
I try not to read too much into tone because that's something people regularly do to my posts; however, it does seem like you're a bit frustrated. This has been a useful discussion and there are certainly no hard feelings on my part.
Since even video games, which use flashing lights as a base way to keep player interest, use boring mechanics and "grinds" because that is what the players want. for example, mining endlessly to gather enough coper to click together 100s of copper bars to click together to make hundreds of copper shoes. Boring work is what leads to fun and excitement.
Unless you are playing with six year olds with short attention spans, the "boring" parts are entertaining as well.
Of course the more interesting route is preferable, but fantasy works only by maintinaing the illusion, thus "plausible" disbelief. Not every choice will be "interesting" by your limited standards, but maintaining the believability of the fantasy world is an important factor to consider and the answers will not always be in DR. Suese rhymes. Failure will be sometimes the result and going through the the tedium and boring process is part of that failure. And believe it or not, outside of short attention spans and the immature, in the long run it is often more interesting as a result.
Also that the DM needs to think of the group as a whole over an individual player, as much as it is good to accomidate everyone, the simple fact is that they often can't and need to say No to an individual to preserve the overall entertainment of everyone else.
Centauri and even you iserith seem to interpret interesting and fun as "what you do" and boring as "anything that anyone else does" which is what filters from your hipster "boring" attitudes regarding any suggestion of DMs just dealing the cards in their hands.
Not at all, and that's not my intention when I post. Here's the thing about those cards in the DM's hands: They're nearly infinite, constrained only somewhat by context and, in a traditional approach to the game, by the DM's own imagination and prejudices (e.g. "then f&$% him, that's exactly what he will get"). I have my own lack of imagination from time to time and certainly my own prejudices, and I recognize that. To counteract it and to ensure the most interesting outcome possible for any circumstance, I involve the players collaboratively in determining what those outcomes will be. It will thus never be boring or punitive or uninteresting to the players.
Boring, uninteresting, or punitive consequences that were adding up to 3.5 hours of spinning their wheels was part of what led to the actions that prompted this thread. Because if all their various plans had blown up in their faces in fun and interesting ways, at least they had a blast, even if they didn't get to the artifact yet.
Boring work is what leads to fun and excitement.
Another great advertising slogan for D&D! Slap a picture of adventurers haggling with a shopkeep over the price of iron rations behind that tagline and send it to marketing, pronto!
Unless you are playing with six year olds with short attention spans, the "boring" parts are entertaining as well.
All I'm saying is give the players the outcomes they think will be interesting. If they choose the "boring" things, give them that. But give them the choice rather than always the DM's choice because the DM's choice can be unimaginitive and biased with prejudice. There are many benefits to this approach, as stated. It certainly would have obviated in part the problems the group in question was having.
Of course the more interesting route is preferable, but fantasy works only by maintinaing the illusion, thus "plausible" disbelief. Not every choice will be "interesting" by your limited standards, but maintaining the believability of the fantasy world is an important factor to consider and the answers will not always be in DR. Suese rhymes. Failure will be sometimes the result and going through the the tedium and boring process is part of that failure. And believe it or not, outside of short attention spans and the immature, in the long run it is often more interesting as a result.
I keep detecting a lot of backhanded insults and such. "Short attention spans." "Immature." "Six year olds." "Hipsters." What's up with that? Have I done something to offend you?
And anyway, I'm not saying what you're doing is boring. I'm saying the DM has a choice between infinite consequences for PC actions, some of which will be boring. Then I'm asking why a DM would choose those things that will be boring for their players, given other more interesting options. And if no interesting options are coming to the fore of the DM's mind, why shouldn't he ask the players for their input on this? Why should he impose his boring ideas when he clearly doesn't have to? What's the upside?
Also that the DM needs to think of the group as a whole over an individual player, as much as it is good to accomidate everyone, the simple fact is that they often can't and need to say No to an individual to preserve the overall entertainment of everyone else.
The group needs to think about the group. The DM is part of the group. Everyone's ideas can very easily be accomodated, if you just do it. We've provided plenty of examples in this thread as to how. People who use this approach simply don't have the endless failure mitigation discussions. Or the guy that gets frustrated and acts out after 3.5 hours of dead ends. Or 3.5 hours of dead ends for that matter. It just doesn't happen because those are outcomes common to another approach that this DM in question is taking and that we're advising against.
Since even video games, which use flashing lights as a base way to keep player interest, use boring mechanics and "grinds" because that is what the players want. for example, mining endlessly to gather enough coper to click together 100s of copper bars to click together to make hundreds of copper shoes.
Perhaps word choice is the issue here. How about "frustrating" instead of "boring"?
The example you give isn't related to what's under discussion. If a game tells me that I have to perform an action to get, eventually, an interesting consequence, I can weigh how interested I am in that consequence against how disinterested I am in performing that action for that length of time. If the action is inherently interesting to me, even better, but at least the result will be interesting to me, and I won't have wasted my time.
The opposite is common too, and I think makes your point better: If a game tells me that performing a certain action will result in a frustrating consequence, then I must weigh how interested I am in performing that action, against how disinterested I am in receiving that consequence.
The latter is, I think, what you're talking about. If you do A, then B will happen. If you don't want B to happen, don't do A. When it comes to roleplaying games, B is sometimes predetermined: if you attack a creature, you may cause damage to it; if you fall down a pit, you may take damage; etc. Very many things about the game are not predetermined, for instance, the effects of burning down a brothel, or burglarizing someone's office. Some DMs do a lot to come up with a plausibly real world, setting up guard forces, or countermeasures, or whatever, but players are known for trying things no DM considered.
But the point is, the DM is the one determining B, often on the fly. The DM has the choice of determining that B will be a frustrating roadblock, even if A is successful, or that B will be an interesting complication, even if A fails. The question is why the DM would choose for B to be frustrating, as the DM in this situation appears to have done.
Too often, DMs make that choice not in an attempt to make the long-term pay-off even sweeter, but to try to "teach a lesson" about acceptable in-game behavior. The DM is deliberately making the game boring for the players, even when the rules don't call for that, or even encourage it. Or even when the rules actively discourage it.
Realism is fine, suspension of disbelief is fine, but neither is a valid excuse for deliberately injecting tedium into the game, or for putting up with very much of it.
Boring work is what leads to fun and excitement.
Not inherently. Interesting "work" can also be what leads to more interesting things.
(And anyway, subscription games have a very particular business model that ties into gambling and addiction reflexes. That's irrelevant to D&D.)
Of course the more interesting route is preferable, but fantasy works only by maintinaing the illusion, thus "plausible" disbelief. Not every choice will be "interesting" by your limited standards, but maintaining the believability of the fantasy world is an important factor to consider and the answers will not always be in DR. Suese rhymes.
Tolkien (apart from the bit about how maybe the eagles could have taken the Ring to Mount Doom) is well known for being able to suspend disbelief. His characters fail all the time, but the way they fail tends to be interesting to the reader.
Ok, DMs aren't dealing with book characters that always make choices that are easily woven into an interesting story. But they still have the power to choose consequences that, while they are horrible for the characters are engaging for the players. That's not always easy, and there should be room for conversation and compromise, but there's very rarely a good reason to choose consequences that can be expected to frustrate the players.
In this case, the DM chose for there to be a trap in the room, and for the PCs to be caught and to get in trouble. There are plenty of other plausible ways that could have gone if the DM had made choices not deliberately intended to stymie the players. The plan works, but with a twist; the plan fails, and the PCs are free, but the timetable has been moved up; etc.
Failure will be sometimes the result and going through the the tedium and boring process is part of that failure.
You're talking about tedium as a deliberate part of the game. Sitting down to spend planned out time with friends, engaged in tedium. Optional, DM imposed, tedium.
Do I have this right?
And believe it or not, outside of short attention spans and the immature, in the long run it is often more interesting as a result.
I believe it can be, sure. I believe in-game surprises can sometimes work. Heck, I even believe that punishing someone in-game for out-of-game behavior can work. But these things also have substantial problems. What if, in the long run, the tedium and frustration do not lead to something interesting, or anyway no more interesting than if the tedium and frustration had not occurred? In this case, the player is confident that the party will still be successful, but now they're dealing with something the players don't enjoy, for whatever reason. You assume it's immaturity, but everyone has things about the game they don't want to spend a lot of time on
Also that the DM needs to think of the group as a whole over an individual player, as much as it is good to accomidate everyone, the simple fact is that they often can't and need to say No to an individual to preserve the overall entertainment of everyone else.
If it's that simple, then the DM can talk to the player about it, instead of trying to ward the player off of certain paths with the threat of a frustrating outcome.
But that's not the point here. Here we had a group that was given a frustrating outcome, apparently time after time, instead of an engaging, interesting outcome.
And I've veered into DM territory again. But that's because there's not much this player can do. The players can argue around and around about what's a good plan, but the DM has primary control over whether a plan is going to be worth even trying. For this reason, there's little point in this group, or any other, to spend much time on plans, other than what it takes for everyone to have a chance to make them cool.
So, players: Most plans are going to be able to be made cool pretty easily, so try to back the first one you hear, and add on to it rather than blocking or contradicting it. This will move the game along and allow the DM to decide how to either frustrate or engage you, which they will choose to do without necessarily any regard to what your plan actually is.
Emphasis mine. This is where the problem starts. Rather than accept the idea of that player and build on it to make it better, it was picked apart and shot down. This is very common in gaming groups and is a sign of failure mitigation. Every plan has to be perfect else we pay the price. Well, the thing is "the price" is interesting. It's where the action and drama is. Not every plan need be fullproof and talking it to death will result in pacing problems in the game and ultimately bored players. Bored players, as you see here, lash out.
I can't agree with this. It's perfectly acceptable to say "No." You seem to think that this particular example was acceptable, so let's take a little more extreme example. The barbarian in the group thinks you can force the king, from whom you need a favor, to capitulate by kidnapping and torturing the 8-year-old crown prince. You think this would be a "Yes and..." situation? I tend to think it's closer to a, "Kick this sicko out of our gaming group," situation. And then to find out that he actually went ahead with it? Unacceptable.
The OP's example is less disturbing, but basically the same conflict. One player wants to resolve every problem with headlong violence, and the rest of the party doesn't agree.
If one player is bored and his response is to ruin the fun for everybody else, that player is a problem. "Lashing out" is not acceptable behavior.
I can't agree with this. It's perfectly acceptable to say "No." You seem to think that this particular example was acceptable
I've stated a number of times that the dragonborn's behavior was not acceptable. I did say I can hardly blame the guy for being bored and I understand where the source of his frustration was coming from, but no, his behavior was just as blocking as the others. Not acceptable.
I did provide an example of how it could have gone using the "Yes, and" method. No good?
, so let's take a little more extreme example. The barbarian in the group thinks you can force the king, from whom you need a favor, to capitulate by kidnapping and torturing the 8-year-old crown prince. You think this would be a "Yes and..." situation? I tend to think it's closer to a, "Kick this sicko out of our gaming group," situation. And then to find out that he actually went ahead with it? Unacceptable.
Your extreme example falls very clearly into needing to be handled with an out-of-game conversation, not an in-game negotiation.
The OP's example is less disturbing, but basically the same conflict. One player wants to resolve every problem with headlong violence, and the rest of the party doesn't agree.
Again, this is an out-of-game conversation. Expectations for the game of this sort are discussed in Session Zero. If you haven't discussed expectations prior to the game, you may have players with different expectations of the play experience. So, stop, and have a discussion out-of-game like adults. Don't waste time fighting passive aggressive proxy wars in-character. That's the lesson to take away here.
I surmise that the dragonborn probably isn't as interested in headlong violence as he is in some sort of compelling action, which the DM is blocking because of his approach. Compelling action isn't necessarily fighting. It's just tension with a question that needs answering, soon.
If one player is bored and his response is to ruin the fun for everybody else, that player is a problem. "Lashing out" is not acceptable behavior.
And a problem player is addressed out-of-game. And nobody is saying "lashing out" is acceptable behavior.
In my current group my I have six players I will give a general example of what they each find the most fun:
Player #1: Getting the characters into trouble.
Player #2: Roleplaying his character and roleplaying with the other characters.
Player #3: Having his character be as useful as possible to the party.
Player #4: Getting into combat.
Player #5: Robbing NPCs
Player #6: Socializing with the other players.
Now this isn't so hard to deal with. Its that some of the players don't find what some of the other players are doing "fun and interesting" and instead find it as "annoying and frustrating".
As a DM its my job to run a fun game. Also as a DM its my decision how to go about that. If the players are all bored at the same time, it stands to reason that I am the problem.
This issue the OP made was about the actions of a character. But the DM is who decides if those actions have consequences and what those consequences are.
The OP also made it clear that they had been hitting a bunch of dead ends. That can bore players. Bored players will at times make decisions just to get the game going again no matter that direction that will be.
I am of the opinion that clearly the OP has issue with the Dragonborn player's style of play. That needs to be communicated about. But I am also of the opinion that the player actions were caused due to boredom that was caused by the continious dead ends of the DM game.
It's been my experience that players like to find thier own way to the plot. As a DM sometimes its hard to get them there if you only look at it from a linear standpoint.
I look at gaming like San Francisco:
Anyone who's been to San Franscisco for the first time as a tourist without a GPS or a map is sure to have issue with getting around.
For example, you can see the Golden Gate Bridge but when you try to dive there some of the roads are only one way. So in order to get there you may have to take one road, then another, then another. Eventually you'll get there but its going to take some time.
Players are not sheep to be herded. An awesome DM can allow the players to make their own decisions and still arrive at the plot they've created. In fact an awesome DM can do it in such a way that the players feel in total control the entire way. It's not hard to do this but its take time, commitment, and understanding.
The issue with the idea of "fun and interesting" is that each player can have an totally different view of what that means.
In my current group my I have six players I will give a general example of what they each find the most fun:
Player #1: Getting the characters into trouble.
Player #2: Roleplaying his character and roleplaying with the other characters.
Player #3: Having his character be as useful as possible to the party.
Player #4: Getting into combat.
Player #5: Robbing NPCs
Player #6: Socializing with the other players.
Now this isn't so hard to deal with.
What's interesting about that list (and maybe your last statement admits this) is that none of those items is entirely contradictory to any other.
Its that some of the players don't find what some of the other players are doing "fun and interesting" and instead find it as "annoying and frustrating".
It's important to figure out why they find them annoying and frustrating.
If it's really a diametric opposition, that's one thing.
In this example, I daresay that the objections to the initial idea weren't because that idea was inherently flawed, but because some players realized that it gave the DM a lot of opportunity to further stymie them. It's pretty clear to me that the DM then did stymie them, and had been doing so the entire night. The two views of fun and interesting in this group seem to be "try things and see what happens," and "don't try things because of what might happen."
Come to think of it, what was described originally involved one suggestion, some objections to that suggestion and... no other suggestions. Well, there was a note asking the NPC to contact them, but that's very passive, and actually the ransacking plan doesn't exactly negate that plan. It builds on it, in a way. The point is, the group "seemed to all agree"... to do nothing. At least, nothing exciting or forward moving. And I can't really blame them because doing anything exciting opens a group up to frustrating failure introduced by the DM. At least if the group imposes frustration on itself, no one can be blamed for providing an opening. And if there's one thing we know for sure, it's that this group is ready to blame people that invite trouble.
Again, who can blame them for wanting to cast blame? The DMs approach is exactly the thing for making no one want to suggest any ideas, for fear of looking stupid. Even if the group did turn their ire to the DM for frustrating them, the DM can just point back to the reckless player. Nothing erodes trust faster.
The issue with the idea of "fun and interesting" is that each player can have an totally different view of what that means.
In my current group my I have six players I will give a general example of what they each find the most fun:
Player #1: Getting the characters into trouble.
Player #2: Roleplaying his character and roleplaying with the other characters.
Player #3: Having his character be as useful as possible to the party.
Player #4: Getting into combat.
Player #5: Robbing NPCs
Player #6: Socializing with the other players.
Now this isn't so hard to deal with. Its that some of the players don't find what some of the other players are doing "fun and interesting" and instead find it as "annoying and frustrating".
Yes, and the best way in my experience to make sure everyone gets what they want is to make sure everyone's ideas are included and added to rather than picked apart and shot down. The thing that you find annoying is the thing that they find fun. The thing that you find fun is the thing they find annoying. Well, you can waste session time going around in circles arguing about which approach to take that makes only some people happy, or you can include all ideas in a way that everyone can find fun. Which do you think is better for the game experience? I've shown how to do this by way of "Yes, and..." All it takes is for the people at the table to simply do it.
As a DM its my job to run a fun game. Also as a DM its my decision how to go about that. If the players are all bored at the same time, it stands to reason that I am the problem.
Some food for thought: It's not a "job" and it's certainly not one person's "job" to make sure the game is fun - it's everyone at the table's responsibility and it shouldn't be seen as an onus.
I do agree that if all the players are bored, it's probably the DM that did it. Though again, if the players are also blocking each other's ideas constantly, they're to blame, too. It's very possible a DM could have a great adventure planned, but the players talk every plan to death and block each other's ideas so that nothing gets done and no progress is made. Both problems are easily fixed if the players and DM want to fix them.
This issue the OP made was about the actions of a character. But the DM is who decides if those actions have consequences and what those consequences are.
The OP also made it clear that they had been hitting a bunch of dead ends. That can bore players. Bored players will at times make decisions just to get the game going again no matter that direction that will be.
I am of the opinion that clearly the OP has issue with the Dragonborn player's style of play. That needs to be communicated about. But I am also of the opinion that the player actions were caused due to boredom that was caused by the continious dead ends of the DM game.
Agreed on all counts!
It's been my experience that players like to find thier own way to the plot. As a DM sometimes its hard to get them there if you only look at it from a linear standpoint.
I look at gaming like San Francisco:
Anyone who's been to San Franscisco for the first time as a tourist without a GPS or a map is sure to have issue with getting around.
For example, you can see the Golden Gate Bridge but when you try to dive there some of the roads are only one way. So in order to get there you may have to take one road, then another, then another. Eventually you'll get there but its going to take some time.
Players are not sheep to be herded. An awesome DM can allow the players to make their own decisions and still arrive at the plot they've created. In fact an awesome DM can do it in such a way that the players feel in total control the entire way. It's not hard to do this but its take time, commitment, and understanding.
While I can't agree that the DM creating a plot and letting the players find their way to it is the best approach, I realize it's a very commonly-used one. (See my signature for some great reading on this subject.) Yes, if the DM had better skills at illusionism, obfuscation, and redirection (frequently referred to as the "invisible railroad") and solid player buy-in on the approach, that can be a fine way to run the game. I did it that way myself for years and years. Unfortunately, 3.5 hours of dead ends implies that wasn't really the case here.
The players were looking for an artifact when what they really should have been seeking was the rail that leads to the artifact. The DM was blocking anything that was not going to lead to the rail and not redirecting appropriately. So really, all those plans and discussions they had were meaningless anyway, at least in regard to making progress.
That leads me to some What's a Player to Do? advice:
If you play with a DM that writes predetermined plots and stories, don't go in search of the quest goal. Go in search of the rail that leads you to the quest goal. By keeping your focus there instead of coming up with your own plans to solve the problem, you'll get to the object of the quest faster and with less stress on the DM and the group.
The issue with the idea of "fun and interesting" is that each player can have an totally different view of what that means.
In my current group my I have six players I will give a general example of what they each find the most fun:
Player #1: Getting the characters into trouble.
Player #2: Roleplaying his character and roleplaying with the other characters.
Player #3: Having his character be as useful as possible to the party.
Player #4: Getting into combat.
Player #5: Robbing NPCs
Player #6: Socializing with the other players.
Now this isn't so hard to deal with.
What's interesting about that list (and maybe your last statement admits this) is that none of those items are entirely contradictory to any other.
I didn't find it appropraite or necessary to write what my players don't like in their games.
I posted this to show that people come to player for entirely different reasons.
Its that some of the players don't find what some of the other players are doing "fun and interesting" and instead find it as "annoying and frustrating".
It's important to figure out why they find them annoying and frustrating.
If it's really a diametric opposition, that's one thing.
In this example, I daresay that the objections to the initial idea weren't because that idea was inherently flawed, but because some players realized that it gave the DM a lot of opportunity to further stymie them. It's pretty clear to me that the DM then did stymie them, and had been doing so the entire night. The two views of fun and interesting in this group seem to be "try things and see what happens," and "don't try things because of what might happen."
Come to think of it, what was described originally involved one suggestion, some objections to that suggestion and... no other suggestions. Well, there was a note asking the NPC to contact them, but that's very passive, and actually the ransacking plan doesn't exactly negate that plan. It builds on it, in a way. The point is, the group "seemed to all agree"... to do nothing. At least, nothing exciting or forward moving. And I can't really blame them because doing anything exciting opens a group up to frustrating failure introduced by the DM. At least if the group imposes frustration on itself, no one can be blamed for providing an opening. And if there's one thing we know for sure, it's that this group is ready to blame people that invite trouble.
Again, who can blame them for wanting to cast blame? The DMs approach is exactly the thing for making no one want to suggest any ideas, for fear of looking stupid. Even if the group did turn their ire to the DM for frustrating them, the DM can just point back to the reckless player. Nothing erodes trust faster.
The OP clearly has issue with the Dragonborn player's play style. If its runining his fun then they need to talk about it out of game at this point.
I'm not going to assume what the OP, his DM, and his fellow players are thinking when they make decisions. I can only take my similar experiences and compare them to attempt to assist. In my opinion the DM is the main problem in that particular situation. Shutting down player's ideas only leads to frustration. I've played the man of action character as well as been caught in the at the recieving end of what happens when these things happen.
You always seem to say a DM needs to make a character's decisons intresting.
I agree as well as beleive as a player you also need to see other character's actions in an interesting light.
Instead of simply getting ticked at another players actions look at how you can make the end result of these actions fun for youself and your fellow players.
What's interesting about that list (and maybe your last statement admits this) is that none of those items are entirely contradictory to any other.
I didn't find it appropraite or necessary to write what my players don't like in their games.
I posted this to show that people come to player for entirely different reasons.
And I just wanted to use that as a springboard to point out that a list of reasons that might seem contradictory (as yours did to me on first glance) might not actually be.
The OP clearly has issue with the Dragonborn player's play style. If its runining his fun then they need to talk about it out of game at this point.
Definitely. I think that if they do, one of the things they might learn is that they do actually agree with each other, which hopefully will get them to realize that their issues may be stemming from the DM.
You always seem to say a DM needs to make a character's decisons intresting.
They need to not make them boring. The term I think applies is another one from improv: justification. Even if a player's decision can only lead to trouble, justify the decision as one a hero would make, with consequences that would be interesting for a hero to deal with.
Instead of simply getting ticked at another players actions look at how you can make the end result of these actions fun for youself and your fellow players.
Yes, and that can be very, very hard. It was part of why I didn't enjoy much of my early roleplaying. There was one player who would either make an insane decision that no one could really support except in reaction, or would disrupt someone else's action. He was very, very bored, I see now. I needed not to play with him, or to work with him.
If you play with a DM that writes predetermined plots and stories, don't go in search of the quest goal. Go in search of the rail that leads you to the quest goal. By keeping your focus there instead of coming up with your own plans to solve the problem, you'll get to the object of the quest faster and with less stress on the DM and the group.
I find that sound advice to the OP of this thread.
If the goals of the players in your group are in conflict, you probably need to reassess whether or not that's a gaming group that should continue playing together. A gaming group should have similar or at least compatible goals.
Or a lot of trust.
The OP clearly has issue with the Dragonborn player's play style. If its runining his fun then they need to talk about it out of game at this point.
I'm not going to assume what the OP, his DM, and his fellow players are thinking when they make decisions. I can only take my similar experiences and compare them to attempt to assist. In my opinion the DM is the main problem in that particular situation. Shutting down player's ideas only leads to frustration. I've played the man of action character as well as been caught in the at the recieving end of what happens when these things happen.
You always seem to say a DM needs to make a character's decisons intresting.
I agree as well as beleive as a player you also need to see other character's actions in an interesting light.
Instead of simply getting ticked at another players actions look at how you can make the end result of these actions fun for youself and your fellow players.
All good advice. It's a wonder why it's not followed more often. Or attacked less often.
I find that sound advice to the OP of this thread.
Of course, the unfortunate part is that by following this advice, they'll get a smoother running game, but it means the OP won't be able to (paraphrasing what OP finds important about D&D here) use his moral alignments, consider consequences, interact, and strategize in any useful way. All of that will just be window dressing as they follow the rail. This is where the player buy-in comes in. You as a player need to be aware of that truth and accept it as the way things are. Otherwise, conflict ensues.
You certainly have more restraint than I. My "interesing" in-character response would have been to stab the dragonborn in the throat to help clear myself of charges.
Ok. Can you describe how you imagine that playing out? Can you describe how you would react if someone did that to you in response to an action that displeased them?
If the goals of the players in your group are in conflict, you probably need to reassess whether or not that's a gaming group that should continue playing together. A gaming group should have similar or at least compatible goals.
Very true. Characters can be in conflict, but players should never be. And players in harmony that play characters in conflict know when to set those in-character conflicts aside to move the game forward. Or should.
You certainly have more restraint than I. My "interesing" in-character response would have been to stab the dragonborn in the throat to help clear myself of charges.
Out of curiosity, why would you choose that option over just voicing your objection directly out-of-game?
Ok. Can you describe how you imagine that playing out?
Well, when the Dragonborn comes up with the idea, I wait for the group to respond, then go "No, we're not doing that." when we decide we don't want to do that. Then I stab him in the throat when he does it anyways and, when the guards arrive, tell them I caught him trying to break into the dude's office.
You certainly have more restraint than I. My "interesing" in-character response would have been to stab the dragonborn in the throat to help clear myself of charges.
All I can think of when I saw what you posted was this:
Paladin Player: "I got a total of 16 on my Intimidate check to convice the Barbarian to shut his mouth!"
Barbarian Player: "I'm going to retort with the Paladin's Diplomacy check with my Greataxe to his face!"
DM: "...and that concludes the skill challenge, now to the combat encounter..."
Ok. Can you describe how you imagine that playing out?
Well, when the Dragonborn comes up with the idea, I wait for the group to respond, then go "No, we're not doing that." when we decide we don't want to do that. Then I stab him in the throat when he does it anyways and, when the guards arrive, tell them I caught him trying to break into the dude's office.
I had guessed that much from your initial post. Do you have to roll to stab him? What if you miss, or don't kill him? What if the player makes another character just as "bad" as the previous one, but harder to kill? Or makes one that kills you first?
And what if someone did this to you for something you did that they didn't like?
Ok. Can you describe how you imagine that playing out?
Well, when the Dragonborn comes up with the idea, I wait for the group to respond, then go "No, we're not doing that." when we decide we don't want to do that. Then I stab him in the throat when he does it anyways and, when the guards arrive, tell them I caught him trying to break into the dude's office.
I had guessed that much from your initial post. Do you have to roll to stab him? What if you miss, or don't kill him? What if the player makes another character just as "bad" as the previous one, but harder to kill? Or makes one that kills you first?
And what if someone did this to you for something you did that they didn't like?
Well first I'd make sure I don't piss the party off by getting us thrown into a negative situation then bailing the second any sign of consequences taking effect.
And I'd damn well do my best to hit him, or at least stall him till the guards show up to arrest him.
And if he makes a new character solely out to kill me, then he's still ruining our fun and shouldn't get be surprised when he's promptly booted from the table for sucking away the rest of the group's fun.
And what if someone did this to you for something you did that they didn't like?
Well first I'd make sure I don't piss the party off by getting us thrown into a negative situation then bailing the second any sign of consequences taking effect.
What you had done was not stipulated, so take it as read that you did something that seemed acceptable to you, and your character is attacked for it. What would your reaction be?
And I'd damn well do my best to hit him, or at least stall him till the guards show up to arrest him.
Okay, say you miss him. Now he attacks you. Say he actually kills you, and manages to escape in-game punishment altogether. Where do you take it from there?
And if he makes a new character solely out to kill me, then he's still ruining our fun and shouldn't get be surprised when he's promptly booted from the table for sucking away the rest of the group's fun.
You get to kill his character, but he doesn't get to kill yours?
You get to kill his character, but he doesn't get to kill yours?
COnsidering I did it to make him stop ruining our fun, and he's doing it to continue ruining our fun, no he doesn't.
And chances are if he retaliated to me like that and killed me, knowing my group, they'd probably have their characters maul him.
As for doing something acceptable to me and the party attacking em for it, chances are it won't happen, because regardless of my character, I'm not going to do anything that'll ruin the rest of my party's fun just because I didn't kill something in the last nanosecond.
COnsidering I did it to make him stop ruining our fun, and he's doing it to continue ruining our fun, no he doesn't.
And chances are if he retaliated to me like that and killed me, knowing my group, they'd probably have their characters maul him.
How much wasted time and acrimony does that produce as opposed to an out-of-game conversation?
How much wasted time and acrimony does that produce as opposed to an out-of-game conversation?
The problem with out-of-game conversations really is that if you have to tell your friend that he is being an idiot, then the problem is likely that he is an fact an idiot.
See if I am at a dinner party and several of the guests grab me and throw me outside and beat me up, was that the right way for them to handle me or would it be better for the hostess to phone me up the next day to explain to me how my conversation topic of dead babies with the pregnant woman was inappropriate? The core issue here would be that I am a scumbag moron, and that won't be resolved with "polite rules on dinner conversation" being explained to me, but rather with me never being invited to dinner parties.
The same with the game, you've got to consider that the player being an immature idiot is in fact an immature idiot, and your out-of-game conversation is not going to change that fact. If he isn't an immature idiot, then he would get the clue in game, with no need to pause the game. Just as I would have gotten the clue at the dinner party by the sudden akward silence and polite coughs and my wife elbowing me in the side. My point being that you shouldn't need to have that conversation with your friends.
The problem with out-of-game conversations really is that if you have to tell your friend that he is being an idiot, then the problem is likely that he is an fact an idiot.
See if I am at a dinner party and several of the guests grab me and throw me outside and beat me up, was that the right way for them to handle me or would it be better for the hostess to phone me up the next day to explain to me how my conversation topic of dead babies with the pregnant woman was inappropriate? The core issue here would be that I am a scumbag moron, and that won't be resolved with "polite rules on dinner conversation" being explained to me, but rather with me never being invited to dinner parties.
The same with the game, you've got to consider that the player being an immature idiot is in fact an immature idiot, and your out-of-game conversation is not going to change that fact. If he isn't an immature idiot, then he would get the clue in game, with no need to pause the game. Just as I would have gotten the clue at the dinner party by the sudden akward silence and polite coughs and my wife elbowing me in the side. My point being that you shouldn't need to have that conversation with your friends.
You come close to pinpointing the cause of the problem, then veer away to deal with a symptom. And then you recommend dealing with the symptom in an indirect way at that.
The real problem, in your example, is that you're gaming with an immature idiot. That's where the problem begins and ends. Everything you then do to deal with that is simply attacking a symptom. Don't game with immature idiots. That doesn't mean "stop being friends with immature idiots" though that's not exactly bad advice. Do some other activity with them where their immaturity and idiocy is an asset rather than a liability. Problem. Solved. I can't believe this is even open to debate.
If you choose to game with immature idiots, you deserve every problem that immature idiot causes.
You get to kill his character, but he doesn't get to kill yours?
COnsidering I did it to make him stop ruining our fun, and he's doing it to continue ruining our fun, no he doesn't.
Considering that you're being passive-aggressive instead of directly confronting the issue, he's quite likely not to make that distinction. If you say "I was just roleplaying my character," he can make exactly the same excuse.
And chances are if he retaliated to me like that and killed me, knowing my group, they'd probably have their characters maul him.
Follow this to its logical conclusion. Do you think he's going to want to continue playing at all with a bunch of people who kill his character without making it clear why what he did was a problem? Or do you honestly think he'll figure it out on his own and want to keep playing with you? Sure, maybe you want him to get fed up and leave, but if that's the case, then why not just ask him to leave.
Basically, dealing with this by using in-game violence is a form of bullying. A bully doesn't confront the real issue head on, but tries to intimidate and discomfort the person responsible. The bully might be effective in getting the person to understand, but the person's not exactly going to be thankful to the bully. Or the person might just be driven off.
As for doing something acceptable to me and the party attacking em for it, chances are it won't happen, because regardless of my character, I'm not going to do anything that'll ruin the rest of my party's fun just because I didn't kill something in the last nanosecond.
Don't dodge the question. Someone attacks you, in-game, because they didn't like something you did. How do you handle it? Do you fight back, and try to get people on your side, or do you try to find out what the issue is?
If he isn't an immature idiot, then he would get the clue in game, with no need to pause the game. Just as I would have gotten the clue at the dinner party by the sudden akward silence and polite coughs and my wife elbowing me in the side. My point being that you shouldn't need to have that conversation with your friends.
Why drop clues? Why the fear of just taking someone aside and talking to them? If it's a big enough deal that someone is going to man-handled, in-game or out, why not talk about it?
Personal awkwardness, I get it. Not everyone is confrontatory, and some have real emotional or mental problems that keep them from tackling things head on. Gaming seems to attract people like that, because disputes are handled with rules, not with discussion. I get that. But some issues simply aren't gaming issues, and handling them in-game are not only not likely to resolve them, but also very likely to exacerbate them. The risk is up to the individual, and I can attest that bullying can change people for the better, but who really wants to be the person who resorted to it?
Here's my concept on role-playing:
1. If the player had his character do something aligned with his character's personality.
a) If you have a problem with the action and your character wouldn't: suck it up, everyone plays differently, either find like minded individuals to play with or roll with the flow.
b) If your character has a problem with the action: deal with it in-game, in-character. Character drama is part of the game too.
c) If you and your character have a problem with it: Talk it over out-of-game (keeping in mind bullet 1a.) so that your in-game reaction isn't combining two forms of anger.
d) If the GROUP of CHARACTERS had a problem with it, address it as a group (its all about the role-play)
2. If the player had his character do something not aligned with his character's personality.
a) Have an out-of-game group discussion about the behavior. Then I would say it's in the realm of the DM to assign consequence.
b) Have your characters address the offender in game keeping the out-of-game convo in mind.
Synopsis:
1. Shunning a player is ALSO a form of passive-aggressive behavior.
2. The behavior described sounds more annoying than bullying.
3. In case of ACTUAL bullyin, defending yourself is NOT bullying. Stand your ground, if you are able. Leave if you must. Don't use more force than needed.
4. Don't blame the victim, iserith.
5. Sometimes our friends are idiots, but they are still our friends.
6. Annoying behavior is not enough to make a mortal enemy, except in office politics where the stakes are so small.
7. Sometimes the player is just being a control freak. It can be fun to let them get in over their head. They hate nothing more than to have to be rescued by their party.
8. Don't be vindictive, no matter what happens.
and finally....
10. Don't worry be happy. (see number 9.)
If you think I missed number 9... refer to number 10.
So I made it to page 5 of the comments before I ran out of time. If someone else has already hit this or the poster found an answer, I apologize.
Here's my concept on role-playing:
1. If the player had his character do something aligned with his character's personality.
a) If you have a problem with the action and your character wouldn't: suck it up, everyone plays differently, either find like minded individuals to play with or roll with the flow.
b) If your character has a problem with the action: deal with it in-game, in-character. Character drama is part of the game too.
c) If you and your character have a problem with it: Talk it over out-of-game (keeping in mind bullet 1a.) so that your in-game reaction isn't combining two forms of anger.
d) If the GROUP of CHARACTERS had a problem with it, address it as a group (its all about the role-play)
2. If the player had his character do something not aligned with his character's personality.
a) Have an out-of-game group discussion about the behavior. Then I would say it's in the realm of the DM to assign consequence.
b) Have your characters address the offender in game keeping the out-of-game convo in mind.
All-in-all good advice (and well-stated, too).
How much wasted time and acrimony does that produce as opposed to an out-of-game conversation?
The problem with out-of-game conversations really is that if you have to tell your friend that he is being an idiot, then the problem is likely that he is an fact an idiot.
See if I am at a dinner party and several of the guests grab me and throw me outside and beat me up, was that the right way for them to handle me or would it be better for the hostess to phone me up the next day to explain to me how my conversation topic of dead babies with the pregnant woman was inappropriate? The core issue here would be that I am a scumbag moron, and that won't be resolved with "polite rules on dinner conversation" being explained to me, but rather with me never being invited to dinner parties.
The same with the game, you've got to consider that the player being an immature idiot is in fact an immature idiot, and your out-of-game conversation is not going to change that fact. If he isn't an immature idiot, then he would get the clue in game, with no need to pause the game. Just as I would have gotten the clue at the dinner party by the sudden akward silence and polite coughs and my wife elbowing me in the side. My point being that you shouldn't need to have that conversation with your friends.
SO VERY, VERY THIS
"Keep playing D&D with him, obviously. It's going so well."
I feel like I'm in a parallel universe reading some of these answers. You know, it's okay to tell someone, "I like you, but I don't like playing D&D with you. Let's play something else some other time."
Follow this to its logical conclusion. Do you think he's going to want to continue playing at all with a bunch of people who kill his character without making it clear why what he did was a problem? Or do you honestly think he'll figure it out on his own and want to keep playing with you? Sure, maybe you want him to get fed up and leave, but if that's the case, then why not just ask him to leave.
Chances are if I attacked him, he's been pulling multiple stuff like this that's been ruining everyone's game. Because what gives him the right to ruin our fun? What makes his fun so much more important than ours that he's halting the entire game and basically telling us all "screw you." for it?
ANd no one in my party would attack me over me ruining people's fun, ebcause I don't ruin everyone else's fun. The only time I actually attacked another PC in-game was because they were pissing everyone off(as in, during people's turn, he would interrupt them by very loudly going on about herself. He would end up stopping the game over some meaningless BS. Once she ended up making my turn take almost an hour because everytime I started doing something, he would stop me and go off about something that had nothing to do with anything. SO I eventually got fed up with it, turned around, and sniped her character in the face. He was upset for a bit, but the party appluaded me next session when she wasn't there, which I find out was because he was kicked out.).
So it's less dodging the question and pointing out I'm never in a position to need to answer it.
Chances are if I attacked him, he's been pulling multiple stuff like this that's been ruining everyone's game. Because what gives him the right to ruin our fun? What makes his fun so much more important than ours that he's halting the entire game and basically telling us all "screw you." for it?
Maybe nothing. But none of that justifies attacking his character in-game, and such an attack is going to do nothing to fix the problem.
ANd no one in my party would attack me over me ruining people's fun, ebcause I don't ruin everyone else's fun.
This is not a logical statement.
The point is, if you attack someone in game, they'll attack you back and might very likely win. They might even garner enough support that the others don't kill them, since, after all you attacked first. Then what? You make a new character and what?
He was upset for a bit, but the party appluaded me next session when she wasn't there, which I find out was because he was kicked out.).
I'm glad to see that someone had the maturity necessary to talk to the person.
So it's less dodging the question and pointing out I'm never in a position to need to answer it.
That's what dodging the question is. You can't even consider it as a hypothetical. Why is that?
This is not a logical statement.
The point is, if you attack someone in game, they'll attack you back and might very likely win. They might even garner enough support that the others don't kill them, since, after all you attacked first. Then what? You make a new character and what?
Because I'm not ruining their fun, he is, so chances are they'd back em on it. I know my group. I don't give a rat's @** how much he cares if his character dies, if he's causing the rest of our table to not have fun because he hasn't killed something n the last minute. I am currently playing a character that is hilariously violent and loves killing someone when he has a reason to. But I know when to stop killing and let everyone else have fun.
And I see you avoided my question. Why is his fun more important than the rest of the groups? Why is it so much more important that he can f*** up the game and stop us all from having fun?
I've actually seen this a few times in games I've played in.
One player gets tired of another players playstyle and decides to deal with it in-game by combat. I've only been in one situation where the entire party gangs up on a single person.
In the few others this is basically how it goes down:
- Player #1 is tired of Player #2 in-game antics.
- Player #1's character attacks the character of Player #2.
- Player #2's character retaliates by attacking Player #1's character.
- Player #3's character joins Player #1 character in attacking Player #2
- Player #4's character and Player #5's character attacks Players #1's character and Player #3's character because they are good real life friends with Player #2.
- Player # 6's character hides and waits for it all be over.
- Player #2's character dies
- Player #1's character dies
- Player #3 character dies but not before managing to kill Player #5's character.
- Player #6's character kills Player #4's character and takes everybody's gear and leaves the dungeon.
[In my defense (I was Player #6) I was twelve and really wanted to buy a Pegasus mount]
- DM sighs and considers what he will do now. Game stops for a few weeks while everybody takes a breather.
Out of all this that I have posted the bolded part above is the most important.
Things to consider:
- Hopefully these player are hopefully not pre-teens.
- This is not a Hackmaster game
- The OP is the only person that we know of that has this issue with the Dragonborn player. We shouldn't assume that the entire party has this issue.
- The OP has made it clear that he has had this problem with the player in past so its not soely an in-game issue in this game.
- When I asked the OP if things had gone smoothly with the Dragonborn's actions if he would still have been cool with it, the OP answered "no". This leads to the conclusion that it is not as much of the actions of the character but the decision of the player to make those actions.
When we take an out-of-game issue and drag it into a game to be slugged out we turn the problem...no we make the problem into something that you see on Jerry Springer. When we do this we not only insult everyone at that table, including ourselves.
Let's look at it another way. We have no way of knowing how much effort or thought that Dragonborn player has put into his character. Think of that character as a painting, you see the strokes and the colors but we have no real idea how much effort was put into it.
If you saw a painting in an art gallery and you didn't like it would you destroy it? Most likely not, because it doesn't matter if you like it or not. It's a painting, you don't have to buy it, hell you don't even have to look at it. Just walk away. If you had a significant other and they bought that painting would you destroy it then? Can you imagine what would go down with your significant other if you did so? Wouldn't it be so much easier to just tell your significant other that you don't like that painting? Seriously what is the worst that can happen?
One player's fun can be another player's frustration, that is clear enough.
But understand this:
The moment you think that your fun is more important than another person's fun at the table, and you are not willing to even talk to that person like a real human being and degrade a game you love into combative popularity contest...it's time to walk away from that table.
Because you've just showed everybody at that table that your opinion is all that matters to you and how far you are willing to go for you fun at the expense at someone elses. Furthermore ANY player's character at that table has the possibility of the same kind of treatment by you.
Still having fun?
Actions may speak louder than words, but actions can't be taken back.
"My friend is an immature idiot who causes disruptions when we play D&D. I've talked to him out-of-game. I've tried to change him with in-game consequences. Nothing's worked. What should I do?"
"Keep playing D&D with him, obviously. It's going so well."
I feel like I'm in a parallel universe reading some of these answers. You know, it's okay to tell someone, "I like you, but I don't like playing D&D with you. Let's play something else some other time."
If you are referring to anything I might have said, my answer is this...
Because as much as I like the game (read: obsession)...
5. Sometimes our friends are idiots, but they are still our friends.
Or as they used to say...
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Because you've just showed everybody at that table that your opinion is all that matters to you and how far you are willing to go for you fun at the expense at someone elses. Furthermore ANY player's character at that table has the possibility of the same kind of treatment by you.
Still having fun?
Actions may speak louder than words, but actions can't be taken back."
+1 sir.
Because I'm not ruining their fun, he is, so chances are they'd back em on it. I know my group.
He might win anyway, or at least kill your character, even if the other characters kill his. Then what?
And I see you avoided my question. Why is his fun more important than the rest of the groups? Why is it so much more important that he can f*** up the game and stop us all from having fun?
I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that if it isn't, talk to him. Fighting him in-game is passive-aggressive, immature, and possibly counterproductive.
And since you've gone from dodging it to ignoring it: someone attacks you in game, because they think you are deliberately ruining their fun. How do your respond to that attack? Attack back? Ask them out-of-game what's going on? What?
And since you've gone from dodging it to ignoring it: someone attacks you in game, because they think you are deliberately ruining their fun.
Well, i guess it looks like I'm ignoring it if you don't read my posts.
I am not ignoring it. I'm answering it by telling you I'm never going to be in that situation because I don't play D&D to ruin people's fun, and wait for a chance to do something zany at a time that won't get us all killed.
For someone ragging on me for supposedly ignoring your question, you seem to be doing your best to avoid answering mine. Why is one disruptive player's fun more important than the rest of the group's?
I am not ignoring it. I'm answering it by telling you I'm never going to be in that situation because I don't play D&D to ruin people's fun, and wait for a chance to do something zany at a time that won't get us all killed.
But by stating that you would attack and either hope to kill another player's character would in fact be runing that particular player's fun.
For someone ragging on me for supposedly ignoring your question, you seem to be doing your best to avoid answering mine.
His question is valid. It's pretty much would you like to be treated the same way? How you actually game is irrevelant. Most people wouldn't want to be treated that way, so what makes it ok to treat someone in fashion that you wouldn't care for either?
Why is one disruptive player's fun more important than the rest of the group's?
We can't confirm that the Dragonborn player actions is in fact ruining the entire gaming groups fun. All we actually know is that he appears to be runing the OPs fun.
To answer your question. I agree that single player who is actually disrupting game and the rest of the group is unhappy about that, then yes it needs to be dealt with. Its clear that the issue has been an issue before and its a player to player issue. Solving it though violence in-game isn't likely going to solve the problem. It's more likely to make the problem worse.
Killing the messenger isn't the answer, you need to kill the message.
But by stating that you would attack and either hope to kill another player's character would in fact be runing that particular player's fun.
I'd only attack him if he was constantly ruining the game and getting us into situations we'd rather NOT be in(like say, with an angry pack of guards after us).
I am not ignoring it. I'm answering it by telling you I'm never going to be in that situation because I don't play D&D to ruin people's fun, and wait for a chance to do something zany at a time that won't get us all killed.
That's not an answer to the question of what you would do if a player attacked you. I'm not saying the player attacked you because you ruined their fun, just that they believe you did. How would you react to that?
For someone ragging on me for supposedly ignoring your question, you seem to be doing your best to avoid answering mine. Why is one disruptive player's fun more important than the rest of the group's?
It isn't. Something should definitely be done, but attacking the player's character is not that thing. Our disagreement is with your method of addressing the problem, not with whether or not there's a problem.
Our disagreement is with your method of addressing the problem, not with whether or not there's a problem.
Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.
Our disagreement is with your method of addressing the problem, not with whether or not there's a problem.
Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.
Why do you think it's a good idea to handle such things in game? I've never seen it used successfully. And I feel like I've never met someone who was a success story of this kind of treatment, only people like you would would never be the subject of that kind of treatment. Curious.
Like I said, agree to disagree.
How unfortunate. I hoped that there might be a chance for a clear explanation from you on this matter. I wonder if you even understand your own motivations. For my part, I've seen in-game reprisals go bad too many times, because there's no reason for one person to submit to another. No, they shouldn't take it personally, but if they were capable of not taking it personally, then they should just be spoken to.
It works for me to use in game responses to ingame actions. But then again, I filter who I play with at the onset and establish the precident right away so these problems are avoided. These issues don't occur if they are dealt with before it becomes a problem. A Bloody nose at level 1 sets the standards and then you never get to the point where you have to stop the game and take someone aside.
How is it kept to a bloody nose? There's no clear reason why a player who'd been chastised wouldn't try for at least subtle get backs. I freely admit that I've played with some pretty immature people, but if they really think they've been wronged, anyone might try for some payback. If you are filtering who you play with, why is the bloody nose required at all? Why not a quick clarification and move on? What sort of behavior warrants a "bloody nose," and how is the punisher qualified to mete that consequence out? What if the person who is believed to deserve a "bloody nose" is not easily given one?
Like I said, agree to disagree.
How unfortunate. I hoped that there might be a chance for a clear explanation from you on this matter. I wonder if you even understand your own motivations. For my part, I've seen in-game reprisals go bad too many times, because there's no reason for one person to submit to another. No, they shouldn't take it personally, but if they were capable of not taking it personally, then they should just be spoken to.
Like I said, agree to disagree. I'm willing to let it go when you do.
Like I said, agree to disagree. I'm willing to let it go when you do.
I honestly want to understand the incentive behind in-game retaliation, rather than out-of-game discussion. I understand that not everyone is comfortable with direct confrontation, but in-game confrontation is far, far riskier, since it might be easily misinterpreted, and blow the entire thing far out of proportion, or backfire in some other way, rather than resolving anything.
I honestly want to understand the incentive behind in-game retaliation, rather than out-of-game discussion. I understand that not everyone is comfortable with direct confrontation, but in-game confrontation is far, far riskier, since it might be easily misinterpreted, and blow the entire thing far out of proportion, or backfire in some other way, rather than resolving anything.
Because they're IC bored and want to do reckless stuff that'll egt us in trouble, IC the rest of our party has a good reason to not want him to go through with that. If he doesn't care and does it anyways, the rest of our party could take that as a threat and restrain him till the guards arrive.
Because they're IC bored and want to do reckless stuff that'll egt us in trouble, IC the rest of our party has a good reason to not want him to go through with that. If he doesn't care and does it anyways, the rest of our party could take that as a threat and restrain him till the guards arrive.
I think you're assuming a lot about such a player's motivation. In this case, the player apparently made it clear that he was OC bored (maybe that's what you meant, instead of "IC bored"). As has been repeatedly said, that's not an excuse to take action that will involve others' characters against their will, but it's an OC situation that the player is acting on IC, with annoying results. That player should also bring up his or her concerns OC.
The issue of a group being concerned about reckless stuff that will get the party in trouble is a deep and complicated issue. It's pretty silly right on its face: why are adventurers worried about getting in to trouble? Sadly, it's often because some DMs will take any opportunity to rain destruction down on the players, in ways the players aren't interested in dealing with. When that isn't a DM's approach, not only are players less likely to get into boring failure mitigation discussions, but if someone does get bored and take off, it's not going to make the game boring for the other players. But that's not an issue most players can do anything about, without a lengthy OC discussion with the DM.
The rest of the party could take that characters' actions as a threat. They don't need to, however, and any argument for doing so is going to be hard to distinguish from an excuse for in-game punishment. For example, I doubt you'd accept "It's what my character would do" from someone "threatening" the rest of the party with recklessness, so it doesn't really fly as an excuse for essentially taking the player out of the game.
Haven't you ever seen player-vs-player fights go bad? Seen a player try to use Intimidate on another player to get them to back down only to have it devolve into an argument about whether skills like that can control other PCs? Seen Perception/Thievery duels and narrative countermeasures applied in a fail attempt to prevent the thief from doing something another player didn't like? If not, you're very lucky. That sort of thing caused me to take a years long hiatus from the game, until I found people who would talk about disagreements instead of trying to use the game rules to handle them.
How is it kept to a bloody nose? There's no clear reason why a player who'd been chastised wouldn't try for at least subtle get backs.
because as I have said before, I establish the settings and major and minor NPCs, general populace, country, dungeon traps, encounters villains etc etc, and it just plays itself out as it should. Really they bloody their own nose by their actions and it has little to do with me, noone is to blame anymore then their own dice roles. No need for clarification, this is the world they are in.
I freely admit that I've played with some pretty immature people, but if they really think they've been wronged, anyone might try for some payback. If you are filtering who you play with, why is the bloody nose required at all?
As I have stated before, problems become problems because you didn't deal with them from the start. When you need to take a player aside it is generally because you didn't recognize the symptoms and have been enabling them thus far, Many if not most of the "my players are getting out of hand" issues a DM has is of the Dm's own creation.
Why not a quick clarification and move on?
Because inteligent people learn from their mistakes. You suggesting I treat my players like idiots? Most of them are bigger then me, the other ones are far too cute.
What sort of behavior warrants a "bloody nose," and how is the punisher qualified to mete that consequence out?
I think there is a general assumption by everyone but you that the DM should be qualified to run his game, and a general persumption that players have the right to run their characters.
I've never had a player wrap his character in bacon and then stamp their feet and yell "Who are you to say the dragon is hungry and will eat my character?"
Of course the DM has every right and purpose to decide how the world and NPCs will interact and react to the player characters, in fact THAT'S HIS JOB to fairly control the NPCs and impartially arbitrate the rules.
What if the person who is believed to deserve a "bloody nose" is not easily given one?
Well it has little to do with "believing" they deserve it and more to do with the natural results of interacting with the world in that manner. But as for "not easily given" a bloody nose. First, this is why a DM should establish how the world works right away, in the low levels where it is easy.
Secondly, in a world where the PCs level and are constantly chalenged it is the expectation that there is always something tougher then them (or else they have become gods and retired to start another game) By all logical standards the DM has de facto power so the PCs can't "win" against the DM, although such a fight would be loathsome. It is simply an interactive world acting like it should.
What is your issue with the Dm makign a properly establish, fully interactive environment?
How is it kept to a bloody nose? There's no clear reason why a player who'd been chastised wouldn't try for at least subtle get backs.
because as I have said before, I establish the settings and major and minor NPCs, general populace, country, dungeon traps, encounters villains etc etc, and it just plays itself out as it should. Really they bloody their own nose by their actions and it has little to do with me, noone is to blame anymore then their own dice roles. No need for clarification, this is the world they are in.
If you made the world, then any consquences (apart from those imposed on PCs by other PCs) are of the DM's design. If those consequences frustrate or block player choices, then at best it's because the DM stopped establishing details and refuses to go with anything but what they believe should mechanically unfold. In this case, there are strong indications that the DM established some new details on the fly, specifically to frustrate and block the players (and to turn them against each other, instead of him).
As I have stated before, problems become problems because you didn't deal with them from the start. When you need to take a player aside it is generally because you didn't recognize the symptoms and have been enabling them thus far, Many if not most of the "my players are getting out of hand" issues a DM has is of the Dm's own creation.
I agree whole-heartedly that such issues are of the DM's own creation. That's clearly the case with everything reported in the original post. But I don't agree that it's due to the DM not imposing enough order, or that the DM even should be imposing order. If there is a problem with order, it's not an in-game problem, and the player should be talked to.
Why not a quick clarification and move on?
Because inteligent people learn from their mistakes. You suggesting I treat my players like idiots?
No, I'm suggesting not being passive-aggressive and not playing "gotcha."
Most of them are bigger then me, the other ones are far too cute.
That is a creepy thing to say.
What sort of behavior warrants a "bloody nose," and how is the punisher qualified to mete that consequence out?
I think there is a general assumption by everyone but you that the DM should be qualified to run his game, and a general persumption that players have the right to run their characters.
I had been discussing the issue with EnglishLanguage in terms of players meting out those consequences, so my statement doesn't relate to DMs, but I'm happy to address that.
Yes, a DM should be qualified to run the game. Ideally, this means keeping it fun for everyone involved, as much of the time as possible. I'm trying to figure out how delivering frustrating or blocking consequences helps attain this ideal. I guess I don't know what it means for a DM to mete out a "bloody nose."
I've never had a player wrap his character in bacon and then stamp their feet and yell "Who are you to say the dragon is hungry and will eat my character?"
Of course not, that's ridiculous. No one is talking about anything that ridiculous. Everything that happened in the OP is perfectly in keeping with general adventurer behavior and if the dragonborn had been that reckless in a dungeon I doubt it would have garnered this much attention, because at worst the players would have to contend with more monsters to fight, instead of some kind of frustration imposed because they're in a civilized area.
Which isn't to say that games shouldn't be run in civilized areas, but doing so makes it harder for the DM to roll with typical adventurer activities, which leads to more blocking by both PCs and DMs. Which leads to more reckless behavior, more often than not.
Of course the DM has every right and purpose to decide how the world and NPCs will interact and react to the player characters, in fact THAT'S HIS JOB to fairly control the NPCs and impartially arbitrate the rules.
That's not a fact, but let's say you're right: is is the DM's job to decide how the world and NPCs will interact and react to the player characters.
Why, please why, would a DM ever decide that the world and NPCs will interact and react to the players characters in a way that brings the game to a screeching halt? What's the benefit, when there are ways to come up with reactions that are not positive for the characters, but still keep the game moving in a way that players find engaging and interesting rather than frustrating? And, yes, frustrating things can be interesting, but some frustating things are just frustrating, especially after 3 and a half hours.
What if the person who is believed to deserve a "bloody nose" is not easily given one?
Well it has little to do with "believing" they deserve it and more to do with the natural results of interacting with the world in that manner.
No, because there really aren't any natural results in a world made by the DM. Granted that D&D is not a story or movie, but stories and movies are always delivering results that are plausible rather than being the single, natural outcome of events. When the movie is about criminals, the police are often a secondary concern to the story, compared to, say, other criminals. The story is delivering a plausible result (the police are slow in dealing with the crime, or the criminals got away with it) rather than some single "natural" result, in order to keep the story moving in an interesting way.
Similarly in a game, the "natural" results can still occur, but don't have to have a single outcome. Ok, the authorities are on their way. Do the players think it would be interesting to get hauled in by the authorities? If yes, okay, that happens. If no, then the authorities take just long enough to arrive that the players can make good their escape, perhaps even cleanly. The only reason for this not to happen is if the DM is interested in placing neutrality over entertainment. And one key reason that that happens is because the DM has decided that the neutral response will passively teach the players to act the way the DM wants. Deciding to place neutrality over non-frustrating outcomes is itself a non-neutral choice.
But as for "not easily given" a bloody nose. First, this is why a DM should establish how the world works right away, in the low levels where it is easy.
Secondly, in a world where the PCs level and are constantly chalenged it is the expectation that there is always something tougher then them (or else they have become gods and retired to start another game) By all logical standards the DM has de facto power so the PCs can't "win" against the DM, although such a fight would be loathsome. It is simply an interactive world acting like it should.
"Not easily given" was in the context of player-vs.-player punishment. Surely it must sometimes occur that the player whose character "deserves" the punishment is beyond the capabilities of the other character to punish. Cue more passive-aggression.
I agree that a DM has a mandate to provide challenge, and that this tends to mean tougher monsters. I don't agree that this means the DM should always have some kind of in-game authority figure to bop the players when the DM doesn't like what they're doing.
What is your issue with the Dm makign a properly establish, fully interactive environment?
I don't have a problem with that, except when it's used as an excuse to make players conform and behave, (edit) or as an excuse for delivering a frustrating game experience.
Hello all, I'm hoping to get some advice on a reckless player in a long running D&D game.
Basic Background: I've been in a 4e game for alittle over 2 years now, and while I think our group could work better together, we have a good time. One of our players used to play a knightish Mul Fighter who was abit headstrong, but very loyal/protective. He recently changed over to a new character, a bodyguard Dragonborn Warden, who so far is also headstrong but seems less moral.
Reckless Act: So in last night's session we were in a new city trying to uncover a hidden artifact. We had no leads with local merchants, but we found a gnome university professor who seemed to have heard of it. In the short time we talked to him he showed mastery at a few spells, and could see through our disguises. We scared him off while trying to maintain our deceptive cover story, so we decided to leave a note at his office apologizing for the deception and asking if he could contact us. We were about to leave, when someone suggested that we ransack the office so the gnome would think others were also after the artifact and he would come to us quicker. Another and I said that was foolish because a) there actually were bad guys also after it already, b) we shouldn't push our luck trying to deceive our only lead again, and c) he showed extra ordinary magic ability and probably guards his office. We seemed to all agree, when suddenly the dragonborn player: announces he was bored, says he wants to ransack the office, kicks open the door setting off a magical explosion which hits the whole party, then while we attempt to put out the flames which engulfed the office he jumps out the window and runs off, leaving us to deal with the university guards. He might as well been yelling "Leeroy Jenkins!" the whole time.
Problem: So now our party is in a much tighter spot then it could have been. I'm confident that we will get out of it and push on, yet I am concerned about the dragonborn player endangering us again. If we are in a dungeon crawl or surrounded by enemies he can charge around all he wants; but it seems very rude when we role play and he does the same thing. One the one hand, I'm not sure if I should say something player-to-player about him being more of a team player. And on the other hand, I'm not sure how my kindhearted Halfling Chef Fighter should react in-game. The DM after the game said he didn't think it would be out of line for my character to give him a talking to, but my character's never done anything like that before and I have no idea how to approach it.
Any advice on how to handle this in-game and out would be much appreciated!
You don't ppl have the right to play their chrs as they wish.
Just because you don't like what they do gives you no right to chastize them.
If your "Chracter" dosn't like another "Character" just have yours kill theirs.
ppl have the right to play their chrs as they wish.
Just because you don't like what they do gives you no right to chastize them.
If your "Chracter" dosn't like another "Character" just have yours kill theirs.
There's pretty much only one circumstance in which having one's character kill another isn't going to be seen as chastizement, and that's when the two players of those characters have worked it out and agree that that's what should happen. That can happen, but don't expect it to, and don't force it on the other player.
ppl have the right to play their chrs as they wish.
Just because you don't like what they do gives you no right to chastize them.
If your "Chracter" dosn't like another "Character" just have yours kill theirs.
There's pretty much only one circumstance in which having one's character kill another isn't going to be seen as chastizement, and that's when the two players of those characters have worked it out and agree that that's what should happen. That canhappen, but don't expect it to, and don't force it on the other player.
I agree w/this to a point.
But, sometimes you have no option outside of the game to influence the player, they might just enjoy playing the A-hole character (I’ve know a few players that do this)
This leaves you w/no options (assuming the DM is staying neutral) PC on PC killing is really the only option you have IG to deal with it.
If doing so leaves a bad taste in your mouth; and they won’t work w/you outside the game, then your pretty much just going to have to suck it up.
I agree w/this to a point.
But, sometimes you have no option outside of the game to influence the player, they might just enjoy playing the A-hole character (I’ve know a few players that do this)
This leaves you w/no options (assuming the DM is staying neutral) PC on PC killing is really the only option you have IG to deal with it.
If doing so leaves a bad taste in your mouth; and they won’t work w/you outside the game, then your pretty much just going to have to suck it up.
No, you're not. If they won't work with you outside the game, then nothing you can do inside the game is going to have anything more than a temporary effect. Kill their character and they'll just make an even worse one that you can't kill. Then you make a character that they can't kill. It becomes an arms race that you should have stepped away from when you learned that they wouldn't work with you out-of-game.
I agree w/this to a point.
But, sometimes you have no option outside of the game to influence the player, they might just enjoy playing the A-hole character (I’ve know a few players that do this)
This leaves you w/no options (assuming the DM is staying neutral) PC on PC killing is really the only option you have IG to deal with it.
If doing so leaves a bad taste in your mouth; and they won’t work w/you outside the game, then your pretty much just going to have to suck it up.
No, you're not. If they won't work with you outside the game, then nothing you can do inside the game is going to have anything more than a temporary effect. Kill their character and they'll just make an even worse one that you can't kill. Then you make a character that they can't kill. It becomes an arms race that you should have stepped away from when you learned that they wouldn't work with you out-of-game.
I see this as a valid point I hadn’t considered, but I don’t see a lot of other options.
If a player won’t work w/you outside of the game you can only
1- Just suck it up
2- Start an arms race by PC Killing their PC
3- Not play with that person
Of these options starting an “arms race” seems almost the lesser of the three evils. You don’t want to just suck it up and not have fun, and I’ve never been a fan of quitting a game based on internal/external conflicts.
I’m not saying it’s a Great Option, or will be good for the moral of the game, but I just find it better then not enjoying a game.
It appears to me that part of this issue has to do with the setting in which the adventure takes place.
If the characters are in a dungeon far from civilization there is ususally no enforcement of laws in that location. It's filled with monsters, undead, and treasure. In a city tavern its filled with people and bartenders and wenches. Its not the same general setting.
If you and your friends go to the beach and decide to strip naked and go in the water, if there is nobody around and its just you and your friends its not an issue. Now if you head to a sports bar and decide to do the same thing, chances are there is going to be some repructions.
I see the points of those involved here. To everyone the game is about the fun of the players To some if the players are having fun why should you as a DM create such a problem by having players act in a certian manner and have the NPC and culture around them enforce that.
On the other hand repercutions can also be seen as a common sense.
A character in theory would not act the same if they were dealing with a zombie lord in a crypt as if they were dealing with a princess in a royal courtroom. If a character decides to go against the grain when in a location in which that type of behavor wouldn't be tolerated should be dealt with as they would if it was real life.
The question is when you deal with a player acting out in a city setting:
Why are consequencing happening?
- Is it because the DM is punishing them for thier actions and attempting to teach them not to do it again?
- Or is it because the DM is simply having happen what would most likely normally happen in that situation?
The answer lies in the perception of what is going on, as well as the equality of the consequences as compared to the actions that caused them.
Allow me to give a example of a situation of my game and what I did to show what I mean by my statements.
I have a group that consists of a Warden, Avenger, Artificer, Druid, Cleric, and Mage.
Situation # 1
This party came across a small keep under attack. They helped defeat the attackers, and were invited inside afterwards. While talking to the Lord of the keep the Druid kept making remarks on how weak and worthless and guard were and how the Lord was an idiot for employing them. The other character kept asking the Druid to stop but the Druid continued. Finally the Lord adressed the Druid, he explained that this keep was here to protect the farmers in the area. These farmers were the guards the Druid spoke of, they were required to train only three days out of the months and could rarely do otherwise due to the work they did n their own farms. The guard were not heavily trained adventurers and were not preparted for such an attack. After this the Druid stopped verbally abusing the Lord and the guards.
Situation #2
Group was hired to save the remaining members of another adventuring party. Characters found a lone Dwarven survivor. After traveling into the crypt then came in contact with an Elven spirit who wanted to bestow her "treasure" which was a ancient elven knowledge. It was a series of skill checks, six successes vs. three failures. The players succeeded in five skill checks and knew from their insight that they had to convince the spirit that they hated all orcs and would use this knowledge to aid in their destruction. Cleric asked the Dwarven NPC for assistance in the final check. I made the bluff check for the Dwarf and explain that he begins to fabricate a false story of why he and his now dead party had arrived there. The Mage character suddenly believing that the Dwarf is trying to steal the treasure calls the Dwarf a liar to the spirit. Cleric attempts to explain the situation to the Mage character (who as a player can sit listen to somebody at the table for twenty minutes without actually hearing anything they are saying) who ignores it and reinforces his actions. The spirit decided to give the knowledge to the player characters but not the Dwarf. The Dwarf who now has lost all but one of his adventuring companions and the treasure accuses the Mage for being an dishonorable cur.
Situation #3
The party is in popular tavern in a large city. Druid character decides to start pilfering coin purses of local patrons. I inform the Druid player out of character that if they get caught the're could be repercussions. Druid player says they understand. After stealing from a dozen people Druid character specifically asks for a Dangerous target. I give the description of a Mercenary company surrounding an apparently wealthy Merchant. I declare three successes vs. three failures. Druid succeeds in first stealth check but fails thievery check. Attempts again and fails two more thievery checks. I declare failure but I inform the Druid can still slip away undetected. Druid character decides to pick up the pitcher on the table and hit the Merchant in the head with it. I inform the Druid that the character will lose stealth if they do so. Druid character says they don't care. Druid hits the Merchant and is now noticed and surrounded by Mercenary company.
Mage decides to attempt to talk to the Mercenaries, Warden and Artificer decide to do nothing. Avenger and Cleric decide to go get the city guard. Mage fails three diplomacy checks. Avenger and Cleric return with city guard. City guard ask what happened, Avenger explains that the Druid was attempting to steal from the Merchant. Mage pulls out King's writ and declares that his party is working for the King and that the Merchant and all the Mercenaries are in fact all spies for an evil kingdom. Cleric declares the Mage's statement fictitious. I declare skill checks to me made. Cleric succeeds on his diplomacy check, Mage fails Bluff check. Guards take the Mage and Druid into custody and give the King's writ to the Cleric for safe keeping.
All of these situations were dealt with in-game. Also all of these situations has what could be seen as consequences character actions. I am lucky that my players are understanding and well behaved and don't take things like this personally. I allowed my players to do what they wanted but all of these actions had some sort of consequences. Before I start any campaign I talk to my players about how I see the world being run. My player are supposed to weight in and tell me what they want. If the players want me to change they tell me and I do so. I have in game consequences my players know this and the ones that run do the same in their games.
Out-of-game understanding can allow players and DMs to have things happen in-game. As long as they understand this to begin with. I've had character hate each other yet they leave it in game where it belongs. Yet we all understand that his game is about everyone's fun and need to respect that. If a player is unhappy they can talk to me and/or the group whenever they wish. I always ask after game if anybody needs to talk to me or the group about this game's happenings. If there is an issue I try to deal with it before the next gaming sessions if possible.
DMs need to allow players to do was they wish in game without punishing them for their actions. Likewise, DMs need to let players know ahead of time what to expect when in civilized parts of the world. Players who know and accept this generally don't take consequences of such actions in those areas as punishment but logical actions. If a player doesn't want that then they needs to discuss it with the players and the DM.
I’m not saying it’s a Great Option, or will be good for the moral of the game, but I just find it better then not enjoying a game.
I don't see how or why the arms race will be enjoyable. Eventually somethings going to have to give, and it's to be expected that the game will fall apart in some way, and you're left without a game, same as if you had walked away from it.
I see no better reason not to play with a group than due to a conflict over someone's play style. If no one else has a problem with it, then as far as they're concerned, you're in the wrong, and you're better off leaving. If anyone else does have a problem with it, perhaps they'll leave to and you can hang out with them, to the exclusion of the person you don't like playing with.
In this particular case, I don't think the players have to choose any of those three options, though. While the reckless player should have been more considerate, the other players should not have been blocking each other. There's a good chance that if they'd backed up the original plan, that the player would have been less bored, or would have directed his boredom at the DM (who does share some responsibility here), rather than the other players. The player clearly has a high capacity for boredom, having restrained himself for 3 and a half hours, so helping him blow off some steam might make him amenable to working with the group the next time they would rather plan.
If the characters are in a dungeon far from civilization there is ususally no enforcement of laws in that location. It's filled with monsters, undead, and treasure. In a city tavern its filled with people and bartenders and wenches. Its not the same general setting.
If you and your friends go to the beach and decide to strip naked and go in the water, if there is nobody around and its just you and your friends its not an issue. Now if you head to a sports bar and decide to do the same thing, chances are there is going to be some repructions.
Sure, but there's still an adventure going on here. We don't know the stakes, but the PCs clearly need to accomplish something. It's workable and plausible to have an action-packed adventure in a city, especially a fantasy city. Sharn (which is where this seems to be taking place) is designed for mayhem and adventure.
I see the points of those involved here. To everyone the game is about the fun of the players To some if the players are having fun why should you as a DM create such a problem by having players act in a certian manner and have the NPC and culture around them enforce that.
On the other hand repercutions can also be seen as a common sense.
There's no "common sense," there's what the DM decides to put in place.
A character in theory would not act the same if they were dealing with a zombie lord in a crypt as if they were dealing with a princess in a royal courtroom. If a character decides to go against the grain when in a location in which that type of behavor wouldn't be tolerated should be dealt with as they would if it was real life.
No, "real life" reactions do not need to enter into it. The princess could have literally any response to "against the grain" actions. Even if it was handled as it would be in "real life," there are still plausible reactions that don't have to involve frustrating blocks.
The question is when you deal with a player acting out in a city setting:
Why are consequencing happening?
Is it because the DM is punishing them for thier actions and attempting to teach them not to do it again?
Or is it because the DM is simply having happen what would most likely normally happen in that situation?
There is no "likely normally" except what the DM devises, and even if there is, the DM can certain also devise interesting exceptions to normallity. If they can't, they can enlist the players to help them. If they don't do that either, then the "likely normally" occurence is being used as an excuse to punish the players.
After this the Druid stopped verbally abusing the Lord and the guards.
But the Druid also wasn't punished. Here, the situation was simply clarified. Not a riveting outcome, but somewhat interesting in what it revealed. But another DM might have decided that the "likely" outcome would be for the Lord to be fed up with the Druid's abuse and have him arrested and detained. That's a result that would be hard to justify as anything but deliberately frustrating.
The Dwarf who now has lost all but one of his adventuring companions and the treasure accuses the Mage for being an dishonorable cur.
I'm not clear on whether the Dwarf was an NPC. If not, this is partly an issue between players, but it was driven by the DM's choice to leave the Dwarf out. There could have been a less frustrating outcome for that skill challenge.
Druid character says they don't care. Druid hits the Merchant and is now noticed and surrounded by Mercenary company.
Sounds like the player was bored. Tavern scenes can have that effect.
The DM is making some effort here to keep things interesting, and say "yes, and" to the player, who seemed to want some danger.
Mage decides to attempt to talk to the Mercenaries, Warden and Artificer decide to do nothing. Avenger and Cleric decide to go get the city guard.
The Avenger and Cleric are blocking.
Mage fails three diplomacy checks.
This failure can (and by the directives of the DMG should) have interesting consequences.
Avenger and Cleric return with city guard. City guard ask what happened, Avenger explains that the Druid was attempting to steal from the Merchant. Mage pulls out King's writ and declares that his party is working for the King and that the Merchant and all the Mercenaries are in fact all spies for an evil kingdom. Cleric declares the Mage's statement fictitious.
Blocking from the Cleric.
I declare skill checks to me made. Cleric succeeds on his diplomacy check, Mage fails Bluff check. Guards take the Mage and Druid into custody and give the King's writ to the Cleric for safe keeping.
If the Mage and Druid are fine with that, great. If not, I'd have a hard time figuring out an interesting outcome to this, other than having some larger issue occur that requires the PCs' intervention. Or maybe the mercenary who was attacked decides not to press charges but instead offer the PCs a job. Something. If I couldn't think of anything, I'd ask the players for input.
All of these situations were dealt with in-game. Also all of these situations has what could be seen as consequences character actions. I am lucky that my players are understanding and well behaved and don't take things like this personally.
Yes, indeed. It's common for character disputes to bleed out into player disputes.
I allowed my players to do what they wanted but all of these actions had some sort of consequences.
The issue isn't about consequences or not, it's about frustrating vs. interesting consequences.
Out-of-game understanding can allow players and DMs to have things happen in-game. As long as they understand this to begin with. I've had character hate each other yet they leave it in game where it belongs. Yet we all understand that his game is about everyone's fun and need to respect that. If a player is unhappy they can talk to me and/or the group whenever they wish. I always ask after game if anybody needs to talk to me or the group about this game's happenings. If there is an issue I try to deal with it before the next gaming sessions if possible.
A good policy.
DMs need to allow players to do was they wish in game without punishing them for their actions. Likewise, DMs need to let players know ahead of time what to expect when in civilized parts of the world. Players who know and accept this generally don't take consequences of such actions in those areas as punishment but logical actions. If a player doesn't want that then they needs to discuss it with the players and the DM.
All true, but there's no compelling reason for a DM to box themselves or the players in with potentially frustrating reactions. Yes, for the world works in a logical way, with plausible consequences, but it's possible to make consequences interesting and plausible, rather than simply logical.
Sure, but there's still an adventure going on here. We don't know the stakes, but the PCs clearly need to accomplish something. It's workable and plausible to have an action-packed adventure in a city, especially a fantasy city. Sharn (which is where this seems to be taking place) is designed for mayhem and adventure.
True but my point is that the location does change things. There are going to be reactions that happen in a city-based setting that most likely won't happen in a dungeon setting.
's no "common sense," there's what the DM decides to put in place.
I said it can be seen as common sense. We've sort of had this converstation before. When a DM creates a city they usually add in things like social customs, culture, and laws. Its a part of our society so some DMs add them into their fictional creations. Where do you think these ideals, cultures, social customs, and laws come from? Some DMs take what they see and experience from the real work and incorporate it into their games.
No, "real life" reactions do not need to enter into it. The princess could have literally any response to "against the grain" actions. Even if it was handled as it would be in "real life," there are still plausible reactions that don't have to involve frustrating blocks.
True but as I said its about the perception of what that reaction is seen as. For example a character tries to hit on a known happily married noble woman. If the DM has the Noble Lady refuse is that a block? If the DM instead makes it a skill check and they fail is that block?
There is no "likely normally" except what the DM devises, and even if there is, the DM can certain also devise interesting exceptions to normallity. If they can't, they can enlist the players to help them. If they don't do that either, then the "likely normally" occurence is being used as an excuse to punish the players.
Hence why I suggested figuring out the baseline in the beginning. I personally find that stopping game mid-game to ask such questions takes away from the game as a whole.
But the Druid also wasn't punished. Here, the situation was simply clarified. Not a riveting outcome, but somewhat interesting in what it revealed. But another DM might have decided that the "likely" outcome would be for the Lord to be fed up with the Druid's abuse and have him arrested and detained. That's a result that would be hard to justify as anything but deliberately frustrating.
Two things here:
- You don't see it as a punishment and frankly neither did I. But I have had player who would have seen it as a block and as a punishment for an NPC to talk back to a character in any manner.
- If the Lord was written as a control freak to take any insult as a dishonor might have acted differently. In your opinion is that any more or less justifiable to you for detaining the Druid?
I'm not clear on whether the Dwarf was an NPC. If not, this is partly an issue between players, but it was driven by the DM's choice to leave the Dwarf out. There could have been a less frustrating outcome for that skill challenge.
The Dwarf was an NPC found by the characters and then used by the Character to assist them in going though the rest of the crypt. My player like the NPCs to act as though there were living breathing people. The Dwarf was insulted and I felt that I played the NPC Dwarf correctly as by the information provided.
Sounds like the player was bored. Tavern scenes can have that effect.
The DM is making some effort here to keep things interesting, and say "yes, and" to the player, who seemed to want some danger.
Actually I asked the Druid player and then told me that they got angry about their poor rolls and decided to take it out in character on the NPC. As I stated before one of my player likes to come and simply rob NPCs.
The Avenger and Cleric are blocking.
Blocking from the Cleric.
I'm trying to understand your opinion here so bare with me. When a character does something that indrectly stops another character from succeeding is that always a block? If so by that rationale then the character that act first dictate where the game goes, and other character's can't do anything different or are else blocking the initial character actions?
If the Mage and Druid are fine with that, great. If not, I'd have a hard time figuring out an interesting outcome to this, other than having some larger issue occur that requires the PCs' intervention. Or maybe the mercenary who was attacked decides not to press charges but instead offer the PCs a job. Something. If I couldn't think of anything, I'd ask the players for input.
They were fine with it. I did ask for private input by text message.
As for what happened their contact in the King's black ops came to thier aid (since he just happened to be nearby looking for them). After some discussion between their contact the Cleric, Druid, Mage, and Avenger suggested to the Mercenary group and the Merchant instead of pressing charges they would use the inn and perform a few training exercises so that the Mercenaries could work on thier Preception skills with input from the Avenger and Druid. In the end they got thier next quest and made new allies within the Mercenaries and the Merchant.
All true, but there's no compelling reason for a DM to box themselves or the players in with potentially frustrating reactions. Yes, for the world works in a logical way, with plausible consequences, but it's possible to make consequences interesting and plausible, rather than simply logical.
True, but that doesn't come as easily to some DMs as to others. I personally see DMing as an unfinished product. I am always tyring to make myself a better DM. Look at it from all angles. Talk to my players and see potential problems before they arise. I can give suggestions to others on these boards, but I better be willing to take criticism and the opinions of others with an open mind, or else I'm just a hypocrate.
True but my point is that the location does change things. There are going to be reactions that happen in a city-based setting that most likely won't happen in a dungeon setting.
And vice versa. But reactions need to be interesting to players, not frustrating.
I said it can be seen as common sense. We've sort of had this converstation before. When a DM creates a city they usually add in things like social customs, culture, and laws. Its a part of our society so some DMs add them into their fictional creations. Where do you think these ideals, cultures, social customs, and laws come from? Some DMs take what they see and experience from the real work and incorporate it into their games.
But very simplistically. It winds up not only not being very realistic, but requiring the DM to impose frustrating consequences in order to stay consistent with what's been established.
True but as I said its about the perception of what that reaction is seen as. For example a character tries to hit on a known happily married noble woman. If the DM has the Noble Lady refuse is that a block? If the DM instead makes it a skill check and they fail is that block?
Yes, just refusing or just failing is a block. Nothing happens. It's a frustrating waste of time. Refusing, but then having the scene go somewhere interesting with the PC's action is saying "Yes, and..." What that interesting consequences is might be a matter for discussion. Many DMs would seek to slap the character (and perhaps also the player) down for something like that, to teach them a lesson, but that urge should be resisted.
Hence why I suggested figuring out the baseline in the beginning. I personally find that stopping game mid-game to ask such questions takes away from the game as a whole.
Not nearly so much as frustrating consequences can.
Two things here:
You don't see it as a punishment and frankly neither did I. But I have had player who would have seen it as a block and as a punishment for an NPC to talk back to a character in any manner.
Then it needn't be handled in character. The DM can state that it was clear to the druid (or became clear) what the true situation was.
If the Lord was written as a control freak to take any insult as a dishonor might have acted differently. In your opinion is that any more or less justifiable to you for detaining the Druid?
There's no justification for meting out a frustrating consequence to the player. Writing the Lord as a control freak is just asking for issues like this.
The Dwarf was an NPC found by the characters and then used by the Character to assist them in going though the rest of the crypt. My player like the NPCs to act as though there were living breathing people. The Dwarf was insulted and I felt that I played the NPC Dwarf correctly as by the information provided.
Ok. It's not necessarily frustrating that the NPC dwarf dislikes a PC, but it'd be worth collaborating with the player on the exact nature of that relationship. Out of game, perhaps.
Actually I asked the Druid player and then told me that they got angry about their poor rolls and decided to take it out in character on the NPC. As I stated before one of my player likes to come and simply rob NPCs.
Understandable.
I'm trying to understand your opinion here so bare with me. When a character does something that indrectly stops another character from succeeding is that always a block? If so by that rationale then the character that act first dictate where the game goes, and other character's can't do anything different or are else blocking the initial character actions?
Yes, intentionally stopping a choice that someone else made is blocking. Logical though it may be, it keeps the game from going anywhere and it probably also engenders bad feelings in the person who was blocked.
Yes, if a player takes the initiative, that player is dictating where the action goes. Characters can do other things, or back up that characters idea, but trying to stop their idea cold is a block. If players accept and add on to the first idea, not only does the game go somewhere, but everyone is involved and eager to see how it develops. Yes, that's a lot to ask, and people can't be forced to do it. It takes practice and trust. It also helps if you've seen a lot of games go bad due to blocking, because then you're less likely to want to block.
As for what happened their contact in the King's black ops came to thier aid (since he just happened to be nearby looking for them).
That's convenient. And it's interesting. That's the kind of thing a DM could come up with on the fly to keep a situation from becoming frustrating.
True, but that doesn't come as easily to some DMs as to others.
Agreed, and the rules themselves only do so much to offer advice. But, I first started thinking about interesting failure after reading the chapter on skill challenges in the 4th Edition DMG. I realized that any situation can have interesting failure. "Yes, and..." of course, is also in the 4th Edition DMG. The idea of garning player input comes partly from the DMG 2, but admittedly mostly from other games. The resources to learn this approach are mostly there in the D&D books, though, specifically to help DMs understand it.
I keep forgetting this is a Player forum: Players, don't block other players. Say "Yes, and...."
I have friends with whom I don't play D&D. You can, too! That I don't play D&D with them has no bearing on our friendship.
Of course I have friends that don't play D&D. I'm just saying that with my friends who DO play D&D, I like to include them in the festivities.
Of course I have friends that don't play D&D. I'm just saying that with my friends who DO play D&D, I like to include them in the festivities.
Even if they're "immature and idiotic?" Because I have some friends I stopped gaming with or running games for simply because I didn't like how they played. We still hang out in other capacities. People can do that.
Like I said, agree to disagree. I'm willing to let it go when you do.
I honestly want to understand the incentive behind in-game retaliation, rather than out-of-game discussion. I understand that not everyone is comfortable with direct confrontation, but in-game confrontation is far, far riskier, since it might be easily misinterpreted, and blow the entire thing far out of proportion, or backfire in some other way, rather than resolving anything.
The incentive is basic roleplaying reasons, I'm guessing. Let's say the character robs a fellow PC...
Put your weasly hand in the pocket of a guy called Jack Face-Stabber, lo and behold he might actually stab you... in the face.
Wynann Wine might not stab you in the face... but he might call for the guards (or the rest of the party) as soon as you're out of sight and confront you.
Lucky Loo the Bard might spread the tale of how the character robbed him of his 'hard-earned' coin. He might even use it as an excuse for why he's 'forced to make a living as a singer'. One things for certain, when Lucky Loo is done with him, the thief's going to have to pick his marks a lot more carefully from now on.
Of course I have friends that don't play D&D. I'm just saying that with my friends who DO play D&D, I like to include them in the festivities.
Even if they're "immature and idiotic?" Because I have some friends I stopped gaming with or running games for simply because I didn't like how they played. We still hang out in other capacities. People can do that.
Yes. Even if they're immature and idiotic.
Like I said, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We still have fun overall, so I guess that's the bottom line.
You see, the buildings in my games all have walls, granted they also have doors and windows and other entrance/exits, but a common theme I have for my setting is walls. Lots and lots of walls, this isn't even including interior walls and of course fences around the buildings and even cities that are surrounded by walls.
I mean literally Walls everywhere they go!
I didn't see this as a problem before, after all I too live in a city that has buildings that feature walls, in fact most buildings in my entire country in real life has walls, (I think Canada adopted this system of buildings sometime in the 1970s, some new age construction process)
I have a player who's character is forever walking into them. Sometimes running or worse, while moving as fast as he can on a horse. It really is hard to deal with. Of course I have tried to force him to use doors and windows, and he does eventually and begrudgingly use them, but only after I have absolutely refused to allow him to walk through the walls.
Of course sometimes he does manage to tear down a wall or 2 on occasion, but this disrupts the parties activivitys and it is hard to have NPCs realistically ignore him knocking the building down on their heads just to step outside.
But after reading your posts, I realize that I've just been blockign the player's choices after all this time. It is my fault for having walls in the game. What was I thinking.
So I have now removed all walls from the game, my entire world is one big flat open space with no obstructions or walls.
Thank You for the enlightenment.
I am not meanign to be sacrcastic -cough- but players make bad decisions or come up with bad ideas. And at some point those bad ideas (heck even some of the good ones) are going to fail. This is life, and this is part of an interesting game. Working within the limits (or creatively going beyond them) to acheive your goal.
Buildings have walls, and sure there are different doors and windows and even skylights and trapdoors they can use, and Sure at times they can break through a wall. But there are still walls!
This is the difference between playing the game and typing in a /noclip code
And just like the walls, NPCs will react and behaive like they should. The world will behave like it should.
No walls and you have a flat, barren, and Boring world. Just like a lukewarm drink, it's niether hot nor cold and gets spat out. (or so the saying goes)
players make bad decisions or come up with bad ideas. And at some point those bad ideas (heck even some of the good ones) are going to fail.
I'm fine with failure. A good story features lots of failure, but those failures are interesting to read about and not just complete dead ends and blockages. If something is a dead end, it was probably put in by the author to show character growth. In D&D, the DM doesn't control whether the characters grow in response to frustrating failure, and shouldn't expect them to, though if the players are explicitly bought in then that means that the "frustrating failure" is actually interesting. That can happen, but if a DM assumes it will, then the players may wind up frustrated, over-cautious, and bored, as in this case.
And just like the walls, NPCs will react and behaive like they should. The world will behave like it should.
There is no "should." There is no excuse for a DM to build in frustrating failure, in advance or on the fly. Failure, yes. Player-frustrating failure, no. Keep the story and game moving forward in interesting ways. This can include patches of boring time for the characters but not the players.
Failure, yes. Player-frustrating failure, no. Is at least that much of what I'm saying clear?
Want to run an experiment? Kick in a stranger's door, go into his/her bedroom and try and start a pleasant conversation, about gardening and your D&D enthusiasm. I bet you know already how he/she will react (screaming, police, shotgun, baseball bat) Doesn't seem like an appropriate reaction to pleasant conversation, but you still kind of expect that reaction, right?
Then go rob a bank and sit on the front steps counting the cash you got from the bank, while making pleasant conversation to those around you. I bet you know how the police will react, more or less.
Now while you are in prison, go make pleasant conversation with the bigest, ugliest, meanest looking fellow there in the showers. Talk about your gardening and D&D enthusiasm. Ahhhh Know, why, why is he doing that to you? You were only making pleasant conversation! This doesn't seem like an appropriate reaction to pleasant conversation!
My point here is that you, and the players, all understand how people and the world will react to certain things, and expect that people will respond to stimuli. So why would you expect anything different in game?
NPCs and the world will react appropriately to the PC's actions, both bad and good. If the player starts acting like an ass and doing stupid things, he will reap what he sows.
If I describe an NPC as a "Grim, brooding Dwarf with a long beard, he has a huge GreatAxe and his armor has seen many fights, he is with a dozen other dwarves, all equally grim and with armor like his that has seen many battles, but he is the obvious leader..." and the player's response is, "I grab my torch, run up and light his beard on fire" How do you have them react? Or rather how do you expect them to react?
There really is no way that this won't end in spetacular failure, at this point you would probably take the player aside and talk to him "Look, everytime you come over to my house you kick my dog and call my wife a *&#@$ and smash your beer bottle on the floor"
Now I am going to say that that the above case with the Dwarf would never happen in my game because at the very beginning, the low levels, the very start of play, I've established that my world responds appropriately and realistically to them
I don't know how you get to the "frustrating failure" part being deliberately written in by the DM. If I was suggesting somethign like, all NPCs reacting negatively at all times to the players unless they earn it otherwise. I am talking about NPCs reacting and behaiving, well as they should, in a way the Players would exepct them to.
If players expect to be blocked, that could just be because they don't know any other way, despite most of them probably having seen or read stories in which any failure that occurred tended to be either interesting or handled out-of-scene.
My point here is that you, and the players, all understand how people and the world will react to certain things, and expect that people will respond to stimuli. So why would you expect anything different in game?
Because the overriding expectation of a game is that it be an enjoyable expenditure of everyone's time. To meet this expectation, we make all sorts of exceptions to normal expectations: magic exists; dungeons exist; "adventurer" is not only a viable career choice, but a direct path to literal immortality.
No one is saying that people in the game world shouldn't respond to stimuli, but clearly it's felt that they should do so in a way that makes the game enjoyable. One particularly odd response to stimuli that we tend to either overlook or go to some effort to explain away is that civilized beings will cope with nearby enclaves of ravening monsters by sending a small group of people they've never met to deal with the problem.
That's utterly non-sensical behavior. The people shouldn't be there, they should be huddled in a defensible area while shockingly excessive force is used to tame the wilderness. After all, this is how the world works.
But that's not the game we set up. We make concessions to make the game fun. We don't punish the PCs for being so foolish as to step outside the pallisade: we encourage that and create the world to make that the heroic thing to do.
NPCs and the world will react appropriately to the PC's actions, both bad and good. If the player starts acting like an ass and doing stupid things, he will reap what he sows.
This is telling, because it's made your point not about realism, but about punishment. You want to see that behavior punished, not because it's realistic, but because you want to see it punished.
Sometimes in the real world bad things utterly fail to happen to those who have sowed very bad things. We might not like it, but I daresay we've even come to expect that bank robbers, car thieves, and abusive people very often never see justice. But some DMs make it their business to ensure that every plan they see as worthy of punishment is punished in game. They use "realism" as an excuse for punishment, rather than merely as a reason to provide interesting exploration.
If I describe an NPC as a "Grim, brooding Dwarf with a long beard, he has a huge GreatAxe and his armor has seen many fights, he is with a dozen other dwarves, all equally grim and with armor like his that has seen many battles, but he is the obvious leader..." and the player's response is, "I grab my torch, run up and light his beard on fire" How do you have them react? Or rather how do you expect them to react?
I'll freely admit that I don't really see an interesting way for that to go. If a player took that action, I would pause the game and ask what the player was hoping to achieve, and find out how we, as a table, could come to an interesting consequence for that. I would be all for the action, and try to back it up, and encourage the other players to do the same. If someone else had put forth an expectation of another action prior to the torch move, I'd tell the torch person that he or she was blocking the initial suggestion and should add to it instead.
There really is no way that this won't end in spetacular failure
That's not necessarily true, but even if it is, that's fine. Failure's fine. If the goal was peaceful negotiation, that's over and won't be restarted, but the game will carry on in an interesting way. After the PCs finish fighting the dwarves, that group of hobgoblins heard about what they did and are wondering if they'd be interested in doing that to some other dwarves....
Now I am going to say that that the above case with the Dwarf would never happen in my game because at the very beginning, the low levels, the very start of play, I've established that my world responds appropriately and realistically to them
To me it seems you've established that if players don't behave the way you want, then they will have a frustrating game.
To me it seems you've established that if players don't behave the way you want, then they will have a frustrating game.
Anygame offers a certain play style, which not all players will enjoy. I have't had this issue and my players
I don't have a way to behave in my games, the world and NPC's appropriate reactions make misbehaving more enjoyable, because the risk/reward is the same as a dungeon. They want to raid the king's castle and rob his armoury, they can, and are welcome to it, go ahead and write the story for me, but I treat it like any other encounter or Dungeon, Castles have guards, Castles in cities have more guards. So the expectation is that they plan and not be stupid about their schemes.
No one is saying that people in the game world shouldn't respond to stimuli, but clearly it's felt that they should do so in a way that makes the game enjoyable. One particularly odd response to stimuli that we tend to either overlook or go to some effort to explain away is that civilized beings will cope with nearby enclaves of ravening monsters by sending a small group of people they've never met to deal with the problem.
That's utterly non-sensical behavior. The people shouldn't be there, they should be huddled in a defensible area while shockingly excessive force is used to tame the wilderness. After all, this is how the world works.
Most towns have some defenses, but may bnot be capible of dealing with cropping problems, such as bandits, (or monsters in the D&D world) settling nearby, hiring mercenaries or sending away to the Noble, Ruler or King for aid to deal with the bandits (or monster) is a good response, or hiring a mercenary. This is really no different the the town of Tombstone hiring Wyatt Earp to deal with it's outlaws or a town placing a bounty on an outlaw or gang of outlaws.
As for leaving the city, we are talking farmers packing up and traveling on foor through the wilderness to resettle elsewhere and leave their homes and crops behind (aka starving to death in the wilderness) they really don't have a choice but to stay and hope for the best. Shokingly exxcessive force isn't always available.
As for Dms that abuse their players by using realism as an excuse, that is not relevant. Realistic and believable responces by the NPCs does not equate abuse (and abusive DMs are seldom realistic) This is a different subject matter of DMs shouldn't abuse their players, but instead should have their NPCs react appropriately to the players in a realistic fashion.
To me it seems you've established that if players don't behave the way you want, then they will have a frustrating game.
Anygame offers a certain play style, which not all players will enjoy. I have't had this issue and my players
Good, but that's not really relevant.
The playstyle of the DM in original post is contributing to the boredom and recriminations between his players. He is having issues between his playstyle and theirs.
I don't have a way to behave in my games, the world and NPC's appropriate reactions make misbehaving more enjoyable, because the risk/reward is the same as a dungeon. They want to raid the king's castle and rob his armoury, they can, and are welcome to it, go ahead and write the story for me, but I treat it like any other encounter or Dungeon, Castles have guards, Castles in cities have more guards. So the expectation is that they plan and not be stupid about their schemes.
I'm curious how the first words of that paragraph aren't in consideration with the last words. If players are stupid, do they deserve to have frustrating consequences? If so, why?
Most towns have some defenses, but may bnot be capible of dealing with cropping problems, such as bandits, (or monsters in the D&D world) settling nearby, hiring mercenaries or sending away to the Noble, Ruler or King for aid to deal with the bandits (or monster) is a good response, or hiring a mercenary. This is really no different the the town of Tombstone hiring Wyatt Earp to deal with it's outlaws or a town placing a bounty on an outlaw or gang of outlaws.
As for leaving the city, we are talking farmers packing up and traveling on foor through the wilderness to resettle elsewhere and leave their homes and crops behind (aka starving to death in the wilderness) they really don't have a choice but to stay and hope for the best. Shokingly exxcessive force isn't always available.
Very true, and I'm impressed with the amount of thought you've put into making apparently unrealistic NPC reactions into something plausible. You've proven that it's not necessary to make NPCs act in the logical way, when there's a more interesting way to have them act. This is my point.
As for Dms that abuse their players by using realism as an excuse, that is not relevant. Realistic and believable responces by the NPCs does not equate abuse (and abusive DMs are seldom realistic) This is a different subject matter of DMs shouldn't abuse their players, but instead should have their NPCs react appropriately to the players in a realistic fashion.
I'm not sure what you mean by "abuse." I'm talking about frustrating failure. While it's true that not all DMs will use realism as an excuse to frustrate their players into behaving a certain way, doing so is easy and widely condoned.
I don't have a way to behave in my games, the world and NPC's appropriate reactions make misbehaving more enjoyable, because the risk/reward is the same as a dungeon. They want to raid the king's castle and rob his armoury, they can, and are welcome to it, go ahead and write the story for me, but I treat it like any other encounter or Dungeon, Castles have guards, Castles in cities have more guards. So the expectation is that they plan and not be stupid about their schemes.
I'm curious how the first words of that paragraph aren't in consideration with the last words. If players are stupid, do they deserve to have frustrating consequences? If so, why?
If I may speculate, I think what you might be getting at are players acting out through their characters and suggesting actions that are outside the tone of the game, like saying they want to throw a birthday party for the dragon, or something. An idea like that, if flatly accepted, could turn a tense exciting game into a farce, even if everyone accepted and added on for all they're worth. Is that what you're talking about? Because when I hear "stupid" I worry it might include players who are merely being somewhat foolhardy in an attempt to try something cool. And I think that should be encouraged.
I think we've danced around exactly what kinds of consequences we both mean. Say someone did something stupid around the guards. The "logical" outcome is that the guards would kill or capture the character, agreed? If death occurs, the player is effectively booted out of the game until that's rectified. If it's capture, the character's further actions are easily blocked. Is the intent that the player have a "time out" to consider their actions? Or what?
If I may speculate, I think what you might be getting at are players acting out through their characters and suggesting actions that are outside the tone of the game, like saying they want to throw a birthday party for the dragon, or something. An idea like that, if flatly accepted, could turn a tense exciting game into a farce, even if everyone accepted and added on for all they're worth. Is that what you're talking about?
For my part, I would consider that a violation of "Yes, and..." on the part of the player who suggested something farcical in a game whose tone doesn't necessarily support that. It's a contradiction of established fictional precedent and the previously agreed-upon theme of the game in many ways. It's thus deserving of an out-of-game conversation to clarify the intent and see if I could elicit the players' thoughts on how he thinks it fits the game. It might just be revealed as appropriate once it has been explored further.
See this is the part where I can't help but think of you being boring if those are the only 2 reactions of the guards. How about a chase scene? Can they be bribed? Will the guards flee when the player is too strong? (giving him the oportunity to get away) Is he wanted after and has to spend the rest of the time hiding or in disguise?
Or the better question. Is the player smart enough to see guards at the enterance to the town and makes sure that none are around before doing something stupid? PC does something stupid around the guards? What was he thinking? How is it anyone's fault but his?
Centauri, What do the guards do to a character, kill or capture?
See this is the part where I can't help but think of you being boring if those are the only 2 reactions of the guards.
Okay, sure, I'm boring. Whatever. So, humor me then: What would you say are the goals of the guards, called to the scene of, say some PCs who broke into an office?
How about a chase scene?
That's not a reaction of the guards, thats a reaction of the players, and depends on them deciding to run. If the guards give chase, it's because they want to achieve some goal. What is that goal? What if the players lose the chase?
Can they be bribed?
That's not a reaction of the guards, thats a reaction of the players, and depends on them deciding to try a bribe. If the guards need to be convinced, it's because they want to achieve some goal. What is that goal? What if the players fail to successfully bribe?
Anyway, bribes are boring, and usually easy for adventurers. Why bother bringing in the guards at all, if the PCs can just throw money at them?
Will the guards flee when the player is too strong? (giving him the oportunity to get away)
Ok, that is a reaction of the guards. It gets back to my question about players being difficult to give bloody noses to. If the players beat the guards, what has the appearance of the guards accomplished? As with the bribe, the PCs have learned that they can perform with impunity the act that called the guards in the first place. I thought your point was to teach them not to do those things.
Is he wanted after and has to spend the rest of the time hiding or in disguise?
First of all, why would he be? He can whip the typical group of guards, so who's going to arrest him. Second of all, either this is a fun twist that the player is all for, or it's a frustrating inconvenience. My question, my plea, is to have it explained to me why it's anything more than a waste of everyone's time to impose frustating inconveniences on players?
I can think of interesting reactions for the guards to have, but if I couldn't, and the players couldn't either, they wouldn't be a part of the scene at all. That's my point.
Or the better question. Is the player smart enough to see guards at the enterance to the town and makes sure that none are around before doing something stupid?
That is a better question, because it gets to the heart of the matter: smart players get to have a fun game, and stupid players get to have a frustrating game, in which they are summarily removed from the play unless they jump through the hoops the DM has laid out or brought out on the fly.
Once again, the DM is the one who decides the effects of the world, and whether or not they are intended to discourage player choices, or to help lead to interesting outcomes. An encounter with guards can be interesting, but depends very much on variables the DM can't really control. More than likely, the players will force the DM's hand to bring out those commonly understood reactions I keep talking about.
PC does something stupid around the guards? What was he thinking? How is it anyone's fault but his?
Who put those guards there? The DM is the first cause. If there's a gun held to the PC's head to discourage them from doing something, the DM put it there. If the trigger is pulled, that is the DM's choice. If the DM gave themselves no other choice, that's the DM's fault.
None of that matters as long as what happens to the character is still seen as fun, interesting, engaging, entertaining or something else positive by the player. Is that what you expect will happen when a player does something "stupid"? If not, why shouldn't it happen? Adventuring is "stupid," but DMs usually make that fun.
I hope you're read and respond to everything above, but please at least just answer these:
How do you (rather than the dictionary) define "stupid" in the context of D&D?
What is your personal opinion of a player who does things that are "stupid," as defined by you?
What level of stupidity, as defined by you, is deserving of, say, having one's character killed or imprisoned by city guards?
If the game world were not designed to discourage "stupid" actions, as defined by you, would you take out-of-game actions to discourage it? What actions would you take?
I assume you mean players making stupid choices, and not mentally-challenged players.
If players make stupid choices and frustrating things happen, they will be glad to find that their choices have meaning at least. Which means they can also be smart and overcome frustrating consequences. If the result is the same either way, most players will likely become bored, especially if given a choice between that type of game and one in which the player gets to make choices that guide the destiny of his character... pretty exciting stuff.
Failure is desireable. Failure that wastes the players' time is undesireable. Is that clear to everyone participating in this discussion? I think it is, because I think time-wasting, frustrating failure is used (by some DMs and players) as stick to get players to act a certain way. But outcomes that waste the players' time also waste the DM's time, in addition to eroding trust and (as seen in the original post) turning players against each other.
If players make stupid choices and frustrating things happen, they will be glad to find that their choices have meaning at least. Which means they can also be smart and overcome frustrating consequences. If the result is the same either way, most players will likely become bored, especially if given a choice between that type of game and one in which the player gets to make choices that guide the destiny of his character... pretty exciting stuff.
All choices should lead to exciting adventures, even stupid ones. Why? Because we're playing a game, and in a fantasy world, there is limitless opportunity to choose consequences that are fun versus consequences that are boring or frustrating. It should be noted that while Centauri and I may not find the town guard showing up particularly interesting, that might be interesting to other people. I'll not gainsay them for that. But if the forums are to be believed, plenty of players don't find those kinds of outcomes interesting at all and oftentimes punitive and frustrating, then in the face of an overwhelming number of choices that are more fun, a DM choosing the boring option is failing his players.
That being said, I'm starting to see a correlation and perhaps a reason why you guys are fans of this approach and Centauri and I are not, based upon your posts in some threads in WaDMtD. Both of you (you and MrCustomer) support the concept of "illusion of choice." It's not hard for me to imagine now why you like "realistic consequences" for unexpected PC actions. Because realistic, un-fun, boring, or punitive consequences (and those adjectives are in the eye of the beholder aka the players) can often bring the players back to the path you need them to be on. It's a form of redirection to obscure the rail. Interestingly, if the players have been playing with a DM that does that long enough, they've learned to pick up on that signal which is less "here's a consequence for your actions" than "you're going the wrong way."
In light of this revelation, it's very easy to see that the DM in question was using illusion of choice. The players were not choosing the right path and he was hitting them with frustrating consequences for 3.5 hours to encourage them to get on the right path. At which point the dragonborn acted out, leading to the original post.
If players make stupid choices and frustrating things happen, they will be glad to find that their choices have meaning at least. Which means they can also be smart and overcome frustrating consequences. If the result is the same either way, most players will likely become bored, especially if given a choice between that type of game and one in which the player gets to make choices that guide the destiny of his character... pretty exciting stuff.
All choices should lead to exciting adventures, even stupid ones. Why? Because we're playing a game, and in a fantasy world, there is limitless opportunity to choose consequences that are fun versus consequences that are boring or frustrating. It should be noted that while Centauri and I may not find the town guard showing up particularly interesting, that might be interesting to other people. I'll not gainsay them for that. But if the forums are to be believed, plenty of players don't find those kinds of outcomes interesting at all and oftentimes punitive and frustrating, then in the face of an overwhelming number of choices that are more fun, a DM choosing the boring option is failing his players.
That being said, I'm starting to see a correlation and perhaps a reason why you guys are fans of this approach and Centauri and I are not, based upon your posts in some threads in WaDMtD. Both of you support the concept of "illusion of choice." It's not hard for me to imagine now why you like "realistic consequences" for unexpected PC actions. Because realistic, un-fun, boring, or punitive consequences (and those adjectives are in the eye of the beholder aka the players) can often bring the players back to the path you need them to be on. It's a form of redirection to obscure the rail. Interestingly, if the players have been playing with a DM that does that long enough, they've learned to pick up on that signal which is less "here's a consequence for your actions" than "you're going the wrong way."
Bravo.
Okay, sure, I'm boring. Whatever. So, humor me then: What would you say are the goals of the guards, called to the scene of, say some PCs who broke into an office?
To Guard? The goal is part of their job title.
More practically it is a mix of driving forces. They have a job to do with specific training on how to do it. I think detain the lawbreakers or failing to do that to engage in combat or sound the alarm, depending on circumstances. Of course their goal could be to do as little work as possible and so they might be slow in the response, and they may not be so concerned about a burglery as to give chase or to risk their lives if the Player's resist.
If the player's decide to flee, then the guards will have to decide on three choices, to give chase, to secure the scene, or to sound the alarm. (or a combination of all three depending on their force and the players, 1 guard is unlikely to give chase to 4 or 5 armed PCs.)
Much of what the guards do depends on the player's actions. If the players run do the guards give chase? If the the players hide do the guards search that area or think they have run off and give chase "they must have gone this way"? Will the guards fight? they might be poorly trained and deal mostly with just walking around as a show of force, any resistance and they flee. Ironically the players could decide to surrender to a group of weak, incompetent buffoons.
If the player's try bribing the guards, will they accept? Depends on how much is offered, the guard's allignments if applicable, if the guards can get away with it, how the character's present the bribe.
Boring? That really depends on the players just as much as the DM. I think a huge army of high level guards in a small town would be boring, I recomend level appropriate content that matches the setting.
But I will ask you this. What if the Players turn around and slaughter the guards and a few citizens, leave witnesses at the scene that can clearly identify them as they are well known (even famous) in a city where the DM has already established high leveled NPCs that would be more then capible of handling the party, such as the King who just hired their services for a quest, who's guards they just murdered, and who's captain of the guards they are supposed to be meeting later that evening, who has already been established as being more powerful then them?
Now how do you reward them for this?
Okay, sure, I'm boring. Whatever. So, humor me then: What would you say are the goals of the guards, called to the scene of, say some PCs who broke into an office?
To Guard? The goal is part of their job title.
That's a pretty evasive answer. Follow it through: would you expect the guards to kill or arrest in the execution of their job? And then the next step: would the game continue to be enjoyable for all concerned if the guards did kill or arrest the character? And if not, why is that a good thing?
More practically it is a mix of driving forces. They have a job to do with specific training on how to do it. I think detain the lawbreakers or failing to do that to engage in combat or sound the alarm, depending on circumstances. Of course their goal could be to do as little work as possible and so they might be slow in the response, and they may not be so concerned about a burglery as to give chase or to risk their lives if the Player's resist.
Exactly right. That's a very good example of a realistic guard force that also allows for the PCs to have an outcome more adventurous than killing guards, being killed by guards, or being justly arrested.
If the player's decide to flee, then the guards will have to decide on three choices, to give chase, to secure the scene, or to sound the alarm. (or a combination of all three depending on their force and the players, 1 guard is unlikely to give chase to 4 or 5 armed PCs.)
Much of what the guards do depends on the player's actions. If the players run do the guards give chase? If the the players hide do the guards search that area or think they have run off and give chase "they must have gone this way"? Will the guards fight? they might be poorly trained and deal mostly with just walking around as a show of force, any resistance and they flee. Ironically the players could decide to surrender to a group of weak, incompetent buffoons.
If the player's try bribing the guards, will they accept? Depends on how much is offered, the guard's allignments if applicable, if the guards can get away with it, how the character's present the bribe.
It's good to consider possibilities, yes. But a DM who doesn't want a frustrating outcome, will not paint themselves into such a corner that the frustating outcome can be forced by the players (though can still be provided if desired by the players).
Boring? That really depends on the players just as much as the DM.
To a point. But there are DMs who will try to deliberately make things boring for players, as punishment. I hope you're not one of those.
But I will ask you this. What if the Players turn around and slaughter the guards and a few citizens, leave witnesses at the scene that can clearly identify them as they are well known (even famous) in a city where the DM has already established high leveled NPCs that would be more then capible of handling the party, such as the King who just hired their services for a quest, who's guards they just murdered, and who's captain of the guards they are supposed to be meeting later that evening, who has already been established as being more powerful then them?
Now how do you reward them for this?
That question must be asked carefully: What do you mean by "reward" and what do you mean by "them"?
If you mean "how do you give the characters a good outcome after that," I can say that I might not. Failure can and should happen. But "a good outcome for characters" is not my goal as a DM. "An interesting outcome for the players" IS my goal.
So, if you mean "how do you make the game interesting for the players after that," I can say that I can think of a few ideas that I'd float past the players, such as offers of work from the king's rivals or some kind of chaotic patraon. Or, perhaps I'd retcon the city and king and guards as corrupt, especially if the party had been assuming they were. If my ideas weren't interesting to them (and probably even if they were), I'd ask for their input for how the game might proceed in a way we would all enjoy. There's a chance that they might say that they expect to be killed or tossed in jail. If so, I'd give them that in an interesting way.
My question is, why would I deliberately make the game boring or frustrating for the players, at any time?
Add that to my list of other questions to you, as yet unanswered:
I hope you're read and respond to everything above, but please at least just answer these:
How do you (rather than the dictionary) define "stupid" in the context of D&D?
What is your personal opinion of a player who does things that are "stupid," as defined by you?
What level of stupidity, as defined by you, is deserving of, say, having one's character killed or imprisoned by city guards?
If the game world were not designed to discourage "stupid" actions, as defined by you, would you take out-of-game actions to discourage it? What actions would you take?
That's a pretty evasive answer. Follow it through: would you expect the guards to kill or arrest in the execution of their job? And then the next step: would the game continue to be enjoyable for all concerned if the guards did kill or arrest the character? And if not, why is that a good thing?
It is not evasive. There isn't enough information. Character death, although undesirable, is always a possibility. But much deends on the situation, no? I make an effort to properly describe the situation to my players, so they have opportunity to make informed decisions (such as avoiding the guards) this is part of establishing the setting, the better established the more it becomes their own making.
If they were in a dungeon, looking for treasure, and one sneaks off on his own, bursts into a room with minotaurs, would they attack the player? what hapens if the PC dies? Does your game stop? Why is this different then the guards? And then the next step: would the game continue to be enjoyable for all concerned if the minotaurs did kill or capture the character? And if not, why is that a good thing?
-How do you (rather than the dictionary) define "stupid" in the context of D&D?
Cetain level of trust on the DM to make a fair call, mostly it is done by properly establishing the world and letting things play out. Make a dungeon and put down traps, if they don't search for traps (despite knowning they are there) and run down a hallway, well stupid defines itself, no?
-What is your personal opinion of a player who does things that are "stupid," as defined by you?
Well, as my example with the traps, he does it himself, and a fair call by the DM and players. In general i would describe it as recklessly endangering the other players and their goals or being disruptive to the story (the story the party is persuing)
-What level of stupidity, as defined by you, is deserving of, say, having one's character killed or imprisoned by city guards?
None, as I said before the guards (if there are any) are a part of the established setting, we've had this discussion. If it happens it is a set of conditions created by the player, so I imagine the level of stupidity would be defined by them, not me.
You are assuming that i put monsters in dungeons as a cruel trick to torture the players? Wait, I take that back, that is exactly what I do
-If the game world were not designed to discourage "stupid" actions, as defined by you, would you take out-of-game actions to discourage it? What actions would you take?
Assuming i don't play with a develepmentally chalenged or sociopath? Nothing, why would I have to? I imagine if I was playing with young children I might have to do the adult thing and correct their behavior, but I take that for granted really Children can be expected to act out. Adults? nah adults catch a hint, haven't had a problem with my friends yet.
My games are designed to encourage "smart" thinking, not to discourage "stupid". My dungeons ae full of well thought out encounters, someone who is unskilled will probably have a hard time. frankly if anyone of that I play with I am the one who is most likely to do something stupid, and pay the price for it.
Sigh. DM of the OP here, putting on my big boy pants and wading into this kerfuffle because, frankly, I’m tired of being accused of blocking and running a boring game. These accusations are not unexpected, as none of you have a seat at my table (except Brock), and are therefore operating on very limited information, which is to say practically none. My hope is that I can provide the behind the screen perspective on what went down.
First some background on the campaign. The party is currently in Sharn, having just arrived via Sigil, to acquire a powerful artifact. They have just narrowly escaped death at the hands of a group of warforged terrorists, had their first encounter with the main antagonist of this portion of the campaign, and have arrived at a place that is completely new to all of them. They have very little information, just the name of the artifact, and the knowledge that the antagonist wants to take it.
From behind the screen, there are several important plot points that the party does not yet know, but will discover (and at this point have discovered) in the course of their investigations.
- The artifact is responsible for the plane of air bleeding into Sharn. Removing the artifact would cause the Skyway to fall, killing thousands. This twist changes the party’s objective of beating the antagonist to the artifact, to keeping it out of his hands.
- The very existence of the artifact is a secret known only to a secret society whose sole purpose is to guard the artifact and prevent its removal.
Many posts (and I admit, I have not taken the time to read all of them) have suggested that my game was on invisible rails, and the explosion at the office was some sort of punishment for not being a telepathic player. Others have called it boring or lazy. These are all separate points that I wish to address individually.
For the session in question, there was no railroad. In fact, I had the exact opposite problem: I knew where the players had to end up in order for the story to progress, but no idea how they would get there. They clearly needed information, but the information they needed was quite difficult to get. Their initial ideas of checking the brothels, checking the university, researching in the library, all yielded information, just not the information they were hoping for. That is not to say the information they received was trite and worthless. The fact that NO ONE seems to know what they are talking about is information by itself, and they did get information about several sub plots that would become relevant in later sessions. When the party did manage to encounter a member of the secret society, they determined that he did know of the artifact via insight and the next sentence out of their mouths was that they were there to take it away. How else was the gnome to react, but to beat a swift retreat? With no other leads, they hit upon the idea of leaving a note for him in his office. The OP has already noted how that turned out and it is here that I wish to address the blocking charge.
For my part, placing a rune of warding on the inside of the door was a spontaneous decision, not driven by cruelty or malice, but because of the interesting problem it created for the party to solve. My thoughts were not “This will show them!” but “Won’t this be fun!” It is also worth noting that if any player had rolled an arcana check, they would have detected the trap that was half of their level and easily been able to disable it. Many posts have asserted that this was blocking, that I was preventing the party from doing what they wanted. I simply say this: They wanted to ransack the office. It was ransacked, courtesy of the gnome’s insurance that his research not fall into the wrong hands. They got their intended result, just not in the way they were expecting. If there was any lesson to learn from this incident it is: check for traps.
So what is the next logical step in this situation? Of course the authorities are going to get involved, and I ended the session with a pair of guards (hardly a combat challenge for the party) catching the party at the scene of the crime.
We began our next session exactly where we left off, when one of the guards noticed a large bag of money on one of the characters. He’s a greedy bugger and suggests a bribe. Unknown to him, the money in the bag was fake, the product of a ritual. Unknown to me, at the time, there was also 1000 real gold pieces in the bag. The party had a choice. They quickly decided to bribe the corrupt guard and get out fast. Again I ask myself, what is the next logical step? To me, it seems highly unlikely that the guard is going to turn himself in and admit he got swindled on a bribe, and as low level goons, they are not likely to have the influence needed to chase the party down. Now, did they players have to pursue that course? No. They could have fought. They could have run. They could have suggested something I hadn’t thought of. They could have proposed a counter bribe. They could have hypnotized guards with magic. There are many paths they could have chosen, and that is why I take offense to the accusation that my game is on rails. Yes, I have a story to tell. Yes, I have a direction I want to nudge the party in, but my players trust me not to lead them astray, and not to rob them of their victory, which they rightly earned. They know that I’m on their side, that the reason I’m so gleeful when I roll a critical hit is because it makes the eventual victory all the sweeter.
I could go on with the narration of how the session went, but frankly that’s not the point. I’ll just say that afterwards one of my players texted me and said it was “amazing” and “my best ever.” I run the simulation. I set up the problems for my players to conquer. I create the tension and drama. I raise the stakes. And I keep six fully grown adults with lives at the table (one whom moved and connects via Skype), week after week after week for more than two years because I run a damn good game. So don’t sit behind your computer screen and tell me that it’s wrong or boring. I disagree, and so would my players.
Sigh. DM of the OP here, putting on my big boy pants and wading into this kerfuffle because, frankly, I’m tired of being accused of blocking and running a boring game. These accusations are not unexpected, as none of you have a seat at my table (except Brock), and are therefore operating on very limited information, which is to say practically none. My hope is that I can provide the behind the screen perspective on what went down.
Thanks for posting. I appreciate the perspective and my comments that I provide below aren't in the vane of telling you're "doing it wrong" but simply where you are doing things that fall into the topics we were discussing in all these many pages. It should be noted that as long as your players are showing up week after week, there's really no need to "defend" yourself. You're doing what your players expect and that's good enough for your group. I'll be talking only about specific approaches to DMing in view of your contribution. Maybe you'll take something away that's useful, or maybe not.
Many posts (and I admit, I have not taken the time to read all of them) have suggested that my game was on invisible rails, and the explosion at the office was some sort of punishment for not being a telepathic player. Others have called it boring or lazy. These are all separate points that I wish to address individually.
The existence of a prewritten, predetermined story or plot does create rails. That you can bury them, obfuscate, and redirect doesn't mean they're non-existent. Now, rails (invisible or otherwise) are not inherently bad. Plenty of fine games are run in this fashion. This approach does have a number of known issues, but many DMs have developed the non-transferable skills necessary to smooth out the rough edges. I know I did, back when I ran games in this fashion. It's possible, certainly, if one is willing to put in the work, and it certainly helps if the players know what you're doing and actively help you move things along knowing that they're following invisible paths.
Also, I don't think anyone was referring to your game as boring. We were speaking in general about boring consequences for actions which lead to player frustration. For my part, I'd be bored wandering around for 3.5 hours making no progress toward my goal with little to no side action. That's just me though. Others may have fun with that pace.
For the session in question, there was no railroad. In fact, I had the exact opposite problem: I knew where the players had to end up in order for the story to progress, but no idea how they would get there.
This is an example of an invisible rail. It's a fictional problem with a single solution, even if you don't see it that way. A required destination before the "story" may continue. They must get here before progress can be made. A rail doesn't necessarily mean the PCs have to follow a specific path though this is what it is often taken to mean in common parlance. This is, as the essay in my signature says, "Plot-based design, on the other hand, is like handing the players a map on which a specific route has been marked with invisible ink... and then requiring them to follow that invisible path." Your approach is a variant of this because it seems like you're willing to improvise a bit to give their choices some measure of validation. Again, fine on its own until it causes issues and outcomes like the OP reported. Part of that problem is considering only logical outcomes to scenes when really you should be considering what outcomes will drive the PCs closer to the end goal.
They clearly needed information, but the information they needed was quite difficult to get. Their initial ideas of checking the brothels, checking the university, researching in the library, all yielded information, just not the information they were hoping for. That is not to say the information they received was trite and worthless. The fact that NO ONE seems to know what they are talking about is information by itself, and they did get information about several sub plots that would become relevant in later sessions.
That they didn't get information relevant to their goal seems to be an issue. It's apparent they had to go certain places or talk to certain people to get the specific clues they needed to get to the place where the story can continue. You were simply obfuscating this a bit too heavily here. The information they were getting was effectively worthless right now because it wasn't helpful in completing their immediate goals. It's good that you gave them something for their efforts, but one wonders why you didn't just give them the information they wanted if they had to get to some endpoint for the story to continue. Without it, the game stalls.
When the party did manage to encounter a member of the secret society, they determined that he did know of the artifact via insight and the next sentence out of their mouths was that they were there to take it away. How else was the gnome to react, but to beat a swift retreat? With no other leads, they hit upon the idea of leaving a note for him in his office. The OP has already noted how that turned out and it is here that I wish to address the blocking charge.
In the realm of fictional possibilities, the gnome could have done anything. What he should have done, in my opinion, was somehow help the PCs move along the invisible path to the needed destination. Otherwise the scene was not useful. It didn't move the game forward at all. It could have, if you chose a more interesting outcome and result of that interaction. You chose the logical one. That's what happens in the pursuit of perfect simulation and realism. You could have chosen one that was slightly less logical, but that was also reasonable, and got the PCs where they needed to be.
For my part, placing a rune of warding on the inside of the door was a spontaneous decision, not driven by cruelty or malice, but because of the interesting problem it created for the party to solve. My thoughts were not “This will show them!” but “Won’t this be fun!” It is also worth noting that if any player had rolled an arcana check, they would have detected the trap that was half of their level and easily been able to disable it. Many posts have asserted that this was blocking, that I was preventing the party from doing what they wanted. I simply say this: They wanted to ransack the office. It was ransacked, courtesy of the gnome’s insurance that his research not fall into the wrong hands. They got their intended result, just not in the way they were expecting. If there was any lesson to learn from this incident it is: check for traps.
Give this as much weight as any anonymous voice on the internet: I don't believe you. It's very easy to block without even knowing it. Even I do it from time to time and I'm very cognizant of what blocking is and what it does to the game. Nevertheless, what you say and what I believe on that specific point isn't all that relevant to the other issues here. Like the gnome, the ward didn't move the scene forward really, didn't get the PCs to where they needed to be. Logical, sure. Useful, no.
So what is the next logical step in this situation? Of course the authorities are going to get involved, and I ended the session with a pair of guards (hardly a combat challenge for the party) catching the party at the scene of the crime.We began our next session exactly where we left off, when one of the guards noticed a large bag of money on one of the characters. He’s a greedy bugger and suggests a bribe. Unknown to him, the money in the bag was fake, the product of a ritual. Unknown to me, at the time, there was also 1000 real gold pieces in the bag. The party had a choice. They quickly decided to bribe the corrupt guard and get out fast. Again I ask myself, what is the next logical step? To me, it seems highly unlikely that the guard is going to turn himself in and admit he got swindled on a bribe, and as low level goons, they are not likely to have the influence needed to chase the party down. Now, did they players have to pursue that course? No. They could have fought. They could have run. They could have suggested something I hadn’t thought of. They could have proposed a counter bribe. They could have hypnotized guards with magic. There are many paths they could have chosen, and that is why I take offense to the accusation that my game is on rails. Yes, I have a story to tell. Yes, I have a direction I want to nudge the party in, but my players trust me not to lead them astray, and not to rob them of their victory, which they rightly earned. They know that I’m on their side, that the reason I’m so gleeful when I roll a critical hit is because it makes the eventual victory all the sweeter.
I'm not sure how this works toward proving that your game isn't on rails. That there is a problem with a single solution, a destination the PCs must get to in order for you to move the story forward, means there is a rail. That they can divert and move around and you can improvise, obfuscate, and redirect doesn't mean there are no rails. There are... and that's okay. Ultimately that does lead to player choice being less meaningful, but this doesn't seem to be a concern for you and your group. I think you should try to get past the hurdle in your mind that says "all rails are bad," accept that they exist in the game as you run it. Perfectly fine games can be run on the rail if the DM works toward realizing that's what he's doing and how to make it work well.
I could go on with the narration of how the session went, but frankly that’s not the point. I’ll just say that afterwards one of my players texted me and said it was “amazing” and “my best ever.” I run the simulation. I set up the problems for my players to conquer. I create the tension and drama. I raise the stakes. And I keep six fully grown adults with lives at the table (one whom moved and connects via Skype), week after week after week for more than two years because I run a damn good game. So don’t sit behind your computer screen and tell me that it’s wrong or boring. I disagree, and so would my players.
I've no doubt you can be entertaining and you've gotten a fair amount of buy-in from some if not all of your players, sure. You are creating problems to be solved, but you're also creating solutions. There are things PCs must do for your predetermined story to procede. These are rails. That approach is fraught with a number of issues especially in regards to pacing. ("Because we spent 3.5 hours running into walls looking for the artifact" sure sounds like a complaint to me. And, hey, I'd be lying if I didn't have this issue myself back in the day.) There are ways to improve upon that, some of which I mentioned above.
Check out this essay on the Three Clue Rule. If there is a particular conclusion you need the players to make in order for the story to progress, this will help. It's not foolproof, mind you, but should be of some help.
Good luck!
@ImmortalPawn: I am glad that there is now another perspective from which we can see more of what the problem is and thank you for posting all this information. I also want to say that it has been a little while since I read this info in this thread and I do not have time right now to go back through and review everything so if my information is off a little please feel free to correct me.
From what you say, overall your players seem to be pleased with the way you are running your game. Since I am not at your table and haven't spoken to each one of your players individually I can only assume that this is completely true.
As long as everyone is having a good time then there are no problems.
You have however come into a difficult situation where one of your players (maybe others too, I can't remember) were extremely dissatisfied with how the whole situation was handled. Mostly because of the actions of one of the players in basically pulling a Leeroy Jenkins.
The way you handled that situation was the way you handled it and that was your decision and nothing can change that. However, I do think that you might want to communicate with the players (if you already haven't) to kind of do an out of game assessment of what happened during that session and ask them things like.....What did you like? What were some issues you had, if any? How could we (as a team of people, DM & Players) have setup/done things differently?
Basically just more communication between all at the table. Now once again I am not at your table so you may already do things like this and may already have great group communication so I am just suggesting this if it is not already part of your repetoire.
Finally, I wanted to let you know that from what you have put in your post does indeed indicate that there are rails in your game.
"For the session in question, there was no railroad. In fact, I had the exact opposite problem: I knew where the players had to end up in order for the story to progress, but no idea how they would get there."
There will be posters that will say that based on this sentence you are "obviously writing the story for the players" because they HAVE to end up in a certain place for the story to progress. Because you are stating that there is only ONE, option for the story to progress people will jump on that and say that you are railroading.
Now I have to agree with Isreth completely on this. Rails are not necessarily a bad thing as many games work just fine this way and groups have played pre-written adventures for years and had a wonderful time doing it. It is not the only way but it is one way and it works fine for some groups and not so well for others. So as long as YOUR GROUP is having a good time with your adventures then I am not going to say you cannot have anything pre-planned.
Finally, I wanted to let you know that from what you have put in your post does indeed indicate that there are rails in your game.
...
Now I have to agree with Isreth completely on this. Rails are not necessarily a bad thing as many games work just fine this way and groups have played pre-written adventures for years and had a wonderful time doing it. It is not the only way but it is one way and it works fine for some groups and not so well for others. So as long as YOUR GROUP is having a good time with your adventures then I am not going to say you cannot have anything pre-planned.
Thanks for your support on this assertion, jplay36. When I was initially posting I was dreading the possibility of an uphill slog trying to convince people that there are rails at play here. There is heavy use of illusion of choice in this particular game. While that's not bad on its own, it's not a surprise that the OP came here asking for advice on what is a very common outcome of that approach.
EDIT: I've recently arrived at the notion as well that illusion of choice DMing can also inure the DM to create fun outcomes for making the "right" choices and "logical" outcomes (read: not as fun) for the "wrong" choices (right and wrong being defined as "on the right path" and "on the wrong path"). It's a form of redirection which is necessary in games with rails. This is worth examining if I were this particular DM to see if I can make all outcomes fun and move the game forward.
But for all of those out there who would say that rails and/or pre-planned direction NEVER works, please just remember that yours isn't the ONLY method out there and while YOU don't play that way and it works wonderfully for YOUR group, other groups play many different ways and sometimes that means rails of some type or other, and THEY can work as well. Almost any method can work, just not necessarily with EVERY group out there.
Not to worry. I'm sure there will be plenty of opinions on this in one direction or another and there is still most likely posters that will just outright yell RAILROOOOAAAAD!!!!!!. And then list all of the reasons why rails don't EVER work.
Yes, and those people would be objectively wrong. While I don't like the rails/illusion of choice approach anymore, I did it for many years quite successfully, once I learned how to avoid the common pitfalls (and there are a ton of them). It requires a lot of polishing up of non-transferrable skills (illusionism, obfuscation, redirection, etc.) and oftentimes a ton of prep work due to contingency planning and the like. While I will point out when a reported problem is really just a symptom of that approach, I'm not indicting that approach or saying "you're doing it wrong." I'm merely pointing out that the poster has arrived at this problem in a predictable way and that there are fixes for it.
If I put the villain in a certain city, it is effectviely a railroad because the party will ultimately have to go to that city to defeat the villain. To present a plot, especially a complex, ongoing campaign plot, requires that the party does specific tasks, and the DM has to provide plothooks and hints to get them there. While there is often side stories and side quests, the ultimate quest needs to be acheived.
If the players are under the expectation that an overall campaign goal is being offered (often the quest is started) and that is their goal, then there is an expectation that the DM will shape the world for them to achieve said goal, by offering them plot hooks that bring them to it.
I believe with this social contract in place the DM is expected to work behind the scenes to make sure they can achieve the story goal, while presenting obsticles and chalenges for them to overcome, and that if one player is doing something that negatively effects that outcome that the DM will redirect that player back to the central plot (or at the very least minimize any negative consequences)
Thus, it's behooves the DM to be transparent with his approach and let the players know what he's doing. Get that buy-in and the players can help you make the game work better. One way they can do that is by using advice I offered earlier in this thread:
If you play with a DM that writes predetermined plots and stories, don't go in search of the quest goal. Go in search of the rail that leads you to the quest goal. By keeping your focus there instead of coming up with your own plans to solve the problem, you'll get to the object of the quest faster and with less stress on the DM and the group.
Unlike other posters, I make no judgment as to whether railroading is good or bad. It simply requires buy-in to work best.
That's a pretty evasive answer. Follow it through: would you expect the guards to kill or arrest in the execution of their job? And then the next step: would the game continue to be enjoyable for all concerned if the guards did kill or arrest the character? And if not, why is that a good thing?
It is not evasive. There isn't enough information. Character death, although undesirable, is always a possibility.
It needn't always be a possibility, and it needn't always be undesireable.
But much deends on the situation, no? I make an effort to properly describe the situation to my players, so they have opportunity to make informed decisions (such as avoiding the guards) this is part of establishing the setting, the better established the more it becomes their own making.
The DM's involvement and responsibility never goes away, because they designed the setting. If the PCs tripped a trap, literal or figurative, it's because the DM put it there.
If they were in a dungeon, looking for treasure, and one sneaks off on his own, bursts into a room with minotaurs, would they attack the player?
Yes.
what hapens if the PC dies? Does your game stop?
For that player, certainly.
Why is this different then the guards?
It's not.
And then the next step: would the game continue to be enjoyable for all concerned if the minotaurs did kill or capture the character? And if not, why is that a good thing?
It wouldn't, and that's not a good thing. I would take steps to avoid this situation entirely, probably by not pre-arranging a dangerous room for a character to walk into on their own. If a player wandered off, I'd ask them what creatures they encountered, and what reaction they'd want the creatures to have. If they said "a room full of minotaurs" and "attack me" I'd ask them how they'd like to proceed if the minotaurs killed them, and then play on.
I answered your questions, which were just my questions asked back at me. Please answer my questions.
-How do you (rather than the dictionary) define "stupid" in the context of D&D?
Cetain level of trust on the DM to make a fair call, mostly it is done by properly establishing the world and letting things play out. Make a dungeon and put down traps, if they don't search for traps (despite knowning they are there) and run down a hallway, well stupid defines itself, no?
No, because it's not necessarily stupid to run down a trapped hallway. It may be well-thought out roleplaying, or part of an actual strategy. The player might just think it seems like fun, and want to see what happens.
-What is your personal opinion of a player who does things that are "stupid," as defined by you?
Well, as my example with the traps, he does it himself, and a fair call by the DM and players. In general i would describe it as recklessly endangering the other players and their goals or being disruptive to the story (the story the party is persuing)
Interesting use of the term "players" there, instead of "characters" who are the actual ones being "endangered."
Unless the player (not the character) established the existence of the traps, he does not do it to himself. The DM plays a part. The DM put the traps there, and for some reason put in traps that, if set off, could disrupt the story. I'm having trouble why a DM would write a story so easily disrupted, and then supply the means to disrupt it.
But, thank you for answering the question: Stupid appears to mean "recklessly endangering the other [characters] and their goals or being disruptive to the story the party is pursuing."
-What level of stupidity, as defined by you, is deserving of, say, having one's character killed or imprisoned by city guards?
None, as I said before the guards (if there are any) are a part of the established setting, we've had this discussion. If it happens it is a set of conditions created by the player, so I imagine the level of stupidity would be defined by them, not me.
If a character recklessly endangered the other characters and their goals or was being disruptive to the story the party is pursuing, would this trigger in-game details (such as guards) to kill the character or otherwise remove it from the game?
You are assuming that i put monsters in dungeons as a cruel trick to torture the players? Wait, I take that back, that is exactly what I do
Assuming you're even partly serious, why do you do this?
-If the game world were not designed to discourage "stupid" actions, as defined by you, would you take out-of-game actions to discourage it? What actions would you take?
Assuming i don't play with a develepmentally chalenged or sociopath? Nothing, why would I have to? I imagine if I was playing with young children I might have to do the adult thing and correct their behavior, but I take that for granted really Children can be expected to act out. Adults? nah adults catch a hint, haven't had a problem with my friends yet.
If a character recklessly endanged the other characters and their goals or was being disruptive to the story the party is pursuing, and there was no in-game detail (such as guards) in place to discourage such actions, would you take out-of-game actions to discourage it? What actions would you take?
My games are designed to encourage "smart" thinking, not to discourage "stupid". My dungeons ae full of well thought out encounters, someone who is unskilled will probably have a hard time. frankly if anyone of that I play with I am the one who is most likely to do something stupid, and pay the price for it.
What price is that?
Sigh. DM of the OP here, putting on my big boy pants and wading into this kerfuffle because, frankly, I’m tired of being accused of blocking and running a boring game. These accusations are not unexpected, as none of you have a seat at my table (except Brock), and are therefore operating on very limited information, which is to say practically none. My hope is that I can provide the behind the screen perspective on what went down.
Thanks for weighing in. I'm sorry the term "blocking" comes across as accusatory. Like railroading, it's a widely used method (sometimes unconsciously) and like railroading there are risks involved in it.
First some background on the campaign. The party is currently in Sharn, having just arrived via Sigil, to acquire a powerful artifact. They have just narrowly escaped death at the hands of a group of warforged terrorists, had their first encounter with the main antagonist of this portion of the campaign, and have arrived at a place that is completely new to all of them. They have very little information, just the name of the artifact, and the knowledge that the antagonist wants to take it.
It sounds like the group has seen some cool action. Are they used to that? Did it occur in the session in question? The impression I received was that the session in question was largely investigative, with little progress.
From behind the screen, there are several important plot points that the party does not yet know, but will discover (and at this point have discovered) in the course of their investigations.
Cool, but very risky. What if they hadn't discovered them? What if, having discovered them, they misunderstood them, or declined to follow them up?
For the session in question, there was no railroad. In fact, I had the exact opposite problem: I knew where the players had to end up in order for the story to progress, but no idea how they would get there.
Having a destination in mind can be enough to bring about a railroaded game, or give the feeling of being railroaded to the characters. But that term isn't particularly relevant to this situation, only the outcome is.
They clearly needed information, but the information they needed was quite difficult to get. Their initial ideas of checking the brothels, checking the university, researching in the library, all yielded information, just not the information they were hoping for.
Why did it not yield the information? Did they fail rolls, or what it just not in those locations? What made them think to go to those locations?
That is not to say the information they received was trite and worthless. The fact that NO ONE seems to know what they are talking about is information by itself,
Of a sort, but it's not information that gives much momentum to a game. In that regard, it resembles blocking.
and they did get information about several sub plots that would become relevant in later sessions.
Cool, but risky for a few reasons, especially if nothing immediately useful has been forthcoming.
During their investigations, did they spend a lot of time planning their approaches? Was it necessary for them to do that in order to avoid in-game "problems"? Were they blocking each others' ideas at this time?
When the party did manage to encounter a member of the secret society, they determined that he did know of the artifact via insight and the next sentence out of their mouths was that they were there to take it away.
I am given to understand that it took the group 3 and a half hours to reach this point. Is that right? Was that intended? Was it desireable? Did you sense any frustration from the group?
How else was the gnome to react, but to beat a swift retreat?
I don't know enough about your game to say. I suspect that as you had it set up that was a perfectly plausible approach for the PC, but I bet there were other plausible responses even within the framework you had constructed. Talking to the PCs to try to find out about them and their methods, pretending to ally with them, dropping dead from a (traceable) poison delivered by a nearby assassin. Etc. Having the contact just run is not a form of player failure that gives them game much of a place to go, and so that choice winds up looking like a block.
What did you expect the PCs to do at that juncture? Why did you expect them to do that?
With no other leads, they hit upon the idea of leaving a note for him in his office. The OP has already noted how that turned out and it is here that I wish to address the blocking charge.
Why, at this point in the session, did they have no other leads? Was that intended? What is desireable? Could you sense any frustration in the players?
For my part, placing a rune of warding on the inside of the door was a spontaneous decision, not driven by cruelty or malice, but because of the interesting problem it created for the party to solve.
I'm gratified to learn that the placement of that trap was indeed done on-the-fly. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I believe that it wasn't driven by cruelty or malice, but I hope you're giving it some though from the players' point of view.
This all came about because of frustration with a "reckless" player. Some "hit upon the idea" of leaving the note, but others blocked this idea because of reasons they'd basically invented for why that would be a bad idea (A was true, but not necessarily and issue; B was not necessarily an issue; and C was not true, until you decided to make it true). During the resulting conversation, one player became bored and just burst in, setting off the trap that you had just then decided to place.
I guess you had no way to know or suspect the player would do that, but the result was that the player earned the enmity of at least one other player because he set off the trap.
My thoughts were not “This will show them!” but “Won’t this be fun!”
And was it? Judging by the original post, it wasn't. If it was fun, I wouldn't think anyone would have had a problem with the reckless player.
It is also worth noting that if any player had rolled an arcana check, they would have detected the trap that was half of their level and easily been able to disable it.
Based on the original post, there appears to have been little possibility that this would happen, as there were two other reasons besides traps to not enter the room at all. Several of us have been saying that the players here could have avoided blocking by accepting the idea to enter the room and then added on to it by offering to check for traps.
Also, Arcana seems to be a curious skill to roll to detect traps. What if they'd rolled Perception?
Many posts have asserted that this was blocking, that I was preventing the party from doing what they wanted. I simply say this: They wanted to ransack the office. It was ransacked, courtesy of the gnome’s insurance that his research not fall into the wrong hands. They got their intended result, just not in the way they were expecting.
After so many pages, I don't remember everything that was said, but the term "blocking" was mostly aimed at the actions of the players, though the actions of the gnome and the heretofore unknown other events during the session seemed to be blocking too, as they weren't making progress (as they saw it) in the past few hours.
I don't think it's enough to say that they got their intended results. It was not on their terms, it was surprising, and it "put them in a much tighter spot" which at least one of them is not happy about. Besides, as I read the original post, only one player wanted to ransack the office. The others wanted to leave a note.
The gnome showed "extra ordinary" magic ability and the only way he could think of to insure his papers is to immolate them? Not that it's easy to think of magical security measures on the fly, but this also seems like an excuse for using a particularly punishing trap.
If there was any lesson to learn from this incident it is: check for traps.
This is the sort of sentence that makes one think that the DM is taking punitive action against the PCs, in order to teach them "lessons." I see the lessons here as ones for a DM to learn: don't use "gotcha" traps; don't put in traps that you expect to be avoided; look for other plausible NPC reactions; default to giving leads, rather than dead-ends.
So what is the next logical step in this situation? Of course the authorities are going to get involved, and I ended the session with a pair of guards (hardly a combat challenge for the party) catching the party at the scene of the crime.
Logical, as we've said here, need have nothing to do with it. Since you've established the existance of a secret society, you could easily establish that they've bought off the "authorities" to avoid their involvement, or any number of other plausible reactions. Again, that's not necessarily easy to do on the fly, but one can take a moment to think about it, or even ask the players what they think, to try to find something more likely to move things forward.
You mention the guards not being a combat challenge. Wouldn't they have just been in more trouble if they'd attacked the guards?
Again, I imagine you saw this as "Won't this be fun," but (based on the original post) this doesn't seem to have been that fun for at least one of the players.
There are many paths they could have chosen, and that is why I take offense to the accusation that my game is on rails.
It's not that it's on rails, it's that the players can so easily face consequences that result in no progress being made, and that they seem to think that they need to avoid all possible risk (as evidenced by their own blocking in the original post).
I'm glad to see that the trap wasn't put in place to punish the "reckless" player, though it didn't need to be there, even after you'd thought of it, and leaving it out might have pre-empted this entire thread. Imagine the scene as a "yes, and..." in which the barbarian runs in, and, in the process, reveals a speaking stone, or some other clue that gives them a lot to go on. In that event, not only would they feel like they were making progress, but the "reckless" player would have been cheered instead of vilified.
So don’t sit behind your computer screen and tell me that it’s wrong or boring. I disagree, and so would my players.
Okay, good. But maybe you can see why the original post might have caused me to think things like that.
The DM's involvement and responsibility never goes away, because they designed the setting. If the PCs tripped a trap, literal or figurative, it's because the DM put it there.
Traps, encoutners, NPCs, Guards, and other challenges are all put there by the DM, that is true, but there is a general expectation of challenge, and risk/reward in the game. Once put in place the DM has lets it play out. Unless the challenge is unfair (such as the traps not being appropriate for their level) it is the player that determines how to overcome them and so the results are largely of their making
Unless the player (not the character) established the existence of the traps, he does not do it to himself. The DM plays a part. The DM put the traps there, and for some reason put in traps that, if set off, could disrupt the story. I'm having trouble why a DM would write a story so easily disrupted, and then supply the means to disrupt it.
traps are chalenges to overcome, If you want you could extend this to unknown details. In the case of traps, they are placed in tombs and dungeons where there is a risk of such traps. There are many tactics to overcome such traps, including just stepping on them, but they play themselves out.
But rather then ask why a DM would write a story so easily disrupted, I would ask "how" a DM writes a story so easily disrupted. And that "How" would be by not roperly establishing proper cause/effect of interacting with the game
If a character recklessly endangered the other characters and their goals or was being disruptive to the story the party is pursuing, would this trigger in-game details (such as guards) to kill the character or otherwise remove it from the game?
No, The guards (if they were established as being present or a possibility) would react to normal cause/effect the same as any other encounter.
if you are talking about them breaking into an office in a city, then the DM will describe the situation and it is up to the players to determine how they will go about it, and what they will do to mitigate the risks. The DM may describe the streets as "quiet with only a few late night stragglers walking about" and they may have noticed an occasional patrol by alert guards. Did they scout the building first to determine it was left empty (as opposed to a late night custodian or other servants) did they make sure they weren't seen by anyone as they break in?
the DM would use such information as the players give (ok they didn't scout it out, and kicked in the front door without making sure they weren't seen) determines what he should roll to determine if they are seen or not, and plays it out. He has to put together what is in the building as what should be expected in such a location. Locks, traps and such security as is warrented. I'd say a magical trap is a reasonable posibility in the case the OP was talking about.
The point here between railroading and not railroading, is the players had the option of searching and disabling the trap. They didn't look, so the effect is of their own making.
What price is that?
Cause and effect, can't ask for any more nor any less then a fate of my own making.
The DM's involvement and responsibility never goes away, because they designed the setting. If the PCs tripped a trap, literal or figurative, it's because the DM put it there.
Traps, encoutners, NPCs, Guards, and other challenges are all put there by the DM, that is true, but there is a general expectation of challenge, and risk/reward in the game. Once put in place the DM has lets it play out. Unless the challenge is unfair (such as the traps not being appropriate for their level) it is the player that determines how to overcome them and so the results are largely of their making
There is also a general expectation that a game will be an enjoyable time, rather than annoying or frustrating. If a DM has "put in place" something that they realize will cause the players not to enjoy the game, why wouldn't the DM try to do to that thing whatever it is you think they'd do to an unfair challenge?
Unless the player (not the character) established the existence of the traps, he does not do it to himself. The DM plays a part. The DM put the traps there, and for some reason put in traps that, if set off, could disrupt the story. I'm having trouble why a DM would write a story so easily disrupted, and then supply the means to disrupt it.
traps are chalenges to overcome, If you want you could extend this to unknown details. In the case of traps, they are placed in tombs and dungeons where there is a risk of such traps. There are many tactics to overcome such traps, including just stepping on them, but they play themselves out.
That's a complete abdication of the role the DM plays. But I can see the appeal, because it means that the DM isn't responsible if an in-game event occurs that the players don't enjoy. But what fun is it for the DM to sit and watch things just play out, if the players aren't enjoying it?
But rather then ask why a DM would write a story so easily disrupted, I would ask "how" a DM writes a story so easily disrupted. And that "How" would be by not roperly establishing proper cause/effect of interacting with the game
Wow, anything to keep from answering my clear and direct questions. That's not very fair.
The position is: a player runs down a trapped corridor and sets off the trap, which then disrupts the DMs story. What exactly should the DM have done to prevent that?
the DM would use such information as the players give (ok they didn't scout it out, and kicked in the front door without making sure they weren't seen) determines what he should roll to determine if they are seen or not, and plays it out.
That's all fine, and none of that requires that there be a possibility of a frustrating outcome.
He has to put together what is in the building as what should be expected in such a location. Locks, traps and such security as is warrented. I'd say a magical trap is a reasonable posibility in the case the OP was talking about.
Quite reasonable. However, there was no magical trap, until right before they triggered it. There was nothing established, there was the DM thinking "Won't this be fun?" when the answer, in this case, was apparently "No."
The point here between railroading and not railroading, is the players had the option of searching and disabling the trap. They didn't look, so the effect is of their own making.
Railroading or not has nothing to do with any of this. It's about interesting outcomes (including failures) versus frustrating outcomes.
What price is that?
Cause and effect, can't ask for any more nor any less then a fate of my own making.
What kinds of effects are you talking about when you say "cost"?
In regards to a PC running down a corridor of traps, as an example of a stupid action on their part, I made the statement that stupidity decided itself by the results of their actions. as in they reap what they sow. In this case a player running down a corridor of traps will fall victim to those traps, cause and effect of the players own making. Nor is the example anything wrong by the DM, as the player could expect traps in a dungeon and could have taken precautions to avoid them. This has nothing to do with the question you posed, the traps are a chalenge for the player to overcome.
And I used this comparison in regards to the player "triggering" guards. As in the guards are not sent in as punishment for the player, but rather as part of the setting a possible danger the player faces.
A building is likely to have security, locked doors, possibly magical wards and traps may be appropriate (such as in a wizard's library of rare arcane knowledge) Not to mention being seen breaking in, the possibility of a city patrol etc etc. These are things the DM needs to establish, that is if there are city guards patrolling the streets the PCs should be aware of this already, how many people are on the streets at night that might see them. These are all things that need to be established with the players so they can make informed decisions, albeit there are things they may not know about (especially if they make no attempt to find out, such as not casing the building first)
It is up to the players to mitigate those risks, a lookout for patrols if there are any, or a disturbance to draw them away, or bribing a patrol in advance. Making sure they are unseen entering the building, checking for traps (if appropriate) This is cause and effect, criminal activities carry a risk.
There are two results, in one hand the PCs can generate their own adventure, such as in this case where they burgularize an office, which is more exciting on the whole for them then the mundane method. On the otherhand the risk keeps the more reckless PCs from getting out of hand as they have to consider the risks.
That is the real answer to your question, how does this prevent the player from their crazy schemes that might wreck the storyline without frustrating the player. The answer is I allow them their schemes, but by establishing clear cause and effect and risk/reward I make them think about how they are going to get away with it, and then it becomes a legitimate challenge.
As much as the player may complain about the trap, the truth of it is that they should have checked for them, this was their neglect, and as for the DM adding it at the last moment, this was not a prepared dungeon encounter, the whole breakin was put together like this (the Dm has to improvise when the players go in an unexpected direction) and coming up with spur of the moment content so the players can step off the beaten trail is a good thing.
Make the right choice - that is, the choice that keeps you on the predetermined path - and the DM presents you with fun and progress. You are given useful information, relevant encounters that lead to the next thing, and forward motion.
Make the wrong choice - that is, the choice that takes you away from the predetermined path - and the DM presents you with consequences and lack of progress. You are given irrelevant information, no encounters (except maybe with town guards), and no forward motion.
Perhaps that's just an improvisation failure on the part of the DM, which is understandable, since improvisational skills can atrophy in the railroad/illusion of choice style. Hopefully that loss in skill is made up for in skills of illusionism, knowing how and when to obfuscate and when to reveal, and especially in redirection (getting the PCs back on the path without frustrating them).
I think a DM should keep a plot open enough to allow for more then a single solution, even one the DM doesn't expect.
Centauri, I never answered the questions because their premise were flawed and in of themselves misrepresented what I was saying. If you want to be "fair" as you say then you would ask the question in the same context as the subject was orriginally posed.
Next time say that, so I can address it at the same time as your evasive response.
In regards to a PC running down a corridor of traps, as an example of a stupid action on their part, I made the statement that stupidity decided itself by the results of their actions. as in they reap what they sow. In this case a player running down a corridor of traps will fall victim to those traps, cause and effect of the players own making. Nor is the example anything wrong by the DM, as the player could expect traps in a dungeon and could have taken precautions to avoid them. This has nothing to do with the question you posed, the traps are a chalenge for the player to overcome.
Whether or not the DM did anything wrong depends on the effects of the traps. If the DM put traps in the entrance hallway that cause the cave to collapse, burying everyone inside under tons of rock, then the DM has at least made a questionable choice, even though such a trap is entirely realistic and plausible. That DM has aimed a gun at their game and if the game is killed (by, in this case, burying the entire party) then regardless of who pulled the trigger, or whether the trigger had bright red warning signs on in, the DM is partly responsible.
And I used this comparison in regards to the player "triggering" guards. As in the guards are not sent in as punishment for the player, but rather as part of the setting a possible danger the player faces.
Sometimes. Sometimes they're sent in specifically to prevent a PC from accomplishing something the DM's not prepared to deal with. But since that's a passive method of dissuasion, the DM is often forced to pull the trigger and put a PC down hard. And for what? Because the DM's story couldn't handle a "reckless" action. DMs write stories that are fragile porcelain dolls, and rely on blocking, passive-aggression, and whacks with rolled-up newspapers to keep the players from shattering them.
A building is likely to have security, locked doors, possibly magical wards and traps may be appropriate (such as in a wizard's library of rare arcane knowledge) Not to mention being seen breaking in, the possibility of a city patrol etc etc.
That's all fine, but none of those actually have to prevent an obstacle if doing so presents the possibility of a block or other boring outcome.
It is up to the players to mitigate those risks, a lookout for patrols if there are any, or a disturbance to draw them away, or bribing a patrol in advance. Making sure they are unseen entering the building, checking for traps (if appropriate) This is cause and effect, criminal activities carry a risk.
Only if the DM wants the activities to carry a risk. Unprosecuted crimes are committed every day.
The entire issue with this thread is the need to mitigate risks. In the original post, a perfectly plausible idea was mitigated by the other players, who did so by blocking the idea entirely. They could have supported the idea and gone along with it, but they had every reason to assume that if they did so the DM would find "logical" reasons to make them regret it, even if they did check for the trap.
There are two results, in one hand the PCs can generate their own adventure, such as in this case where they burgularize an office, which is more exciting on the whole for them then the mundane method. On the otherhand the risk keeps the more reckless PCs from getting out of hand as they have to consider the risks.
That is the real answer to your question, how does this prevent the player from their crazy schemes that might wreck the storyline without frustrating the player. The answer is I allow them their schemes, but by establishing clear cause and effect and risk/reward I make them think about how they are going to get away with it, and then it becomes a legitimate challenge.
What this means is that you have to tell them "That won't work," over and over until they either agree to do it in a way you're prepared to handle, or give up entirely. What happens if they ignore your warnings? Could something occur that the player doesn't enjoy, such as the loss of their character, or having their character removed from the action? Do you derive enjoyment from that? If not, why would you allow it to occur? If so, how would you be able to enjoy the game when one of your players was not?
As much as the player may complain about the trap, the truth of it is that they should have checked for them, this was their neglect, and as for the DM adding it at the last moment, this was not a prepared dungeon encounter, the whole breakin was put together like this (the Dm has to improvise when the players go in an unexpected direction) and coming up with spur of the moment content so the players can step off the beaten trail is a good thing.
No one is disputing your last statement. Improvisation is important and entertaining. I bring up the point about the fact that this was improvised to point out that a game world isn't just established and set running. DMs have to make on the fly decisions about the challenges that PCs will face, and they have the power to use those decisions to entertain (as was the intention here, despite how it played out) and to move things forward or to dissuade and frustrate. I'm saying there's never a good reason for a DM to try to dissuade or frustrate the players with on-the-fly creations. Do you disagree?
What I'm seeing with the railroad/illusion of choice style is (and this is common):
Make the right choice - that is, the choice that keeps you on the predetermined path - and the DM presents you with fun and progress. You are given useful information, relevant encounters that lead to the next thing, and forward motion.
Make the wrong choice - that is, the choice that takes you away from the predetermined path - and the DM presents you with consequences and lack of progress. You are given irrelevant information, no encounters (except maybe with town guards), and no forward motion.
The wrong choice seems to be anything that cracks the Fabergé egg of a story that a DM has created. Going off the track, destroying a bridge (literally, or just something like an informative NPC), or taking action that requires the world to be incapable of plausibly supporting the story. I suppose that last has a train metaphor for it too.
But I think we can keep away from the loaded term of "railroading." Railroaded or not, a game can involve consequences and outcomes that will be boring if brought about. We all agree that boring outcomes can occur, but some people believe that this is okay because it will teach players not to trigger boring outcomes. We believe it's not okay, because that's an atrocious way to treat the people one games with.
Perhaps that's just an improvisation failure on the part of the DM, which is understandable, since improvisational skills can atrophy in the railroad/illusion of choice style. Hopefully that loss in skill is made up for in skills of illusionism, knowing how and when to obfuscate and when to reveal, and especially in redirection (getting the PCs back on the path without frustrating them).
Hopefully.
Thats not quite right iserith, seeing as we are on the subject of reckless or negative actions on the player's part, it is the wrong choice, not just a different choice.
One that can potentially lead to a character being killed or taken out of the game, or some other frustrating outcome, correct?
I think a DM should keep a plot open enough to allow for more then a single solution, even one the DM doesn't expect.
What if the players aren't interested in coming up for a solution at all?
One that can potentially lead to a character being killed or taken out of the game, or some other frustrating outcome, correct?
No, an outcome that is a natural result of the existing or expected conditions, as cause and effect.
What if the players aren't interested in coming up for a solution at all?
Then I close the book, say "and you all lived happily ever after" and start a new game, perhaps one with players that are interested in playing.
It seems to be a running theme with you that anything a DM does is boring, frustrating andotherwise just being dickish. Maybe you've had a bad DM in the past, maybe you need to seek help for your depression, I dunno, but your assumption that any of us are suggesting to frustrate the players or not be creative and interesting is rather unfounded.
For my part I recomend the DM establish as much as possible in his setting so that the players can immerse themselves into a fully interactive game, the more interesting and better established that the game is the better the players will enjoy the game and the less likely they will act out.
One that can potentially lead to a character being killed or taken out aof the game, or some other frustrating outcome, correct?
No, an outcome that is a natural result of the existing or expected conditions, as cause and effect.
Could that natural result of the existing or expected conditions be that the character is killed or taken out of the game?
What if the players aren't interested in coming up for a solution at all?
Then I close the book, say "and you all lived happily ever after" and start a new game, perhaps one with players that are interested in playing.
I didn't say they weren't interested in playing, I said they weren't interested in coming up with a solution. I should have clarified by adding "with that challenge." Isn't it okay for players not to be interested in a particular challenge the DM has presented? I mean, they could try it and fail, so surely the game still functions if they don't try at all.
But thank you for answering my question. Your answer indicates that if the players won't play your way, they won't play at all. This is what I've been getting at: players who don't cooperate with the DM's story are threatened with having their fun taken away, by death, capture, lack of progress, or simply having the book closed.
It seems to be a running theme with you that anything a DM does is boring, frustrating andotherwise just being dickish.
Anything has the potential to be, especially if the DM is excusing what he or she does with terms like "likely," "realistic," and "natural."
Maybe you've had a bad DM in the past,
Yes, and I hear about them every day on these boards. Not all are bad, some are just misguided by dusty traditions.
maybe you need to seek help for your depression,
I don't know if you are a hurtful person or not, but that is a hurtful thing to say.
I dunno, but your assumption that any of us are suggesting to frustrate the players or not be creative and interesting is rather unfounded.
Not entirely, but your refusal to address most of my questions certainly helps keep either of us from founding anything.
Some DMs do deliberately frustrate their players. I'm trying to understand why they would do that. I think it's possible that there's a real reason I'm not understanding.
For my part I recomend the DM establish as much as possible in his setting so that the players can immerse themselves into a fully interactive game, the more interesting and better established that the game is the better the players will enjoy the game and the less likely they will act out.
Fine. Good luck with that. Do you understand why the player in this situation acted out? It wasn't because the game wasn't interactive or well-established. It was because the outcomes the players faced were continually frustrating and caused the players to try to avoid those outcomes, which lead to lengthy discussions, which bored the player who acted out.
DMs: However you design your game, avoid frustrating outcomes, even for players who "act out." This will keep the game moving and keep everyone engaged.
Players: Accept and add on to ideas your fellow players suggest. Do not let fear of boring outcomes paralyze the game and bore anyone. Do not deal with out-of-game problems in-game.
Could that natural result of the existing or expected conditions be that the character is killed or taken out of the game?
I really can't answer that without some control over the situation or knowledge of the exact details Centauri, and far too much depends on how the character handles the chalenges put in front of him. There is always the possibility that the character can escelate a situation to create a worse outcome for themselves, but that is really of their own making.
I mean if I place a pool of acid in front of them, bubbling away and choking them on the acidic fumes, there is always the off chance that their solution to that obsticle might be to swim across, instead of taking the path around or some other less foolish solution.
There is nothing wrong with giving the players the adventure that they are seeking, whereever the seek it. That includes a city setting as much as it does a dungeon. IMO it makes time in the city less boring.
I didn't say they weren't interested in playing, I said they weren't interested in coming up with a solution. I should have clarified by adding "with that challenge." Isn't it okay for players not to be interested in a particular challenge the DM has presented? I mean, they could try it and fail, so surely the game still functions if they don't try at all.
Yes, they can evaluate the risk/rewards of a situation and choose to avoid them rather then take the chalenge. If they don't want the challenge of breaking into the office/library to gain their information they can choose a different approach. But it is rediculous to take that challenge (or assume the lack of a challenge) and then not be interested in it. Just as their characters shouldn't pick fights that they aren't interested in fighting. It would be rather naive to expect zero risks or chalenges when breaking into such a place.
But thank you for answering my question. Your answer indicates that if the players won't play your way, they won't play at all. This is what I've been getting at: players who don't cooperate with the DM's story are threatened with having their fun taken away, by death, capture, lack of progress, or simply having the book closed.
No your constant attempts to misconstrue what other people post is what is indicated, as I suggested nothing of the sort. You asked what I should do if the player's aren't interested in my game, and I did what a DM should do if the player's aren't interested in his story, which is close the book and do something they are interested in doing. I am there for their enjoyment, so why would I want to bore them?
There is no suggestion of forcing the players to play the DM's way at all there, that is a conclusion that you are reaching by yourself. I never suggested that their fun be taken away, death, capture or lack of progress at all, only that the situation be played out, cause and effect, no different then a similair situation in a dungeon. If the character's were breaking into the office of a villain in a dungeon would they be so careless?
Could that natural result of the existing or expected conditions be that the character is killed or taken out of the game?
I really can't answer that without some control over the situation or knowledge of the exact details Centauri, and far too much depends on how the character handles the chalenges put in front of him.
It also depends on what challenges the DM puts in front of him.
What control would you need over the situation? I think I understand your approach, and I think it's hands free as far as the DM is concerned. It just plays out.
There is always the possibility that the character can escelate a situation to create a worse outcome for themselves, but that is really of their own making.
Then the answer to my question is "Yes."
I mean if I place a pool of acid in front of them, bubbling away and choking them on the acidic fumes, there is always the off chance that their solution to that obsticle might be to swim across, instead of taking the path around or some other less foolish solution.
It always comes to this sort of thing, or jumping off bridges. That's not what we're talking about. It's not foolish for the adventurers to ransack a dungeon, unless the DM designs the dungeon to be a foolhardy venture. By the same token, it's not foolish for adventurers to ransack an office, unless the DM decides it is.
I didn't say they weren't interested in playing, I said they weren't interested in coming up with a solution. I should have clarified by adding "with that challenge." Isn't it okay for players not to be interested in a particular challenge the DM has presented? I mean, they could try it and fail, so surely the game still functions if they don't try at all.
Yes, they can evaluate the risk/rewards of a situation and choose to avoid them rather then take the chalenge. If they don't want the challenge of breaking into the office/library to gain their information they can choose a different approach.
What if they're not interested in the information at all?
But it is rediculous to take that challenge (or assume the lack of a challenge) and then not be interested in it.
Not if the DM sets about making them regret their decision, because it disrupts the DM's story.
Just as their characters shouldn't pick fights that they aren't interested in fighting. It would be rather naive to expect zero risks or chalenges when breaking into such a place.
Maybe not zero risk, but maybe trivial risk.
Risk isn't inherent to anything in D&D. Risk is placed by the DM when it would be interesting. If it wouldn't be interesting, and could potentially be frustrating, it's left out. DM's do it all the time for players who are playing along, and do the opposite all the time for players who are "disrupting" the story.
You asked what I should do if the player's aren't interested in my game, and I did what a DM should do if the player's aren't interested in his story, which is close the book and do something they are interested in doing.
I was referring to one particular part of a story, some challenge or something the DM thought would be fun but which fails to interest the PCs. But I can see I was unclear.
I'm encouraged to hear that you would try to interest them.
I am there for their enjoyment, so why would I want to bore them?
I don't know. You make it possible for players to choose boring outcomes in your game, and rather than think of a more interesting but equally plausible outcome, you'll rely on warnings and "bloody noses." This gives the impression that you don't really care if they're bored, even if they don't intend to be.
I never suggested that their fun be taken away, death, capture or lack of progress at all, only that the situation be played out, cause and effect, no different then a similair situation in a dungeon.
If the effect is death, capture, or lack of progress, than you are implicitly suggesting exactly that.
If the character's were breaking into the office of a villain in a dungeon would they be so careless?
I don't know. I don't care if they're careless. I make the adventure interesting to the players either way. They don't have to sit around and mitigate failure until one of them is bored into recklessness, because no matter what they do I will do my level best to make it interesting for the players. Why on earth wouldn't I?
Why on earth wouldn't I?
Having run games and seen games run in the manner prescribed by MrCustomer for years, I think I can answer that:
You wouldn't if you have something to protect like a plot, story arc, world, or what have you. Even if we're not talking about a creative person being defensive about "messing up" his art, we're certainly talking about negating effort in the form of DM prep. The more prep you do, I've found, the more protective you may be over that effort. That's perfectly understandable. It's also ironic because that particular approach to DMing usually creates more prep work with more potential failure points than other methods. More prep work, more potentially protective.
In the hands of an experienced DM who is good at coming up with and telling stories, this can be a fine approach to the game. One of the techniques employed to make it work well is redirection. You need the PCs to get to the next plot point. It's where the information or McGuffin is to get to the plot point after that. If you haven't given them enough clues or they're not picking up on the clues you have given them, you're screwed. You're doubly screwed if they're in an open location like a city (as opposed to a closed location like a dungeon) because open locations suggest a greater number of potential choices available for solving a given fictional problem. All it takes is one suggestive nod from the DM too few and the PCs are chasing red herrings of their own creation in the nearest brothel.
Here's where skills in redirection come in, with some small measure of improvisation. I have to get them from the brothel back to the path toward the next plot point. Drop some more clues, strongly urge by way of NPCs, offer more plot hooks that lead back to the path, etc. (I think there's a strong meta component here too especially in long-standing groups who can read their DM.) After I've done my redirection and I give them a choice - go back to the path or go somewhere else or do something else - then it would not be in my best interests to make choices other than going back to the path equally interesting. That will only get them further away from the path they need to be on to make progress in the story and I'll have to redirect and improvise again.
If you're really good at redirection, you can have fun outcomes that eventually lead back to where you need them to be. Ultimately though, it's exhausting especially if you are self-aware enough to know that all these scenes you're playing out really have no bearing on anything as long as they aren't getting the party back to the story. It is simply easier to roll out the "realistic" outcomes or the "acceptable boredom" to which the players' wrong choices have logically led. Who can argue with logic, even in a fantasy world? And we're not even talking malice from the DM here in most cases. It makes perfect sense to reward the choices players are supposed to be making with fun and progress. That protects the DM from wasting his prep and allows him to get out the story he wants to tell.
(To be clear, I'm not saying this way of running games is bad. I'm just saying these outcomes are easy to arrive at with this approach. It helps to understand why so you can decide what to do about it. You might not even want to fix it at all if your group's okay with it.)
"Some DMs do deliberately frustrate their players. I'm trying to understand why they would do that. I think it's possible that there's a real reason I'm not understanding."
I think it has to do with a combination of things. One is that the DM has played like this since they first started playing D&D. Tradition and habit are difficult things to change. Especially if they started their D&D experience as a player with a DM who ran games in a fashion where choices that weren't along the prescribed path led to uninteresting outcomes and reckless play was discouraged by consequences that were likewise uninteresting.
Another thing that I think contributes to this is what Iserith said in the above post. When you spend a lot of time preparing and creating a unique adventure and storyline you really want the players to experience your creation. You want to see how the fruits of your labor can ripen and grow into a potentially amazing adventure that the players will talk about for years to come. So, without trying to and sometimes unconsciously, you may provide uninteresting consequences to choices and actions that are not along the prescribed pathways of your storyline in an attempt to bring the PCs back to the proper path, and discouraging them from deviating.
I also agree with Iserith though that playing with a pre-written plot, either one you created or one from a module doesn't have to lead to these frustrating outcomes in order for the story to progress. I like to run and play modules and I like to run and play adventures that I have taken the time to plan a bit in advance. (Note: I typically don't plan ahead in a detailed fashion more than the next session and a skeleton of a concept 2 to 3 sessions out, all based on the direction the players are taking). But it takes some decent effort to make sure that the PCs stay on track especially for a module, but if done with a mind for allowing their choices to have interesting outcomes regardless of what they choose then they can still have lots of fun and interesting things happen, even in failing.
For example: If the PCs are steering off the path of the adventure due to lack of information they are seeking, then there's always ways that you can think up to help them get more of the information. Even if it's only a lead and not something concrete. Like the PCs are trying to find information about the whereabouts of an NPC that they are trying to track down and bring to justice. If all of your attempts thus far have not resulted in them discovering where this NPC is then throw them a bone. Maybe when they're just walking through the streets a young boy runs up to one of the party members and slips him a note and then runs off. The note could say "Meet me in (someplace that you come up with), and come alone." This could be enough for that PC to go check it out. If they decide to check it out that PC could end up meeting a thief who says he heard they were looking for "soandso" NPC, and for the right price he'll tell them where they can find that NPC. This is just one example of a possible method. But there are literally unlimited ways that you can help PCs follow a pregenerate story path without making any of their choices result in frustrating outcomes.
It also depends on what challenges the DM puts in front of him.
What control would you need over the situation? I think I understand your approach, and I think it's hands free as far as the DM is concerned. It just plays out.
I don't know if you are suggesting that chalenging the players is a bad thing or not, but that seems to be your general driving point. But as for "hands free", the DM is exected to fairly and impartially run the game. I've made it clear that things such as City Guards and other relevant setting information should be established in advance.
Know how many times I've heard "my players destroyed the entire town! They are out of control!" And the first thing that popped into my head was "how?" Sure most of the population might be low level, but there has got to have been enough people in the town to pose some chalenge to the players to stop them, surely among 2,000 people they weren't all first level commoners?
There is always the possibility that the character can escelate a situation to create a worse outcome for themselves, but that is really of their own making.
Then the answer to my question is "Yes."
No, it is not. Possibility does not mean either intent or methodology. I am sensing that you are trying to force an answer that you want so as to make your point, and you are rather transparent.
Is it possible that the character's could die from falling off a 5 story building onto a fence? Yes it is. Am I therefore trying to kill them by putting 5 story buildings and fences in the game? No I am not.
It always comes to this sort of thing, or jumping off bridges. That's not what we're talking about. It's not foolish for the adventurers to ransack a dungeon, unless the DM designs the dungeon to be a foolhardy venture. By the same token, it's not foolish for adventurers to ransack an office, unless the DM decides it is.
No, but it is foolish for them to think they can do either without any risk whatsoever.
What if they're not interested in the information at all?
You mean the story line? I've never had a group that was absolutely disinterested in my story line. But if they were so completely not interested in the game I was running, I would suggest what I said earlier, close the book and either start a new game they were interested in or suggest someone else DM
Not if the DM sets about making them regret their decision, because it disrupts the DM's story.
Dm's story? I thought it was the PC's story.
But I digress, the DM deals with a group, and therefore has a responsibility to the group as a whole over a single individual. If it is a single individual who is ruining a story over that the group as a whole is interested in, then yes, the DM should take appropriate action to bring the focus back to the group.
The individual is going to get limited attention (because 90% of it will be on the group) and so will likely not get far persuing a goal that is disruptive to the group's goals.
If it comes down to it, I would rather waste one gaming session with a single player then waste the last dozen sessions with the group as that one player ruins their goals.
Maybe not zero risk, but maybe trivial risk.
Risk isn't inherent to anything in D&D. Risk is placed by the DM when it would be interesting. If it wouldn't be interesting, and could potentially be frustrating, it's left out. DM's do it all the time for players who are playing along, and do the opposite all the time for players who are "disrupting" the story.
In the DM's case here, I think the trap was an interesting risk. And trivial as well. Goes to show what even a trivial risk can do when the player is careless. As for potentially frustrating, don't play D&D with 6 year olds that can't handle minor setbacks.
I was referring to one particular part of a story, some challenge or something the DM thought would be fun but which fails to interest the PCs. But I can see I was unclear.
I'm encouraged to hear that you would try to interest them.
Can't fault the DM for the trap, it would have been easy to find and disarm, and was ideal for the situation, a low level deterent to common criminals, that the characters should have looked for, I'd probably have placed a trap in the same situation, the only difference is my players would have looked for them.
I don't know. You make it possible for players to choose boring outcomes in your game, and rather than think of a more interesting but equally plausible outcome, you'll rely on warnings and "bloody noses." This gives the impression that you don't really care if they're bored, even if they don't intend to be.
Why is the outcome boring?
Risky, clandestine burglary in the middle of the night seems to be exactly what the Player wanted. This is the perfect place for locked or hidden safes, even a hidden passage way accessed by solving a puzzle, a trap or two, slipping past the guards as the alarm sounds.
The DM placed the trap there to be interesting. It is not the DM's fault that the character was careless.
If the effect is death, capture, or lack of progress, than you are implicitly suggesting exactly that.
Equally, if the effect lacks any risk, suspense or action, and is otherwise uneventful, then it is boring.
Also the possible risk of death, capture or lack of progress is inherently different then what you are suggesting. Nor, as I have repeatedly made very clear, are those the only possible outcomes. It is you who keeps trying to drive those as the only outcomes of using cause and effect, and I think it is rather unimaginative of you.
And I am sure that if I ran a game of My Little Ponies with some friends, that I would do the same. But as most, (the overwhelming majority by looking at the game mechanics) play D&D for high adventure, there is an implied level of risk involved. Certainly I would recomend tailoring your encounters to be appropriate to the groups strengths and weaknesses (since it is expected that they ultimately win)
If you were to list interesting things to add to a session of ransacking an office, a Trap would be included on that list. Probably on some door or chest or locked safe/cabinet that the NPC wanted to protect.
Here you have a case of a DM who placed something into the encounter to be interesting, it's difficult to fault him becuase the character was careless.
Know how many times I've heard "my players destroyed the entire town! They are out of control!" And the first thing that popped into my head was "how?"
Interesting. The first thing that pops into my head is not "How?" It's "Why?"
And the answer to that question is almost always "The DM" in my experience. DM is running a quicksand box and nothing is happening either because the DM is not presenting them with anything compelling or the players are disinterested or unaware of the DM's plot hooks. Tavern burns as players decide to create their own action and tension since the DM is slapping them with boring outcomes to get them to take his hook. Town guards show up as yet another boring outcome to try to get them on the path. Things escalate. Guards are slain and town burns. DM posts in frustration wondering what he can do to make the players take his plot hooks, blaming his players instead of looking within.
There is also a limit to the DM's time and attention, however hard working he might be. If a single player goes after a seperate goal from the party, especially an opposing goal, then the DM is right to be disinclined to waste the prep work for the Group to satisfy the individual player. So yes the individual player might be disapointed or frustrated with the results if his goal is to monopolize the DM's time and attention especially if its at the cost to the group's goal and storyline.
Interesting. The first thing that pops into my head is not "How?" It's "Why?"
And the answer to that question is almost always "The DM" in my experience. DM is running a quicksand box and nothing is happening either because the DM is not presenting them with anything compelling or the players are disinterested or unaware of the DM's plot hooks.
Yes, I would agree that that is also a factor, in which case nothing is really lost with the burning of a tavern or two.
Other methods include the more blatent, such as naming the game, so they've started with a particular theme/quest in mind and have created their characters accordinly. I prefer the more sandbox start with some subplots to establish the setting before working the main storyline in. But overall it is easy to do since the players generally come expecting a story.
iserith, I think that style only really works if the group is pursuing the storyline offered by the DM, and groups in general that want that a storyline. It's their storyline that the DM is protecting and it is especially important if they have put alot of time and effort into it that their effort isn't negated.
There is also a limit to the DM's time and attention, however hard working he might be. If a single player goes after a seperate goal from the party, especially an opposing goal, then the DM is right to be disinclined to waste the prep work for the Group to satisfy the individual player. So yes the individual player might be disapointed or frustrated with the results if his goal is to monopolize the DM's time and attention especially if its at the cost to the group's goal and storyline.
Right, buy-in is key. I'll sit through a railroad if you tell me it's a railroad and it's heading to Awesome Town. If you're not up front with me and I think I'm playing a game of unlimited choices but all my choices that are not on the railroad are leading to boring outcomes, then I'm going to be rightfully upset at the DM.
This is where illusion of choice gets really muddled. You want the players to think their choices matter, but really they don't. Or at least, some choices matter (the ones that stay on the path) and others are disregarded or punished (the ones that are not on the path). Not many DMs have the skills to actually pull off illusion of choice in my experience and raises the question as to why DMs who run railroads don't simply tell the players what they're up to and use their buy-in to improve the game experience. Because even if you manage to build up the skills necessary to run a game with illusion of choice well, those skills are not transferrable to other games. It's a big investment for a very narrow usage. It's also "tricking" your players, though I'd stop short of calling it "unethical" as I've seen some people say (geez). I'd rather just bring my players in on the illusion than try to convince them there isn't one.
Will I run a railroad or a railroad in the context of a sandbox setting? No. It's way too much work for very little (possibly even zero) upside. I have done it, but see no reason to anymore. But a DM with my buy-in is certainly welcome to railroad me all he wants.
The Players are larger then life, their story is likewise (or at least should be) larger then life, so anythign else is small and petty by comparison, if they get limited returns when not working towards their storyline, this is only natural. Dead ends? well yes, there really isn't much else that is of caparible importance in the world then their quest.
Which should provide the better reward? stopping the dark wizard's attempted assasination of the King, or stealing the petty cash from the blacksmith's coffers? Some have argued that being caught stealing the petty cash and having the guards called is boring and mundane, but in all seriousness, so was the "neferious" petty cash scheme.
It's hard to ignore the main storyline when it is so much more important then the other things going on in the world.
If you want a good example, a house is on fire, you can try and escape through the emergency exit, try and rescue others in the building, try to fight the fire. And then someone in the group decides to make themselves a sandwich instead, goes intot he kicthen and turns on the gas stove. Is it railroading for them to burn alive with the most perfect grilled cheese sandwich ever?
It's really not hard to ignore the main storyline because it's only the main storyline to the DM, the guy who created it and subsequently covered it over with sand so it could then be uncovered by the PCs. The players may not be interested in or understand the relevance. Unless they have fully bought in and accept that sometimes their choices will be "wrong" so they need to learn to read the DM better or simply ask to be put back on the path if they've missed a clue or the like.
As far as your example, it's railroading if you have a plot or story and are using outcomes to drive the PCs back to that plot or story, regardless of anything else that is going on. That the PCs are running into dead-ends and bloody noses is simply a symptom of the underlying cause.
*Railroading is not a bad thing, inherently. It's the Hickman style and it's been around for 30 years. You just need player buy-in. Illusion of choice is the opposite of buy-in in most cases because you're trying to make it seem like their choices matter, when really, only some choices are valid - the ones the DM says are valid. The rest are subject to "limited returns."
It is not the Hickman style, it's been around for 7,000 thousand or more years of written history.
I use the Tolkein methodology, which is to fully establish a complete setting, including NPCs, places and such plots and ongoing stories and themes as there are, and then inject the players. So yes there is limited returns if they choose not to follow a potential plot, a wrong direction is just that, a wrong direction and if it doesn't lead to anything it's because nothing was there.
It's a far superior method then constantly generating new (mostly shoddy, low quality) content on the spot. Sure you can constantly cater to the same "everyone wins" philosophy and never have the group fail or make a bad decision and everything leads to rainbows and puppies. But overall adversity and overcoming chalenges and hardwork gives more satisfaction to the players.
If every single one of their choices matter, then they won't matter at all. No matter what they do the outcome will be interesting and full of adventure, which in short means their choice didn't really make a difference. In my method choices do make a difference because some are good choices, some better some "workable" and some are wrong, some are undesirable, some boring and some catestrophic. Those choices are up to them and actually are choices and not illusions.
I would call your methodology the "illusion of choice" because you will simple generate content to make their choices work. There is no "wrong" choice and so in effect their choices don't matter, it is all illusion. There is no railroad because they really aren't going anywhere. If they stayed at home it would be haunted and they would defeat the ghosts, then discover hidden treasure in the wine celler, then someone hiding in the walls. None of their choices are going to lead to anything but excitement, adventure and reward.
I am not "favoring" one choice over the other. Given the choice between fighting a dragon and chopping firewood, one is going to give alot of treasure, high adventure, expereince and excitement. The other will give 5 silver a chord, or at best an encounter with a crossdressing wolf.
So, yes the storyline of defeating the dragon will pay off better then the choice to chop firewood, that is not railroading, it is called giving a story meaningful choices.
If you stay up all night preparing an adventure or simply buy a module that looks interesting, most players (at least in my happy experience) will go out of their way to buy a ticket for that train by helping the DM find a reason for their character to be there and they are ready to go along to get along. And some players don't give it that much thought, to be honest.
Player: What character should I play today?
DM: I was thinking you could play your good priest.. I bought the Temple of Elemental Evil. You have some business of some sort with the Church of St. Cuthbert (we'll change it to a temple dedicated to the memory your over-zealous Paladin, Igorzellis that died in the last campaign).
Player: Alas and anon, the Village of Hommelet... ummmm... (to DM) where is it? (back in character) umm... Lickskillet... prithee O Saint Igorzellis of Lickskillet, thankee for the safe journey anon to this Village of Lickskillet and what-not. (to DM) Give me something to break.
Bob the Player: RAILROAD!!!!!!
DM: ??? What?
Bob the Player: You are railroading, My character is starting in the city of Eyemaphule where he was born and raised.
DM....ok then, well the rest of you are in the city of Biskuickresipia, you hear the town crier as he passes, apparently a small city of Eyemaphule was recently burnt to the ground by a dragon.
Bob the Player: Hey Railroading again! How dare you
DM: There were no survivors. WOOOWOOOO Chugga Chugga WOOOO WOOOO...... Next stop is Dontbeastupiddouchebobville!
Where DMs get into trouble and where railroading gets a bad name is when the DM uses illusion of choice to keep the players on the path, blocking, negating, invalidating, redirecting, or offering "limited returns" for choices that are not on that path. It's simply easier and better to tell them what you're doing up front so they can buy-in and help you make it work rather than work against you under the illusion that their off-script choices will actually go somewhere interesting. Or as you put it: "a wrong direction is just that, a wrong direction." But who gets to decide that direction is wrong? And why would said person do that? The answers are "The DM" and "because he has the effort of his prep to protect." It's defensive DMing and it's how we get to the point of DM's using illusion of choice.
Let's break it down a bit: A rail is a predetermined story or plot written by the DM however tightly or loosely. Railroading is when you coerce the players to follow that predetermined story or plot with their characters. You can't have rails and you can't railroad if you don't have plots or stories. That's where this whole process begins for good or for ill. Now, what you can do is have rails and no railroading (or at least no negative effects of railroading) if you've gotten the players to buy in. Problems are avoided and everyone has a great time.
The divergence in styles between the original form of the game (Gygaxian) and the style that followed (Hickmanesque) is simply a matter of how the story of the game is generated. In the Gygaxian style, there are no stories. There are locations or situations, possibly set in the context of a larger world (like Tolkien's). The things that the PCs do and the outcomes that the context plus dice results produce are the story. In the Hickmanesque style, the story is generated by the DM and is set before the players to experience through the lens of their characters. The Hickmanesque style arose in reaction to people getting tired of running around dungeons collecting loot and getting killed by death traps for 10 years. The truth is, every location - be it a Haunted Forest or the Evil Crypt - is a dungeon. And with an eye toward interesting failure, taken from indie games (or 4e for that matter), you can take the edge off that objection quite easily while still keeping the stakes quite high.
Both approaches can produce quality game experiences. Neither is superior and I reject and resent your thinly veiled insults with regard to a lack of quality in an approach that differs from your own. That is a matter of delivery of an individual DM, not the style itself. I can understand being defensive about your style - but only when someone is attacking it and I'm certainly not doing that. I ran the Hickmanesque style which is exactly what you're doing for 20+ years. It's what I grew up on and all I knew and I ran some fantastic games with it. I only recently changed over to the Gygaxian style (with some embellishments I took from indie games such as collaboration), within the last 2 years in fact.
Where you are going completely wrong on the characterization of the style you do not use is in saying that "everyone wins." If you took a look at even one of my game sessions, you'd know that wasn't the case. PCs fail or die with regularity because I have no plot to protect by fudging or negating choices they make. Their choices do make a difference because each choice changes the story in some way - the story we're creating together as we play, not a story I came up with before we play. We have our games in locations or situations. And when those locations and situations are done (one way or another), we move onto other situations and locations that arose from the collaboration we did as we played. It's simple, elegant, less work for the DM, and full of surprises for both the DM and players, producing stories that everyone is interested in, every time, because we all had a hand in it.
The bottom line is this: Without player buy-in, no style works. In particular, however, the Hickmanesque style requires more buy-in than the Gygaxian style because you are asking players to curtail some of their choices to favor a predetermined plot. And that's just fine and dandy if your players are willing to do that. Unfortunately, a lot of DMs don't like to ask that of their players (or don't know that they should), but still want to have creative control over the stories and plot, so they employ illusion of choice tactics. When it blows up in their faces, they seek to blame the player for making the "wrong" choices when all along the blame lay with the DM for not getting buy-in up front.
Where you are going completely wrong on the characterization of the style you do not use is in saying that "everyone wins." If you took a look at even one of my game sessions, you'd know that wasn't the case. PCs fail or die with regularity because I have no plot to protect by fudging or negating choices they make. Their choices do make a difference because each choice changes the story in some way - the story we're creating together as we play, not a story I came up with before we play. We have our games in locations or situations. And when those locations and situations are done (one way or another), we move onto other situations and locations that arose from the collaboration we did as we played. It's simple, elegant, less work for the DM, and full of surprises for both the DM and players, producing stories that everyone is interested in, every time, because we all had a hand in it.
I can attest to this. Iserith has kicked my character's ass from a continent away. When the story isn't what will happen but what is happening there's no story to force the DM to protect you, so he doesn't.
It's called railroading because unlike roads and trails there are never any choices or alternative routes, nor are the players in control of the train. A train is an exact route, with scheduled stops that cannot be deviated from ever. That is railroading the players, they can only take a specific path and no alternative, even if it is to acheive the same goal is available. Ussually by outright denial.
A non-railroad game allows the players any number of choices to achieve the goal, If they need to travel somewhere they can go by boat, flying eagles, climb over a mountain, take the long way through the forest or the shortcut through the desert or pay to be magically transported. But the plots going on in the world around them are not railroads, nor are all paths successful.
A Story plot is not a railroad, it is an existing element of the world, if you go Gygax or Hickman style. Dark Wizard plotting to open gates to hell and unleash demonic horde, must be stopped before he completes ritual on the next full moon. Offereing actual content is not railroading.
Railroading is negative because it is a negative term. just like calling someone a moron is a negative term. The issue here is that you are calling, well esentially anything with a plot or storyline as railroading, and that really is not the case at all, and I really don't give a damn about Gygaxian vs Hickman.
Here's where you're wrong about what I'm saying. I'll restate it. A predetermined plot or story is a rail. When you curtail choices to coerce the players to stay on said rail, that's railroading. Railroading can be bad, but only if you don't have player buy-in with regard to curtailing their choices. It is not bad by default.
You don't have to give a damn about putting a name on your style, but make no mistake, you're running your game in the Hickman tradition with (I'm sure) your own additions. Just like I run mine in the Gygaxian style with my own additions. In the end, those are just labels that help us understand and discuss the matter more clearly. Or at least, that's the goal. Neither is superior.
It's called railroading because unlike roads and trails there are never any choices or alternative routes, nor are the players in control of the train. A train is an exact route, with scheduled stops that cannot be deviated from ever. That is railroading the players, they can only take a specific path and no alternative, even if it is to acheive the same goal is available. Ussually by outright denial.
A non-railroad game allows the players any number of choices to achieve the goal, If they need to travel somewhere they can go by boat, flying eagles, climb over a mountain, take the long way through the forest or the shortcut through the desert or pay to be magically transported. But the plots going on in the world around them are not railroads, nor are all paths successful.
If you have a rail, sure, you can let the players make all the choices they want. But the second you arbitrarily decide that one choice is going to lead to a lack of fun or progress because it's not on the rail, then you are in fact railroading. The second the quest giver comes out and offers the PCs a job and you have to close the book and play a board game because they're not interested in the hook, you are railroading. The quest giver is the beginning of the rail and the coercion is the threat of a lack of a game that night. That coercion can take many forms, even forms so subtle the DM becomes convinced he's not really railroading at all.
This is what you are doing and it is not bad if you have the players' permission to do it. That you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue, and I suspect that the denial of this fact is due to thinking of railroading as bad in the first place. It's a problem of perception. Anecdotally, the biggest railroaders I've ever played with completely deny the fact that they're doing it. Because they think everyone else thinks it's bad and they've convinced themselves they couldn't possibly be "that guy." The joke's on them though because railroading is not bad - as long as your players know what you're doing and have given their consent.
Where problems come up is when you're trying to use illusion of choice instead of asking for that consent and you get caught either directly or indirectly. (The OP is a good example of the DM being caught indirectly because of the symptomatic game outcomes.) Railroading is not the actual problem. Not asking directly for buy-in is.
A Story plot is not a railroad, it is an existing element of the world, if you go Gygax or Hickman style. Dark Wizard plotting to open gates to hell and unleash demonic horde, must be stopped before he completes ritual on the next full moon. Offereing actual content is not railroading.
A predetermined story or plot is a rail and that's the Hickman style. If you go Gygaxian, the story or plot is not created before play. The story is created during play. The creation of content is common to both. The creation of a larger world in which to place the adventures in context is common to both. The difference is that the content created by the DM in the Hickman style will be stories and plots, sometimes in the context of locations and situations. In Gygaxian, it's locations and situations. (Incidentally, that's why prep is so much less in the Gygaxian style. See my sig for a couple of articles relating to this.)
Obviously the PCs can fail. Obviously I want that. The players want that. That's what we'll do. But I am under no compulsion to do it in a way that they will find boring. It doesn't matter if they're children or adults, if they're bored or frustated with a failure, then my reasons for allowing that particular failure mode to occur don't matter. I could have and should have picked a failure mode that wouldn't have that effect. If I can't do it, then I need to get the players' help to do it.
Do you at least understand where I'm coming from with this?
iserith, railroading a character and railroading a group is two different things. There is only so much you can handle outside of the main story being chased by the group, especially if that one person is doing something that actively hurts the group's goal.
His particular form of coercion was to provide no immediate progress to the relevant goal, providing some tidbits here and there that may be useful later and perhaps even some colorful scenes for in-character interaction, but no real progress. It may have been that the players were thinking clues were in places they were not and the DM failing to Schrodinger's gun the necessary hints in the places they did want to go and hopefully they'd get back to the path. Lesson learned: If you're going to run on the rails, be aware of the style and its implications, then learn the tricks of the trade... after getting your players' buy-in on the approach.
I can imagine if the players knew what was under the hood of the game, so to speak, and nothing was happening, they could have asked directly what to do next rather than waste 3.5 hours of session time until the dragonborn lashed out: "Hey man, it seems like we're not getting this. Maybe we missed something obvious? Can you walk us through this once more or maybe advance to the next scene and we can just backfill how we got to where we need to be?" Done and done. That's way better than throwing darts at the invisible dartboard. The dragonborn player's actions are simply a symptom of an underlying issue. He's not blameless, mind you, but at least we know how to cut down on such possibilities in the future.
So, player advice: Ask your DM what style or approach to the game he is using and what you can do to make it work well. (DM Advice: Know what style or approach to the game you're using and don't be afraid of total transparency. Your players will help you make it work. They want a good game, too.)
As for this DMing railroading, he was doing nothing of the sort. In fact he placed the trap at the location in an attempt to make the player's course interesting and
"not driven by cruelty or malice, but because of the interesting problem it created for the party to solve. My thoughts were not “This will show them!” but “Won’t this be fun!” It is also worth noting that if any player had rolled an arcana check, they would have detected the trap that was half of their level and easily been able to disable it. "
You can either fault the DM for trying to make it fun for the players, or you can fault him for being boring, but you can't fault him for both.
Further guards showed up on the scene, because he didn't see how they couldn't be avoided when there is an explosion in a city, however:
"Of course the authorities are going to get involved, and I ended the session with a pair of guards (hardly a combat challenge for the party) catching the party at the scene of the crime"
The guards posed no real risk to the players, in fact could be easily bribed, or for that matter overpowered. I know my group would have defeated them, then bribed them, then stolen the money back off them. and then told be that next time to send more guards.
"No. They could have fought. They could have run. They could have suggested something I hadn’t thought of. They could have proposed a counter bribe. They could have hypnotized guards with magic. There are many paths they could have chosen, and that is why I take offense to the accusation that my game is on rails."
the DM isn't railroading his players at all, in fact he is open to whatever they do, and is trying to make their outcomes interesting.
Ok, perhaps the DM could have given better clues, although judging on how they blundered into the office and then mishandled low level guards, I am inclined to fault the players on that. But the DM tried ot make this route fun and interesting and the players were careless and then made bad decisions.
Here's the takeaway: That there are rails and there is railroading going on is just fine! We need to stop this obsession with thinking rails and railroading are bad. (And I'm sure you've seen some pretty silly posts arguing that it's unethical even.) It's only bad without player buy-in. I was watching Wheaton's Tabletop the other day and they were playing a game of Dragon Age. It was a total railroad, and everyone was buying in and having fun. (Well, the DM seemed a little stiff and worried about protecting his story and world, but nevermind.) The DM has a story to tell (the rail) and the PCs were being led down that rail. Choice was curtailed to serve the needs of the predetermined story. Along the way, fun things happened.
If you're going to do a thing, embrace it, don't deny it, and work at doing it well. Don't let someone else tell you that rails and railroading are bad. It's never bad if your players want it. Anyone else's opinion on the issue doesn't matter.
The DM here was not railroading, his only flaw here was in not clarifying the information and clues the characters got. His mistake was assuming the players would know as much as their characters would have realized in that situation, I would have asked them to roll a check and then explained the information to them, moved them along or else I would have dropped a better clue.
The rest was simply content, put in place to make the game interesting. The DM here was not railroading the characters and was right to try and make the situation more interesting. The DM here is being blamed for alot of the player's own carelessness. I would have checked for traps, my players would have checked for traps, heck I would have expected to be met with a group of thugs hired by the gnome, anything more interesting then just a mundane office. The guards? a low level threat at best, esily beaten, easily ran from and easily bribed with fake coins. The DM is not railroading because the players make bad choices.
I suspect that the problem with this group is one of "I don't think outside of a dungeon" I've seen this before, although not with a whole group, where outside of a dungeon they just expect to be led about. This mode of thinking is sometimes the result of the players expecting the next stage will be just given to them like in a video game, and sometimes a result of melee types that follow the more roleplaying types (which is fine) and it happens to otherwise creative and clever people.
Talk to NPC, get quest, leave. It's a video game way of thinking they fall into and you see exactly that here. They miss the clues because they expect to click on an NPC and get a direct answer, they don't expect a trap in the city, when the guard sugests a bribe they hand over the cash without even considering any other solution or bartering because they are looking for programmed options.
Here the players are looking for the rails to follow when there are none instead of thinking for themselves. Look at the guard situation. Why not pay them off with fake coiins? Why not run, or fight? Why not con them into going after the gnome who set up a dangerous trap in the city "We were looking for him, Banged on the door and ka-boom! Trying to murder us, he's insane! We will be pressing charges!" Nothing, no attempt whatsoever to do anything, they realy aren't giving the DM anything to work with, those guards could have been interesting, the trap could have been interesting, but the players were boring.
Had they searched for the trap, they could have disabled it and then replaced it with their own trap, or corrupt guards when you are trying to find someone in the city? Opportunity!
I suspect that admitting this DM is railroading means that you have to admit that you yourself railroad in your own games. And by thinking of railroading as negative, you just can't allow yourself to see it. You couldn't be "that guy," right, after all these years of justifying your process and deriding railroading? You've bought into your own illusions. I'm here to tell you it's okay.
The problem, again, is not that you're doing it because railroading is not bad. It's part of that particular style. It's only bad if you fail to get buy-in. Maybe you have that, maybe you don't. (Many proponents don't because they believe in the illusion of choice which requires a lack of transparency.) This DM clearly doesn't because he didn't even know that's what he was doing. Sometimes it's simply not blatant, even to the DM. But there you go - it's all a problem of perception.
There is a difference between a railroad and a path. Just as there is a difference between stairs and an elevator and an Ancient Red Dragon and a Giant Rat. If you can't see how they are functionally different, then clearly we aren't speaking the same language. You need to either figure out what the term means or else stop using it.
Why not accuse the DM of throwing ancient red dragons at level 1 players, because that is your term for giant rats? Your definition of Railroad to include having any plot is absurd, or using your definition of words, it is Ardvark, Toaster, Shoe!
But lets talk about your railroading. Do you have buildings in your games? I am assuming you don't, because that would be railroading. Lets face it a building ussually has 4 walls (not including interior rooms) so that forces characters to use Doors or windows to leave or enter them. RAILROADING! They have to use the doors to go from room to room? RAILROADING!
Oh sure they can knock a whole in the wall, but lets face it that is just an illusion of choice, you will weaken the structural integrety of the building doing that, and lets face it the end result is DMs havign a supporting wall being knocked out, resulting in the building colapsing on the players. RAILROADING!
That is absurd because by the logical definition of your definition of a railroad, anything the DM places into the game is railroading. After all even a building with walls can be considered a plot (they have to use the door) or a mountain, river or ocean that could prevent them from going in a particular direction. A Tree? Railroading! Calling a plot railroading is just as rediculous.
A plot is a rail. A rail, not railroading. You're not railroading until you start to curtail or punish choices (by whatever means) that are moving away from that rail. I'm not saying a plot is a railroad at all. That's just what you are saying I'm saying. Adding non-plot or non-story content, be it walls or red dragons or giant rats, to a game is not a rail. Adding content to the game is common to both styles.
This is what happens when you blindly think something is bad. It interferes with the ability to understand it. If it helps your understanding and keeps you from being defensive, we can call a rail a path in which case it'd be pathroading when you start to curtail or punish choices (by whatever means) that are moving away from that path, heh.
You're way off-base here and getting rude and defensive, if I'm reading your tone correctly. We're discussing a game, remember?
A plot is a rail. A rail, not railroading. You're not railroading until you start to curtail or punish choices (by whatever means) that are moving away from that rail. I'm not saying a plot is a railroad at all. That's just what you are saying I'm saying. Adding non-plot or non-story content, be it walls or red dragons or giant rats, to a game is not a rail. Adding content to the game is common to both styles.
This is what happens when you blindly think something is bad. It interferes with the ability to understand it. If it helps your understanding and keeps you from being defensive, we can call a rail a path in which case it'd be pathroading when you start to curtail or punish choices (by whatever means) that are moving away from that path, heh.
Iserith.. you essentially called the guy rude, absurd, coercive and delusioned. I'm not sure what response you expected.
Iserith.. you essentially called the guy rude, absurd, coercive and delusioned. I'm not sure what response you expected.
I said he's rude if I interpreted the tone of his last post correctly. I don't recall saying "absurd." I referred to railroading as a form of coercion (true). I did say that he may be buying into his own illusions. I'm not sure that make someone delusional.
My intent is not to insult at all. If anything is being taken as insulting, I apologize in advance. I'm talking about game concepts, not people. I'm not even judging those game concepts. I have my preferences, but all styles are valid.
And in this case the DM was doing neither, despite the player's frustrations, they made bad choices. Neither the traps nor the guards were in anyway punitive nor curtailing them. The players just handled them wrong, they didn't check for traps and they didn't even try with the guards, that's their doing not the DM's
Not every path can be rewarding, and some paths are just going to fail. This isn't railroading, punitive nor curtailing, it's just a fact of life, a bad choice is a bad choice. The DM here wasn't even trying to make it a bad choice, the players did.
Not all choices are good. Again this isn't railroading, just cause and effect. If the DM deliberately made a choice fail or negative to punish the player or force them back on track (especially if it was a good idea) that would be different then the players making a bad choice.
Iserith.. you essentially called the guy rude, absurd, coercive and delusioned. I'm not sure what response you expected.
I said he's rude if I interpreted the tone of his last post correctly. I don't recall saying "absurd." I referred to railroading as a form of coercion (true). I did say that he may be buying into his own illusions. I'm not sure that make someone delusional.
My intent is not to insult at all. If anything is being taken as insulting, I apologize in advance. I'm talking about game concepts, not people. I'm not even judging those game concepts. I have my preferences, but all styles are valid.
Just as I feel that the 'yes and' philosophy, which taken to the extremes you suggest dictates that no matter how disruptive another player's actions are to the group's enjoyment of the game that the group must cater to the individual, leaving the disruptive player the only person enjoying the game. That's not JUST a railroad.. that's getting run over by a train.
All styles may be valid, but some result in less enjoyment than others.
It was you who mentioned railroading first and " If you have a predetermined story or plot, you have a rail." So yes your definition of railroading is rather broad.
I'm noticing a trend here. When we say, "interesting failure," you take that to mean "no failure." We explain it over and over again. You still don't get it. When I say, "rail," you take that to mean, "railroading." I explain it over and over again. You still don't get it. Why should I continue to explain things to you over and over again? I'm not being rude here. I really would like to know. Are we not being clear enough? Because I'm okay if you just say, "I disagree with you" and we leave it at that. Instead, what I'm seeing are the same mistatements of what we're saying. That's highly unproductive and leads me to want to discontinue the conversation.
And in this case the DM was doing neither, despite the player's frustrations, they made bad choices. Neither the traps nor the guards were in anyway punitive nor curtailing them. The players just handled them wrong, they didn't check for traps and they didn't even try with the guards, that's their doing not the DM's
I disagree with you.
Not every path can be rewarding, and some paths are just going to fail. This isn't railroading, punitive nor curtailing, it's just a fact of life, a bad choice is a bad choice. The DM here wasn't even trying to make it a bad choice, the players did.
Not all choices are good. Again this isn't railroading, just cause and effect. If the DM deliberately made a choice fail or negative to punish the player or force them back on track (especially if it was a good idea) that would be different then the players making a bad choice.
Every path or choice can be entertaining, even if it means failure, because it's up to the DM (in most games). Unfortunately, when you have a path (previously known as a rail), it doesn't help the DM keep the players on that path if the choices that move away from that path are "rewarded" with entertaining outcomes. It's way easier to simply make the outcomes boring and call them "bad choices" so that they learn their lesson and come back to the path. This is a logical and perfectly normal extension of the style in question. It can happen without the DM even knowing they're doing it and after years and years of seeing it work, why wouldn't you think it valid? It's valid in that it works. It's still railroading. Accept it, embrace it, be transparent about it. It's not a bad thing - as long as your players are okay with it.
Just as I feel that the 'yes and' philosophy, which taken to the extremes you suggest dictates that no matter how disruptive another player's actions are to the group's enjoyment of the game that the group must cater to the individual, leaving the disruptive player the only person enjoying the game. That's not JUST a railroad.. that's getting run over by a train.
All styles may be valid, but some result in less enjoyment than others.
"The extremes" you're referring to are simply in your own mind. I realize this is a long thread, but you'll not see me excuse the dragonborn player's behavior in any way. I do say that I can see where his frustration is coming from, but that is not an excuse for blocking the other players with his own actions.
Just as I feel that the 'yes and' philosophy, which taken to the extremes you suggest dictates that no matter how disruptive another player's actions are to the group's enjoyment of the game that the group must cater to the individual, leaving the disruptive player the only person enjoying the game. That's not JUST a railroad.. that's getting run over by a train.
All styles may be valid, but some result in less enjoyment than others.
"The extremes" you're referring to are simply in your own mind. I realize this is a long thread, but you'll not see me excuse the dragonborn player's behavior in any way. I do say that I can see where his frustration is coming from, but that is not an excuse for blocking the other players with his own actions.
They are OBVIOUSLY not in my "own mind". You've seen enough people rail against your posts on the subject to know that.
You post the same things again and again, ad nauseum about how everyone is blocking everybody and the solution is to just go along with everybody no matter how foolish they are. That any preparations that the DM has is a rail. That players can get out of every situation by determining what happens next, which taken to the extreme would allow a player to merely say "The Magic Goat saves the Day" and anyone who doesn't agree is blocking unless they say "Yes, and". Although such a solution is indeed extreme... at what point do you say "Aw Heck No"? Your answer so far is.. never.
The logical conclusions of what you suggest ad nauseum require someone to say that a DM who rules that a character stabbing his own eyes out becomes blind is PUNISHING (nice loaded term that) the player. And that by describing the knife as 'sharp' is a rail. And you know there is a difference in railroading and having a pre-determined plot, but you call it a rail (which of course implies railroading with all its negative connotations).
And there is no failure in your method that doesn't involve player consent of some sort because magic goats can save the day.
Since we're psychoanalyzing everyone here... maybe this method only works 'in your own mind'? And you've already committed yourself to the defense of this method that it would be difficult to just say it has more problems than its worth? This seems to be your default recommendation for the rest of us.
That's what I'm getting out of it, unless you really are just not being clear. Sorry if I'm off base there. No mean to insult and all that.
-----
Here's a possible solution for the OP. Suggest 'out of game' that if he doesn't shape up 'in game' that the party might fill their socks with those fake coins and beat him to death in his sleep (his character, not him). If he doesn't let his character die, throw a yellow card for 'illegal blocking'.
They are OBVIOUSLY not in my "own mind". You've seen enough people rail against your posts on the subject to know that.
Most who do simply don't understand the approach. I don't blame them for that. It's not something many people have had exposure to unless they've played a lot of other games.
You post the same things again and again, ad nauseum about how everyone is blocking everybody and the solution is to just go along with everybody no matter how foolish they are.
This is a misstatement. I do believe that it is in the best interests of the game to pursue any fun course of action rather than debate its finer points to death. The reason that is so is because if any plan is going to be tested by mechanics no matter how much you try to mitigate your failure, you may as well just take less time shooting down the ideas of your fellow players and instead accept their idea and add your own embellishments. You then test those ideas with dice.
Haven't you ever noticed how planning discussions between players are often how someone's idea can't work rather how someone's idea can work? Which approach do you think is more efficient in terms of getting a plan together and moving the game forward? Which approach do you think discourages people from coming up with ideas, since they're just going to be shot down? Which do you think encourages everyone to be more engaged in the scene, once their ideas are in play?
That any preparations that the DM has is a rail.
This is also a misstatement. Any preparation of a predetermined plot or story is a rail, nothing else. But now we're calling it a "path." It has less negative connotations, I'm told.
That players can get out of every situation by determining what happens next, which taken to the extreme would allow a player to merely say "The Magic Goat saves the Day" and anyone who doesn't agree is blocking unless they say "Yes, and". Although such a solution is indeed extreme... at what point do you say "Aw Heck No"? Your answer so far is.. never.
They can get out of every situation by suggesting what happens next and testing those plans and actions with mechanics where appropriate, yes. I would add that if your "extreme" players want to be saved by a Magic Goat, why not just let them be saved by a Magic Goat, metaphorically speaking? It's clear your players in this instance aren't interested in the challenge you set before them. Move on to something they will find interesting. And how do you do that? You ask them directly what they're interested in. Like people do.
That said, in a "Yes, and..." group, you are called upon to accept the ideas of others, as long as those ideas do not contradict existing fiction. If there was not fictional context to suggest Magic Goats were around, then I'm afraid that the person saying they get saved by a Magic Goat is in violation of "Yes, and..." and the group will correct itself with questions and counteroffers. It really is a very simple method.
The logical conclusions of what you suggest ad nauseum require someone to say that a DM who rules that a character stabbing his own eyes out becomes blind is PUNISHING (nice loaded term that) the player. And that by describing the knife as 'sharp' is a rail. And you know there is a difference in railroading and having a pre-determined plot, but you call it a rail (which of course implies railroading with all its negative connotations).
I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek because nobody could reach logical conclusions like this but you, Sir_Joseph!
And there is no failure in your method that doesn't involve player consent of some sort because magic goats can save the day.
There is failure, lots of it, and it's all interesting and fun despite being a failure. If I can't think of interesting or fun failure for a given bad outcome on the dice, then I'm happy to ask the other four or five people around the table for ideas.
Since we're psychoanalyzing everyone here... maybe this method only works 'in your own mind'? And you've already committed yourself to the defense of this method that it would be difficult to just say it has more problems than its worth? This seems to be your default recommendation for the rest of us.
Anything's possible. I do have a lot of practical experience in this method though. And none of my ideas are original. So it must be working for other people, too.
I would suggest that a "pre-determined plot point" is instead a destination. The characters can reach the destination by the beaten path, or they may surprise you and find a different way. Since there are many different paths to reach that point (which the DM may or may not have considered), there is neither a railroad or a rail. The players may even suggest a different destination, and the DM should be open to it.
Another point that I disagree with is that every action or plan should have an interesting failure. Definitely, where having something interesting happen is a reasonably likely outcome it should be preferred to simply shutting the characters down. However, if having something interesting happen would require throwing logic or common sense out the window (such as it is), then the action will simply fail.
It seems to me that when characters have to decide on a course of action, in evaluating which option is most likely to succeed, they rely on their understanding of the rules of the world. If through always privileging interesting failure, the DM undermines a world that runs according to logical and consistent rules, it makes the game harder on the characters.
I have to throw my hat into the ring in agreeing with Sir Joseph and Mr. Customer. Both a railroad and a rail imply only one way to get from point A and point B. That is why railroading has such a negative connotation, since you are essentially forcing the characters to follow the plot you have decided.
I would suggest that a "pre-determined plot point" is instead a destination. The characters can reach the destination by the beaten path, or they may surprise you and find a different way. Since there are many different paths to reach that point (which the DM may or may not have considered), there is neither a railroad or a rail. The players may even suggest a different destination, and the DM should be open to it.
The path (formerly called a rail) is needing to get from point A to point B in the first place, regardless of how you actually get there. The PCs in this thread needed to get from point A (wherever they started) to point B (wherever the artifact was). I posit that the DM was pathroading them to point B by giving them uninteresting outcomes and scenes in places they shouldn't have gone or for actions they shouldn't have taken.
I agree that the DM should consider different destinations if the players suggest it.
Another point that I disagree with is that every action or plan should have an interesting failure. Definitely, where having something interesting happen is a reasonably likely outcome it should be preferred to simply shutting the characters down. However, if having something interesting happen would require throwing logic or common sense out the window (such as it is), then the action will simply fail.
It seems to me that when characters have to decide on a course of action, in evaluating which option is most likely to succeed, they rely on their understanding of the rules of the world. If through always privileging interesting failure, the DM undermines a world that runs according to logical and consistent rules, it makes the game harder on the characters.
Is it logical that a given situation has only one possible outcome in the unlimited possibility of potential outcomes in a fantasy world created by our imagination?
And if you rightly say "No" to that question, in choosing from those failure possibilities, do you suppose in an effort to play an entertaining game that engages your players, you might choose interesting ones?
And if interesting ones are the ones you choose, is it possible that it might take the PCs on a further tangent such that point B isn't reached in a timely fashion or maybe never at all?
And that if this is a concern of yours (you have prep to protect, right?), mightn't you always choose "logical" but boring failure conditions in an effort to urge those players to make their way to point B with an appropriate amount of haste?
And is it possible that watching your players rightly go toward things that are interesting rather than things you've chosen to make boring long enough, you'll come to believe you are rightly justified in choosing boring failures because it's the only thing that seems to get your players to the next part of your predetermined story?
Food for thought. And it goes without saying that if it works for you and yours, keep on doing it.
I'm noticing a trend here. When we say, "interesting failure," you take that to mean "no failure." We explain it over and over again. You still don't get it.
Because not every failure can be "interesting" sure if you are playing with 2 year olds you will need to keep their attention span, sure keeping the game interesting is important, but it isn't always possible, nor should failure be always rewarded, it devalues their successes.
When I say, "rail," you take that to mean, "railroading." I explain it over and over again. You still don't get it. Why should I continue to explain things to you over and over again? I'm not being rude here. I really would like to know. Are we not being clear enough? Because I'm okay if you just say, "I disagree with you" and we leave it at that. Instead, what I'm seeing are the same mistatements of what we're saying. That's highly unproductive and leads me to want to discontinue the conversation.
Because a "rail" has a very exact meaning in this language and context that you are using. It is a fixed, unmovable guide, and is impossible to be taken any other way in the context you use. And saying "pathroading" is just being condesending as you mean the same thing.
And in this case the DM was doing neither, despite the player's frustrations, they made bad choices. Neither the traps nor the guards were in anyway punitive nor curtailing them. The players just handled them wrong, they didn't check for traps and they didn't even try with the guards, that's their doing not the DM's
I disagree with you.
Disagreeing with me just makes you wrong :P
You are just calling the DM who posted in defence of himself a liar. You are insufferably condesending aren't you?
Myself, I am inclined to take the DM here at his word. I have no reason not to and unlike some -cough- I don't slander people.
Every path or choice can be entertaining, even if it means failure, because it's up to the DM (in most games). Unfortunately, when you have a path (previously known as a rail), it doesn't help the DM keep the players on that path if the choices that move away from that path are "rewarded" with entertaining outcomes. It's way easier to simply make the outcomes boring and call them "bad choices" so that they learn their lesson and come back to the path. This is a logical and perfectly normal extension of the style in question. It can happen without the DM even knowing they're doing it and after years and years of seeing it work, why wouldn't you think it valid? It's valid in that it works. It's still railroading. Accept it, embrace it, be transparent about it. It's not a bad thing - as long as your players are okay with it.
Again, railroading is an insulting term and calling it a "path" when you mean the same thing is condesending.
rewarding failure devalues success.
Because not every failure can be "interesting" sure if you are playing with 2 year olds you will need to keep their attention span, sure keeping the game interesting is important, but it isn't always possible, nor should failure be always rewarded, it devalues their successes.
Every failure can be interesting. It's a choice, usually the DMs, but it doesn't have to be. That you choose for it not to be interesting is your preference, which I believe can be attributed to railroading. I make no judgment as to whether railroading is good or bad. It's simply a tool to tell a story. The only time it's bad is when it leads to problematic outcomes, normally due to a lack of player buy-in on the approach.
Interesting failure is still failure, it's just interesting to the players despite being a setback for the characters. The PCs didn't achieve what they set out to achieve. The adventure is now harder in some way. Time or resources were lost. Maybe even a character, if that's interesting to the player. It might even be a failure that opens up another opportunity in some other direction, away from the goals they are pursuing now, but with a time limit so they then have to make ugly choices or get creative. It's just a matter of thinking about it and collaborating. Naturally, "interesting" will vary from group to group and if a group likes failure to be dead-ends and blocks, then more power to them.
Because a "rail" has a very exact meaning in this language and context that you are using. It is a fixed, unmovable guide, and is impossible to be taken any other way in the context you use. And saying "pathroading" is just being condesending as you mean the same thing.
I switched to path because it's a word you used previously, I believe. If that was in error, I withdraw it. Its meaning remains the same, of course, but again, railroading is a tool. It is neither good nor bad inherently. (I am not going to decry it as "unethical" or anything like a post I'm sure you've read recently.) To be said to be railroading is saying you're using a tool. How you use that tool is really what matters. If you're using it without the players' consent, you are using it incorrectly. The word only has the baggage you put upon it. If it helps, I'm open to using other words for this discussion as long as we preserve the meaning.
You are just calling the DM who posted in defence of himself a liar. You are insufferably condesending aren't you?
Myself, I am inclined to take the DM here at his word. I have no reason not to and unlike some -cough- I don't slander people.
No, in fact, I made mention several times that I believe the DM in question was not acting with malice of any kind. I believe he doesn't know or doesn't agree what he's doing is using a subtle form of railroading. And that's fair enough. If he comes around to believing that he may be doing this, even unknowingly, there are ways to make it work better and we can pursue that discussion. Again, it's a tool that is enhanced with certain skills. It's not a bad thing unless your players don't buy into the method.
rewarding failure devalues success.
Interesting failure is still failure. The characters don't get what they want or do what they set out to do. It's simply interesting to the players even if it's a setback to the characters.
Centauri, that may be so, but making it interesting depends as much on the player as it does the DM.
Less than you'd think. But I certainly agree that the DM should bring the players in on the process, especially when the DM can't see an interesting way forward.
There is also the consideration of making the game interesting for a player, or interesting or the group.
Very often the two go hand in hand. It could have in the case under discussion here.
And the DM has limited time to spend on just one player who is acting contrary to the group's goals, certainly not enough time to be rewarding them for failure at the group's expense. I want it wrapped up so i can turn my attention back to the main group.
One point of all this is that the group (including the player in question) is entertained by the failure, and that it doesn't need to undermine the story, unless the DM has written so fragile a story that it can be undermined. It helps, of course, to bring the players in on the story creation, but that's not the point of this discussion.
But does this mean you concede that if interesting failure is quick and easy to set up and deliver, then it should be?
iserith, railroading a character and railroading a group is two different things. There is only so much you can handle outside of the main story being chased by the group, especially if that one person is doing something that actively hurts the group's goal.
And the larger point is that even if the group's goal is failed that is interesting too.
I would suggest that a "pre-determined plot point" is instead a destination. The characters can reach the destination by the beaten path, or they may surprise you and find a different way. Since there are many different paths to reach that point (which the DM may or may not have considered), there is neither a railroad or a rail. The players may even suggest a different destination, and the DM should be open to it.
If the DM is open to different "destinations," great. That doesn't appear to be the case in this scenario. The group wasn't making progress toward the main goal, so they appeared not to be making progress at all. There were clues about other plot points, but this wasn't enough to keep the players from becoming bored.
Another point that I disagree with is that every action or plan should have an interesting failure. Definitely, where having something interesting happen is a reasonably likely outcome it should be preferred to simply shutting the characters down. However, if having something interesting happen would require throwing logic or common sense out the window (such as it is), then the action will simply fail.
Why not have the action simply succeed? Or is "interesting failure" being confused with "success" again?
It seems to me that when characters have to decide on a course of action, in evaluating which option is most likely to succeed, they rely on their understanding of the rules of the world.
It might seem that way, but that's not always how it goes in practice. Sometimes the players just want something interesting to happen. There's no reason interesting things shouldn't be happening. Sure, some of them require a long set up, but even that can be made interesting.
If through always privileging interesting failure, the DM undermines a world that runs according to logical and consistent rules, it makes the game harder on the characters.
I don't see why. Failure in shows and stories is almost always interesting for the reader, even if it isn't for the characters. If someone is going to fail in a way that would be uninteresting for the reader, details are added to make the interesting failure more plausible, instead of less. Yes, this can make things more unrealistic than the audience likes, but the intention, at least, is make things interesting over realistic, which is a laudable goal to have in a hobby.
Anyway, I agree that it can be difficult to come up with interesting failure (especially if the story is designed in a way that can't easily accommodate it). But a DM should always strive for it.
I'm noticing a trend here. When we say, "interesting failure," you take that to mean "no failure." We explain it over and over again. You still don't get it.
Because not every failure can be "interesting"
More can than you might thing, especially if you have that approach in mind.
sure if you are playing with 2 year olds you will need to keep their attention span,
Wow. That's pretty uncalled for.
sure keeping the game interesting is important, but it isn't always possible, nor should failure be always rewarded, it devalues their successes.
Boring or frustrating failure devalues their time, which is worse. But that's why boring failure works as a leash to keep players on the DM's story: the DM will make sure it's a waste of time to do otherwise, and point back at the players for wasting their own time.
rewarding failure devalues success.
Frustrating failure wastes time. When it doesn't, the threat of wasted time is used to keep players in line, devaluing their choices. And, while this is not necessarily the case for anyone involved in this discussion, frustrating failure is often so frustrating that it's avoided by DMs entirely, causing them to fudge things, or wind up providing success anyway, which definitely devalues success.
Iserith, there's no way for them to take railroading as anything other than a negative term, even though we know it's a fine way to play as long as the DM has buy-in from the players.
Every failure can be interesting. It's a choice, usually the DMs, but it doesn't have to be. That you choose for it not to be interesting is your preference, which I believe can be attributed to railroading. I make no judgment as to whether railroading is good or bad. It's simply a tool to tell a story. The only time it's bad is when it leads to problematic outcomes, normally due to a lack of player buy-in on the approach.
The problem here is your's and Centauri's definition of "interesting" and "boring" which don't seem to mean the same as what everyone elses definition is. Guards and traps are not uninteresting nor boring, in fact both would make an otherwise boring event (searching an office) interesting and exciting. Lack of player buy-in on what? Themselves?
The DM here added interesting content to the player's choice, it was the players who made it both a failure and boring (by not checking for traps and just handing everything to weak guards as a bribe) the DM stated outright, the players were free to do anything and he would have allowed it.
I switched to path because it's a word you used previously, I believe. If that was in error, I withdraw it. Its meaning remains the same, of course, but again, railroading is a tool. It is neither good nor bad inherently. (I am not going to decry it as "unethical" or anything like a post I'm sure you've read recently.) To be said to be railroading is saying you're using a tool. How you use that tool is really what matters. If you're using it without the players' consent, you are using it incorrectly. The word only has the baggage you put upon it. If it helps, I'm open to using other words for this discussion as long as we preserve the meaning.
No, it was your condesending interpretation, you are just using a different word to mean the same thing. It boils down to saying that any plot or story put in place by the DM is a railroad, and it is absurd. It has nothign to do with "permission" or even using it as a tool, a bad choice is a bad choice and even making it "interesting" it will never be as rewarding or interesting as making the correct choices.
This is simple a natural result of life. Success is rewarding, and the players should be rewarded for their success.And since the DM is trying to make an interesting game, the correct choices will lead to the more interesting material. This has nothing to do with punishing the player's for deviating form the storyline, it is simply the natural result. -shrug- chopping firewood is going to be less interesting then storming a witch's tower. The players are larger then life so they are generally taking on the most interesting, exciting quest there is, very little else is going to be as interesting or rewarding.
Failure is difficult to make interesting, because people are very rarely interested in failing. Overcoming failure or a setback is interesting
No, in fact, I made mention several times that I believe the DM in question was not acting with malice of any kind. I believe he doesn't know or doesn't agree what he's doing is using a subtle form of railroading. And that's fair enough. If he comes around to believing that he may be doing this, even unknowingly, there are ways to make it work better and we can pursue that discussion. Again, it's a tool that is enhanced with certain skills. It's not a bad thing unless your players don't buy into the method.
He wasn't railroading them at all, nor trying to punish them. If the players make uninteresting choices the DM is not railroading them. As for that the DM even tried to make the player's choices interesting, it was the player's who made it a failure (not checking for traps) and uninteresting. The DM can however only carry players so far. and it looks like these players suffer from thinking the world is like a video game
Interesting failure is still failure. The characters don't get what they want or do what they set out to do. It's simply interesting to the players even if it's a setback to the characters.
Sure, but it will rarely be as interesting nor as rewarding as success. And unless the players are looking to play a tragedy (which in some games is the case, but not ussually D&D) they won't find failure much more interesting then their chracters would. If failure is as interesting as success then yes it devalues the rewards for being successful.
Again, it is a natural consequence of things that being successful will be more rewarding then failure.
Less than you'd think. But I certainly agree that the DM should bring the players in on the process, especially when the DM can't see an interesting way forward.[/quote
Not as much as bringing them into the process as it is their response. For example, this DM had 2 weak guards (no chalenge for the players to defeat) respond to the explosion. The players then discover the guards are corrupt when one suggests a bribe. This is an interesting situation that the players could use to their advanatage, but instead they made it a boring failure.
The players had fake coins in hand, why not tell the guards they were suposed to meet the gnome there and the trap was foul play on his part, a bribe to grease the wheels, and they could have had the city guards do the leg work and bring the gnome in for them. Again the players made this boring not the DMBut does this mean you concede that if interesting failure is quick and easy to set up and deliver, then it should be?
It is equally up to the player, by his own actions/reactions to make it interesting, what was uninteresting in this situation was the players, the DM was trying to make it interestingIserith, there's no way for them to take railroading as anything other than a negative term, even though we know it's a fine way to play as long as the DM has buy-in from the players.
No, because Railroading is a horrible way to run a game, I've never railroaded my players ever, nor would i recomend the method. It is a negative term, it was created as a negative term
The problem here is your's and Centauri's definition of "interesting" and "boring" which don't seem to mean the same as what everyone elses definition is. Guards and traps are not uninteresting nor boring, in fact both would make an otherwise boring event (searching an office) interesting and exciting.
Failure.
Failure.
Failure.
Boring failure.
The issue with guards and traps and investigations (and with combat in general) is that the expected failure modes for all of those things are dead ends, or, at best, a little slap on the wrist to shame the players. Even if players deal successfully with guards, they're a little less heroic and probably still criminal, because they offered bribes, ran from the law, or killed the guards. At worst, the guards kill or capture the PCs. Boring.
Investigations very easily lead to dead ends if the PCs fail to jump through the DM's precise hoops. In this case, the players received clues for other storylines, but nothing for their main storyline for three and a half hours. Boring.
Traps outside of combat are, at best, a moment for the guys with Perception and Thievery to shine, at not-quite-the-best a zinger that does a little damage, and at worst a total hose job. We're not talking about the Tomb of Horrors in this case, but the trap did torch the office, causing the PCs to have to put out the fire (not a very heroic or engaging course of action - more like a chore) and basically getting them into further trouble with their storyline. Which would be fine, except it's not the kind of trouble that involves any forward progress. It's boring
Lack of player buy-in on what? Themselves?
Buy-in with the kinds of things that happen to their characters. We're talking about an eagerness for things to go wrong.
Combat is the classic example. Players not only expect combat, but they want combat to occur, even though combat is usually a sign that something has failed. DMs go to some lengths to make sure combat provides an interesting rather than frustrating challenge.
Unfortunately, the failure mode for combat itself often doesn't have player buy-in, which is why DMs are often looking for ways to make combat challenging but not lethal. But, then again, some players in some circumstances think a death in combat is absolutely appropriate and exciting, and embrace the scene when it occurs.
So, buy-in is about things the players want to happen. This varies from player to player, but in this case, it doesn't seem like the players wanted to spend 3 and a half hours not making progress. They also apparently didn't want to get into the trouble they DM caused to be triggered by the reckless player, even though they were able to get out of it.
The DM here added interesting content to the player's choice, it was the players who made it both a failure and boring (by not checking for traps and just handing everything to weak guards as a bribe) the DM stated outright, the players were free to do anything and he would have allowed it.
Putting it back on the players like that is a cop out. They didn't take one or two particular actions that would have made the situation interesting so the DM has no choice but to follow through with a boring outcome. The question is why a DM with any experience at all would hinge the evenings' excitement on the PCs taking any one specific action.
It has nothign to do with "permission" or even using it as a tool, a bad choice is a bad choice and even making it "interesting" it will never be as rewarding or interesting as making the correct choices.
Only if the DM decides that. In stories and movies, the wrong choice is often far more interesting than the right one would have been.
This is simple a natural result of life. Success is rewarding, and the players should be rewarded for their success.
That's a fallacious argument. Circular, at best, and petitio principii at worst.
And since the DM is trying to make an interesting game, the correct choices will lead to the more interesting material.
Why not make any choice be interesting? Why rely on correct choices? Why does anyone at the table deserve to spend their time in a boring game?
This has nothing to do with punishing the player's for deviating form the storyline, it is simply the natural result. -shrug- chopping firewood is going to be less interesting then storming a witch's tower. The players are larger then life so they are generally taking on the most interesting, exciting quest there is, very little else is going to be as interesting or rewarding.
Follow that example through: Failing to successfully chop firewood doesn't lend itself to particularly interesting outcomes, but failing to storm a witch's tower would be very interesting. With player buy-in, she could curse them, banish them, or transform them. The tower could relocate, the witch might flee, her ritual might go awry, any of which could prompt an entirely new complication or adventure. With player buy-in, the witch could even kill or imprison the players, though I wouldn't expect buy-in to those scenarios without a very interesting premise.
Failure is difficult to make interesting, because people are very rarely interested in failing. Overcoming failure or a setback is interesting
So, if failure was easy to make interesting, and the players were interested in failure, your objection would be removed?
Sure, but it will rarely be as interesting nor as rewarding as success. And unless the players are looking to play a tragedy (which in some games is the case, but not ussually D&D) they won't find failure much more interesting then their chracters would. If failure is as interesting as success then yes it devalues the rewards for being successful.
Failure can be as interesting as (or more interesting than) success, without it being the same thing. The PCs wouldn't receive the same in-game rewards, such as experience and treasure, and certain other opportunities would disappear or be put out of reach. The key aspect of an interesting failure is that the game continues in some way, even if it continues amid utter disaster. If Frodo had failed, the Middle-Earth would not have fallen immediately. The forces of darkness could still be challenged in interesting ways.
Again, it is a natural consequence of things that being successful will be more rewarding then failure.
Rewarding is not the same as interesting.
Not as much as bringing them into the process as it is their response. For example, this DM had 2 weak guards (no chalenge for the players to defeat) respond to the explosion.
But if they defeat the guards then they're exposing themselves to the DM branding them as criminals or jerking them around in some other way. They were smart not to try just killing the guards.
The players then discover the guards are corrupt when one suggests a bribe. This is an interesting situation that the players could use to their advanatage, but instead they made it a boring failure.
Because that's all the DM had allowed for. Boring failure is most common when a DM is utterly unprepared for a course of action.
The players had fake coins in hand, why not tell the guards they were suposed to meet the gnome there and the trap was foul play on his part, a bribe to grease the wheels, and they could have had the city guards do the leg work and bring the gnome in for them. Again the players made this boring not the DM
A DM who relies on their players doing the interesting thing, instead of striving to make everything they do interesting, is asking for this kind of trouble.
It is equally up to the player, by his own actions/reactions to make it interesting, what was uninteresting in this situation was the players, the DM was trying to make it interesting
I agree that's what the DM was trying to do, but without getting buy-in from the players that a situation is interesting a DM might pile boring failure on boring failure.
Iserith, there's no way for them to take railroading as anything other than a negative term, even though we know it's a fine way to play as long as the DM has buy-in from the players.
No, because Railroading is a horrible way to run a game, I've never railroaded my players ever, nor would i recomend the method. It is a negative term, it was created as a negative term
This is what I'm saying. "Railroading" is too loaded a term. I don't care whether someone is railroading or not. What I care about is when DMs are prepared for their game to become a waste of everyone's time simply as a result of player choices. A DM has the power and, frankly, the responsibilty to make sure that no matter what the players choose to do the game is interesting. If the DM can't see a way to do that, the DM should talk to the players about it.
Yes, the players have some responsibility. There's no excuse for the reckless player's actions, understandable though they are. But it's clearly not enough to assume that players are going to be interested in anything the DM puts in front of them, and DMs should take care to provide challenges that engage rather than frustrate.
Think of it this way: if something bad happened to the fictional characters in a story of any other medium than tabletop RPG, would somebody reading the story think that the story got bad just becuase the character failed at something, or did it get more interesting for showing that the character isn't a Mary Sue? If the only stories made into books were the ones where the heroes didn't have anything bad happen to them, wouldn't that get really boring?
Exactly. In stories, failure is either interesting, or it's glossed over. The heroes definitely failed in The Empire Strikes Back, and this spurred a very interesting adventure (and probably series of adventures) to overcome the failure.
D&D is not a story, but it's also not just a simulation. The DM sets up the ways the PCs can fail, and lets them make their choices. The issue comes when the DM is wrong in the assumption that a particular failure will generate an interesting storyline, and not just rankle the players. If a DM can't reliably guess what the players will find interesting, he or she should talk to them and angle the those directions. In my experience, players who are asked what kind of failure they'd find interesting are open to that failure occurring, and are engaged even when it looms or occurs.
The player might have found what I came up with as boring, punitive, not dire enough, etc.
Yes, a failure that's not bad enough can also be boring. The player sees some threat poised and thinks it would be interesting to see the follow-through, but the DM fudges things because they think the failure would be unfair.
What this ultimately leads to is that the DM brings the players more onboard, at least until the DM can reliably deliver failure scenarios that the group finds engaging. Until then, it is worth talking directly to the players about what would be a cool way for the PCs to fail a given encounter or scenario. "What should happen if..." yields answers that are the foundations for ideas that are both plausible and engaging for the people at the table. And the people at the table are the only people a DM needs to be thinking about.
Iserith's reply: I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek because nobody could reach logical conclusions like this but you, Sir_Joseph! -
---
I think you are poisoning the well with the implication that I am unable to form logical conclusions, worse... by saying '
nobody' you imply that any who disagree with you fall under the same inability to form logical conclusions. And the logic is circular in that you are implying that a statement is false because you disagree with it. You might appeal to the bandwagon, by pointing out the exaggeration as being strawman, except that the exaggeration isn't an exaggeration because players sometimes choose unusual courses of action (OP as proof). Also, even if I am indeed guilty of strawman of exaggeration, your only defense would merely result in a fallacy of moderation, in which case you are no longer arguing your original argument (which so far has little more than a fallacious appeal to novelty and equally fallacious appeal to relativism).
Unless of course you are merely noting and complimenting my logical abilities as being above the realm of ordinary mortals... in which case I appreciate the compliment and will not be so foolish as to attempt refutation, leaving that instead for posterity to decide.
What you have suggested is that A) If a player chooses an option with obvious (to rational minds) negative consequences, and B) the DM describes negative consequences, then C) the DM is punishing the player because negative consequences are a form of coercion and punishment.
A - Player chooses to stab his own eyes out, aware of the possibility that this will likely result in blindness.
B - DM rules that the player indeed becomes blind... being eyeless and all... a negative consequence.
C - Since the consequence is negative, the DM is 'punishing' the player, at least by the standard you are describing.
---
And about the railroading/pathing or whatever you want to call it by any other name...
"That you can't or won't admit it is likely because you think of railroading as inherently negative and you've justified your process to yourself and others no doubt over many years."
Describing a door is not the same as shoving a character through it. You can't seem to note the distinction. Or perhaps we won't admit to doing something we aren't doing and have simply come to the conclusion that you're merely wrong but you can't or won't admit it is likely because you've justified your process to yourself and others no doubt over many years.
Feb 9, 2013 -- 11:07PM, MrCustomer wrote:
What you have suggested is that A) If a player chooses an option with obvious (to rational minds) negative consequences, and B) the DM describes negative consequences, then C) the DM is punishing the player because negative consequences are a form of coercion and punishment.
A - Player chooses to stab his own eyes out, aware of the possibility that this will likely result in blindness.
B - DM rules that the player indeed becomes blind... being eyeless and all... a negative consequence.
C - Since the consequence is negative, the DM is 'punishing' the player, at least by the standard you are describing.
Player: Ragnar stabs his own eyes out.
DM: Great, based on established fiction, what interesting thing happens as a result of that?
Player: I can see like Neo did in Matrix Revolutions.
DM: Awesome. After some adjustment, your new sight reveals that...
You can come up with all the ludicrous hypotheticals you want. My answer to what I'm sure will be increasing hyperbole will always be to throw it back to the player and let them determine the result. As long as the player is not in violation of "Yes, and..." what's it to me? I have no plot or world to protect.
Describing a door is not the same as shoving a character through it. You can't seem to note the distinction.
I can note the distinction between a door (content) and a plot (a rail) and doling out boring/negative consequences for not following the plot (railroading). I can also note the distinction between railroading as a tool for good and for ill. And that difference is player buy-in.
Our players have ALREADY bought in, by sitting at the table, that ALL MANNER OF THINGS can and will happen to their characters... most of which are the direct result of the choices they make for the characters.
That's a pretty bad assumption for the DM to make. Accepting an invitation to game is not the same as buying into all failure conditions during the game. It's certainly a common assumption though and I'm sure at the heart of many reported problems. You know what happens when people assume.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
hehehe
Our players have ALREADY bought in, by sitting at the table, that ALL MANNER OF THINGS can and will happen to their characters... most of which are the direct result of the choices they make for the characters.
That's a pretty bad assumption for the DM to make. Accepting an invitation to game is not the same as buying into all failure conditions during the game. It's certainly a common assumption though and I'm sure at the heart of many reported problems.
Yes, this is definitely a problematic assumption. Whether or not a player should buy in to something, the DM needs to consider the reality of whether they will or do buy into it.
What you have suggested is that A) If a player chooses an option with obvious (to rational minds) negative consequences, and B) the DM describes negative consequences, then C) the DM is punishing the player because negative consequences are a form of coercion and punishment.
A - Player chooses to stab his own eyes out, aware of the possibility that this will likely result in blindness.
B - DM rules that the player indeed becomes blind... being eyeless and all... a negative consequence.
C - Since the consequence is negative, the DM is 'punishing' the player, at least by the standard you are describing.
Player: Ragnar stabs his own eyes out.
DM: Great, based on established fiction, what interesting thing happens as a result of that?
Player: I can see like Neo did in Matrix Revolutions.
DM: Awesome. After some adjustment, your new sight reveals that...
You can come up with all the ludicrous hypotheticals you want. My answer to what I'm sure will be increasing hyperbole will always be to throw it back to the player and let them determine the result. As long as the player is not in violation of "Yes, and..." what's it to me? I have no plot or world to protect.
This discussion always comes down to ludicrous hypotheticals, because the run-of-the-mill situations are rather trivial to handle in interesting ways. It's somewhat fallacious to take the concept to that sort of a conclusion, but even if one does, it's the same as any situation the DM isn't sure how to make interesting: pause the game and talk to the players. Start with enthusiasm for their idea, and give an admission of not being sure how to make it interesting. Could be that the player finds the expected result to be interesting, or more interesting than not taking the action, could be that the table together can come up with an interesting result.
Describing a door is not the same as shoving a character through it. You can't seem to note the distinction.
I can note the distinction between a door (content) and a plot (a rail) and doling out boring/negative consequences for not following the plot (railroading). I can also note the distinction between railroading as a tool for good and for ill. And that difference is player buy-in.
Anyway, it's not about the DM forcing the players to make choices that lead to boring consequences, but about the DM not being prepared or willing to provide interesting consequences for any player choice except those that are on the DM's plot.
Anyway, it's not about the DM forcing the players to make choices that lead to boring consequences, but about the DM not being prepared or willing to provide interesting consequences for any player choice except those that are on the DM's plot.
Yes, and if those consequences are "perfectly logical" (but still boring or punitive), then how could the DM possibly be railroading, right? I mean, it's "logical." It's not fun, mind you, because if it were fun, the players might take their characters further from the path! Can't have that.
I'm coining a new term for this: The Dire Bore. If you don't make the choices that keep you on the DM's plot, he sends the Dire Bore after you. You can't actually see the Dire Bore. It shows up whenever the outcome of your choice could be absolutely anything, but instead of something fun and cool to the players (even if it's bad for the PCs), it's boring. Get back on the path or the Dire Bore will get you!
Anyway, it's not about the DM forcing the players to make choices that lead to boring consequences, but about the DM not being prepared or willing to provide interesting consequences for any player choice except those that are on the DM's plot.
Yes, and if those consequences are "perfectly logical" (but still boring or punitive), then how could the DM possibly be railroading, right? I mean, it's "logical." It's not fun, mind you, because if it were fun, the players might take their characters further from the path! Can't have that.
I'm coining a new term for this: The Dire Bore. If you don't make the choices that keep you on the DM's plot, he sends the Dire Bore after you. You can't actually see the Dire Bore. It shows up whenever the outcome of your choice could be absolutely anything, but instead of something fun and cool to the players (even if it's bad for the PCs), it's boring. Get back on the path or the Dire Bore will get you!
Irony man.
First advocate methods where all choices lead to Dire Bores, then call any attempt to avoid it a railroading.
Anyway, it's not about the DM forcing the players to make choices that lead to boring consequences, but about the DM not being prepared or willing to provide interesting consequences for any player choice except those that are on the DM's plot.
Yes, and if those consequences are "perfectly logical" (but still boring or punitive), then how could the DM possibly be railroading, right? I mean, it's "logical." It's not fun, mind you, because if it were fun, the players might take their characters further from the path! Can't have that.
Yes, a plot, especially a secret plot which is what we have in this case, makes it difficult to either accept or encourage the vast array of player choices that doesn't move the players along that plot.
Irony man.
First advocate methods where all choices lead to Dire Bores, then call any attempt to avoid it a railroading.
I don't follow you. I'm not advocating that all choices lead to Dire Bores. I'm saying that's a name for the phenomenon at play here: Make a choice that's not on the invisible path and you get town guards, locked doors, useless information, and land mines (Dire Bores). Make a choice on the invisible path and get progress and fun. That there is an invisible path means there is a rail. That you're punishing choices that go away from that invisible path with boring consequences is railroading. (And remember, you're the one who thinks railroading is bad, not me. I just think it's bad if you don't have player buy-in.)
If you don't have a plot, there are no "wrong" choices. There are simply choices. What those choices mean and what they lead to are determined by dice results and collaboration. If you do have a plot and you don't want your prep to go to waste, then you're going to have to do some railroading when your players go off-script. Use of the Dire Bore is a form of railroading. If you've gotten their buy-in, no problem. If you don't, problem.
Often, this means a whole bunch of choices leading to dire bores. I'm not saying your are advocating that all choices lead to Dire Bores; I'm saying that what you are advocating WILL lead to dire bores. It's the only option you're leaving. And having only a single option (and that a bad one) is a railroad, by its worst connotations... a railroad leading to the dire bore forest.
If the DM has put effort into an adventure that will likely lead to an interesting game session, he's not ACTIVELY setting out to place dire bores every where else and planning great punishments because they didn't buy in to his adventure. They are simply there. If the DM is standing at the edge of the woods shouting "Come THIS WAY! THIS WAY! Exciting adventure here and Nothing but Dire bores that way!", he is trying to help the players avoid a dire bore, not punishing them. They may not encounter a dire bore, but if the DM gives them a map (Just realized... this is the player stabbing himself in the eye again) with red letters on it saying Dire Bores be here... that isn't PUNISHMENT, nor is it railroading. The only evil railroad is when the DM says "Nope. You CAN'T go that way" or when no matter where you go is a 'punishment'.
If the DM decides to forget plot/plans altogether (and instead decides to wing it.. the players may indeed have the best adventures ever. Some of the best happen on the fly. But it doesn't always happen. It's like Babe Ruth reaching back for a home run.... check out his strikeout percentage, though. Big dire bore. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss.
And collaboration might save the day occasionally. I rely on it when all else fails. Like amputation. A last resort, not the best resort. But you're taking what works well as a last resort and thinking that since it proves effective in some situations it therefore must be the best solution for ALL situations, not seeing its drawbacks.
Often, this means a whole bunch of choices leading to dire bores. I'm not saying your are advocating that all choices lead to Dire Bores; I'm saying that what you are advocating WILL lead to dire bores. It's the only option you're leaving. And having only a single option (and that a bad one) is a railroad, by its worst connotations... a railroad leading to the dire bore forest.
This is often the position put forth by DMs who write plots and stories under the Hickman method - that if there is a lack of plot or story predetermined by the DM, then there is just a lot of wandering around and nothing going on. That's not really the case, you see, because the DM prepares content, often locations. What he doesn't prepare is a plot. I know what you're talking about though. You're really describing something I call the "quicksand box," and it's a common mistake for many DMs. It's an open world with no real content that requires very proactive players to work. Lacking content and fictional context, the players have nothing to grab onto and so they wander around and burn down taverns.
As well, you're forgetting a major aspect of the Dire Bore: It's used only when you have a plot, to discourage the players from wandering away from said plot and doing something else. If you have no plot, then choices are choices and outcomes are outcomes, except I can make every single outcome interesting because I'm not beholden to any plot. No plot to protect, no need for Dire Bores.
If the DM has put effort into an adventure that will likely lead to an interesting game session, he's not ACTIVELY setting out to place dire bores every where else and planning great punishments because they didn't buy in to his adventure. They are simply there.
Doesn't that sound weird to you? Dire bores are "simply there?" The DM puts them there.
If the DM is standing at the edge of the woods shouting "Come THIS WAY! THIS WAY! Exciting adventure here and Nothing but Dire bores that way!", he is trying to help the players avoid a dire bore, not punishing them.
He's helping them stay on his plot. The dire bores are put there by the DM to encourage them to do that. The dire bore is a form of railroading.
They may not encounter a dire bore, but if the DM gives them a map (Just realized... this is the player stabbing himself in the eye again) with red letters on it saying Dire Bores be here... that isn't PUNISHMENT, nor is it railroading. The only evil railroad is when the DM says "Nope. You CAN'T go that way" or when no matter where you go is a 'punishment'.
That last bit is the very definition of a dire bore. If all you're going to do is wave at your players to follow your plot and anything not on that plot is going to be a dire bore, why did you offer them a choice in the first place? Here's where buy-in comes in. Just tell them you have a plot and action and adventure will be on that plot and nowhere else. At least then they can opt in or opt out. Don't offer choices that aren't really a choice. What's the point of that?
If the DM decides to forget plot/plans altogether (and instead decides to wing it.. the players may indeed have the best adventures ever. Some of the best happen on the fly. But it doesn't always happen. It's like Babe Ruth reaching back for a home run.... check out his strikeout percentage, though. Big dire bore. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss.
And collaboration might save the day occasionally. I rely on it when all else fails. Like amputation. A last resort, not the best resort. But you're taking what works well as a last resort and thinking that since it proves effective in some situations it therefore must be the best solution for ALL situations, not seeing its drawbacks.
Collaboration works every time to create content everyone enjoys. So does running an adventure with a plot that the players have bought into, even if they know they're being railroaded.
Quick summary because the whole story would be long.
-Situation needed us to interrogate a dragon that doesn't speak common. No one in the party knew Draconic.
-I attempted to communicate through interpretive dance.
-While I was doing that, someone ran to town and found a translator.
-We caught the dragon in a lie.
-I decided to intimidate it.(word to the wise, don't intimidate a dragon)
-Dragon threatens to get revenge on my family for this offence.
-I laugh and mention I have no family. As for possible descendants, I figure it's their problem now.
-Another situation, we were pretending to be mercenaries. One guy tells our Bard to kill me to prove we're loyal. I tell the Bard to pretend to stab me.
-We both critfail Bluff checks, enemy crits Insight check. I play along and do the stumbling around "dying" for 5 minutes while going on a long speech about how cruel life is, how I'm cut down in the prime of my life, how I'll never get to be a professional dancer, etc.
-Enemy didn't buy it.
-We stab them in the face.
Just some examples on how to make failure interesting
Player: Ragnar stabs his own eyes out.
DM: Great, based on established fiction, what interesting thing happens as a result of that?
Player: I can see like Neo did in Matrix Revolutions.
DM: Awesome. After some adjustment, your new sight reveals that...
You can come up with all the ludicrous hypotheticals you want. My answer to what I'm sure will be increasing hyperbole will always be to throw it back to the player and let them determine the result. As long as the player is not in violation of "Yes, and..." what's it to me? I have no plot or world to protect.
Yay! then "everyone wins" and there is "no player left behind" and a whole pile of new-age, hipster cache words and phrases.
Lame and boring. It lacks intergrity, plausibility and is incoherent nonsence. I've sat in this kind of group once, with a pandering DM, and only sat with them once and never came back. There is nothing interesting about a story that makes no sense.
It isn't just a matter of "protecting a plot" but of maintaining the masquerade, the suspension of belief. If the character in your example, wanted funky vision then he could achieve that with a ritual or enchantment or feat, even one of his own design, or overcome the chalenge of having his eyes stabbed out in some other way. What you are essentially suggesting is that DMs should reward their players for stupid choices.
"You stabbed your eyes out? Now you have special Arcane vision? Awesome?", "you chopped your legs off? Now without those feet that were weighing you down you can fly? Awesome!" It's less of a game and more of a fantasy circle @$&#
This is often the position put forth by DMs who write plots and stories under the Hickman method - that if there is a lack of plot or story predetermined by the DM, then there is just a lot of wandering around and nothing going on. That's not really the case, you see, because the DM prepares content, often locations. What he doesn't prepare is a plot. I know what you're talking about though. You're really describing something I call the "quicksand box," and it's a common mistake for many DMs. It's an open world with no real content that requires very proactive players to work. Lacking content and fictional context, the players have nothing to grab onto and so they wander around and burn down taverns.
Any content is a plot, by it's definition. If the DM places an Evil artifact in the world and a villian looking for that artifact, then you have a plot (the players trying to stop said villain or destroy the artifact to keep it from him)
As well, you're forgetting a major aspect of the Dire Bore: It's used only when you have a plot, to discourage the players from wandering away from said plot and doing something else.
That isn't true, it is just a natural outcome of boring choices. The players can choose to storm an evil wizard's tower to stop his summoning ritual and save the world from the demon hordes that will be unleashed, or they could choose to go into the woods and chop firewood. One has epic adventure, the other has 5 silver coins a chord.
The bottom line is that even if I try to make chopping firewood exciting, the best they are going to get is rescuing little red riding hood from the big bad wolf,
If you have no plot, then choices are choices and outcomes are outcomes, except I can make every single outcome interesting because I'm not beholden to any plot. No plot to protect, no need for Dire Bores.
That isn't true of games with plots, players stray into side-plots all the time. It's a good way to get the players geared and leveled for the next stage of the plot. The only thing that is boring is boring choices, the only thing that fails is bad choices. These happen.If the players want the game to be interesting then they need to make interesting choices and try to find creative solutions.
If instead of choosing one of the many good choices available, or coming up with a creative choice of their own, the player decides to do something stupid or makes a bad choice, then they will reap what they sow. This is nothing to do with protecting a plot, it is a matter of the cohesiveness of the game in general.
Doesn't that sound weird to you? Dire bores are "simply there?" The DM puts them there.
Or the player chooses a boring action. Like choosing to chop firewood over high adventure? It isn't that the DM puts them there, it's that the player searches for them.
He's helping them stay on his plot. The dire bores are put there by the DM to encourage them to do that. The dire bore is a form of railroading.
I disagree, it isn't a form of railroading.
Situation, the Player is inside a building and there is something exciting happening outside the building, (the plot)and there happens to be a non-descript room inside the building (ie a closet) and the player decides that instead of seeing what the commotion outside is, that he is going to extensively and exhaustively search that closet and examine, sort, apraise and research each and every individual item in it, looking for clues. Is the Dm railroading the player by having uninteresting, even boring, results from that extensive closet search?
Not supporting bad ideas is not a form of railroading.
Collaboration works every time to create content everyone enjoys. So does running an adventure with a plot that the players have bought into, even if they know they're being railroaded.
If your example with the player stabbing his own eyes out is what you mean by collaberation, then I have several groups of players who would up and walk from your games because they are unenjoyable bores
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...(The_Seriously_Seriously_Moment)
Yay! then "everyone wins" and there is "no player left behind" and a whole pile of new-age, hipster cache words and phrases.
Lame and boring. It lacks intergrity, plausibility and is incoherent nonsence. I've sat in this kind of group once, with a pandering DM, and only sat with them once and never came back. There is nothing interesting about a story that makes no sense.
It isn't just a matter of "protecting a plot" but of maintaining the masquerade, the suspension of belief. If the character in your example, wanted funky vision then he could achieve that with a ritual or enchantment or feat, even one of his own design, or overcome the chalenge of having his eyes stabbed out in some other way. What you are essentially suggesting is that DMs should reward their players for stupid choices.
"You stabbed your eyes out? Now you have special Arcane vision? Awesome?", "you chopped your legs off? Now without those feet that were weighing you down you can fly? Awesome!" It's less of a game and more of a fantasy circle @$&#
Is the ability of a blind character to see the auras of creatures more plausible or less plausible than a red dragon laying waste to a village? Or a wizard casting a necromantic ritual to create an army of undead? Or pixies and satyrs cavorting in a sunny glade?
None of those things are plausible and all require suspension of disbelief. The difference is the fictional context. Despite the ludicrous hypothetical, presumably, the character stabbing out his own eyes and gaining arcane sight has some fictional reason to back it up, otherwise the player would be in violation of "Yes, and..." principles. Just like a red dragon has fictional context to lay waste to a village. The players choice wasn't stupid. The player's choice was just a choice, and the outcome can be anything the DM wants it to be. He can choose something boring or something cool. If the DM settles upon a boring outcome, why?
Any content is a plot, by it's definition. If the DM places an Evil artifact in the world and a villian looking for that artifact, then you have a plot (the players trying to stop said villain or destroy the artifact to keep it from him)
No, a plot is a predetermined sequence of events. You can read a couple articles in my signature to see what I'm referring to, especially "Don't Prep the Plot."
That isn't true, it is just a natural outcome of boring choices. The players can choose to storm an evil wizard's tower to stop his summoning ritual and save the world from the demon hordes that will be unleashed, or they could choose to go into the woods and chop firewood. One has epic adventure, the other has 5 silver coins a chord.
What if the characters ran into some orcs or dryads or treants while chopping wood? Would that be plausible or not plausible?
The bottom line is that even if I try to make chopping firewood exciting, the best they are going to get is rescuing little red riding hood from the big bad wolf,
Because that's what you, the DM, decided. You have a plot to protect, so any choice not on that plot does not lead to anything interesting.
That isn't true of games with plots, players stray into side-plots all the time. It's a good way to get the players geared and leveled for the next stage of the plot. The only thing that is boring is boring choices, the only thing that fails is bad choices. These happen.If the players want the game to be interesting then they need to make interesting choices and try to find creative solutions.
If instead of choosing one of the many good choices available, or coming up with a creative choice of their own, the player decides to do something stupid or makes a bad choice, then they will reap what they sow. This is nothing to do with protecting a plot, it is a matter of the cohesiveness of the game in general.
You're missing a key point. Not all games with plots have Dire Bores. That's just what some DMs do and it is a form of railroading. Also, how do you determine a choice is bad? Arbitrarily? Because sometimes a bad choice can lead to a good result due to other circumstances or just pure luck. It sounds to me like you're shooting down ideas you arbitrarily consider bad - "bad" being defined as "not relevant to the plot" - because you have a plot to protect. That makes perfect sense to me. The difference is, if I have a predetermined plot, I'm not going to offer the players a choice. I'm going to get their buy-in by being transparent and letting them know the adventure is on the plot and nowhere else.
Or the player chooses a boring action. Like choosing to chop firewood over high adventure? It isn't that the DM puts them there, it's that the player searches for them.
Chopping firewood can lead to adventure. Just not the adventure or the plot you wrote up for that session, so you discourage it by making it boring. That's railroading. And that's okay, if you have player buy-in. They wouldn't have made the choice to chop firewood if you would just tell them their choices only really matter when it's on your plot.
I disagree, it isn't a form of railroading.
See my last.
Situation, the Player is inside a building and there is something exciting happening outside the building, (the plot)and there happens to be a non-descript room inside the building (ie a closet) and the player decides that instead of seeing what the commotion outside is, that he is going to extensively and exhaustively search that closet and examine, sort, apraise and research each and every individual item in it, looking for clues. Is the Dm railroading the player by having uninteresting, even boring, results from that extensive closet search?
Not supporting bad ideas is not a form of railroading.
If the DM has arbitrarily decided that there is nothing interesting in the closet because he wants the characters to follow his plot instead, then yes, he's railroading.
If your example with the player stabbing his own eyes out is what you mean by collaberation, then I have several groups of players who would up and walk from your games because they are unenjoyable bores
See, the difference in our lines of discussion here is that I'm not judging your style. I'm simply stating what it is (I ran games this exact same way for 20+ years) and what DMs need to do to make it work best while you make statements like "hipster" and "new age" and "attention span of 2 year olds" about a style that is not your own. That you or some guys you know wouldn't enjoy a Gygaxian style game with "Yes, and..." and collaboration is perfectly okay with me. Those are preferences and I'm not trying to sell you on anything. I'm just saying to make the Hickman style work best, you need player buy-in on the fact that the adventures are along the plot the DM has created.
That said, collaboration goes well beyond the hypothetical that Sir_Joseph put forth. Done right, collaboration creates a lot of game content that everyone finds interesting and snowballs into compelling action with almost no effort. If you were truly interested, we could explore that in another thread. My guess is you're not, and that's okay, too.
I enjoy how Sir Joseph is arguing against the DM doing their best to create interesting failure, when he created this thread -
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...(The_Seriously_Seriously_Moment)
Thanks, Fitzco. That's very illuminating.
Interestingly, what's missing here? A plot. Sir_Joseph had no plot to protect because he was a player in the game, not the DM. And so when the DM didn't choose an interesting failure condition, he rightly objected.
Also, it is important that if you try several different methods you try them several times instead of just once. It may be that only one method really works with how your group likes to play the game and every time you try a different method it just falls flat. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with that method necessarily, it just means that it's not right for the group you're trying it with.
At the same time, we shouldn't disparage someone for sticking to their preferred method within their group. They may already discuss lots of these things with their group and have come to learn that the method they are using is the only one that the group wants. While it may not work within your group, that method works within theirs.
So basically, every group is different. Everyone is going to play the game a different way. The only way to find out which way works best is through trial and error and especially good communication within the group.
This is often the position put forth by DMs who write plots and stories under the Hickman method - that if there is a lack of plot or story predetermined by the DM, then there is just a lot of wandering around and nothing going on. That's not really the case, you see, because the DM prepares content, often locations. What he doesn't prepare is a plot. I know what you're talking about though. You're really describing something I call the "quicksand box," and it's a common mistake for many DMs. It's an open world with no real content that requires very proactive players to work. Lacking content and fictional context, the players have nothing to grab onto and so they wander around and burn down taverns.
Any content is a plot, by it's definition. If the DM places an Evil artifact in the world and a villian looking for that artifact, then you have a plot (the players trying to stop said villain or destroy the artifact to keep it from him)
The Evil artifact and the villain looking for it (and what happens if the villain finds it) are one thing. Assuming the players will engage in trying to stop the villain is another, as is assuming certain events will occur in the process of stopping the villain
That isn't true, it is just a natural outcome of boring choices. The players can choose to storm an evil wizard's tower to stop his summoning ritual and save the world from the demon hordes that will be unleashed, or they could choose to go into the woods and chop firewood. One has epic adventure, the other has 5 silver coins a chord.
Storming the wizard's tower is fun, because the DM intends it to be fun. The monsters are there to be killed, and the challenges are intended to be overcome. Doing so will reward the players.
Causing mayhem in town is not fun, because the DM either doesn't see how to make it fun, or is intentionally not making it fun. Killing or even nullifying the opposition exposes the players to the risk of hotter water, and failing to do so means death or imprisonment, which damages or ruins the DM's story. Succeeding with the mayhem also means damage or ruination of the DM's story. A DM who can't see how to make a choice like this interesting, and doesn't talk to the players, might just lose control of the game as the "natural outcomes" lead to worse and worse situations. A DM who doesn't want to make a choice like this interesting doesn't talk to the players and sends the game into worse and worse situations while using the excuse of "natural outcomes." The former is merely in over their head, the latter is using boring, deprotagonizing "natural outcomes" to make players wish they'd just gone along with what the DM had planned.
At best, the DM who can't or won't make a choice like this interesting just deems it to be no impact, like chopping wood. Sometimes that's okay. I had a player kill an innocent town drunk once. It was a one-off game, but I had no plans for having anything good, bad, or interesting stem from that choice. It was just background. It's better to make a player choice interesting, but not always necessary. It's never necessary to make a player choice punishingly boring.
The bottom line is that even if I try to make chopping firewood exciting, the best they are going to get is rescuing little red riding hood from the big bad wolf,
That's far more exciting than earning a few silvers. I could imagine someone really going to town with an adventure like that.
That isn't true of games with plots, players stray into side-plots all the time. It's a good way to get the players geared and leveled for the next stage of the plot. The only thing that is boring is boring choices, the only thing that fails is bad choices. These happen.If the players want the game to be interesting then they need to make interesting choices and try to find creative solutions.
No player wants a game to be boring. If they make a choice, it's because they think it will be interesting. If they make what appears to be a boring choice, it's because they're putting it back on the DM to make it interesting. It's a natural instinct of DMs to refuse to take the ball, but what does that accomplish, other than a waste of time?
No DM wants a game to be boring either, but too often DMs have an additional want: They want the game to follow what they have prepared. That, they feel, would guarantee their own excitement, and also be more exciting for the players (and the DM) than the DM having to deal with non-prepared-for choices on the fly. They put work into the game, and want to see it come to fruition. Players who stray from the prepared game, for whatever reason are nudged back into it. One of the ways to do that is to make the prepared game seem much more interesting. Sure, the players can assassinate that important NPC, but why don't they make a Streetwise check. Hm, a 1? Well, that's enough to tell them that the NPC would be impossible to assassinate and the PCs would just end up dead or in prison. That doesn't sound fun does it? So, moving on....
If instead of choosing one of the many good choices available, or coming up with a creative choice of their own, the player decides to do something stupid or makes a bad choice, then they will reap what they sow. This is nothing to do with protecting a plot, it is a matter of the cohesiveness of the game in general.
Having them reap what they sow is just a passive-aggressive way to tell players not to make "stupid" or "bad" choices. It's lame and it's a waste of time. If you're having an issue with how a player acts, or there's some kind of disconnect, talk to them. Don't just shrug and let (or make) the game become boring for that player.
He's helping them stay on his plot. The dire bores are put there by the DM to encourage them to do that. The dire bore is a form of railroading.
I disagree, it isn't a form of railroading.
Situation, the Player is inside a building and there is something exciting happening outside the building, (the plot)and there happens to be a non-descript room inside the building (ie a closet) and the player decides that instead of seeing what the commotion outside is, that he is going to extensively and exhaustively search that closet and examine, sort, apraise and research each and every individual item in it, looking for clues. Is the Dm railroading the player by having uninteresting, even boring, results from that extensive closet search?
The DM is wasting the player's time. If a player is taking an apparently "boring" action, the DM should either find out why that action is more interesting to the player than what the DM plotted, or should find a way to make that action matter.
Not supporting bad ideas is not a form of railroading.
Allowing or causing "bad" ideas to lead to boring results is a waste of time. Don't waste peoples' time.
If your example with the player stabbing his own eyes out is what you mean by collaberation, then I have several groups of players who would up and walk from your games because they are unenjoyable bores
It's not.
Is the ability of a blind character to see the auras of creatures more plausible or less plausible than a red dragon laying waste to a village? Or a wizard casting a necromantic ritual to create an army of undead? Or pixies and satyrs cavorting in a sunny glade?
None of those things are plausible and all require suspension of disbelief. The difference is the fictional context. Despite the ludicrous hypothetical, presumably, the character stabbing out his own eyes and gaining arcane sight has some fictional reason to back it up, otherwise the player would be in violation of "Yes, and..." principles. Just like a red dragon has fictional context to lay waste to a village. The players choice wasn't stupid. The player's choice was just a choice, and the outcome can be anything the DM wants it to be. He can choose something boring or something cool.
The "suspension of disbelief" works because there is plausible explaination within the setting's rules. ie NEO's ability to see matrix style is his realization that he isn't "seeing" anything, but is being fed code, the matrix isn't an actual place, it's a program that is being downloaded into his brain, it's what everyone is really seeing, he's just understanding it.
Arcane sight is just as plausible as a red dragon, but it needs fictional context beyond just a reference to another fatasy/sci fi setting. How does he gain Arcane Sight when he goes blind? Is it because of a magical or divine ritual? Intense training and disipline to gain a feat or ability? And enchantment? A magical Item (a blindfold of arcane sight?) Various enchantments to enhance your other senses to compensate?
If it is just that the see somethign they didn't want to and say "I stab my eyes out" and you ask "What would be an interesting result?" and they say "I get arcane sight, like NEO in the Matrix" then there is no plausible explaination. It's not a question of allowing or denying the ability, it is a question of "how are you going to gain this ability?"
What if the characters ran into some orcs or dryads or treants while chopping wood? Would that be plausible or not plausible?
And? None of which, (other then a sidequest) is going to be as good as the actual plot. You've got a handful of interesting encounters while chopping firewood, but not high adventure and still not as exciting as the main plot. And even then what if the player persists on being boring, running away from the orcs, or just surrendering to them? Or running from the dryads and treants to chop firewood in another part of the forest?
Or will you railroad them with constant encounters to force them away from their efforts to earn an honest living chopping firewood? Orcs harrassing them and Dryads and treants protecting the forest? Some of us don't railroad our characters like that.
"The bottom line is that even if I try to make chopping firewood exciting, the best they are going to get is rescuing little red riding hood from the big bad wolf,"
Because that's what you, the DM, decided. You have a plot to protect, so any choice not on that plot does not lead to anything interesting.
No, because they have chosen a boring path. Again nothing to do with protecting the story. I know you are inclined to railroad your player's efforts to make the game artificially interesting, but other DMs respect the player's choices. And it comes down to how interesting of an encounter is there going to be from chopping firewood? And how many such encoutners are you going to throw at them before it becomes a matter of railroading them away from their goal of an honest day's work chopping firewood?
You're missing a key point. Not all games with plots have Dire Bores. That's just what some DMs do and it is a form of railroading. Also, how do you determine a choice is bad? Arbitrarily? Because sometimes a bad choice can lead to a good result due to other circumstances or just pure luck. It sounds to me like you're shooting down ideas you arbitrarily consider bad - "bad" being defined as "not relevant to the plot" - because you have a plot to protect. That makes perfect sense to me. The difference is, if I have a predetermined plot, I'm not going to offer the players a choice. I'm going to get their buy-in by being transparent and letting them know the adventure is on the plot and nowhere else.
Noone said anything about any choice away from the plot being negative or uninteresting, nor with shooting down imaginative choices the DM didn't see. It is just a matter that if the DM is doing a good job the plot will be more interesting then anything else. If the players aren't interested in the DM's plot, then it's a sure sign that his plot sucks or is so vague as to be uncomprehendable by the players.
I mean if the players are choosing to veer from the plot the DM has to ask himself why? Is he not giving them proper plot hooks? is his challenges either unrewarding, uninteresting or just tooo dificult (noone wants to fight overpowering enemies they can't realistically face) Providing improvised adventure with a handful of random encounters and fudged events that are ultimately less interesting then the plot I prepared and that don't really accomplish anything are not the answer to the problem.
And while the Players can choose boring or bad decisions, they can also make very rewarding and interesting choices that are better then what I anticipated, straying from the overall plot or pursuing unrelated plots is not a bad thing, especially in a long campaign, and generally any subplot or sideside quest results in advancing their characters, which is needed for the overall plot. We are talking about definitively bad choices.
Chopping firewood can lead to adventure. Just not the adventure or the plot you wrote up for that session, so you discourage it by making it boring. That's railroading. And that's okay, if you have player buy-in. They wouldn't have made the choice to chop firewood if you would just tell them their choices only really matter when it's on your plot.
Again, aren't you are the one advocating railroading them with adventure when they are trying to chop firewood? Do their choices matter if you won't let them live a simple, wholesome life earning an honest living by hard work?
If they weren't willing to storm the wizard's tower, then what makes you think that placing an equally exciting opportunity in the forest for them is going to fair any better? It comes down this, that whatever adventure you place in the forest by random and fudge encounters while they chop firewood is not going to be as interesting as the main plot, if anything becase you will run out of things that can happen in that 1 or 2 acres of forest they are chopping firewood in.
If the DM has arbitrarily decided that there is nothing interesting in the closet because he wants the characters to follow his plot instead, then yes, he's railroading.
Interesting definition of "arbitrarily decided" since this was just a non-descript building, what do you mean? What you are suggesting is that the DM is punishing his players to force them to follow his plot if he doresn't make the closet exciting? Or that the DM should put what the player is looking for in his closet?
DM: Well I said it was the cleaning closet, what are you looking for? Player: I am looking for a magical weapon to defeat the anceint red dragon outside" Should the DM say:
a: "Well there is a mop that you could use as a short staff and a bucket of water to help put out any fires with, but who said there was an ancient red dragon outside, I only said you heard a commotion?"
or
b: "Is the ancient sword of Dragon's Bane, left there by the inn's owner, a retired dragon slayer, you know this because he also keeps his journal here in the cleaning closet, good enough"
You are suggesting that the DM must make this closet interesting, or else he is railroading the players, and should either let the player decide what's in the closet or else admit he is railroading.
Me, it's up to the player if he can or might make the closet interesting. Perhaps with use of the mop and rags and and various other mundane items in the closet, he will cobble together some sort of improvised disguise to try and sneak out of the building undetected and with a few rolls, bypass my whole "your surrounded by enemy mercenaries looking for you" encounter is a suprising defeat.
Railroading would be not allowing the disguise, or making it fail despite his rolls. Not putting a magical weapon or secret passage in a closet, just because the player expects that there will be one there just because he thought of it, is not railroading.
What if the characters ran into some orcs or dryads or treants while chopping wood? Would that be plausible or not plausible?
And? None of which, (other then a sidequest) is going to be as good as the actual plot. You've got a handful of interesting encounters while chopping firewood, but not high adventure and still not as exciting as the main plot.
The DM decides that. The improvised plot might be far better than the "actual" plot, if the DM lets be, or works with the players to make it so.
And even then what if the player persists on being boring, running away from the orcs, or just surrendering to them? Or running from the dryads and treants to chop firewood in another part of the forest?
No player deliberately wants to have a boring game. If a player seems to, it's time for the DM to talk to the player.
If the players aren't interested in the DM's plot, then it's a sure sign that his plot sucks or is so vague as to be uncomprehendable by the players.
That's right. Time for the DM to improvise or collaborate.
I mean if the players are choosing to veer from the plot the DM has to ask himself why?
Or ask the players.
Is he not giving them proper plot hooks? is his challenges either unrewarding, uninteresting or just tooo dificult (noone wants to fight overpowering enemies they can't realistically face)
What I've emphasized is exactly what we're talking about.
Providing improvised adventure with a handful of random encounters and fudged events that are ultimately less interesting then the plot I prepared and that don't really accomplish anything are not the answer to the problem.
Not necessarily true, especially if the players aren't engaged with the plot. And anyway an improvized adventure can be more than "a handful of random encounters" and "fudged events," especially if the DM collaborates with the players. And if the PCs aren't trying to answer "the problem," maybe there's another problem they'd like to answer. Talk to them.
And while the Players can choose boring or bad decisions, they can also make very rewarding and interesting choices that are better then what I anticipated, straying from the overall plot or pursuing unrelated plots is not a bad thing, especially in a long campaign, and generally any subplot or sideside quest results in advancing their characters, which is needed for the overall plot. We are talking about definitively bad choices.
I don't think we are. We're talking about choices the DM can't see how to make interesting or prefers not to. And about talking to the players when that happens.
If they weren't willing to storm the wizard's tower, then what makes you think that placing an equally exciting opportunity in the forest for them is going to fair any better?
Because storming a wizard's tower isn't the end-all-be-all of adventure. It's possible that what they aren't willing to do is engage in anything the DM preplotted. If that isn't conveyed to the DM before all the work is put in, that's unfortunate, but once the DM learns it, something the players ARE interested in can be kicked off.
It comes down this, that whatever adventure you place in the forest by random and fudge encounters while they chop firewood is not going to be as interesting as the main plot, if anything becase you will run out of things that can happen in that 1 or 2 acres of forest they are chopping firewood in.
Not in a fantasy game.
If the DM has arbitrarily decided that there is nothing interesting in the closet because he wants the characters to follow his plot instead, then yes, he's railroading.
Interesting definition of "arbitrarily decided" since this was just a non-descript building, what do you mean? What you are suggesting is that the DM is punishing his players to force them to follow his plot if he doresn't make the closet exciting? Or that the DM should put what the player is looking for in his closet?
I'm suggesting that the DM get on the same page as the player. Maybe the player took the mention of the closet as a clue, and is convinced that there's something interesting in there. Why couldn't there be something interesting in there?
You are suggesting that the DM must make this closet interesting, or else he is railroading the players, and should either let the player decide what's in the closet or else admit he is railroading.
No. The closet example is preposterous. What would be more in line with this discussion would be the DM expecting the PCs to pursue a fleeing NPC or ransack the PCs office. The DM has his idea of what would be interesting, and the players have theirs (or one player has theirs). The players' idea can plausibly be made interesting, or at least not frustrating, but the players rightfully fear that it will expose them to further frustration. That's not a boring action vs. an interesting action, it's a different interesting action than what the DM had in mind, and the DM lets the situation turn out to be boring in hopes that next time the players will do what the DM is prepared for them to do.
Railroading would be not allowing the disguise, or making it fail despite his rolls. Not putting a magical weapon or secret passage in a closet, just because the player expects that there will be one there just because he thought of it, is not railroading.
The whole example gives the players only one thing to do: get past the commotion outside. They can do it however they want, but they have to do it, because the DM doesn't have anything else planned. Anything else will lead them back to that, or be too boring to be bothered with. In terms of the original post, the players were welcome to ransack the office, but the DM wasn't going to let that move them along the plot, because it wasn't the next action that the DM knew was required to move the plot along.
The "suspension of disbelief" works because there is plausible explaination within the setting's rules. ie NEO's ability to see matrix style is his realization that he isn't "seeing" anything, but is being fed code, the matrix isn't an actual place, it's a program that is being downloaded into his brain, it's what everyone is really seeing, he's just understanding it.
Arcane sight is just as plausible as a red dragon, but it needs fictional context beyond just a reference to another fatasy/sci fi setting. How does he gain Arcane Sight when he goes blind? Is it because of a magical or divine ritual? Intense training and disipline to gain a feat or ability? And enchantment? A magical Item (a blindfold of arcane sight?) Various enchantments to enhance your other senses to compensate?
If it is just that the see somethign they didn't want to and say "I stab my eyes out" and you ask "What would be an interesting result?" and they say "I get arcane sight, like NEO in the Matrix" then there is no plausible explaination. It's not a question of allowing or denying the ability, it is a question of "how are you going to gain this ability?"
So we agree. Given appropriate fictional context, any outcome can be made to be interesting. The whole Neo thing might not work in your game, but it could work in others just fine. It's the specific example, not the process that is the problem.
Now, I am assuming that you are playing in a fictional fantasy world where every single possible outcome has not already been written down as law. As such, you have a lot of flexibility to make the outcomes to player actions fun and engaging rather than punitive and boring. To suggest that a boring outcome you devise is the only possible outcome or that you weren't responsible for creating the outcome is a complete cop-out. This is most definitely in your control. If boring outcomes are what you're choosing for your players when they're taking actions that are not in line with your plot, own up to it and then explain why you're doing it: Because the adventure is where the plot is and you're railroading.
And? None of which, (other then a sidequest) is going to be as good as the actual plot. You've got a handful of interesting encounters while chopping firewood, but not high adventure and still not as exciting as the main plot. And even then what if the player persists on being boring, running away from the orcs, or just surrendering to them? Or running from the dryads and treants to chop firewood in another part of the forest?
Or will you railroad them with constant encounters to force them away from their efforts to earn an honest living chopping firewood? Orcs harrassing them and Dryads and treants protecting the forest? Some of us don't railroad our characters like that.
You can only railroad if you have a rail and you only have a rail if you have a plot. No plot, no railroad possible. You're also stating that a game with a plot will always be better than no plot. That's just a preference, not a fact. If a player is avoiding all action and adventure, plot or no plot, then that is deserving of an out-of-game conversation to determine what everyone wants out of the game.
No, because they have chosen a boring path. Again nothing to do with protecting the story. I know you are inclined to railroad your player's efforts to make the game artificially interesting, but other DMs respect the player's choices. And it comes down to how interesting of an encounter is there going to be from chopping firewood? And how many such encoutners are you going to throw at them before it becomes a matter of railroading them away from their goal of an honest day's work chopping firewood?
You can't railroad if you have no plot. If the player wants the character to chop wood, then he chops wood. The DM can certainly throw challenges at the character while he does so as this is in the DM's purview. If the player's not interested in them, then ask the player what he would be interested in. If it's "just chop wood," then this is a separate problem and one that gets discussed outside of the context of the game.
Noone said anything about any choice away from the plot being negative or uninteresting, nor with shooting down imaginative choices the DM didn't see. It is just a matter that if the DM is doing a good job the plot will be more interesting then anything else. If the players aren't interested in the DM's plot, then it's a sure sign that his plot sucks or is so vague as to be uncomprehendable by the players.
I mean if the players are choosing to veer from the plot the DM has to ask himself why? Is he not giving them proper plot hooks? is his challenges either unrewarding, uninteresting or just tooo dificult (noone wants to fight overpowering enemies they can't realistically face) Providing improvised adventure with a handful of random encounters and fudged events that are ultimately less interesting then the plot I prepared and that don't really accomplish anything are not the answer to the problem.
And while the Players can choose boring or bad decisions, they can also make very rewarding and interesting choices that are better then what I anticipated, straying from the overall plot or pursuing unrelated plots is not a bad thing, especially in a long campaign, and generally any subplot or sideside quest results in advancing their characters, which is needed for the overall plot. We are talking about definitively bad choices.
Yes, it's possible the DM's plot sucks. What you're saying is that there's a good way and a bad way to run in the Hickman style. I agree. I think the best way is to give your players a heads up that the plot is where the adventure is and that choices outside of the adventure you have planned may well lead to nothing. Or bloody noses.
No choices are bad. They're just choices. Dice determines whether they're bad. If you're arbitrarily deciding they're bad, ask yourself why. I bet it's because they're things that are moving away from your plot.
Again, aren't you are the one advocating railroading them with adventure when they are trying to chop firewood? Do their choices matter if you won't let them live a simple, wholesome life earning an honest living by hard work?
I'm beginning to see the disconnect. You have a complete misunderstanding of what a plot is and what it means to railroad.
If they weren't willing to storm the wizard's tower, then what makes you think that placing an equally exciting opportunity in the forest for them is going to fair any better? It comes down this, that whatever adventure you place in the forest by random and fudge encounters while they chop firewood is not going to be as interesting as the main plot, if anything becase you will run out of things that can happen in that 1 or 2 acres of forest they are chopping firewood in.
That's your opinion, and not really knowable until you play it out.
Interesting definition of "arbitrarily decided" since this was just a non-descript building, what do you mean? What you are suggesting is that the DM is punishing his players to force them to follow his plot if he doresn't make the closet exciting? Or that the DM should put what the player is looking for in his closet?
DM: Well I said it was the cleaning closet, what are you looking for? Player: I am looking for a magical weapon to defeat the anceint red dragon outside" Should the DM say:
a: "Well there is a mop that you could use as a short staff and a bucket of water to help put out any fires with, but who said there was an ancient red dragon outside, I only said you heard a commotion?"
or
b: "Is the ancient sword of Dragon's Bane, left there by the inn's owner, a retired dragon slayer, you know this because he also keeps his journal here in the cleaning closet, good enough"
You are suggesting that the DM must make this closet interesting, or else he is railroading the players, and should either let the player decide what's in the closet or else admit he is railroading.
Me, it's up to the player if he can or might make the closet interesting. Perhaps with use of the mop and rags and and various other mundane items in the closet, he will cobble together some sort of improvised disguise to try and sneak out of the building undetected and with a few rolls, bypass my whole "your surrounded by enemy mercenaries looking for you" encounter is a suprising defeat.
Railroading would be not allowing the disguise, or making it fail despite his rolls. Not putting a magical weapon or secret passage in a closet, just because the player expects that there will be one there just because he thought of it, is not railroading.
Yes, it is possible that the DM is making the choice of searching the closet boring because he's trying to force the characters to interact with his plot. If the DM can't think of something interesting in the closet, he can easily kick it back to the players: "You find something unexpected, gruesome, and incriminating in the closet that implicates the innkeeper in something evil. What is it?" Or if you're running a game with a plot, you tie it back to your plot.
Here's a key difference though: If you're running a plot, tell your players you're doing that. Ask for their buy-in. If you've got their buy-in, guess what? They won't search closets while your plot is going on outside the door. Problem solved.
Also, if we're to continue this conversation, I'm really going to have to insist on examples that aren't completely ludicrous and unlikely to happen in a game. I'm happy to discuss hypotheticals, but the ones you guys are throwing out there are purposefully ridiculous. They add nothing to anyone's understanding of what we're talking about here.
More irony. The DM plans a cool adventure. The player goes to dweedle around in an empty closet. DM's fault. Clearly.
Don't waste peoples' time.
More irony. The DM plans a cool adventure. The player goes to dweedle around in an empty closet. DM's fault. Clearly.
DM's fault for not getting buy-in from the players on doing that adventure.
Don't waste peoples' time.
More irony. The DM plans a cool adventure. The player goes to dweedle around in an empty closet. DM's fault. Clearly.
DM's fault for not getting buy-in from the players on doing that adventure.
Players shouldn't waste the table's time either, and should be able to talk to the DM is the adventure isn't fun for them. But that's a tough position for a player to be in, and it wouldn't be surprising if a player didn't want to out-and-out state that a DM's work is boring. It's better if a DM can recognize that a player isn't engaged in the DM's efforts, and then talk to that player. Or, better yet, talk to the players in advance about what they'd find engaging.
Players shouldn't waste the table's time either, and should be able to talk to the DM is the adventure isn't fun for them. But that's a tough position for a player to be in, and it wouldn't be surprising if a player didn't want to out-and-out state that a DM's work is boring. It's better if a DM can recognize that a player isn't engaged in the DM's efforts, and then talk to that player. Or, better yet, talk to the players in advance about what they'd find engaging.
True. It's so easy to provide content the players will enjoy and engage with: Don't assume, and ask them directly what they will enjoy and engage with. And if players aren't "getting it" or are getting it and just don't care for it, they should speak up. There's simply no excuse to suffer in silence or deliberately derail a DM's game because you're not enjoying it. Collaborate on what everyone will find fun and move on.
There is some correlation as well, I think, to not wanting to be direct about this sort of stuff and also wanting to deal with out-of-game problems in-game. That's somewhat related to this thread.
There is some correlation as well, I think, to not wanting to be direct about this sort of stuff and also wanting to deal with out-of-game problems in-game. That's somewhat related to this thread.
I assume you're using understatement, because that's exactly what this thread has been about from beginning to end. How does a player handle another reckless player? Kill his character! How does a DM get players to engage in their story? Make sure every other option is coated in disincentives, and "bloody their noses" early on. Even when talking to the someone, as opposed to cramming something down their throat with the rules, is suggested, it tends to be completely ignored.
Don't waste peoples' time.
More irony. The DM plans a cool adventure. The player goes to dweedle around in an empty closet. DM's fault. Clearly.
DM's fault for not getting buy-in from the players on doing that adventure.
Players shouldn't waste the table's time either, and should be able to talk to the DM is the adventure isn't fun for them. But that's a tough position for a player to be in, and it wouldn't be surprising if a player didn't want to out-and-out state that a DM's work is boring. It's better if a DM can recognize that a player isn't engaged in the DM's efforts, and then talk to that player. Or, better yet, talk to the players in advance about what they'd find engaging.
I get what you're trying to say... but what you're not getting is that players CHANGE THEIR MINDS. They may have buy-in when you make the adventure and when you go to run it. Not that they're leaving the adventure altogether, but sometimes they want to put it on the back burner and see how much money they can make selling cockle-shell necklaces. And they might be totally content, despite the fact that the DM is merely accounting . Players are as erratic as a character in Grand Theft Auto sometimes. One minute they're delivering the newspaper, the next they're doing dive-bombs over area 54.
Like I said, half the time, the player isn't abandoning the adventure altogether, they just get side-trekked because their ADHD kicks in. Oh look! A helicopter!
Sometimes, the players just want to chop wood.
If they chop wood and you throw a challenge at them.. sorry, that's a plot.
I get what you're trying to say... but what you're not getting is that players CHANGE THEIR MINDS. They may have buy-in when you make the adventure and when you go to run it. Not that they're leaving the adventure altogether, but sometimes they want to put it on the back burner and see how much money they can make selling cockle-shell necklaces. And they might be totally content, despite the fact that the DM is merely accounting . Players are as erratic as a character in Grand Theft Auto sometimes. One minute they're delivering the newspaper, the next they're doing dive-bombs over area 54.
Like I said, half the time, the player isn't abandoning the adventure altogether, they just get side-trekked because their ADHD kicks in. Oh look! A helicopter!
I know that players change their minds. It happens a lot. What I hope you'll understand is that with buy-in, this problem is reduced and any slack still there can be taken up with specific techniques relevant to the style of game you're running. If you don't even understand the basis for the style you're running or don't know the techniques needed to make things work when players DO change their minds, then you're screwed.
In the Gygax style, if I created a location and the players decided to leave that location and go do something else, then it's simply a matter of collaboration and improvisation to create new, engaging content on the fly. In the Hickman style, if I created a plot the players aren't following, then I simply use my skills in obfuscation and redirection to get them back on the path (also known as railroading). If I don't have buy-in to railroad them, then I'm left with improvisation - and maybe even collaboration if I'm a "hipster" - to have some content for that night.
In either case, a direct conversation is required to make sure the DM is spending his time prepping things the players want to do.
If they chop wood and you throw a challenge at them.. sorry, that's a plot.
Not at all. I don't think anyone would consider a random encounter in the forest a plot. I'm not sure why you're making that claim.
See the article in my signature for what a plot is and what challenges come with prepping one. That may provide you with some clarity for this discussion.
If they chop wood and you throw a challenge at them.. sorry, that's a plot.
Not at all. I don't think anyone would consider a random encounter in the forest a plot. I'm not sure why you're making that claim.
See the article in my signature for what a plot is and what challenges come with prepping one. That may provide you with some clarity for this discussion.
I read the article. It sounds pretty close to how I DM, a combination of Gygax, Hickman, spur-of-the-moment creativity and paying attention to player input. It generally results in players having a wealth of options, more than one way to solve problems, the option to ignore problems altogether. If a player wants to put out his eye and join the cult of odin or gruumsh, he can do that. If he wants to jump off a bridge to avoid the juggernaut, he can do that. If he wants to take a swim in a vat of acid, he can do that. If he wants to search the broom closet for dire bores, that'd be the place to look, I guess.
You may DM something along the lines of what the article says, but many times what you seem to be proposing is nothing like that article at all.
I'm making the claim because if I were DM, I might take that random encounter (say, orcs), and give a back story to the random orcs, creating a more long-term reason why they are in this particular forest at this particular time, tracing it all back to something one of the players mentioned about his character on his background information and note that the orc leader is carrying the dwarf character's ancestral weapon. Then design a map that includes a ruined tower on a moathouse, complete with a list of creatures that reside there, from the outer perimeter, to the moathouse itself, to a dungeon beneath, even going so far as to tie in treasures that can be found there-in that indicate that these orcs were hired by an organization that has long threatened the character's homeland and proof that a local aristocrat is a traitor and the plot on the aristocrat's life that brought the party to town in the first place is really being done out of desparation to defend the character's homeland and bring down a treacherous plot against the just king of the land.
If that's a plot, I'm fine with it. If it's not, I'm fine with that too.
If a player insists on hanging out in an empty closet for no reason (assuming they aren't hiding from someone), I'll describe what they find in the closet, plan the daily cleaning schedule, maybe have some servant boy and servant girl sneak in the closet for smoochy smoochy only to see the closet is occupied.
Of course I get 'buy-in'. It's the first thing you look for in ANY style of DMing... you find out what kind of stuff the players want to do. Half the time, a quick glance at the character sheet can tell you where the player's heads at, but DM-player dialogue is essential.
My style isn't 100% 'Gygaxian' or 100% Hickman... and I doubt Gygax's style was 100% Gygaxian or Hickman's was 100% 'Hickmanian', if that makes sense. I improvise when players change their mind and do something I'm less prepared for. Sometimes the improvisation goes well and I have a million interesting things. Sometimes... not so much, perhaps because endless searchings of an empty broom closet can only hold MY interest for so long. Sometimes I'll simply ask the player if their character has anything more interesting to do than hang out in a broom closet because I have more interesting things to do than thinking about a guy stuck in a closet unless you've been stuck in there so long, you're out of food and thinking about auto-cannibalization... because I'm curious what your character eats first.
The way you describe things (even if it isn't what you mean, it sounds that way), you make it sound like any and all preparation is a plot, and that all improvisation is a dire bore and that the DM is essentially punishing the players passive-agressively if his improvised situations don't meet the players highest expectations. I don't think that was the point of the article, but I'm not sure if that's how you interpreted it or not. It often sounds that way.
At any rate... sometimes the characters really DO just want to do lame stuff and shirk their 'hero duties'. I just let the world move on like it normally would while they cut firewood.
I've found the best inspiration is when the adventure is no longer waiting for them when they get there and some NPC became the hero instead of them; while they were out chopping firewood, selling sea shells by the sea-shore and hanging out in the broom closet doing who-knows-what an NPC killed the orc chief and foiled a plot on the king's life. And if that closet is in an inn... they will hear the soft strains of the bard telling the legendary tells of the NPC. Go NPC.
I read the article. It sounds pretty close to how I DM, a combination of Gygax, Hickman, spur-of-the-moment creativity and paying attention to player input. It generally results in players having a wealth of options, more than one way to solve problems, the option to ignore problems altogether. If a player wants to put out his eye and join the cult of odin or gruumsh, he can do that. If he wants to jump off a bridge to avoid the juggernaut, he can do that. If he wants to take a swim in a vat of acid, he can do that. If he wants to search the broom closet for dire bores, that'd be the place to look, I guess.
Cool.
You may DM something along the lines of what the article says, but many times what you seem to be proposing is nothing like that article at all.
There are parts of the article with which I don't agree, but for the most part, I think it's great advice, especially as it relates to this thread.
I'm making the claim because if I were DM, I might take that random encounter (say, orcs), and give a back story to the random orcs, creating a more long-term reason why they are in this particular forest at this particular time, tracing it all back to something one of the players mentioned about his character on his background information and note that the orc leader is carrying the dwarf character's ancestral weapon. Then design a map that includes a ruined tower on a moathouse, complete with a list of creatures that reside there, from the outer perimeter, to the moathouse itself, to a dungeon beneath, even going so far as to tie in treasures that can be found there-in that indicate that these orcs were hired by an organization that has long threatened the character's homeland and proof that a local aristocrat is a traitor and the plot on the aristocrat's life that brought the party to town in the first place is really being done out of desparation to defend the character's homeland and bring down a treacherous plot against the just king of the land.
If that's a plot, I'm fine with it. If it's not, I'm fine with that too.
That's all just fine, and laudible, especially if you can do that on the fly. I think where this conversation gets confused is on that last line above. This isn't about whether a plot is okay or not. I'm certainly not making the case that adventures without plots are better than those with plots, unlike some who are suggesting the opposite is true. (That would make me an awful hypocrite considering I've spent 90% of my DMing career using plots.) I just want to be clear on that point in particular. Plot or no plot makes no difference to me, as it pertains to this discussion.
What I'm getting at, as it relates to this thread, is that if you have a plot, there are certain techniques you may need to employ to make it work well. Many DMs simply don't know they're using a particular style of running the game and when players used to different styles show up to play, there's conflict.
My style isn't 100% 'Gygaxian' or 100% Hickman... and I doubt Gygax's style was 100% Gygaxian or Hickman's was 100% 'Hickmanian', if that makes sense. I improvise when players change their mind and do something I'm less prepared for. Sometimes the improvisation goes well and I have a million interesting things. Sometimes... not so much, perhaps because endless searchings of an empty broom closet can only hold MY interest for so long. Sometimes I'll simply ask the player if their character has anything more interesting to do than hang out in a broom closet because I have more interesting things to do than thinking about a guy stuck in a closet unless you've been stuck in there so long, you're out of food and thinking about auto-cannibalization... because I'm curious what your character eats first.
Sure, nobody's an absolute. Everyone's on a spectrum between those two styles. You can have plots that take place in a location, for example. My style is Gygaxian with some indie collaborative RPG elements. Where the line is drawn is who writes that plot. If it's the DM, you're most certainly into the Hickman style, foundationally. It helps to know that so you can know which techniques to use to help run smoother games and how to approach your players with regard to obtaining their buy-in.
The way you describe things (even if it isn't what you mean, it sounds that way), you make it sound like any and all preparation is a plot, and that all improvisation is a dire bore and that the DM is essentially punishing the players passive-agressively if his improvised situations don't meet the players highest expectations. I don't think that was the point of the article, but I'm not sure if that's how you interpreted it or not. It often sounds that way.
Hopefully someone else's words cleared that up (that's what it sounds like now in your post). I mentioned a few times in this thread the difference between plot and content, and that content is common to both styles whereas plot is not. Improvisation is a dire bore when the DM improvises boring outcomes in an effort to get the players to go back to following the plot (thus, it's a form of railroading).
At any rate... sometimes the characters really DO just want to do lame stuff and shirk their 'hero duties'. I just let the world move on like it normally would while they cut firewood.
In my view, that's worthy of an out-of-game conversation as to what everyone expects to get out of a heroic action/adventure RPG. I don't need to use in-game methods for dealing with that problem. That goes back to what Centauri said about wasting time.
I can see the distinction, it's not if something just HAPPENS TO BE boring... you mean when the DM INTENTIONALLY makes something boring. That does inded sound like a sort of punishment, in that context.
- Like that old 'illuminating' thread of mine. I really felt like the DM was punishing me because my character did something that fell outside of the DM plot and beyond the DM's improvisation abilities. The dire bore in this case was a pulverized statue and an armless level 1 monk. The broken statue representing that all my efforts are in vain. The armlessness to show that all my goals are out of reach. Ahh. I'm suddenly enlightened!
I can see the distinction, it's not if something just HAPPENS TO BE boring... you mean when the DM INTENTIONALLY makes something boring. That does inded sound like a sort of punishment, in that context.
- Like that old 'illuminating' thread of mine. I really felt like the DM was punishing me because my character did something that fell outside of the DM plot and beyond the DM's improvisation abilities. The dire bore in this case was a pulverized statue and an armless level 1 monk. The broken statue representing that all my efforts are in vain. The armlessness to show that all my goals are out of reach. Ahh. I'm suddenly enlightened!
Exactly. The even trickier part is when the DM does this unconsciously, sees that dire bores really do work to get his group back on the path, then justifies his process accordingly as "realism" and refuses to call it what it is - railroading - because of a belief in railroading as being inherently bad. It's twisted, hard for that DM to see, and nigh impossible for someone else to prove. But mark me, people do this, for sure.
The way out of that cycle is to think of the outcome you'd normally hand out, ask if it could be more interesting, and if you can't think of anything interesting, turn to your players for help.
I can see the distinction, it's not if something just HAPPENS TO BE boring... you mean when the DM INTENTIONALLY makes something boring. That does inded sound like a sort of punishment, in that context.
- Like that old 'illuminating' thread of mine. I really felt like the DM was punishing me because my character did something that fell outside of the DM plot and beyond the DM's improvisation abilities. The dire bore in this case was a pulverized statue and an armless level 1 monk. The broken statue representing that all my efforts are in vain. The armlessness to show that all my goals are out of reach. Ahh. I'm suddenly enlightened!
Exactly. The even trickier part is when the DM does this unconsciously, sees that dire bores really do work to get his group back on the path, then justifies his process accordingly as "realism" and refuses to call it what it is - railroading - because of a belief in railroading as being inherently bad. It's twisted, hard for that DM to see, and nigh impossible for someone else to prove. But mark me, people do this, for sure.
The way out of that cycle is to think of the outcome you'd normally hand out, ask if it could be more interesting, and if you can't think of anything interesting, turn to your players for help.
Some DMs may indeed do that, but it sounds as if you're being a bit 'ungracious' ... and a mite biased toward 'realists' in general.
OP -
Didn't mean to derail. Just got caught up in the existentialities (is that even a word?) of it all.
Oh well. Gotta jet.
Some DMs may indeed do that, but it sounds as if you're being a bit 'ungracious' ... and a mite biased toward 'realists' in general.
That may be so. It's a duck test thing for me, especially if a given plot-writing DM insists that there can be only one outcome for a given choice unrelated to the plot and that the outcome is not very imaginative. My bore-dar starts pinging when I hear stuff like that.
Was it centauri who said...
Stabbing one's eyes out, jumping off a bridge, or swimming through acid are all absurd examples, and have nothing to do with this discussion. If a player is doing something like that, and the DM can't think of a way he or she would like to handle it, there has to be a discussion with the players involved.
And this my exasperated response...
They have plenty to do with a discussion about how to handle situations where players are doing absurd things. Because creative players sometimes do absurd things for a reason and less creative players do absurd things for lack of a better idea. If joining a cult of Odin or Gruumsh for that matter, or using the eye of Vecna requires a missing eye, there's a chance that a player will do that. A character modeled after the animated version of Beowulf might want to jump off a bridge after a flying dragon or one modeled after William Wallace of Braveheart might ride his horse out of a window in the dark into a shallow moat, crossing his fingers that he doesn't hit something solid. I can't think of any movies where the hero tries to swim through what he knows to be acid, but I can think of plenty of situations where a player might try something like that, either out of desperation or because there's a chance he might actually make it... sure, he'll have awful scars - at least unless he can get some magic healing - but no one will question his tenacity from that point on. They might even thank him for saving them from a death trap, even though if the over-eager barbarian had only waited just a second longer the wizard could have accomplished the same thing with a mage hand.
The discussion goes something like this...
DM: "You stab your eyes out. You are now blind. End of discussion."
Reasonable Player: "I TOTALLY saw that coming."
DM: lol
Other Players: lol
Unreasonable Player: "What kind of world are you running where knives to the eye cause blindness? I don't see that in the rules. What page is it on? This is just some house rule designed to punish the player for not following your plot isn't it? I think we need a discussion about this, outside of game to see if we can come up with a collaborative way to keep you from blocking my ideas and railroading me with your draconic Gygaxian methods and passive-aggressive behavior. I think if you would just try it my way and try yes and..."
DM: Yes, and your character is blind?
Other Players: lol
But your solution involves the PLAYER being referee, which means he's likely playing alone and there is no discussion.
Some DMs may indeed do that, but it sounds as if you're being a bit 'ungracious' ... and a mite biased toward 'realists' in general.
That may be so. It's a duck test thing for me, especially if a given plot-writing DM insists that there can be only one outcome for a given choice unrelated to the plot and that the outcome is not very imaginative. My bore-dar starts pinging when I hear stuff like that.
Try thinking of the realism aspects more as part of a one-two punch.
Oh look a tree. We burn it for firewood.
Oh look another tree. We burn it for firewood.
Oh look a tree. This one has eyes. What do we do?
Unreasonable Player: ...
As we've established previously, it's your choice to play with unreasonable people.
To continue with the ludicrous example, it's an issue of unilateralism. In your view, the DM must dictate the outcomes. In ours, the outcomes can be dictated by anyone, provided the outcome conforms to "Yes, and..." principles (meaning it can't contradict existing fiction). This allows for interesting outcomes, every time. In a case of the player doing something strange as per your example, you have a conversation out-of-game to determine the player's intent and what he hopes to have his character achieve or contribute by his actions. He may have a perfectly good reason for taking that action, based upon fiction that some had forgotten about and that could lead to some interesting complications. Or, he might just be acting like a jerk. Whether he's acting in good faith or not will be revealed. Take action according to your group's social paradigm.
I think a major disconnect in how we think about the game, as mentioned above, comes from how we handle out-of-game issues. There is a preference on your part (and those who support your position, historically) to deal with these sorts of things in-game. I don't have time for that sort of stuff, especially considering the long, sad history of trying to solve problems that way.
Unreasonable Player: ...
As we've established previously, it's your choice to play with unreasonable people.
To continue with the ludicrous example, it's an issue of unilateralism. In your view, the DM must dictate the outcomes. In ours, the outcomes can be dictated by anyone, provided the outcome conforms to "Yes, and..." principles (meaning it can't contradict existing fiction). This allows for interesting outcomes, every time. In a case of the player doing something strange as per your example, you have a conversation out-of-game to determine the player's intent and what he hopes to have his character achieve or contribute by his actions. He may have a perfectly good reason for taking that action, based upon fiction that some had forgotten about and that could lead to some interesting complications. Or, he might just be acting like a jerk. Whether he's acting in good faith or not will be revealed. Take action according to your group's social paradigm.
I think a major disconnect in how we think about the game, as mentioned above, comes from how we handle out-of-game issues. There is a preference on your part (and those who support your position, historically) to deal with these sorts of things in-game. I don't have time for that sort of stuff, especially considering the long, sad history of trying to solve problems that way.
This is a little mind-vomitty. I just woke up. Need. Coffee.....
Player conflict being resolved in-game hasn't caused any problems for my group(s), because (being reasonable people) the concensus is that if a problem can be solved in-game, we'll accept the in-game resolution out of game and move on. But when PVP becomes an issue, it is indeed a good idea to have an out-of-game discussion. However, the people in my tradition don't have any long, sad history of trying to solve problems that way. We have a long happy history of solving problems that way. Because we are reasonable people and can accept out-of-game that whatever happens in-game is nothing personal.
Some of my group consider anything they do in-game that doesn't have in-game consequences to be reasonable. If there are not in-game consequences, they figure that's a go-ahead, approval, etc. and therefore consider it reasonable to do things that none-the-less disrupt the game. A reasonable set of in-game limitations provides a frame-work for them to enjoy the game without unintentionally ruining it for everyone else. Which makes it possible to avoid endless hours of out-of-game discussion and broadens the number of people who you can enjoy the game with. You may be so lucky as to have the most reasonable creatures in existence to play with. The rest of us must play with people.
My group(s) would consider a player who wants to dictate the outcomes to be unreasonable, or simply ignorant of the basic rules of this particular game, or somehow unaware of the benefits of having a final arbiter. The most obvious drawback of not having an arbiter is when two players disagree there becomes a standoff (which is the point of this post - that the players themselves can't seem to come to a solution). That isn't to say (of course) that the DM shouldn't listen to players and hear suggestions before making a decision. He/she should of course listen to the players before making a final decision.
I had pneumonia when I was a child and made a Conan the Barbarian PC which I pitted against all the monsters in the Monster Manual I, (AD&D)... one at a time, alphabetically. I was able to resolve the combats using the basic rules. Then I got to chimera and thought I'd try to talk it into escaping. Then my mother rushed me to the hospital when she saw me talking to myself, thinking the fever had gotten too high. I'm exaggerating the part about the hospital for effect, but it feels like the same thing (talking to yourself) when the player dictates the rest of the world's actions. It's not worth the lack-of-interestedness that results from the predictability.
For collaborative play, I suppose the players not involved might assume the DM role of arbitration, but being players and therefore biased, they will likely gang up on the out-of-line player to keep him in line; a bit ungenerous in the connotations, but I still think the likely result of mob-style decision-making will be mob-style decisions.
Conflicts sometimes arise between two characters. Not because either player is a jerk, but because the characters being portrayed have different personalities. It is perfectly reasonable to say "let's just roll the dice and see how it turns out" as long as all parties are fine with that solution. It is also perfectly reasonable to discuss it out-of-game and resolve it completely out of game as you suggest... or some combination of the two.
You can't railroad if you have no plot. If the player wants the character to chop wood, then he chops wood. The DM can certainly throw challenges at the character while he does so as this is in the DM's purview. If the player's not interested in them, then ask the player what he would be interested in. If it's "just chop wood," then this is a separate problem and one that gets discussed outside of the context of the game.
And this is no different then what the DM in this discussion did. The players went to commit larceny and the DM threw a chalenge at them (an easy trap) and a couple of guards, neither of which posed any particular danger to the PCs (therefore aren't really punitive) and were sent specifically to make things interesting.
The Player was miffed because they mishandled the situation. What would you do if you added an easy encounter with orcs in the forest while they were chopping firewood and the players make bad choices in the fight?
And yes you can railroad without a plot. And if you could understand what railroading meant you wouldn't spout such silly nonsence. Railroading is when you will only allow one course of action regardless of how reasonable or logical the choices they may be, you will either disallow it or otherwise manipulate the situation to nullify any other choice (such as setting DCs impossibly high, fudging die rolls, flat out having things fail or succeed, etc). It is unrelated to having a plot or an open sandbox style game, it can be done in individual encounters or situations as easily as it can for the overall game.
A good example of Railroading is the flimsy wooden doors in a video game, like resident evil, where the PC, and expert, trained locksmith with tools, with guns, Shotguns, and a Rocket launcher, can't get through a flimsy wooden door unless they solve a puzzle to get a key.
As a DM I don't recomend rewarding bad choices, regardless of if there is a plot or not, because it just encourages more bad choices, this is nothing to do with railroading, a bad choice (such as not checking for traps in a place where they should be expecting a trap) is simply going to play out, it is up to them to turn the tables and make it work and good choices will naturally lead to rewards. In fact if there is such a critical plot, I think a DM would likely be more inclined to ignore/gloss over a bad decision that would otherwise ruin the plot, because he wants to avoid playing out the consequences. ie having the guards hunt the party down for murdering some people would ruin the story, so he simply has them get away with it. I think a railroad is bad both ways because the players can get away with things simply because they can't be derailed.
Player conflict being resolved in-game hasn't caused any problems for my group(s), because (being reasonable people) the concensus is that if a problem can be solved in-game, we'll accept the in-game resolution out of game and move on. But when PVP becomes an issue, it is indeed a good idea to have an out-of-game discussion. However, the people in my tradition don't have any long, sad history of trying to solve problems that way. We have a long happy history of solving problems that way. Because we are reasonable people and can accept out-of-game that whatever happens in-game is nothing personal.
I'm sure resolving conflict in-game works for some and I take your word on it that it works for you. I've seen plenty of times where it turns into a mode for passive aggressive players to get back at other players for some perceived slight. And read more forum posts that I could count where it went totally awry. For those reasons, I prefer to stop and talk it out quickly.
Some of my group consider anything they do in-game that doesn't have in-game consequences to be reasonable. If there are not in-game consequences, they figure that's a go-ahead, approval, etc. and therefore consider it reasonable to do things that none-the-less disrupt the game. A reasonable set of in-game limitations provides a frame-work for them to enjoy the game without unintentionally ruining it for everyone else. Which makes it possible to avoid endless hours of out-of-game discussion and broadens the number of people who you can enjoy the game with. You may be so lucky as to have the most reasonable creatures in existence to play with. The rest of us must play with people.
My group(s) would consider a player who wants to dictate the outcomes to be unreasonable, or simply ignorant of the basic rules of this particular game, or somehow unaware of the benefits of having a final arbiter. The most obvious drawback of not having an arbiter is when two players disagree there becomes a standoff (which is the point of this post - that the players themselves can't seem to come to a solution). That isn't to say (of course) that the DM shouldn't listen to players and hear suggestions before making a decision. He/she should of course listen to the players before making a final decision.
My regular players are really, really good. I won't lie about that. But I also interact with a lot of pick-up groups because I play online. Anecdotally, I haven't seen a single problem in-game come up where I needed to be a final arbiter. I attribute this to the fiendish influence of "Yes, and..." Players at our games are obligated to back each other up. There simply aren't any disagreements. As was originally noted way back in this thread, the group would have ransacked the office a bit, made some checks, and moved on because "Yes, and..." would have obligated them to back that player's ideas and add onto them rather than try and block. It never would have gotten to the point where someone felt the need to make a post declaring one of their players was reckless. You don't need an arbiter or authority figure when "Yes, and..." is your central philosophy.
On a side note, I love watching groups unfamiliar with "Yes, and..." use it for the first time. I had the opportunity to do this recently when I ran a one-shot for a pick-up group I found on Roll20.net. I gave them the rundown of how it works and added, "Hey, I don't create solutions, just problems. So whatever you come up with pretty much has the same chance of working as anything else. Don't debate. Just back each other's ideas and go be awesome." And they sure did. These players had played together before, just not with me as DM. "Yes, and..." allows them to set aside their tendency to debate, disagree, and block and it just flowed. "Wow, that was something like out of a movie" was a common saying that night. Yes, and that's because in movies, the actors don't disagree with each other - the characters might, but the actors work together to make it a great film even if their characters are at odds.
It's a different mindset. It's more about how you can back someone rather than why you can't, the latter often getting all twisted up in both in-character and out-of-character concerns.
For collaborative play, I suppose the players not involved might assume the DM role of arbitration, but being players and therefore biased, they will likely gang up on the out-of-line player to keep him in line; a bit ungenerous in the connotations, but I still think the likely result of mob-style decision-making will be mob-style decisions.
When the group is in "Yes, and..." mode and one person is not, it's really obvious. We stop, we discuss the principles again, give examples of how to resolve, and kick it back to the person that was not in line with the philosophy. Generally, once players see how powerful and fun it is, they don't want to play any other way. Funnily enough, I got an email the other day from one of the players from that pick-up game I mentioned saying that he doesn't think he can go back to playing the "way he used to." He played with his regular group and was now totally aware of all the blocking and disagreeing going on, something he didn't notice before, or rather, just accepted as a normal part of the game. It doesn't have to be that way.
Conflicts sometimes arise between two characters. Not because either player is a jerk, but because the characters being portrayed have different personalities. It is perfectly reasonable to say "let's just roll the dice and see how it turns out" as long as all parties are fine with that solution. It is also perfectly reasonable to discuss it out-of-game and resolve it completely out of game as you suggest... or some combination of the two.
Both of those things you cite and examples of discussing a resolution method out-of-game.
Iserith, I'm actually surprised you didn't consider my example of what I consider to be an unreasonable player to be the reasonable one. I modelled the unreasonable player to behave in a manner consistent with your suggestions. It isn't pretty is it?
If you're serious, then we may have to discontinue the conversation. I thought we were making good progress on understanding one another.
You can't railroad if you have no plot. If the player wants the character to chop wood, then he chops wood. The DM can certainly throw challenges at the character while he does so as this is in the DM's purview. If the player's not interested in them, then ask the player what he would be interested in. If it's "just chop wood," then this is a separate problem and one that gets discussed outside of the context of the game.
And this is no different then what the DM in this discussion did. The players went to commit larceny and the DM threw a chalenge at them (an easy trap) and a couple of guards, neither of which posed any particular danger to the PCs (therefore aren't really punitive) and were sent specifically to make things interesting.
The degree of challenge isn't what determines whether something was applied as a disincentive or punishment. All it has to be is something that the players aren't interested in dealing with. It's clear from the original post that though they expected a trap they weren't interested in dealing with one, nor were they interested in the trouble that stemmed from the reckless player's action.
The Player was miffed because they mishandled the situation. What would you do if you added an easy encounter with orcs in the forest while they were chopping firewood and the players make bad choices in the fight?
Exactly what we've been saying over and over again: the player fails the challenge, in an interesting way.
As a DM I don't recomend rewarding bad choices, regardless of if there is a plot or not, because it just encourages more bad choices,
So?
this is nothing to do with railroading, a bad choice (such as not checking for traps in a place where they should be expecting a trap) is simply going to play out, it is up to them to turn the tables and make it work and good choices will naturally lead to rewards.
Why is "not having an excruciatingly boring time at a game session" considered a reward?
I think a railroad is bad both ways because the players can get away with things simply because they can't be derailed.
Who's getting away with anything? Players can still fail, they just fail in interesting ways.
And this is no different then what the DM in this discussion did. The players went to commit larceny and the DM threw a chalenge at them (an easy trap) and a couple of guards, neither of which posed any particular danger to the PCs (therefore aren't really punitive) and were sent specifically to make things interesting.
You may be right here. It doesn't, however, excuse the 3 hours of dire bores that preceded this scene.
The Player was miffed because they mishandled the situation. What would you do if you added an easy encounter with orcs in the forest while they were chopping firewood and the players make bad choices in the fight?
There are no bad choices. There are just choices.
And yes you can railroad without a plot. And if you could understand what railroading meant you wouldn't spout such silly nonsence. Railroading is when you will only allow one course of action regardless of how reasonable or logical the choices they may be, you will either disallow it or otherwise manipulate the situation to nullify any other choice (such as setting DCs impossibly high, fudging die rolls, flat out having things fail or succeed, etc). It is unrelated to having a plot or an open sandbox style game, it can be done in individual encounters or situations as easily as it can for the overall game.
A good example of Railroading is the flimsy wooden doors in a video game, like resident evil, where the PC, and expert, trained locksmith with tools, with guns, Shotguns, and a Rocket launcher, can't get through a flimsy wooden door unless they solve a puzzle to get a key.
I disagree. That's blocking, not railroading. You can block without a plot. You can't railroad without a plot. Blocking does become more common with a plot, however, and can be a part of railroading.
As a DM I don't recomend rewarding bad choices, regardless of if there is a plot or not, because it just encourages more bad choices, this is nothing to do with railroading, a bad choice (such as not checking for traps in a place where they should be expecting a trap) is simply going to play out, it is up to them to turn the tables and make it work and good choices will naturally lead to rewards. In fact if there is such a critical plot, I think a DM would likely be more inclined to ignore/gloss over a bad decision that would otherwise ruin the plot, because he wants to avoid playing out the consequences. ie having the guards hunt the party down for murdering some people would ruin the story, so he simply has them get away with it. I think a railroad is bad both ways because the players can get away with things simply because they can't be derailed.
There are no bad choices. There are only choices. Those choices can have bad outcomes, but they needn't be boring for the players, even if they're bad for the characters.
Player conflict being resolved in-game hasn't caused any problems for my group(s), because (being reasonable people) the concensus is that if a problem can be solved in-game, we'll accept the in-game resolution out of game and move on.
In adition to reasonable people being just that, reasonable. I find that unreasonable people are just that Unreasonable, seriously if a reasonable solution doesn't work in-game, then expecting them to somehow not be unreasonable out of game is somewhat a downhill battle.
Some of my group consider anything they do in-game that doesn't have in-game consequences to be reasonable. If there are not in-game consequences, they figure that's a go-ahead, approval, etc. and therefore consider it reasonable to do things that none-the-less disrupt the game. A reasonable set of in-game limitations provides a frame-work for them to enjoy the game without unintentionally ruining it for everyone else. Which makes it possible to avoid endless hours of out-of-game discussion and broadens the number of people who you can enjoy the game with. You may be so lucky as to have the most reasonable creatures in existence to play with. The rest of us must play with people.
In game solutions have always worked for me, and I've been gaming for over 25 years. Can it go wrong? Yes, when the DM doesn't address a problem and lets it fester first. Then it becomes a matter that can't be solved by suddenly changing the rules, the DM needs to be consistant and cannot be an enabler.
Too often I see these issues be created because the DM didn't deal in-game solutions in the early levels, and thus enabled the behaviour up until it got out of hand. The DM has enabled the behaviour that he needs to "deal with out of game" where i advocate avoiding this altogether by properly handling in-game solutions right out of the gate, so it never reaches the point where it is a problem.
See I don't have to have "boring and uninteresting" punitive results, nor do I have to stop a game mid session for a "discussion" to solve a problem, because I prevent it from reaching that point. Nor is there a need to discuss a rules issue because as the DM, I make a call on the rules and we move on. If I make a bad call then I will compensate them for it later, the players have intrusted the DM to be a fair and impartial arbitrator. but the game always moves on.
Player conflict being resolved in-game hasn't caused any problems for my group(s), because (being reasonable people) the concensus is that if a problem can be solved in-game, we'll accept the in-game resolution out of game and move on.
In adition to reasonable people being just that, reasonable. I find that unreasonable people are just that Unreasonable, seriously if a reasonable solution doesn't work in-game, then expecting them to somehow not be unreasonable out of game is somewhat a downhill battle.
It's not the reasonable in-game solutions that are really at issue. But if someone's being unreasonable, then they need to be asked leave the game, and that's something the game itself cannot handle, unless the rules are used to bully the player into leaving.
See I don't have to have "boring and uninteresting" punitive results, nor do I have to stop a game mid session for a "discussion" to solve a problem, because I prevent it from reaching that point.
You're very vague as to how. Do you do this by showing them early on that if they are "out-of-line" that they'll earn results like character death or imprisonment? If so, I can see why you wouldn't have to use those outcomes later, but that doesn't mean that's a positive approach to use.
(Yes, yes, I know: they get the "logical outcomes of their actions." But if those outcomes aren't boring or otherwise unpleasant, why wouldn't the players keep performing those actions? Maybe you've done this already, but please give a specific example of how you "prevent it from reaching that point"?)
Nor is there a need to discuss a rules issue because as the DM, I make a call on the rules and we move on. If I make a bad call then I will compensate them for it later, the players have intrusted the DM to be a fair and impartial arbitrator. but the game always moves on.
Yep, trust sure is great.
You're very vague as to how. Do you do this by showing them early on that if they are "out-of-line" that they'll earn results like character death or imprisonment? If so, I can see why you wouldn't have to use those outcomes later, but that doesn't mean that's a positive approach to use.
I imagine some DMs like being that authority figure, handing out just punishment for perceived infractions or casting harsh judgment on ideas and choices they deem bad. Such power. Such control.
I personally hate it when players speak of the DM (especially when in reference to me) as some sort of godlike figure who must be appeased.
You're very vague as to how. Do you do this by showing them early on that if they are "out-of-line" that they'll earn results like character death or imprisonment? If so, I can see why you wouldn't have to use those outcomes later, but that doesn't mean that's a positive approach to use.
I imagine some DMs like being that authority figure, handing out just punishment for perceived infractions or casting harsh judgment on ideas and choices they deem bad. Such power. Such control.
They don't see it that way. They're fair and impartial, and the harshness of any consequences is in strict proportion to the amount of harshness an idea deserves. Just like in real life, right?
Iserith, I'm actually surprised you didn't consider my example of what I consider to be an unreasonable player to be the reasonable one. I modelled the unreasonable player to behave in a manner consistent with your suggestions. It isn't pretty is it?
If you're serious, then we may have to discontinue the conversation. I thought we were making good progress on understanding one another.
Now I'm really confused. It sounds as if you're being inconsistent, whether you realize it or not. The wording of your suggestions and the description of how you actually play seem to have nothing to do with each other. I thought I had made it clear that I disagree with the methods as you describe them and have done my best to illustrate at least the limitations of the methods. Now it sounds as if I have a complete misunderstanding of much of what you suggest... hence my surprise.
I think where it seems we have the biggest contention is in your qualifier "established fiction". The traditional way of dealing with established fiction is that in most 'worlds' most things pretty much behave in a manner consistent with our expectations on this world... touch fire = get burned. Traditionally, with a DM making decisions, such events aren't considered 'punishment'. Some of what you have said led me to believe that you felt it was.
Even the thought of letting a player determine the results of (in this case) touching fire seems (to me) therefore a) insulting to the DM's intelligence, b) a waste of time for everyone involved, c) an unreasonable ploy to achieve a result without using real creativity and d) cheapens the experience for everyone involved by rendering actions meaningless.
I truly meant I was surprised, although considering we had made some progress at understanding perhaps I should not have been. If you agree with me that my example of unreasonable is indeed unreasonable, then we indeed have common ground, whether that means we moved toward it or found it existed all along is the only distinction here. Yet I am still confused as to where the disconnect is.
I will assume, with the best of intentions, that you are being sincere. I think that generally you have other people's interest in mind when you make suggestions and believe the advice you're giving to be for the betterment of their games. Somewhere in there, either I (and others apparently) are mis-reading your suggestions or else it may be that you think they sound good in theory but don't actually use them in practice (as not as much as you think, anyway).
Believe it or not, many of the ideas that sound strange or extreme to me when I see them in writing... I've come to realize that I already employ many of them. Being habit, I didn't realize I was, but they are partially responsible for my successes as a DM. AND I've actively tried to incorporate them recently, experimentally, just to see if it might shake my game up and up my game if nothing else. You might say that any kickback I've received is due to inflexibility on the player's part. I think you undervalue people's opinions sometimes.
So... I'm not going to stop playing 'devil's advocate' now and then for more traditional approaches, because there are merits to the 'traditional' approaches to gaming. It's not stubborn-ness or ludditism or inflexibility on my part.
Some of what you suggest seems binary. Either your way being right OR any other way being wrong. On those points, I'm going to debate against them to the best of my ability, especially when I'm certain about the merits and drawbacks of diametrically opposing methods. If I can extract out of a seeming binary suggestion a milder form that I think proves more useful.. I'm going to point it out.
Are you getting ANYthing useful about my point of view?
Hopefully, if nothing else, I can be a counterpoint to your suggestions and you a counterpoint to mine. Either the ultimate awesome works-for-everybody D&D will emerge or two totally different styles will emerge with players knowing fully the strengths and weakness of these vastly different ways of playing or if nothing else, at least players and DMs will have some good arguments for and against a wide range of playing options and will be better informed to decide what elements work best for them and to be thinking about new options altogether... perhaps then they will come up with the ultimate awesome works-for-everybody D&D holy grail... if such a thing exists.
At any rate, it was an offhand statement. Take it with a grain of salt.
You may be right here. It doesn't, however, excuse the 3 hours of dire bores that preceded this scene.
That is a different subject. Here the DM needed to reevaluate how he was presenting his clues. He could have either added in a clearer clue, or else he could have relied on the "what your character knows" fallback and given them a skill check of some sort followed by an explaination "You realize that the lack of information on the subject in the local library is absurd, someone must be covering it up, from what you know of the city the best place to look is...." Because sometimes you have to spell it out. A puzzle migh tlook obvious to the DM, and perhaps the characters would be able to figure it out, but it can be pretty vague to the players, sometimes they don't even realize it is a puzzle.
There are no bad choices. There are just choices.
Well, no, that is wrong on a couple of counts. First if that is the case then it would equally apply to the DM, "there are no bad results. there are just results" and secondly, life just doesn't work like that.
Not checking for traps in a place where they should expect a trap is a bad choice. Giving a guard ALL the gold you have to bribe him instead of using some of the fake gold you have, thats also a bad choice. In combat there are alot of bad choices, choices that would get them killed, that a player can make.
It happens, even if the DM fudges a roll or two, or doesn't press an obvious advantage with the enemy. Unless you are stating that in your game it is absolutely impossible for your players to ever fail, no matter what they do
DM "ok there is a 100 foot wide chasm blocking the way, it goes down 300 feet with sharp barbed spikes stricking out of boiling hot acid below. there is a narrow bridge going across the middle with a troll standing on it, or a pathway going the long way around it."
Player Ok, I want tot get to the other side"
DM "OK which route will you take, the pathway or the bridge?"
Player "Niether, i am going to run and jump"
DM "....ummmm.... it's 100 feet wide.
Player "I am going to junp anyways"
DM "Ok and what do you think will happen when you do"
Player "Well the heat from the boiling acid and the vapours rising will create an updraft that carries me across"
DM ".... You won't make it, you will fall to your death"
Player "Well i am going to do it anyways because I WILL make it!" rolls die "I have a 27 on my jump, with full plate and a towershield that makes it a total of 12, that should be enough with the updraft"
DM "No, you fall and land on the spikes (rolls some dice) and take XXX damage from the spikes, and XXY damage from the boiling acid, You're dead"
Player "RAAAIIILLLLRRRROOOOOOAAAAAAAADDDDDDD!!!!!!!!"
I disagree. That's blocking, not railroading. You can block without a plot. You can't railroad without a plot. Blocking does become more common with a plot, however, and can be a part of railroading.
Blocking can be used to simply to stop a particular course of action, but it is generally the method used to railroad, since railroading DMs are unimaginative it is ussually the most common method they employ.
DMs can certainly railroad a plot, but they also (and more commonly) railroad specific encounters and events. This is used by DMs that can't build or handle encounters properly and so use railroading to make it easier to control, to DMs who are overbearing regarding allignment or some other preconceived notion on how things should work, and sometimes forcing characters to act in certain ways "your Paladin is lawful good, so you charge the Orc...."
Preserving a plot is only a single motivation for railroading. But it can, and often is, used for any situation.
There are no bad choices. There are only choices. Those choices can have bad outcomes, but they needn't be boring for the players, even if they're bad for the characters
Sure, but on the same token, failure is hardly ever as interesting as success, mainly because failure is undesirable for both the player and character, so there is a limit to how interesting you can make it. And even when it is interesting, it is not the failure that is as interesting as it is what they do to overcome that failure that is interesting.
There is just as much responsibility on the player's part to make it interesting by how their characters handle the situation as there is on the DM.
You're very vague as to how. Do you do this by showing them early on that if they are "out-of-line" that they'll earn results like character death or imprisonment? If so, I can see why you wouldn't have to use those outcomes later, but that doesn't mean that's a positive approach to use.
I imagine some DMs like being that authority figure, handing out just punishment for perceived infractions or casting harsh judgment on ideas and choices they deem bad. Such power. Such control.
They don't see it that way. They're fair and impartial, and the harshness of any consequences is in strict proportion to the amount of harshness an idea deserves. Just like in real life, right?
- - I imagine some DMs like being that authority figure, handing out just punishment for perceived infractions or casting harsh judgment on ideas and choices they deem bad. Such power. Such control. - -
Sounds like you had some particularly terrible and nasty draconian DM's that have tainted your views. Sorry to hear that. Don't let that spoil the game for everyone else by making you blind to how fun it can be when a good DM sits at the table without animosity from control-hungry players afraid of relinquishing power and control. What is a good DM? One who can be trusted to not abuse his/her authority, has the common sense and wisdom to tell the difference between good and bad decisions. If you haven't found someone with that kind of sense, you haven't found a good DM (and might also think about extending your circle of friends). But you extrapolate too far to imply that such a person doesn't exist. Most of us don't think a DM is unfair or partial if he declares a proverbial blindness to a player who proverbially puts out their eyes. Some decisions, as I've posted elsewhere, DO require improvisational skills as well, but many are pretty cut-and-dried. If the DM stinks at being a DM, however then players will leave his/her table... simple as that.
Do these draconians you describe still DM for you or did you leave their group when you grew tired of their draconianism? I betcha left.
** Just because a person thinks they are fair and impartial... that doesn't make them unfair and partial. That's an obvious fallacy.
If the player is unable to hand over the reigns to someone else for something as simple as a game, that's a different problem altogether. A player having the power and control is merely an exchange of power and solves nothing, except wanting something to your detriment is a definite warning sign and red flag. I'd be careful around such a player who needs power and control so badly that they can't allow someone else to arbitrate a role-playing game. If they are not actually psychotic, but merely enjoy being in and well suited for positions of authority, maybe they should offer to DM.
It is somewhat infuriating that you make anyone with a Type A personality out to have a god-complex and anyone who displays common sense you make out to be an iron-fisted tyrant.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As far as your question for MrCustomer as to how in-game solutions prevent in-game problems... mildly and occasionally unreasonable players can be deterred if they know there are negative consequences for negative actions. Don't equate unreasonable with stupid just because they often go hand in hand. Knowing there are in-game methods to deal with in-game problems means a player who might otherwise choose to be a pain in the arse will choose among less annoying options because they don't want to deal with the in-game consequences. Call it blocking.. if it means more a civil game, block away.
It is no different than saying that a player who wants to attack another player has to have the player's permission to do so. Both block disruptive behavior... in-game. Both can be overcome by out-of-game discussion, but out-of-game discussions are generally not needed since both in some way or other provide the DM and players an in-game solution.
It's not about poking out one's eyes, jumping off a bridge, swimming through acid, or anything like that. These things have natural consequences. Things like committing crimes do not have "natural" consequences, the way those do, as much as we might like them to. In movies, and stories, and roleplaying games, those things can have "interesting" consequences instead. And there's no reason for them not to.
The consequences may not be as obvious, but there is still a possibility of certain consequences happening, just as there is in real life, Witnesses to the crime, guards on patrol, a magical or mundane trap/alarm, concerned citizens, etc etc....any number of possible consequences that may or may not occur, depending on what's been established in the setting.
Should it be interesting? Certainly it should. But it can also result in failure, and failure, by definition an unwanted result, is rarely as interesting as success, no matter how "interesting" you make it.
Is it interesting in movies and stories? Yes. Should it be in the game as well? Well that isn't the right question, what you should ask is:
"Why is it interesting in movies and stories?"
It's because the characters in movies and stories make it interesting. The Players control the characters and they have as much to do with how interesting the situation is then the DM, in fact moreso because they can make an interesting situation pretty boring.
This situation there were guards? Is that interesting or boring? They were corrupt guards who would be open to bribery and the players have a hwole bag of useless fake gold coins on them. The players made that boring. My players wouldn't have, I know I wouldn't have been such a boring player.
What if the players had bribed the guards with the fake coins into blaming the gnome they were looking for for the explosion? "he told us to meet him here and then set a trap! Look we just want to talk to him, I am sure we can come up with some sort of arrangement"
Boring failure or interesting success? That is really up to the players just as much as anyone else.
I think where it seems we have the biggest contention is in your qualifier "established fiction". The traditional way of dealing with established fiction is that in most 'worlds' most things pretty much behave in a manner consistent with our expectations on this world... touch fire = get burned. Traditionally, with a DM making decisions, such events aren't considered 'punishment'. Some of what you have said led me to believe that you felt it was.
Yes, established fiction can include elements that are assumed to be true in both the real world and fictional world. But that doesn't need to be true and a case can be made that it shouldn't be true given that were playing in a fantasy world where anything can happen. There's only one reason that something can't be in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.
Not all "logical" outcomes are punishment handed down by the DM. Oftentimes, it is, whether the DM realizes it or not, and certain approaches to the game encourage this behavior (like when you have a carefully-crafted plot or world to protect). In my view, the DM should ask whether a "logical" outcome will actually be fun or not, and that's a fair question to ask of the players whose characters will be the recipients of that outcome.
Even the thought of letting a player determine the results of (in this case) touching fire seems (to me) therefore a) insulting to the DM's intelligence, b) a waste of time for everyone involved, c) an unreasonable ploy to achieve a result without using real creativity and d) cheapens the experience for everyone involved by rendering actions meaningless.
I don't see why any of that needs to be a conclusion for including the player on determining anything in the game. We let players come up with their own backstories traditionally, right? That's just them establishing fiction. Determining an outcome for an action is also just establishing fiction. The difference is in how we perceive who gets to establish what fiction. I see no reason for that division if the group is working on a "Yes, and..." basis in good faith. If the player takes an action, ostensibly it's something they're interested in doing, and if they have an idea for the outcome, that's an outcome they're interested in, too. This transaction potentially represents an increase in player engagement. Or I can guess at what might be an interesting outcome and maybe I'll get it right (maybe even most of the time). Sometimes, however, I won't. Why not ask for collaboration to hedge against that happening?
Or more succinctly, why is one human being's contribution (the DM) more valid than the next (the player)? There's only one answer in my view: Tradition. And tradition is something easily discarded, if you want to. That'll be up to the group.
I truly meant I was surprised, although considering we had made some progress at understanding perhaps I should not have been. If you agree with me that my example of unreasonable is indeed unreasonable, then we indeed have common ground, whether that means we moved toward it or found it existed all along is the only distinction here. Yet I am still confused as to where the disconnect is.
As with many hypotheticals, the example misses the why's and wherefore's that preceded such a drastic action. In context, the player's choice for his character's actions may make perfect sense. Or in context, it will be completely ludicrous and deserving of questioning outside the context of the game to determine the player's intent.
Centauri's right, too, in saying that this approach isn't about dealing with unreasonable people. That's an out-of-game issue. It's about dealing with actions that have outcomes that are less clear. It would be a rare person indeed who would argue that stabbing their own eyes out shouldn't result in blindness. But the outcomes of the scene in the gnome's shop are practically limitless. As are the outcomes for the 3 hours of play that came before that moment that were not earning the PCs any real progress.
I will assume, with the best of intentions, that you are being sincere. I think that generally you have other people's interest in mind when you make suggestions and believe the advice you're giving to be for the betterment of their games.
Thanks, I'll endeavor to return the same courtesy.
Somewhere in there, either I (and others apparently) are mis-reading your suggestions or else it may be that you think they sound good in theory but don't actually use them in practice (as not as much as you think, anyway).
Believe it or not, many of the ideas that sound strange or extreme to me when I see them in writing... I've come to realize that I already employ many of them. Being habit, I didn't realize I was, but they are partially responsible for my successes as a DM. AND I've actively tried to incorporate them recently, experimentally, just to see if it might shake my game up and up my game if nothing else. You might say that any kickback I've received is due to inflexibility on the player's part. I think you undervalue people's opinions sometimes.
So... I'm not going to stop playing 'devil's advocate' now and then for more traditional approaches, because there are merits to the 'traditional' approaches to gaming. It's not stubborn-ness or ludditism or inflexibility on my part.
It goes without saying (even though I've said it) that there are multiple styles and some styles work with some groups and others don't. One style is not superior to another, though some styles lend themselves to common problems that other styles don't have. And I'm not attacking your style. It used to be my style, too, and I'm happy to explain the finer points of it and how to make that style work better.
Where I think there is any conflict in this discussion is in me saying, "that's railroading, and it's okay," and a vehement response to the contrary because, in my opinion, some are taking a totally wrong view of what railroading is and how it can be used for good. (Much like what plot is. Or content.) This may be an area where we simply have to disagree. If someone has been DMing for 20+ years a certain way and decrying and defining railroading on their own terms the whole time (even if they are subtly doing it), it won't be possible for me to convince that person otherwise. To admit such a thing would be to call into question their very approach to the game and justifications built up over decades. It certainly wasn't easy for me to admit to having railroaded because I honestly didn't think I was. I was doing it though and my players' response: We don't care - the game is awesome. I know my experience in this regard is not unique.
Some of what you suggest seems binary. Either your way being right OR any other way being wrong. On those points, I'm going to debate against them to the best of my ability, especially when I'm certain about the merits and drawbacks of diametrically opposing methods. If I can extract out of a seeming binary suggestion a milder form that I think proves more useful.. I'm going to point it out.
Are you getting ANYthing useful about my point of view?
Hopefully, if nothing else, I can be a counterpoint to your suggestions and you a counterpoint to mine. Either the ultimate awesome works-for-everybody D&D will emerge or two totally different styles will emerge with players knowing fully the strengths and weakness of these vastly different ways of playing or if nothing else, at least players and DMs will have some good arguments for and against a wide range of playing options and will be better informed to decide what elements work best for them and to be thinking about new options altogether... perhaps then they will come up with the ultimate awesome works-for-everybody D&D holy grail... if such a thing exists.
At any rate, it was an offhand statement. Take it with a grain of salt.
Yes, and this is what jplay36 talked a bit about in an earlier post. I see both sides. I play on one side, currently. I can present both sides of the argument, having played and DM'ed in both styles, and I can see the flaws in both. I can also see the solutions for both. I don't think there's is One True Way, nor do I aspire to claim there is one or ever will be one.
BINGO
That is a different subject. Here the DM needed to reevaluate how he was presenting his clues. He could have either added in a clearer clue, or else he could have relied on the "what your character knows" fallback and given them a skill check of some sort followed by an explaination "You realize that the lack of information on the subject in the local library is absurd, someone must be covering it up, from what you know of the city the best place to look is...." Because sometimes you have to spell it out.
If the DM hasn't preordained a single way to solve the mystery, then there's no need to tell the players the way to do something, or spell it out for them.
There are no bad choices. There are just choices.
Well, no, that is wrong on a couple of counts. First if that is the case then it would equally apply to the DM, "there are no bad results. there are just results"
No, because it's about in-game choices. The DM has the power to set up the outcomes of player choices to be good, or bad, boring or interesting. If a DM deliberately (or unthinkingly) makes the results boring, that's a choice that has out-of-game effects.
and secondly, life just doesn't work like that.
No, but this is a game.
Not checking for traps in a place where they should expect a trap is a bad choice.
No, it's just a choice. The trap goes off and there's a scene. How bad that is for the players, and whether or not its interesting is fully within the power of the DM.
Storming a wizard's tower is a bad choice. But it's very interesting.
Giving a guard ALL the gold you have to bribe him instead of using some of the fake gold you have, thats also a bad choice.
It's a costly choice, but money is probably not that big a deal to the players. Better to give him all the money, than to risk the DM checking to see if the guard can tell the fake money.
In combat there are alot of bad choices, choices that would get them killed, that a player can make.
Getting killed is only a bad choice if getting killed would be boring for the player. I have another character lined up to replace my current one. I don't care if my current one dies or not. If my next character seems more interesting to me, I might deliberately arrange for my current character to die.
It happens, even if the DM fudges a roll or two, or doesn't press an obvious advantage with the enemy. Unless you are stating that in your game it is absolutely impossible for your players to ever fail, no matter what they do
We're definitely not saying that. We're saying that if they do fail, the player will find it interesting.
DM "ok there is a 100 foot wide chasm blocking the way, it goes down 300 feet with sharp barbed spikes stricking out of boiling hot acid below. there is a narrow bridge going across the middle with a troll standing on it, or a pathway going the long way around it."
Ah, the "I jump to my death" scenario. We haven't seen that in at least two posts from you. It's not about that.
There are no bad choices. There are only choices. Those choices can have bad outcomes, but they needn't be boring for the players, even if they're bad for the characters
Sure, but on the same token, failure is hardly ever as interesting as success, mainly because failure is undesirable for both the player and character,
That's not inherently true. Failure can be made as interesting or more than success. In stories and books, we prefer some initial failure to constant victory.
so there is a limit to how interesting you can make it.
There isn't. But if one reaches their personal limit, they can talk to the players to ask the kinds of failure they would find interesting.
And even when it is interesting, it is not the failure that is as interesting as it is what they do to overcome that failure that is interesting.
Not necessarily. A failure can be boring, and have a boring way to overcome it, like bribing a guard or using Raise Dead. No point in bothering with scenes like that at all.
A failure can be interesting and have a boring way to overcome it, such as an inspiring death scene, followed by Raise Dead. A failure can be interesting and have an interesting way to overcome it, such as rescuing Han Solo. A failure can be interesting and have no possible way to overcome it, such as if Sauron had obtained the Ring.
Yes, a failure can be boring and have an interesting way to overcome it. But why bother?
There is just as much responsibility on the player's part to make it interesting by how their characters handle the situation as there is on the DM.
Sure, but there's only so much the players can do if the DM doesn't have interesting failure in mind. Usually all the players can do is go along with what the DM is willing to make interesting.
It's not about poking out one's eyes, jumping off a bridge, swimming through acid, or anything like that. These things have natural consequences. Things like committing crimes do not have "natural" consequences, the way those do, as much as we might like them to. In movies, and stories, and roleplaying games, those things can have "interesting" consequences instead. And there's no reason for them not to.
The consequences may not be as obvious, but there is still a possibility of certain consequences happening, just as there is in real life,
Nothing about a game requires that there be any chance of "real life" consequences coming about.
Witnesses to the crime, guards on patrol, a magical or mundane trap/alarm, concerned citizens, etc etc....any number of possible consequences that may or may not occur, depending on what's been established in the setting.
Right, and the DM establishes all that, or at least the likelihood of them occurring. None of those preclude interesting failure, but if they did it would be foolish to have any chance of them coming about.
Should it be interesting? Certainly it should. But it can also result in failure, and failure, by definition an unwanted result, is rarely as interesting as success, no matter how "interesting" you make it.
That's not the case.
Is it interesting in movies and stories? Yes. Should it be in the game as well? Well that isn't the right question, what you should ask is:
"Why is it interesting in movies and stories?"
It's because the characters in movies and stories make it interesting.
No, it's becaue the author decides to make it interesting. The author sets everything up so that the story brings about interesting situations in a plausible way.
The Players control the characters and they have as much to do with how interesting the situation is then the DM, in fact moreso because they can make an interesting situation pretty boring.
But why would they? Oh, I get why they wouldn't do the interesting thing the DM set up for them, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing must then be boring. Maybe it's not even as interesting as what the DM planned, but it could still be interesting.
This situation there were guards? Is that interesting or boring? They were corrupt guards who would be open to bribery and the players have a hwole bag of useless fake gold coins on them. The players made that boring. My players wouldn't have, I know I wouldn't have been such a boring player.
Because you would have known to handle it in the one way that might prove not to be boring?
What if the players had bribed the guards with the fake coins into blaming the gnome they were looking for for the explosion? "he told us to meet him here and then set a trap! Look we just want to talk to him, I am sure we can come up with some sort of arrangement"
It's a good bet the DM would have blocked that.
Boring failure or interesting success? That is really up to the players just as much as anyone else.
That's not failure at all. That's success. Failure is the players not jumping through the right hoop and ending up arrested, or killed, or with the guards' blood on their hands, or otherwise blocked once again from making any interesting progress in the game.
That is a different subject. Here the DM needed to reevaluate how he was presenting his clues. He could have either added in a clearer clue, or else he could have relied on the "what your character knows" fallback and given them a skill check of some sort followed by an explaination "You realize that the lack of information on the subject in the local library is absurd, someone must be covering it up, from what you know of the city the best place to look is...." Because sometimes you have to spell it out. A puzzle migh tlook obvious to the DM, and perhaps the characters would be able to figure it out, but it can be pretty vague to the players, sometimes they don't even realize it is a puzzle.
I think the subjects are related and common to that particular approach to the game. As a side note: If you have information the characters need to have to procede along your plot (say, because you didn't give them a decent enough clue), why would you ask for a skill check? What happens if they fail the check? Or can't they fail it?
Well, no, that is wrong on a couple of counts. First if that is the case then it would equally apply to the DM, "there are no bad results. there are just results" and secondly, life just doesn't work like that.
We're not engaged in a game of real life, nor even a decent simulation of one.
Not checking for traps in a place where they should expect a trap is a bad choice. Giving a guard ALL the gold you have to bribe him instead of using some of the fake gold you have, thats also a bad choice. In combat there are alot of bad choices, choices that would get them killed, that a player can make.
It happens, even if the DM fudges a roll or two, or doesn't press an obvious advantage with the enemy. Unless you are stating that in your game it is absolutely impossible for your players to ever fail, no matter what they do
Those aren't bad choices. They're simply choices. Why do you insist on heaping your viewpoint onto them? The only thing that matters is whether those choices lead to a die roll and what the outcome of that die roll means in context.
As to your last statement quoted above, no, the players never fail. The characters do. There's a difference.
DM "ok there is a 100 foot wide chasm blocking the way, it goes down 300 feet with sharp barbed spikes stricking out of boiling hot acid below. there is a narrow bridge going across the middle with a troll standing on it, or a pathway going the long way around it."
...
Player "RAAAIIILLLLRRRROOOOOOAAAAAAAADDDDDDD!!!!!!!!"
Remember what I said about ludicrous examples? They won't help your understanding of the viewpoint being espoused. But perhaps that's not your goal anyway.
Blocking can be used to simply to stop a particular course of action, but it is generally the method used to railroad, since railroading DMs are unimaginative it is ussually the most common method they employ.
It is a method among dozens of methods to railroad. It's simply more blatant than the dire bore.
I'm not sure why you'd consider all "railroading DM's" unimaginative. That's pejorative and further illustrates your hostility toward a concept that is not inherently bad.
DMs can certainly railroad a plot, but they also (and more commonly) railroad specific encounters and events. This is used by DMs that can't build or handle encounters properly and so use railroading to make it easier to control, to DMs who are overbearing regarding allignment or some other preconceived notion on how things should work, and sometimes forcing characters to act in certain ways "your Paladin is lawful good, so you charge the Orc...."
Railroading is more commonly used to keep players on the DM's prep so that his efforts are not wasted. To that end, it's not inherently bad. You just need player buy-in. Your bias blinds you to the good uses of this technique. Those things you mention above are only a problem because the DM doesn't have buy-in.
Preserving a plot is only a single motivation for railroading. But it can, and often is, used for any situation.
I disagree. What you're describing in those other situations is blocking which can be used for railroading. Railroading doesn't exist without a plot. Blocking can exist independent of a plot and can even show up in games like mine where there is no plot. Railroading can't happen because I have no rail, as I have no plot. I literally have nothing to railroad them onto.
Sure, but on the same token, failure is hardly ever as interesting as success, mainly because failure is undesirable for both the player and character, so there is a limit to how interesting you can make it. And even when it is interesting, it is not the failure that is as interesting as it is what they do to overcome that failure that is interesting.
I disagree. Failure can be just as interesting as success. Films and literature are rife with this. Failure is only undesirable for the player if you choose it to be undesirable. If you can't think of a desirable failure condition, ask the player for one.
There is just as much responsibility on the player's part to make it interesting by how their characters handle the situation as there is on the DM.
I agree. I also submit that the DM has a responsibility to make outcomes of character actions interesting to the players, whether they succeed or not.
Failure can be as interesting as success.
If you can't see how to make failure interesting in a scene, then either don't bother with failure, or ask the players what they think would be an interesting failure - it might even include what you thought would be a boring failure). If they players can't think of an interesting failure, even one not quite as interesting as success, then any failure in that scene would make the game boring, so don't bother with failure in that scene.
Sounds like you had some particularly terrible and nasty draconian DM's that have tainted your views. Sorry to hear that. Don't let that spoil the game for everyone else by making you blind to how fun it can be when a good DM sits at the table without animosity from control-hungry players afraid of relinquishing power and control. What is a good DM? One who can be trusted to not abuse his/her authority, has the common sense and wisdom to tell the difference between good and bad decisions. If you haven't found someone with that kind of sense, you haven't found a good DM (and might also think about extending your circle of friends). But you extrapolate too far to imply that such a person doesn't exist. Most of us don't think a DM is unfair or partial if he declares a proverbial blindness to a player who proverbially puts out their eyes. Some decisions, as I've posted elsewhere, DO require improvisational skills as well, but many are pretty cut-and-dried. If the DM stinks at being a DM, however then players will leave his/her table... simple as that.
Do these draconians you describe still DM for you or did you leave their group when you grew tired of their draconianism? I betcha left.
** Just because a person thinks they are fair and impartial... that doesn't make them unfair and partial. That's an obvious fallacy.
If the player is unable to hand over the reigns to someone else for something as simple as a game, that's a different problem altogether. A player having the power and control is merely an exchange of power and solves nothing, except wanting something to your detriment is a definite warning sign and red flag. I'd be careful around such a player who needs power and control so badly that they can't allow someone else to arbitrate a role-playing game. If they are not actually psychotic, but merely enjoy being in and well suited for positions of authority, maybe they should offer to DM.
It is somewhat infuriating that you make anyone with a Type A personality out to have a god-complex and anyone who displays common sense you make out to be an iron-fisted tyrant.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As far as your question for MrCustomer as to how in-game solutions prevent in-game problems... mildly and occasionally unreasonable players can be deterred if they know there are negative consequences for negative actions. Don't equate unreasonable with stupid just because they often go hand in hand. Knowing there are in-game methods to deal with in-game problems means a player who might otherwise choose to be a pain in the arse will choose among less annoying options because they don't want to deal with the in-game consequences. Call it blocking.. if it means more a civil game, block away.
It is no different than saying that a player who wants to attack another player has to have the player's permission to do so. Both block disruptive behavior... in-game. Both can be overcome by out-of-game discussion, but out-of-game discussions are generally not needed since both in some way or other provide the DM and players an in-game solution.
No, I've never had a draconian DM. I've had DMs of varying skill level. The forums are full of examples of draconian DMs. I'm sure you've read those posts. I'm sure you know it exists as a thing.
As well, I didn't "extrapolate" that good DMs don't exist. That was you saying I extrapolated that. What happened to our good faith? When I was DMing in the Hickman style, I would consider myself a great DM in that approach. I guarantee I could railroad you through an adventure and you'd love it and ask for seconds. I didn't collaborate much back in those days. Now I do.
Why? Because I found that by giving up some of my traditional "power," not only was it easier to run games, but players became more engaged. They didn't ask for the power. I gave it to them. The results were amazing. Plus, less work for better results was a strong selling point.
It isn't. A good DM will listen to his players. To that extent collaboration is quite awesome. I'm all for it. But players are biased and will to their own detriment push for success on everything they try, forgetting that such one-sided characters that never have any setbacks whatsoever become boring rather quickly.
I know you might think that I'm again misinterpreting failure/interesting failure, but having the safety net of being able to change outcomes for the better by merely saying "make it so"... the 'magic goat approach' does provide for such a level of security as to eliminate any chance of a player having meaningful decisions for their character because no matter what choice they make, they can simply decide the SAME outcome. It might be mildly entertaining to hear how the magic goat saves the day each time (you poke out your eyes and are granted Neo sight), but most of us want the established fiction to provide for some level of realism and expected results... that way.. if something fantastic occurs, it somehow feels 'magical' not ordinary.
Hence... the DM's intelligence is insulted because the implication is that he's so entirely incompetent he needs to run even the most obvious results past the players. Time is wasted because the players must present the case of how their particular 'magic goat' saves the day and must come to a concensus before anything can happen instead of merely describing their character's actions and the DM choosing an outcome. It is an unreasonable ploy because rather than come up with a creative solution to a presented obstacle, the player can simply make up a 'magic goat' solution. The magic goat solutions may be just as creative story-wise, but the protagonists become much less interesting when it is not they who saved the day, but some made-up on the spot story element (no matter how well it fits with established fiction).
If the characters are sneaking into a very fortified enemy castle... they might sneaking in as loyalists, hide in a haywagon or some such.... unless of course all they have to do is walk up and say "The guard isn't paying attention and we just walk right through the front door". That's a cheap ploy and not particularly creative. I suddenly grow wings and fly over the walls... because it's a magic world. Is more creative, more of a cheap ploy and a real magic goat.
And it cheapens the result of the players who came up with a truly creative way to get into that dreaded enemy stronghold. Pretty soon they catch on that rather than think creatively, they can just summon their own magic goats. 100 foot chasm? I grow 100 foot tall. We need to get to the other side of town as quickly as possible? A magic gate appears. I stuck my arm in the black maw of the demon statue and pulled back a nub? And it grows back, stronger than ever. After a while, I think it might deteriorate to this: You see an obstacle. The obstacle goes away because magic. Rinse. Repeat.
Meanwhile the other players are risking their characters in order to act out interesting plans and heroic acts of pure awesomeness... but they're risking their characters un-neccessarily, which makes them look more foolish than heroic, really. When they could have just summoned a 'magic goat'.
Seewhatumsayin?
Scene: Party is split up. The three PCs in this scene are willing captives of a lizardfolk tribe in the jungles of Q'barra. The PCs have chosen to try and convince the Lizard King to make an alliance with them against a rival tribe that is threatening war upon a frontier town. A skill challenge ensues.
Success: The PCs secure the alliance - the lizardfolk will send warriors to confront the rival tribe and protect the human settlement. There's just enough time to arrive back at the frontier town with a tribe of friendly lizardfolk at their backs to defend the town.
Failure: The PCs fail to secure the alliance and are taken into the jungle to some ruins and are offered to the black wyrm Rhashaak as a sacrifice. The rest of the group will probably need to find and rescue them. The lizardfolk tribe turns a blind eye to the eradication of the human settlement.
In this scenario, the PCs did succeed. But when the victory and defeat conditions were revealed to them before the skill challenge began, what was the player response to what success and failure looked like? "Both are cool." They strived for success, as players in a game will do, but failure was also acceptable because it would lead to more fun complications. (One player actually wanted to fail but didn't want to block the others.)
This sort of balance is not hard to achieve on the fly. And if the DM can't think of something like this, he can easily just ask his players for help.
It isn't. A good DM will listen to his players. To that extent collaboration is quite awesome. I'm all for it. But players are biased and will to their own detriment push for success on everything they try, forgetting that such one-sided characters that never have any setbacks whatsoever become boring rather quickly.
Aha, and there you have a good argument. This is a thing that happens. I'm sure Centauri can attest to it as well. But do you know what happens when they get bored of succeeding all the time? They start to welcome interesting challenges instead of fighting to avoid them. They'll actively put themselves in dangerous situations and inflict dire results on their characters that the DM could never get away with without resistance. Because, as it turns out, always "winning" is not actually very fun in a non-competitive game.
I know you might think that I'm again misinterpreting failure/interesting failure, but having the safety net of being able to change outcomes for the better by merely saying "make it so"... the 'magic goat approach' does provide for such a level of security as to eliminate any chance of a player having meaningful decisions for their character because no matter what choice they make, they can simply decide the SAME outcome. It might be mildly entertaining to hear how the magic goat saves the day each time (you poke out your eyes and are granted Neo sight), but most of us want the established fiction to provide for some level of realism and expected results... that way.. if something fantastic occurs, it somehow feels 'magical' not ordinary.
The notion of realism in a fantasy world will always be funny to me. Even so, if there's nothing to suggest magic goats are a thing in the fiction, the player would be in violation of "Yes, and..." principles. The same as if he said laser-beam shooting robots show up to save them in a world with low magic and no technology. I think the other side of this debate commonly forgets the responsibilities that come with the "Yes, and..." approach.
Hence... the DM's intelligence is insulted because the implication is that he's so entirely incompetent he needs to run even the most obvious results past the players. Time is wasted because the players must present the case of how their particular 'magic goat' saves the day and must come to a concensus before anything can happen instead of merely describing their character's actions and the DM choosing an outcome. It is an unreasonable ploy because rather than come up with a creative solution to a presented obstacle, the player can simply make up a 'magic goat' solution. The magic goat solutions may be just as creative story-wise, but the protagonists become much less interesting when it is not they who saved the day, but some made-up on the spot story element (no matter how well it fits with established fiction).
Ask yourself why the players chose to have magical goats save the day rather than be heroic and do it themselves. Then you'll have your answer. Better yet, ask your players why. I bet it's because they're not interested in your content.
If the characters are sneaking into a very fortified enemy castle... they might sneaking in as loyalists, hide in a haywagon or some such.... unless of course all they have to do is walk up and say "The guard isn't paying attention and we just walk right through the front door". That's a cheap ploy and not particularly creative. I suddenly grow wings and fly over the walls... because it's a magic world. Is more creative, more of a cheap ploy and a real magic goat.
More ludicrous examples. If the DM established alert guards, the player cannot simply say they sneak past because the guard is not alert. That's a violation of "Yes, and..." You can't just say you sprout wings and fly over the walls unless there is fictional context to support that (or mechanics in the game that allow for it).
I'm going to start considering some of this stuff trolling. After all this time, if you can't understand what I'm talking about and it's all magic goat and eye-gouging discussions with you, it's not worth my time. No offense.
---
Glad it worked for you, but what would you have done if they gave the power back because they would rather be surprised at what happens to their characters? Do you just kick that person away from the table or collaborate as a team what happens to that character. It seems like all the open discussion would ruin much of the fun. I HATE knowing what's going to happen next when I'm playing. It's like watching a crappy movie with predictable plot twists. Eyes glaze over and I spill popcorn all over the sofa. Or with multiple characters telling the story... no matter how agreeable they try to be, after a while it's like two kids playing cops and robbers.
Nuh-uh! I shot first! Nuh-uh! I shot first! So what, you missed! So what YOU missed! Did not! Did too! Did not! Did too! After a while... mom comes out and says "Both of you. In the house before you're BOTH dead!" From your Q'barra description of how it works, it sounds like somebody eventually has to concede to the rest of the group. And knowing human nature, it's probably almost always the same person that gets stuck not getting their way. Which isn't fair. Having an impartial (YES, centauri, such people exist) DM helps insure a checks and balance against that happening.
Glad it worked for you, but what would you have done if they gave the power back because they would rather be surprised at what happens to their characters? Do you just kick that person away from the table or collaborate as a team what happens to that character. It seems like all the open discussion would ruin much of the fun.
Maybe it seems that way, but that's not the way it is. I'd be willing to bet there are more surprises in our games than in yours. Even surprises for the DM.
From your Q'barra description of how it works, it sounds like somebody eventually has to concede to the rest of the group. And knowing human nature, it's probably almost always the same person that gets stuck not getting their way. Which isn't fair. Having an impartial (YES, centauri, such people exist) DM helps insure a checks and balance against that happening.
Not at all. The player said "Yes" to wanting to succeed and then added to that ("and...") by acquiring information about the black wyrm because he wants to fight it. Next session, we're fighting it. Everyone got what they wanted.
Glad it worked for you, but what would you have done if they gave the power back because they would rather be surprised at what happens to their characters? Do you just kick that person away from the table or collaborate as a team what happens to that character. It seems like all the open discussion would ruin much of the fun.
Maybe it seems that way, but that's not the way it is. I'd be willing to bet there are more surprises in our games than in yours. Even surprises for the DM.
Players are welcome to kick the power back, for whatever reason. Even this approach requires buy-in. But if the DM goes back to the supposedly more "surprising" approach, and the PC don't like the surprises, or push back against them, or try to avoid them, that DM would be right to wonder what it is the players really want.
Anyway, players ask questions and put forth ideas all the time, so all the DM has to do is say "Yes, and..." rather than block and frustrate. Explicit collaboration isn't necessary to have interesting failures, it just makes having interesting failure easier.
I think the subjects are related and common to that particular approach to the game. As a side note: If you have information the characters need to have to procede along your plot (say, because you didn't give them a decent enough clue), why would you ask for a skill check? What happens if they fail the check? Or can't they fail it?
Such a "what your character would know" skill check doesn't really have a fail, it has a varying degree of success with what information is gained within a range.
Here I think the Players are expecting the game to work liek a video game, you click on the right NPC and you will get the desired response, This is later confirmed when the suggestion of a bribe is mentioned, which they saw as "Press A to continue" The problem isn't if there are rails or not, the problem is the players have purchsed their tickets and are waiting at the station for a train that isn't coming.
We're not engaged in a game of real life, nor even a decent simulation of one.
The players are living, playing games are a part of life.
Those aren't bad choices. They're simply choices. Why do you insist on heaping your viewpoint onto them? The only thing that matters is whether those choices lead to a die roll and what the outcome of that die roll means in context.
As to your last statement quoted above, no, the players never fail. The characters do. There's a difference.
If it was the player intent for the character to fail, then you would be correct. However as most players don't want their characters to fail, the two are interrelated. I could perhaps say "the character failed to reach the player's expected goal" but that is rather convoluted.
Not checking for a trap where there should be one is a bad choice, (unless the Players wants his character to be reckless in which case, good choice) as the consequential die roll that the choice leads to is not a desirable outcome that the player wants for his character.
Remember what I said about ludicrous examples? They won't help your understanding of the viewpoint being espoused. But perhaps that's not your goal anyway.
Using the logical extreme to test a hypothesis is a legitimate method for demonstrating a point. But really the situation I described is no different then the many situations that could occur that you would argue aren't bad choices. What about players that assasinate the king in his courtyard in front of his guards? But lets not talk about such hypothetically impossible to escape the consequences.
What about the player in full plate and tower shield in this situatio that tries to leap a 30 foot chasm? Make it 15 feet. Either way the chosen solution is a bad choice because of the improbability of success. I could fudge the results and let him make the leap (despite his failed roll) but all I am doing is encouraging such poor choices.
Most of the problems that DMs have is ludicrous choices by the players, which brings me to this 100 foot leap over a spiked, boiling acid pit. Why would the player do such a ludicrous thing? Because the DM let him get away with the 20 foot jump, then the 30 then......
How about another thread that Centauri and others disagreed with my suggestions here, wher ea PC was at odds with his group because he wanted to burn down a brothel with no regards to all the people he would kill, the fire spreading or the consequences to the party's goals? Thats even more ludicrous then jumping a 100 foot chasm imo.
I agree. I also submit that the DM has a responsibility to make outcomes of character actions interesting to the players, whether they succeed or not.
When the results of poor choices are more interesting and rewarding then the results of good choices you are creating a problem. Both in regards to rightfully disgruntled players who are robbed of the rewards they earn making the right choices, but also in encouraging poor choices in general.
Should I stiff the player who comes up with a clever, imaginative solution in favour of a character who gives little to no effort and makes reckless choices? Especially if the rest of the group suffers some of the outcome of his "interesting failure" while they are working hard on trying to succeed?
I know some are stuck with the communist notion that the doctor should get paid the exact same as the person flipping burgers at Mc Donalds, but in reality this neither encourages the one to do something better with his life, nor rewards the other for his commendable work.
It isn't. A good DM will listen to his players. To that extent collaboration is quite awesome. I'm all for it. But players are biased and will to their own detriment push for success on everything they try, forgetting that such one-sided characters that never have any setbacks whatsoever become boring rather quickly.
Aha, and there you have a good argument. This is a thing that happens. I'm sure Centauri can attest to it as well. But do you know what happens when they get bored of succeeding all the time? They start to welcome interesting challenges instead of fighting to avoid them. They'll actively put themselves in dangerous situations and inflict dire results on their characters that the DM could never get away with without resistance. Because, as it turns out, always "winning" is not actually very fun in a non-competitive game.I know you might think that I'm again misinterpreting failure/interesting failure, but having the safety net of being able to change outcomes for the better by merely saying "make it so"... the 'magic goat approach' does provide for such a level of security as to eliminate any chance of a player having meaningful decisions for their character because no matter what choice they make, they can simply decide the SAME outcome. It might be mildly entertaining to hear how the magic goat saves the day each time (you poke out your eyes and are granted Neo sight), but most of us want the established fiction to provide for some level of realism and expected results... that way.. if something fantastic occurs, it somehow feels 'magical' not ordinary.
The notion of realism in a fantasy world will always be funny to me. Even so, if there's nothing to suggest magic goats are a thing in the fiction, the player would be in violation of "Yes, and..." principles. The same as if he said laser-beam shooting robots show up to save them in a world with low magic and no technology. I think the other side of this debate commonly forgets the responsibilities that come with the "Yes, and..." approach.Hence... the DM's intelligence is insulted because the implication is that he's so entirely incompetent he needs to run even the most obvious results past the players. Time is wasted because the players must present the case of how their particular 'magic goat' saves the day and must come to a concensus before anything can happen instead of merely describing their character's actions and the DM choosing an outcome. It is an unreasonable ploy because rather than come up with a creative solution to a presented obstacle, the player can simply make up a 'magic goat' solution. The magic goat solutions may be just as creative story-wise, but the protagonists become much less interesting when it is not they who saved the day, but some made-up on the spot story element (no matter how well it fits with established fiction).
Ask yourself why the players chose to have magical goats save the day rather than be heroic and do it themselves. Then you'll have your answer. Better yet, ask your players why. I bet it's because they're not interested in your content.If the characters are sneaking into a very fortified enemy castle... they might sneaking in as loyalists, hide in a haywagon or some such.... unless of course all they have to do is walk up and say "The guard isn't paying attention and we just walk right through the front door". That's a cheap ploy and not particularly creative. I suddenly grow wings and fly over the walls... because it's a magic world. Is more creative, more of a cheap ploy and a real magic goat.
More ludicrous examples. If the DM established alert guards, the player cannot simply say they sneak past because the guard is not alert. That's a violation of "Yes, and..." You can't just say you sprout wings and fly over the walls unless there is fictional context to support that (or mechanics in the game that allow for it).
I'm going to start considering some of this stuff trolling. After all this time, if you can't understand what I'm talking about and it's all magic goat and eye-gouging discussions with you, it's not worth my time. No offense.
So you can have dire bores, but I can't have magic goats? Hardly fair.
GAHHH! I can't understand because you say one ludicrous thing in one paragraph (proclaiming it's avante garde greatness) and something entirely different in the next one.
And never had a player do anything out of the ordinary. It might be because everything is a violation of yes and to you. I've seen your posts for some time. Your players are trying to tell you something.
And less passive-aggressively... your constant passive-aggressive smug condescension is quite offensive.
Alert guards is a block. I'm out.
Players are welcome to kick the power back, for whatever reason. Even this approach requires buy-in. But if the DM goes back to the supposedly more "surprising" approach, and the PC don't like the surprises, or push back against them, or try to avoid them, that DM would be right to wonder what it is the players really want.
Anyway, players ask questions and put forth ideas all the time, so all the DM has to do is say "Yes, and..." rather than block and frustrate. Explicit collaboration isn't necessary to have interesting failures, it just makes having interesting failure easier.
Yes, and I think a lot of this gets tangled up with who exactly we're trying to surprise - the characters or the players. Just like who is it that fails - the characters or the players. Keeping those two things separate is key to understanding the viewpoint, I think. The other side of the debate often sounds like they have that muddled, and would make sense as to how it correlates to dealing with out-of-game issues in-game.
If it was the player intent for the character to fail, then you would be correct. However as most players don't want their characters to fail, the two are interrelated.
But doesn't the fact that "most" (?) players don't want their characters to fail come from being conditioned to think that the DM is going to make any character failure boring?
From your Q'barra description of how it works, it sounds like somebody eventually has to concede to the rest of the group. And knowing human nature, it's probably almost always the same person that gets stuck not getting their way. Which isn't fair. Having an impartial (YES, centauri, such people exist) DM helps insure a checks and balance against that happening.
I actually ran this game.
Knowing possible failure of the skill checks had no bearing on what would happen. This scene was actually more collaborative than Iserith let on. We also had player input from the other split scene players adding complications to the negotiations with the lizardfolk. This allowed for interesting results with very little planning. The player who wanted to fail just wanted to fight a dragon, we noted that and like Iserith said... there's that exact Black dragon to fight 2 sessions later.
Iserith's character is a drunk and his alcoholic breath sickened the lizardfolk. Hilarity ensued (if angry lizardfolk are funny, which in my opinion they are.) This was a complication added by another player. Everyone thought it was cool.
Good things happen if everyone says yes and adds to the scene. It's reminds me of Fiasco in that sense.
Such a "what your character would know" skill check doesn't really have a fail, it has a varying degree of success with what information is gained within a range.
What if the roll was so low as to suggest a clue that is just as vague as the clues they didn't pick up on before?
Here I think the Players are expecting the game to work liek a video game, you click on the right NPC and you will get the desired response, This is later confirmed when the suggestion of a bribe is mentioned, which they saw as "Press A to continue" The problem isn't if there are rails or not, the problem is the players have purchsed their tickets and are waiting at the station for a train that isn't coming.
To be clear: I've never said that the rails in the adventure were a problem.
The players are living, playing games are a part of life.
The characters are the ones in the game world, not the players. The players are separate. Surprises, success, failure - all of those happen to the characters, not the players. (That the players may have an emotional response to those occurrences are a separate issue.)
I'm sensing a strong divide over issues of metagaming, immersion, and whatnot, which is partially edition-oriented. You and Sir_Joseph are playing 3.5, right?
If it was the player intent for the character to fail, then you would be correct. However as most players don't want their characters to fail, the two are interrelated. I could perhaps say "the character failed to reach the player's expected goal" but that is rather convoluted.
Some would argue that the goal of playing D&D is to have fun. If success and failure are both fun and interesting for the player, then what does it matter? I'm in agreement with Beldak as well. This is a conditioned response. "All failures are boring, so I don't want to fail." That DM normally dictates the failure conditions. So this is in response to the DM. The blame lies there. This leads to all sorts of common issues.
Not checking for a trap where there should be one is a bad choice, (unless the Players wants his character to be reckless in which case, good choice) as the consequential die roll that the choice leads to is not a desirable outcome that the player wants for his character.
It sounds like you're projecting your opinions onto choices and this leads you to devise boring outcomes to punish those choices you arbitrarily find to be bad. "That was a bad choice, so regardless, it'll be a bad outcome."
Using the logical extreme to test a hypothesis is a legitimate method for demonstrating a point. But really the situation I described is no different then the many situations that could occur that you would argue aren't bad choices. What about players that assasinate the king in his courtyard in front of his guards? But lets not talk about such hypothetically impossible to escape the consequences.
What you're suggesting is more extreme than logical. What are the consequences, in your view, of assassinating the king in his courtyard in front of the guards? Before you state them, do you think that is a bad choice on the part of the players?
What about the player in full plate and tower shield in this situatio that tries to leap a 30 foot chasm? Make it 15 feet. Either way the chosen solution is a bad choice because of the improbability of success. I could fudge the results and let him make the leap (despite his failed roll) but all I am doing is encouraging such poor choices.
It's not a poor choice. It's a choice with an improbable outcome (depending on level and edition). Why do you feel the need to editorialize the players' choices?
Most of the problems that DMs have is ludicrous choices by the players, which brings me to this 100 foot leap over a spiked, boiling acid pit. Why would the player do such a ludicrous thing? Because the DM let him get away with the 20 foot jump, then the 30 then......
No, no player would do such a thing and no player would object if the consequences were that they took damage. It's just a stupid example. How about my example above with the lizardfolk in Q'barra, something that actually happened? Why not analyze that?
How about another thread that Centauri and others disagreed with my suggestions here, wher ea PC was at odds with his group because he wanted to burn down a brothel with no regards to all the people he would kill, the fire spreading or the consequences to the party's goals? Thats even more ludicrous then jumping a 100 foot chasm imo.
That player may be blocking. It's an out-of-game issue anyway.
When the results of poor choices are more interesting and rewarding then the results of good choices you are creating a problem. Both in regards to rightfully disgruntled players who are robbed of the rewards they earn making the right choices, but also in encouraging poor choices in general.
The characters earn those rewards, not the players.
Should I stiff the player who comes up with a clever, imaginative solution in favour of a character who gives little to no effort and makes reckless choices? Especially if the rest of the group suffers some of the outcome of his "interesting failure" while they are working hard on trying to succeed?
In our approach, if the clever, imaginative solution is put forth, then it would be blocking if the reckless player (say, a dragonborn) went and did his own thing to the detriment of that solution. What he would do instead is accept the clever, imaginative idea, then add his own ideas to it if he wanted. As far as the DM's role, it's not his place to determine if the solution is particularly clever or imaginative or reckless because the outcome is not known yet. That's what the dice determine which those outcomes interpreted by the DM (or collaboratively). You seem to suggest that a reckless plan can't work simply because you've decided it's reckless.
I know some are stuck with the communist notion that the doctor should get paid the exact same as the person flipping burgers at Mc Donalds, but in reality this neither encourages the one to do something better with his life, nor rewards the other for his commendable work.
Wow. We're indirectly calling people communists now?
Such a "what your character would know" skill check doesn't really have a fail, it has a varying degree of success with what information is gained within a range.
That's because failure would be pointless. But it's also pretty pointless to risk the players' progress in the DM's plot with a roll like that.
We're not engaged in a game of real life, nor even a decent simulation of one.
The players are living, playing games are a part of life.
Yes, but it's not a part of life that anyone involved wants to be boring.
Those aren't bad choices. They're simply choices. Why do you insist on heaping your viewpoint onto them? The only thing that matters is whether those choices lead to a die roll and what the outcome of that die roll means in context.
As to your last statement quoted above, no, the players never fail. The characters do. There's a difference.
If it was the player intent for the character to fail, then you would be correct. However as most players don't want their characters to fail, the two are interrelated.
What doesn't have to be interrelated is how the player and character react to the failure. The player might think the failure is exciting and interesting, while the character doesn't. And there's no reason to waste a player's time with something the player isn't going to find interesting.
Not checking for a trap where there should be one is a bad choice, (unless the Players wants his character to be reckless in which case, good choice) as the consequential die roll that the choice leads to is not a desirable outcome that the player wants for his character.
Regardless, the consequences of a trap, or anything else, need not be boring, and the DM has prime control over that.
Remember what I said about ludicrous examples? They won't help your understanding of the viewpoint being espoused. But perhaps that's not your goal anyway.
Using the logical extreme to test a hypothesis is a legitimate method for demonstrating a point.
Then you have to understand the "hypothesis," which includes the concept that if the DM can't see how to deliver an interesting consequence for an action, the DM talks to the player.
But really the situation I described is no different then the many situations that could occur that you would argue aren't bad choices. What about players that assasinate the king in his courtyard in front of his guards? But lets not talk about such hypothetically impossible to escape the consequences.
No, let's. Because the answer is: what do the players think would be an interesting way to proceed. Do they think it would be interesting to slaughter or be slaughtered by the guards? They just might. Do they think it would be interesting to escape and be hunted? Maybe? Did they think the king was an impostor? That would be interesting so maybe he was. Why not? The point is: there's a discussion. There isn't the DM just saying unilaterally that they don't escape and they're killed or imprisoned.
Maybe the discussion even makes it clear that the players are simply out to cause trouble for the DM, no matter what. That's good to know too.
What about the player in full plate and tower shield in this situatio that tries to leap a 30 foot chasm? Make it 15 feet. Either way the chosen solution is a bad choice because of the improbability of success. I could fudge the results and let him make the leap (despite his failed roll) but all I am doing is encouraging such poor choices.
Maybe you shouldn't have put the chasm there if you didn't want people jumping across it.
Time for a discussion. Maybe the DM didn't make something clear. Maybe the player feels blocked and bored and needs to understand what's supposed to be fun about the situation. If the DM can't offer anything, maybe there's a way across that chasm after all, one that fits everyone's idea of the game world.
Most of the problems that DMs have is ludicrous choices by the players,
Even if that's true, ludicrous choices stem from lack of communication and restriction by the DM. If a DM can't make the PCs choices fun, he needs to talk to them and maybe stop gaming with them.
which brings me to this 100 foot leap over a spiked, boiling acid pit. Why would the player do such a ludicrous thing? Because the DM let him get away with the 20 foot jump, then the 30 then......
Or because the DM has blocked everything else the player tried.
How about another thread that Centauri and others disagreed with my suggestions here, wher ea PC was at odds with his group because he wanted to burn down a brothel with no regards to all the people he would kill, the fire spreading or the consequences to the party's goals? Thats even more ludicrous then jumping a 100 foot chasm imo.
Yes, there needed to be a conversation there, too. As I recall, there was discussion of making that character pay for that action, by hunting him down with forces that were impossible to escape or defeat. How on earth is that a better use of time than just talking to the player and either asking them to stop, asking them to leave, or figuring out a cool way to proceed?
When the results of poor choices are more interesting and rewarding then the results of good choices you are creating a problem. Both in regards to rightfully disgruntled players who are robbed of the rewards they earn making the right choices, but also in encouraging poor choices in general.
There's no reason to assume that anyone is being robbed of their rewards, just because the DM refuses to deal out boredom to someone. And the whole point is that if the DM can make the "bad" choices interesting then it doesn't matter if players make those choices. The entire goal of the approach is to not have to worry what kind of choices the players will make.
Should I stiff the player who comes up with a clever, imaginative solution in favour of a character who gives little to no effort and makes reckless choices?
No, because the clever imaginative solution will probably succeed, and the no-effort, reckless choices will probably fail. Interesting results should be separate from success or failure.
Especially if the rest of the group suffers some of the outcome of his "interesting failure" while they are working hard on trying to succeed?
There's no reason in general why the rest of the group has to suffer. If you can't see a way to make things interesting for one person, without making the others "suffer," you need to talk to the group.
I know some are stuck with the communist notion that the doctor should get paid the exact same as the person flipping burgers at Mc Donalds, but in reality this neither encourages the one to do something better with his life, nor rewards the other for his commendable work.
Failure. Try saying it: failure. We're talking about failure. "Dumb," "bad," "reckless," "foolish," actions can and will fail. But there's no reason why that failure has to be boring, or why those actions have to be blocked or prevented or hung with disincentives. Better to pause the game, figure out where the disconnect is, and go from there.
He's dealing out boredom to the creative smart players that make the game more interesting for everyone else in order to 'dumb it down' for the others.
Would it not be better to have the 'bored' player engage their brain long enough to come up with interesting workable solutions rather than have everyone else cater to their lack of ingenuity?
He's dealing out boredom to the creative smart players that make the game more interesting for everyone else in order to 'dumb it down' for the others.
Nothing is being dumbed down.
Would it not be better to have the 'bored' player engage their brain long enough to come up with interesting workable solutions rather than have everyone else cater to their lack of ingenuity?
Not if the method used to accomplish that is to make the player bored until the player engages. The exact opposite is more likely to happen, as demonstrated in the original post: bore the players for not being creative in the right way and they'll get more bored until they are either falling over themselves not to do anything that might not be the right thing, or doing the most reckless thing they can think of just to see something happen.
Besides which, what we keep saying is that the ingenuity comes in the form of the player working with the DM to determine what the interesting failure looks like. If the player can't or won't do that, then it's an out-of-game issue anyway, and still doesn't benefit from giving the player a boring in-game consequence.
It's never beneficial to bore the players. At best, it's a strain on their patience and trust. If you can generate a payoff that's worth that strain, then go for it.
He's dealing out boredom to the creative smart players that make the game more interesting for everyone else in order to 'dumb it down' for the others.
Would it not be better to have the 'bored' player engage their brain long enough to come up with interesting workable solutions rather than have everyone else cater to their lack of ingenuity?
Let me ask you this: When you're DMing, if the players come up with what you decide is a "good" plan for dealing with a challenge, do you give some sort of conditional modifiers to their rolls or lower the DCs? Or maybe reduce the number of rolls required to succeed overall? Or even handwave it and say it's a success? If so, how do you gauge whether a plan is "good" or not?
Or does every plan get a fair shake with level-appropriate DCs and the same number of checks?
Iserith's character is a drunk
Now here's an area where even I blur the line between player and character...
--------
No, no player would do such a thing and no player would object if the consequences were that they took damage. It's just a stupid example. How about my example above with the lizardfolk in Q'barra, something that actually happened? Why not analyze that?
What you are calling stupid examples are among the surprising things players have done in our worlds. I think I win that bet.
He's dealing out boredom to the creative smart players that make the game more interesting for everyone else in order to 'dumb it down' for the others.
Would it not be better to have the 'bored' player engage their brain long enough to come up with interesting workable solutions rather than have everyone else cater to their lack of ingenuity?
Let me ask you this: When you're DMing, if the players come up with what you decide is a "good" plan for dealing with a challenge, do you give some sort of conditional modifiers to their rolls or lower the DCs? Or maybe reduce the number of rolls required to succeed overall? Or even handwave it and say it's a success? If so, how do you gauge whether a plan is "good" or not?
Or does every plan get a fair shake with level-appropriate DCs and the same number of checks?
Lower the DC. Eliminate the rolls if possible. Handwave 'fool-proof' plans.
If a terrible plan is all they can come up with it's not going to have much chance of success, so the DC might be higher. Depending on the plan, the DC of what they want to do may be super-easy or super-hard, but the results of their actions might not be what they were trying to make happen.
I tend to use common sense to tell if a plan is a good one. Not being sarcastic there, but that's my metric.
Lower the DC. Eliminate the rolls if possible. Handwave 'fool-proof' plans.
If a terrible plan is all they can come up with it's not going to have much chance of success, so the DC might be higher. Depending on the plan, the DC of what they want to do may be super-easy or super-hard, but the results of their actions might not be what they were trying to make happen.
I tend to use common sense to tell if a plan is a good one. Not being sarcastic there, but that's my metric.
How about you, MrCustomer? My guess is that you do the same thing.
A player jumping off a cliff, or the like, isn't expecting not to get hurt. He's deliberately jerking the DM around.
A player who decides to commit a crime isn't necessarily jerking the DM around, and doesn't necessarily expect the game to get boring as a result, any more than they'd expect the game to get boring as a result of storming a wizard's tower. Why should the game get boring?
The game gets boring when a DM is trying to teach the lesson: play the way the DM wants or have a boring game. Why not make an effort to avert boredom and try to teach (and learn) the lesson: the DM wants the players to have an interesting time, no matter what?
From your Q'barra description of how it works, it sounds like somebody eventually has to concede to the rest of the group. And knowing human nature, it's probably almost always the same person that gets stuck not getting their way. Which isn't fair. Having an impartial (YES, centauri, such people exist) DM helps insure a checks and balance against that happening.
I actually ran this game.
Knowing possible failure of the skill checks had no bearing on what would happen. This scene was actually more collaborative than Iserith let on. We also had player input from the other split scene players adding complications to the negotiations with the lizardfolk. This allowed for interesting results with very little planning. The player who wanted to fail just wanted to fight a dragon, we noted that and like Iserith said... there's that exact Black dragon to fight 2 sessions later.
Iserith's character is a drunk and his alcoholic breath sickened the lizardfolk. Hilarity ensued (if angry lizardfolk are funny, which in my opinion they are.) This was a complication added by another player. Everyone thought it was cool.
Good things happen if everyone says yes and adds to the scene. It's reminds me of Fiasco in that sense.
I'm not entirely knocking collaboration, just to be clear. It has its place and has merits.
What do you mean by you 'ran the game'? You mean you were DM. And a fair an impartial one, yes?
If your players are doing things that you as a DM don't know how to deal with except to excute a boring consequence, then instead of deliberately allowing or causing your game to become boring talk to the players.
A player jumping off a cliff, or the like, isn't expecting not to get hurt. He's deliberately jerking the DM around.
A player who decides to commit a crime isn't necessarily jerking the DM around, and doesn't necessarily expect the game to get boring as a result, any more than they'd expect the game to get boring as a result of storming a wizard's tower. Why should the game get boring?
The game gets boring when a DM is trying to teach the lesson: play the way the DM wants or have a boring game. Why not make an effort to avert boredom and try to teach (and learn) the lesson: the DM wants the players to have an interesting time, no matter what?
Actually, the cliff jumpers ARE often merely jerking around. Usually first-time players getting a feel of what is going to happen if their character does dumb stuff. To see if it matters if they do dumb stuff or not. Trying to see if the DM is going to baby them or not. So don't baby them. Let them jump. And die. They know their choices have meaning. Just watch... their next character is going to be epic.
Sometimes they do unexpected things hoping for a big payoff... usually involving some mathematical computations in their head based on average damage for a fall of a certain height subtracted from current hit points and possible statistics of any monsters at the bottom of the pit. If they can get to the bottom of the cliff first, they can hog the glory and get the best treasure so they become more powerful so they can hog the glory so they can get the best treasure so they become more powerful so they can hog the glory so they can get the best treasure so they become more powerful so they can hog the glory so they can get the best treasure. Break the cycle. The other players want their characters to be cool, too. They deserve as much fun as the min/max player.
What we're saying is that attempts to people-please actually keeps the players (many players, anyway) from having fun.
Actually, the cliff jumpers ARE often merely jerking around. Usually first-time players getting a feel of what is going to happen if their character does dumb stuff. To see if it matters if they do dumb stuff or not. Trying to see if the DM is going to baby them or not. So don't baby them. Let them jump. And die. They know their choices have meaning. Just watch... their next character is going to be epic.
It's not babying to talk to them and understand what they're after with that action.
Break the cycle. The other players want their characters to be cool, too. They deserve as much fun as the min/max player.
What do you think a DM should do there? Kill the character, regardless of the math the character did? That's not going to go well. This is another example of finding out what the player wants and giving it to them in a way that keeps the game fun for them and everyone else. Don't block or punish a player just to make another player feel better. Make players feel better by accepting and adding on to their ideas.
What we're saying is that attempts to people-please actually keeps the players (many players, anyway) from having fun.
Not if it's done in a trustworthy, open way.
So, in that case, we might have latched on to the deception part, and the fact that other groups WERE after the artifact to cook up a fake artifact as honeypot. That allows us to attack the other group, allows us to show the gnome how much we are better than the other groups morally speaking, and lets him see the danger of not working with someone. With ransacking the office "as a backup plan". And, unspoken, is that if we find another group, we'll be able to fight, which will stop the talking and start the fighting -- making the dragonborn happy.
Now, admittedly, our DM is GREAT, and is willing to listen to 'reasonable' suggestions, even when they are more 'hollywood' than realistic. I mean, sure, setting up a honeypot will involve some rolls, and a little straining of suspension of disbelief that another group Just Happens To Be In Town Now, and if your game is the kind of game where accidents don't happen, and kismet never helps the players, then you'll need another solution. But, hopefully your solution will build on the dragonborns interest in deception, and interest in violence.
You mentioned that " our group could work better together, ". Hopefully you'll work together to learn how to satisfy everyone. How you get there is up to you, but Centauri seems to be suggesting an easy way to start that process.
Actually, the cliff jumpers ARE often merely jerking around. Usually first-time players getting a feel of what is going to happen if their character does dumb stuff. To see if it matters if they do dumb stuff or not. Trying to see if the DM is going to baby them or not. So don't baby them. Let them jump. And die. They know their choices have meaning. Just watch... their next character is going to be epic.
It's not babying to talk to them and understand what they're after with that action.Break the cycle. The other players want their characters to be cool, too. They deserve as much fun as the min/max player.
What do you think a DM should do there? Kill the character, regardless of the math the character did? That's not going to go well. This is another example of finding out what the player wants and giving it to them in a way that keeps the game fun for them and everyone else. Don't block or punish a player just to make another player feel better. Make players feel better by accepting and adding on to their ideas.What we're saying is that attempts to people-please actually keeps the players (many players, anyway) from having fun.
Not if it's done in a trustworthy, open way.
Don't block or punish a player just to make another player feel better. Make players feel better by accepting and adding on to their ideas.
More irony. Blocking everyone's reasonable expectations of what should happen in a game so that one fool can feel better is the alternative. My players, heck most people I've met are smarter than that, and I am a cynic. And somewhat resent having to dumb it down. If we're not talking about a child or specially challenged person, there's no need to lower expectations just to please them. It isn't doing them a service to be a people pleaser.
Feb 14, 2013 -- 6:27PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:
On another note, Centauri and Iserith, you've convinced me; so much so that in reference to Sir_Joseph's thread I linked, I owe him an apology.
Sir_Joseph, I feel that your DM could have done a much better job of making the Buddha statue encounter much more interesting, instead of going with what he felt were the logical consequences. I didn't feel that way previously, and for that I am sorry that I ranged myself against you in that thread.
If it was the player intent for the character to fail, then you would be correct. However as most players don't want their characters to fail, the two are interrelated.
But doesn't the fact that "most" (?) players don't want their characters to fail come from being conditioned to think that the DM is going to make any character failure boring?
No, because there is a difference between a tragedy and a failure. D&D really doesn't lend itself to this kind of play, since it is ussually so combat oriented, unless you are playing a very social oriented game, remember that most characters are adventurers and so have adventurer's goals. In general trying to fail is counter-productive to the player's goals and since the loss of a group member changes the balance of a group it can even be catestrophic to the rest of the group.
That aside, working for failure requires it to fit the setting, it can be done, D&D games limits the effectiveness of this sort of play, so it really requires a request form the player in most cases. To this end I mostly deal with things like players who want to bring in a new character and are looking for an opportunity to retire the old one via heroic death in glorious battle, or dramatic allignment changes (a paladin that falls from grace to sell her soul to become a blackguard)
But back tot he difference between tragedy and failure. If a player seeks failure by doing something stupid, a bad choice, say a corridor of traps, called the guntlet (the bones of previous vitims scattered about) and he decides to just run through, well he is going to get what he wanted, to test his blind luck against impossible odds, likely resulting in a very nasty, horrible death. Thatès not tradegy, that is just a pointless death because of a stupid choice. Why reward that.
Tragedy is interesting, not because of the final act of failing or death, but because of the path leading to that point and the motivation behind it, or conversely, what happens after the tradegy, how the character overcomes it. But the tragedy itself is just a bad thing. What was the end of Romeo and Juliet, senseless, pointless death, the end of Hamlet, senseless, pointless death.
The actual failure itself is rarely as interesting as the journey to reach that point, so again, it is largely the player that makes it interesting.
Honestly, I think Centauri has done pretty well at putting a solution out there. If you try, for awhile, to say "yes, and", your group might gel pretty well, enough that you don't necessarily need to say yes to everything. For instance, in our group, we'll frequently say "Let's leave that as a backup plan". Which you can only do if you say a better primary plan. Or, we'll say "I like the part of the plan where you said X - lets do more of that. "
So, in that case, we might have latched on to the deception part, and the fact that other groups WERE after the artifact to cook up a fake artifact as honeypot. That allows us to attack the other group, allows us to show the gnome how much we are better than the other groups morally speaking, and lets him see the danger of not working with someone. With ransacking the office "as a backup plan". And, unspoken, is that if we find another group, we'll be able to fight, which will stop the talking and start the fighting -- making the dragonborn happy.
Now, admittedly, our DM is GREAT, and is willing to listen to 'reasonable' suggestions, even when they are more 'hollywood' than realistic. I mean, sure, setting up a honeypot will involve some rolls, and a little straining of suspension of disbelief that another group Just Happens To Be In Town Now, and if your game is the kind of game where accidents don't happen, and kismet never helps the players, then you'll need another solution. But, hopefully your solution will build on the dragonborns interest in deception, and interest in violence.
You mentioned that " our group could work better together, ". Hopefully you'll work together to learn how to satisfy everyone. How you get there is up to you, but Centauri seems to be suggesting an easy way to start that process.
Good stuff.
As far as the straining of suspension of disbelief, this wouldn't be an issue at a table like ours. If you don't prescribe to the notion that the DM controls everything other than PCs, then it's perfectly valid for the players to establish that there is, in fact, another group in town. This would stimulate a discussion about who that group is, what they're doing there, what their relationship is to the PCs (or a particular PC), who makes up that group, etc. That collaboration then exists in the world in whatever form it takes by the time the questions are answered. This works to make engaged players, a richer setting, new NPCs with which to interact (with ties to the PCs if the DM delved into it with questioning), and further character development. Plus, everyone's happy that their plan is moving forward, each with their own ideas included.
You are honestly saying that a DM attempting to ensure his players have fun is a sign of co-dependance and in need of therapy? Seriously?
On another note, Centauri and Iserith, you've convinced me; so much so that in reference to Sir_Joseph's thread I linked, I owe him an apology.
Sir_Joseph, I feel that your DM could have done a much better job of making the Buddha statue encounter much more interesting, instead of going with what he felt were the logical consequences. I didn't feel that way previously, and for that I am sorry that I ranged myself against you in that thread.
Got me. A little over the top. I'll try to tone down the rhetoric.
Although I understand that the attempt is to ensure players are having fun, I still think that rewarding bad ideas the same way as you reward good ones and giving them equal chances of success and failure doesn't have the intended effect. It may not be a punishment to the player who comes up with a good idea, but it sure feels like one.
Feels sort of like a salesperson working on commission giving 250% to attain a near-impossible goal and upon achieving it, being asked to share a Salesperson of the Month award -and split the monetary bonus- with another salesperson that didn't even make their minimum sales quota might feel. Maybe not QUITE that bad, but you get the idea.
--
My writing wasn't very clear on the Buddha encounter. I was a little unclear as to what exactly went wrong, but I knew something was wrong. Most of the folks on the forum thought it was the character death that was bothersome. I was more concerned with the statue. He seriously put a choke-hold on the statue. Seriously.
What do you think a DM should do there? Kill the character, regardless of the math the character did? That's not going to go well. This is another example of finding out what the player wants and giving it to them in a way that keeps the game fun for them and everyone else. Don't block or punish a player just to make another player feel better. Make players feel better by accepting and adding on to their ideas.
Heck no. Thats how 99.9999% of my characters die. I did the math and and the odds, now I deal with the cards dealt. It is the players responsibility to plan and mitigate the risks, its not blocking or punishing, its what they ran the odds for. I have to accept the risks when I placed the bet, as it were, and live with the consequences.
Its the DMs job to make sure I understand the situation, at least from what my character would know and play it out impartially (and yes I know there is sometimes some fudging at the dramatically appropriate moments by the DM because there is always a degree of bias in favour of the players) But the general point here of risk vs reward is that there are both. a chalenge isnt reward vs reward with the off chance of reward.
What we're saying is that attempts to people-please actually keeps the players (many players, anyway) from having fun.
Not if it's done in a trustworthy, open way.
If you raise your kid on nothing but Mc Donalds food every meal, 3 meals a say and sit them in front of a tv watching cartoons every single day, they will grow up fat, dumb and lazy.
I will use that as a parrallel between junk-food gaming and quality content.
A living world with a fully imersive environment where the characters actions, good or bad, have real meaning and effect on the invironment, with cause and effects that are consistant so that the players can manipulate and control the outcome by their choices influences and actions. Thatès what I suggest offering over mearly pandering and people-pleasing.
Although I understand that the attempt is to ensure players are having fun, I still think that rewarding bad ideas the same way as you reward good ones and giving them equal chances of success and failure doesn't have the intended effect. It may not be a punishment to the player who comes up with a good idea, but it sure feels like one.
Do you suppose the way you handle the mechanical adjudication (or handwaving, if you see fit) of the PCs' plans has anything to do with encouraging them to stay on your plot? Does a plan that moves away from the plot in some way have a higher chance of failure than one that stays on the plot?
We have no plots in our games, so I don't really have any vested interest in predetermining whether a group's given plan is good or bad. To me, it's just a plan. A plan that the players consider risky or reckless might just work. A plan that the players consider foolproof might just fail. I don't fudge in any way, ever. We're all playing to find out what happens, building the story as we go. How the dice fall is really important to those "surprises" everyone loves to tout.
In this method, a "good plan" is simply the plan that is the most fun to see play out, not the most ironclad plan to mitigate every potential failure point. Failure doesn't need to be carefully mitigated because failure will be interesting to the players, even if it's bad for the characters. This has the side effect of curtailing those (in my view) excruciating failure mitigation discussions like the one that precipitated the dragonborn kicking open doors. In conjunction with "Yes, and..." you tend to have higher engagement because without it, you will often have one idea that was chosen as the "good plan" making the plans proposed by other players "not as good" or "bad," which is discouraging of ideas rather than encouraging.
Doesn't this make me more impartial as a DM, which is something that you and MrCustomer value?
What do you think a DM should do there? Kill the character, regardless of the math the character did? That's not going to go well. This is another example of finding out what the player wants and giving it to them in a way that keeps the game fun for them and everyone else. Don't block or punish a player just to make another player feel better. Make players feel better by accepting and adding on to their ideas.
Heck no. Thats how 99.9999% of my characters die. I did the math and and the odds, now I deal with the cards dealt.
Of course. But the failure in those cards doesn't have to be boring. You're clearly interested in your character dying, so that's not boring for you. In cases when it would be, it's time for interesting failure.
It is the players responsibility to plan and mitigate the risks, its not blocking or punishing, its what they ran the odds for. I have to accept the risks when I placed the bet, as it were, and live with the consequences.
And it's the DM's responsibility to determine what those consequences will be. The DM is under no obligation to make those consequences end someone's enjoyment of the game.
Its the DMs job to make sure I understand the situation, at least from what my character would know and play it out impartially (and yes I know there is sometimes some fudging at the dramatically appropriate moments by the DM because there is always a degree of bias in favour of the players)
Why do you think that bias exists?
But the general point here of risk vs reward is that there are both. a chalenge isnt reward vs reward with the off chance of reward.
Right. It's interesting success vs. interesting failure. There's no reason for either to be boring.
What we're saying is that attempts to people-please actually keeps the players (many players, anyway) from having fun.
Not if it's done in a trustworthy, open way.
If you raise your kid on nothing but Mc Donalds food every meal, 3 meals a say and sit them in front of a tv watching cartoons every single day, they will grow up fat, dumb and lazy.
I will use that as a parrallel between junk-food gaming and quality content.
It's a poor parallel. We're not raising children here, we're playing a game with our friends. It's to no one's benefit to tell our friends they have to spend time being bored because they weren't smart enough. They can fail because they weren't smart enough, nothing wrong with that, but boredom during a game is a waste of time.
A living world with a fully imersive environment where the characters actions, good or bad, have real meaning and effect on the invironment, with cause and effects that are consistant so that the players can manipulate and control the outcome by their choices influences and actions. Thatès what I suggest offering over mearly pandering and people-pleasing.
The players still have control over success or failure. "Consistent" effects of those failures are not necessary, however, and therefore that's no excuse for telling our or allowing our players to be bored during play.
I'm baffled as to what's wrong with the idea of "people-pleasing" during a game. I think you still haven't grasped the fact that failure is still on the table, and only boring failure is being minimized.
Although I understand that the attempt is to ensure players are having fun, I still think that rewarding bad ideas the same way as you reward good ones and giving them equal chances of success and failure doesn't have the intended effect. It may not be a punishment to the player who comes up with a good idea, but it sure feels like one.
Do you suppose the way you handle the mechanical adjudication (or handwaving, if you see fit) of the PCs' plans has anything to do with encouraging them to stay on your plot? Does a plan that moves away from the plot in some way have a higher chance of failure than one that stays on the plot?
They're continuing to misunderstand: Just making failure and success interesting doesn't mean that they're rewarded the same way.
Success: You reach the destination before the enemy, and you have the advantage.
Failure: You reach they destination after the enemy, and they have the advantage.
The above meets my definition of interesting success, and interesting failure.
The following does not:
Success: You reach the destination.
Failure: You die on the way to the destination.
or
Failure: You wander around lost. Try again until you succeed.
Both of those failures are boring.
Although I understand that the attempt is to ensure players are having fun, I still think that rewarding bad ideas the same way as you reward good ones and giving them equal chances of success and failure doesn't have the intended effect. It may not be a punishment to the player who comes up with a good idea, but it sure feels like one.
Do you suppose the way you handle the mechanical adjudication (or handwaving, if you see fit) of the PCs' plans has anything to do with encouraging them to stay on your plot? Does a plan that moves away from the plot in some way have a higher chance of failure than one that stays on the plot?
They're continuing to misunderstand: Just making failure and success interesting doesn't mean that they're rewarded the same way.
Success: You reach the destination before the enemy, and you have the advantage.
Failure: You reach they destination after the enemy, and they have the advantage.
The above meets my definition of interesting success, and interesting failure.
The following does not:
Success: You reach the destination.
Failure: You die on the way to the destination.
or
Failure: You wander around lost. Try again until you succeed.
Both of those failures are boring.
I don't really have a plot, in terms of what the players are doing. I have plots in terms of what the NPC's are up to. I let the players plot their own course. I just provide the scenario.
Dying on the way to the destination only happens if something kills the character(s) on the way to their destination. For instance... they meet a group of monsters sent to keep them from making it to their destination. They decide to fight the monsters. They fail to win the battle.
Fighting the monsters may or may not have been the best course of action (if getting to the destination was time-sensitive it might be the worst course of action; if the whole point of getting to the destination was to get an effective weapon against the monsters (let's say silver weapons and the monsters are werewolves), then it was not only the worst course of action, it was a pretty dumb course of action. I'm not going to punish them for fighting the monsters by tripling the werewolves hp, but I'm not going to dumb it down them by making the werewolves easier. It is what it is and that's all that it is.
There will be some disappointment if characters die. Not shock and outrage unless the death resulted from a perfectly-planned and perfectly-executed plan in which all the werewolves were specifically designed to defeat the characters in the first round of an undetectable ambush. But no shock and outrage... because the players had a choice to do battle and knew the risk involved.
However, I do agree that getting lost is pretty much on the Zzzzzz... boring side. The being lost isn't the point except that being lost can delay the characters, in which case they lose the advantage in that 'fight at the destination'. ANY SITUATION that involves rolling a dice repeatedly until you succeed will be boring, unless there is an interesting effect of not succeeding... or a nice side adventure involved...
I don't really have a plot, in terms of what the players are doing. I have plots in terms of what the NPC's are up to. I let the players plot their own course. I just provide the scenario.
The things that the NPCs are doing isn't a plot - it's a situation. Or a scenario as you call it. Those situations or scenarios may or may not take place in a location.
So unless you've got a predetermined sequence of events (a plot), you're running plotless. Which means... get ready for it... you're running the game just like I am. Noooo! You've become everything you hate.
The only difference is the delivery. I use "Yes, and..." and the concept of interesting failure which you even appear to use some of the time.
Now that this has been cleared up, you can join Centauri and I on ganging up on MrCustomer. Welcome, my son. Welcome to the machine.
Dying on the way to the destination only happens if something kills the character(s) on the way to their destination. For instance... they meet a group of monsters sent to keep them from making it to their destination. They decide to fight the monsters. They fail to win the battle.
Why should that be true, though? In real life, people die from exposure during travel. There's nothing to prevent a skill challenge, or even just the DM's determination that the players' travel plans were foolhardy, from ending in the characters deaths. The only reason not to do that is people-pleasing.
The guidelines for skill challenges specifically recommend against an outcome like this, because it brings the game to a halt.
There will be some disappointment if characters die. Not shock and outrage unless the death resulted from a perfectly-planned and perfectly-executed plan in which all the werewolves were specifically designed to defeat the characters in the first round of an undetectable ambush. But no shock and outrage... because the players had a choice to do battle and knew the risk involved.
Maybe. But there's no reason that risk has to involve death, unless that's what the player wants. As long as the DM doesn't paint themselves into a corner, there are other possible outcomes. And even if a player does want a risk of death, I'd generally be surprised if a player wasn't miffed about it and if the game didn't become awkward and unpleasant.
However, I do agree that getting lost is pretty much on the Zzzzzz... boring side. The being lost isn't the point except that being lost can delay the characters, in which case they lose the advantage in that 'fight at the destination'. ANY SITUATION that involves rolling a dice repeatedly until you succeed will be boring, unless there is an interesting effect of not succeeding... or a nice side adventure involved...
Right, but sometimes DMs who realize they haven't planned for an interesting failure see rerolling or fudging as their only recourse. Plan for interesting failure upfront, and this doesn't need to happen.
(Some DMs also see success as boring. Perhaps you've seen the DM who makes players roll Stealth checks until they fail? Plan for both success and failure to be interesting, or don't waste the players' time with meaningless checks.)
I'm not entirely knocking collaboration, just to be clear. It has its place and has merits.
What do you mean by you 'ran the game'? You mean you were DM. And a fair an impartial one, yes?
Sorry for the late response.
I wonder if fair and impartial are loaded words. I wouldn't say I'm either.
As my games have no preconcieved plot, nor do they have a preconcieved solution. My games tend to have the game world react to the characters. I just tend to look for the most entertaining results either suggested by the players (whether they know it or not) or that I came up with on my own on the spot. I don't care if a result is the most logical as long as it works within the story and increases the fun around the table.
Keep in mind entertaining isn't the characters suceeding. Often bad complications are the most fun.
Heck no. Thats how 99.9999% of my characters die. I did the math and and the odds, now I deal with the cards dealt. It is the players responsibility to plan and mitigate the risks, its not blocking or punishing, its what they ran the odds for. I have to accept the risks when I placed the bet, as it were, and live with the consequences.
Its the DMs job to make sure I understand the situation, at least from what my character would know and play it out impartially (and yes I know there is sometimes some fudging at the dramatically appropriate moments by the DM because there is always a degree of bias in favour of the players) But the general point here of risk vs reward is that there are both. a chalenge isnt reward vs reward with the off chance of reward.
I bolded a sentence on purpose here. I go out of my way to avoid players mitigating risks. That part of the game has tended to not be very fun. In my games it typically pans out to people spending time arguing over which plan has the most chance of success and least chance of failure. Instead of adventuring they're arguing. It's boring and causes animostity between players.
As a side note that seems to have happened in the OP's situation. 3 hours of failure mitigation and then a guy decided to Leeroy Jenkins out of failure.
I bolded a sentence on purpose here. I go out of my way to avoid players mitigating risks. That part of the game has tended to not be very fun. In my games it typically pans out to people spending time arguing over which plan has the most chance of success and least chance of failure. Instead of adventuring they're arguing. It's boring and causes animostity between players.
Right, especially when the alternative to coming up with the "right" plan is to take a very high risk of a boring, deprotagonizing outcome.
As a side note that seems to have happened in the OP's situation. 3 hours of failure mitigation and then a guy decided to Leeroy Jenkins out of failure.
This is absolutely the point here. An idea was proposed, and others were concerned that the idea would just let the DM do something boring to them. The "reckless" player seemed to decide that he'd rather invite failure than continue trying to mitigate it. He did fail, but at least he did it on his terms.
That's because failure would be pointless. But it's also pretty pointless to risk the players' progress in the DM's plot with a roll like that..
I am sorry, but when the players have reached a dead end, using tools that will help them along is not risking their progress. Thats like saying that giving them more gold will put them at risk of being poor. Its counterintuitive to say that giving them more clues will increase their risk of not progressing. Besides it is only one of many tools in the Dms arsenal to aid the player, rather then just letting them flounder.
The orriginal DM let the players wonder aimlessly instead of realizing that he needed to be clearer and give the players more dirrection and there are countless ways to do it, a skill check, or introducing an NPC or other source of information would have helped. He needs to understand that the players arent seeing what he is seeing.
Yes, but it's not a part of life that anyone involved wants to be boring.
Ŵho said anything about it having to be boring. Of course the game should be fun and exciting, but it is also up to the player to be invested in the game and willing to work to make it interesting. Not just the DM, or else the gam ewill be little more then the DM reading them a story. I dont know how you run your games, but in mine it is the players that make the game interesting.
What doesn't have to be interrelated is how the player and character react to the failure. The player might think the failure is exciting and interesting, while the character doesn't. And there's no reason to waste a player's time with something the player isn't going to find interesting.
It is up to the player and his character as to how they will react. They are the ones that are going to make it happen, As a DM I have only provided them with a living canvas, now its there turn, they are the ones in control of their characters. These are all their choices, not the DMs.
I put a ball in the field, You say it is boring for the players, its just a ball in an empty field, so I explain the game of foot ball to you, and you stare at the ball and say its boring the ball is just sitting there doing nothing.
KICK THE DAMN BALL ALREADY!!!
If you dont play with the ball of course it is going to be boring. The DM can onluy put the ball in the field and arbitrate where it lands, the rest is up to the players, they have to play with the ball.
Regardless, the consequences of a trap, or anything else, need not be boring, and the DM has prime control over that.
No, the player does. How the player deals with it is what makes the game interesting. Its up to them to check for traps, disable them, fight, fly, con, bribe or otherwise deal with the guards. Nothing the DM does will make the game interesting unless the players engage and take actions to help.
Then you have to understand the "hypothesis," which includes the concept that if the DM can't see how to deliver an interesting consequence for an action, the DM talks to the player.
There are no interesting consequences to actions, positive or negative, unless the player makes them interesting, just like any other encounter. Even a random encoutner in the forest, There is a group of Orcs ahead, 5 of them armed and it looks like they are setting up an ambush, what are you going to do. Its up to the players to handle it.
No, let's. Because the answer is: what do the players think would be an interesting way to proceed. Do they think it would be interesting to slaughter or be slaughtered by the guards? They just might. Do they think it would be interesting to escape and be hunted? Maybe? Did they think the king was an impostor? That would be interesting so maybe he was. Why not? The point is: there's a discussion. There isn't the DM just saying unilaterally that they don't escape and they're killed or imprisoned
There is no discussion, the players make their choices. There is the king, there is the guards, here is the setting, the players decide what to do from there, in the game. They make choices for their characters and it plays itself out from there. What do they think will happen, no, it is up to them to make it happen. There is nothing to discuss with me, they have the ball.
Maybe the discussion even makes it clear that the players are simply out to cause trouble for the DM, no matter what. That's good to know too..
What do you do if they are, in my games this isnt a problem, my games can handle this, it allows the players to do this and anything else they want, but it is up to them to make it work. I give them the situation and they choose what to do with it. I encourage smart-play and give them a framework to build off of, they are the ones that make it interesting.
Maybe you shouldn't have put the chasm there if you didn't want people jumping across it.
Time for a discussion. Maybe the DM didn't make something clear. Maybe the player feels blocked and bored and needs to understand what's supposed to be fun about the situation. If the DM can't offer anything, maybe there's a way across that chasm after all, one that fits everyone's idea of the game world.
Well naturally if the players say something that profoundly stupid I am going to ask for clarification and let them know what they are attempting to jump. Are those 2 paths the only ones. No they are not, perhaps they have teleport spells, flying boots, a grappling hook on a length or rope and a lucky throw, there is no need for discussion beyond clarrifying the situation to the player (are you sure, its 100 feet across and your not gonna make it) and play it out.
I once had a player who decided the dragon was just an illusion and he was going to Disbelieve the Illusion, and by golly ignore the dragon. Went through the encounter and the lucky jerk didnèt get so much as singed or scratched, and not from a lack of trying on my part either, he still insists the dragon was just an illusion.
The Chasm is just a chasm, its up to the player how they will get across, if they want to get across and it is up to them to make the situation fun. Not going to stop and talk about the chasm.
Even if that's true, ludicrous choices stem from lack of communication and restriction by the DM.
Yes, which is why properly establishing the setting is important. Communicating to the players the information they need to understand the world their characters are in is important and a fundamental part of the DMs task
If a DM can't make the PCs choices fun, he needs to talk to them and maybe stop gaming with them..
Interesting difference in philosophy here, you blame the DM for the players making boring choices. The solution perhaps is leadership rather then collaberation, but I will not push that issue, rather state that the players should be investing in themselves and making choices that are fun, and re-evaluate themselves. They have the ball but arent playing with it.
which brings me to this 100 foot leap over a spiked, boiling acid pit. Why would the player do such a ludicrous thing? Because the DM let him get away with the 20 foot jump, then the 30 then......
Or because the DM has blocked everything else the player tried.
Got to ask, is the DM railroading the player and blocking legitimate solutions, (I hate railroading DMS) or is the player making a series of really stupid choices.
Either way the Player is handling the situation wrong. If the DM is blocking legitimate choices and railroading you, then I suggest the player talk to your DM and explain your frustration. The DM might not realise you are frustrated and all you are doing is escelating the situation by acting like a spoilt baby and throwing a temper tantrum.
If you throw temper tantrums like this, then the DM has every right to just let your character die and ignore you. If you want him to respect you and reason with you, then you need to be reasonable and respectful yourself. He is your DM, not your life coach, not your babysitter. Talk, find a solution, if the DM is not going to change, then decide to accept it or to walk, save yourself the frustration and grief, but dont waste your time acting like a baby.
Yes, there needed to be a conversation there, too. As I recall, there was discussion of making that character pay for that action, by hunting him down with forces that were impossible to escape or defeat. How on earth is that a better use of time than just talking to the player and either asking them to stop, asking them to leave, or figuring out a cool way to proceed?
My discusion there was on properly developing and establishing a setting to prevent this situation from ever being an issue. Both by discouraging such bad behaviours, and by also allowing for characters with opposing agendas to be able to work to achieve them. My idea is to provide a framework whereby that player could have burnt down the brothel without it destroying the game because I would use proper cause and effect and an established setting for the players to work with.
There's no reason to assume that anyone is being robbed of their rewards, just because the DM refuses to deal out boredom to someone. And the whole point is that if the DM can make the "bad" choices interesting then it doesn't matter if players make those choices. The entire goal of the approach is to not have to worry what kind of choices the players will make.
So that poorly made, blundering choices, made with no thought and a complete disregard for, well anything, should be rewarded equally with a well thought up plan, good roleplaying and smart, clever and inventive players.
No, because interesting results are created by the players, not the DM. When the DM interferes and makes the players uninteresting, boring choices exciting, he is just rewarding them for their mistakes. Sorry, but this is an affront to inteligent, smart players.
Ever notice the problems posted about how other players are ruining the game and how the DM doesnt do anythign about it, oh yes, rewarding negative behaviour with interesting results. gotcha.There's no reason in general why the rest of the group has to suffer. If you can't see a way to make things interesting for one person, without making the others "suffer," you need to talk to the group.
Talk to them about what, the reason why I am showing favourtism, why they arent being rewarded any better for the good decisions they are making. I know what their answers are going to be, its going to be to complain about the offending player and why I am rewarding his idiocy.
I dont have this problem because I reward smart players, I reward creativity and hard work. I reward planning and preperation, I reward ingenuity. And damnit I reward success.
I'm not entirely knocking collaboration, just to be clear. It has its place and has merits.
What do you mean by you 'ran the game'? You mean you were DM. And a fair an impartial one, yes?
Sorry for the late response.
I wonder if fair and impartial are loaded words. I wouldn't say I'm either.
As my games have no preconcieved plot, nor do they have a preconcieved solution. My games tend to have the game world react to the characters. I just tend to look for the most entertaining results either suggested by the players (whether they know it or not) or that I came up with on my own on the spot. I don't care if a result is the most logical as long as it works within the story and increases the fun around the table.
Keep in mind entertaining isn't the characters suceeding. Often bad complications are the most fun.
Not intending to be loaded words. I meant fair and impartial in the sense that you try to make sure all players at the table get equal time, equal spotlight, etc.
Not sure how those could be loaded, except that in the context of the discussion, I assumed you were
As far as the rest of what you had to say... that describes exactly my play style as well.
The orriginal DM let the players wonder aimlessly instead of realizing that he needed to be clearer and give the players more dirrection and there are countless ways to do it, a skill check, or introducing an NPC or other source of information would have helped. He needs to understand that the players arent seeing what he is seeing.
Yes, and in other words, railroad them back onto the path so they can start making progress again. It's not a blatant form of railroading, but that's what you're doing. You can't do that if you don't have a plot.
(I hate railroading DMS)
Sounds to me like you're doing the very thing you hate. But because you hate whatever you think railroading is, you can't admit or see that you're doing it too.
MrCustomer, you have utterly no conception of what's being discussed here, and I will not continue to make efforts to engage you when there is a complete lack of goodwill on your part. Good day.
I like a spirited conversation, but I'm forced to agree with you. His last post really makes that clear.
I bolded a sentence on purpose here. I go out of my way to avoid players mitigating risks. That part of the game has tended to not be very fun. In my games it typically pans out to people spending time arguing over which plan has the most chance of success and least chance of failure. Instead of adventuring they're arguing. It's boring and causes animostity between players.
As a side note that seems to have happened in the OP's situation. 3 hours of failure mitigation and then a guy decided to Leeroy Jenkins out of failure.
I am not talking about extensive planning, I mean everything a character does from character creation on. Armor, weapons, build, group roll. I dont charge into a fight wearing a wooden bucket on my head and waving a fish. I go prepared for combat, with a reasonable persumption that the DM is presenting an appropriate encounter.
I am in absolute agreement that the DM should not have left them floundering for several hours, and have given them better dirrection. And when they finally did take the initiative, they basically acted like they were in a video game in responding to the guard. There is certainly a disconect and I dont approve of the DM not giving better dirrection.
Yes, and in other words, railroad them back onto the path so they can start making progress again. It's not a blatant form of railroading, but that's what you're doing. You can't do that if you don't have a plot.
Sounds to me like you're doing the very thing you hate. But because you hate whatever you think railroading is, you can't admit or see that you're doing it too.
A path is not a railroad, neither is giving a better description and more details when the players obviously dont understand you.
What happens when you place a liche in a fountain and you have a player stick his finger in it, or they happen on a gazebo in the woods and the cast detect evil on it. Do you leave them befuddled at the results for hours or do you explain that a liche is not a leak and that a gazebo is a small covered patio, or would you consider the clarification to be railroading.
MrCustomer, you have utterly no conception of what's being discussed here, and I will not continue to make efforts to engage you when there is a complete lack of goodwill on your part. Good day.
I like a spirited conversation, but I'm forced to agree with you. His last post really makes that clear.
I am suggesting rewarding good roleplaying and rewarding and encouraging a players success, as well as the DM working to create an immersive, interactive world.
I don't really have a plot, in terms of what the players are doing. I have plots in terms of what the NPC's are up to. I let the players plot their own course. I just provide the scenario.
The things that the NPCs are doing isn't a plot - it's a situation. Or a scenario as you call it. Those situations or scenarios may or may not take place in a location.
So unless you've got a predetermined sequence of events (a plot), you're running plotless. Which means... get ready for it... you're running the game just like I am. Noooo! You've become everything you hate.
The only difference is the delivery. I use "Yes, and..." and the concept of interesting failure which you even appear to use some of the time.
Now that this has been cleared up, you can join Centauri and I on ganging up on MrCustomer. Welcome, my son. Welcome to the machine.
I've already noted our similarities. I actually tried hard to point them out when I could, because total agreement doesn't lend for very interesting debate, but total disagreement only leads to senseless bickering.
There are still differences. It's not the Yes, and business, it's the degree to which it is used and the reasoning behind why you are using it.
Here is a part of a "Yes and" article. It points out an area where I think we disagree quite markedly, because I think you've over-looked this aspect of it.
Dungeon # 156 | Save My Game Archive | 7/21/2008
Saying Yes is a Skill
Save My Game
by Stephen Radney-MacFarland
"Players want to be challenged."
I'm not sure if you agree with that statement (I certainly do), but there are certain aspects of your delivery that overlook or brush aside this aspect of the game. I will concede every point where collaboration is great for team-work, great for improv, great way to get player buy-in and can produce fun and unexpected results. Hence I use it - for those things.
That said, there are aspects of the method that discourage other parts of the game, that I (and some other players) find to be valuable as well.. among them: problem solving, a sense of accomplishment, and suspension of disbelief (however difficult such a notion is to prove). Those are the things I hope to preserve for other players as well.
"Players want to be challenged."
I'm not sure if you agree with that statement (I certainly do), but there are certain aspects of your delivery that overlook or brush aside this aspect of the game. I will concede every point where collaboration is great for team-work, great for improv, great way to get player buy-in and can produce fun and unexpected results. Hence I use it - for those things.
That said, there are aspects of the method that discourage other parts of the game, that I (and some other players) find to be valuable as well.. among them: problem solving, a sense of accomplishment, and suspension of disbelief (however difficult such a notion is to prove). Those are the things I hope to preserve for other players as well.
If players used "Yes, and..." to circumvent a challenge, why do you think they did that? And even if they did, do you suppose that "Yes, and..." obviates the need for dice? Or that coming up with the "and..." part isn't problem solving?
We got all of the things I bolded in spades in my games while using "Yes, and..." and interesting failure.
"Players want to be challenged."
I'm not sure if you agree with that statement (I certainly do), but there are certain aspects of your delivery that overlook or brush aside this aspect of the game. I will concede every point where collaboration is great for team-work, great for improv, great way to get player buy-in and can produce fun and unexpected results. Hence I use it - for those things.
That said, there are aspects of the method that discourage other parts of the game, that I (and some other players) find to be valuable as well.. among them: problem solving, a sense of accomplishment, and suspension of disbelief (however difficult such a notion is to prove). Those are the things I hope to preserve for other players as well.
If players used "Yes, and..." to circumvent a challenge, why do you think they did that? And even if they did, do you suppose that "Yes, and..." obviates the need for dice? Or that coming up with the "and..." part isn't problem solving?
We got all of the things I bolded in spades in my games while using "Yes, and..." and interesting failure.
Because, although humans love a challenge, we are lazy by nature and will take the path of least resistance, generally.
It probably does obviate the need for dice, at least in the manner you proscribe. I'm okay with an element of randomness and unpredictability, taking the good and bad of using it. However, I do agree in the concept of interesting failure, but still think that some things can be cut-and-dry without a loss of fun.
Coming up with the 'and...' part isn't problem solving. It's changing the parameters of the problem in order to avoid it. Which is why I have problems with it. It's too easy.
If players used "Yes, and..." to circumvent a challenge, why do you think they did that? And even if they did, do you suppose that "Yes, and..." obviates the need for dice? Or that coming up with the "and..." part isn't problem solving?
We got all of the things I bolded in spades in my games while using "Yes, and..." and interesting failure.
Because, although humans love a challenge, we are lazy by nature and will take the path of least resistance, generally.
This does happen, but it's primarily a reaction to being actively prevented by the DM from getting their way and from their characters being as cool as they want them to be.
With a DM to guide the discussion toward interesting failure, this dies down quickly. Once they can have whatever they want, the game becomes more about having scenes for their own sake, not because the players feel like they have to endure the scenes to get what they want. The path of least resistance to a cool, engaging game is through "Yes, and..." and, as you say, people like to take the path of least resistance.
Coming up with the 'and...' part isn't problem solving. It's changing the parameters of the problem in order to avoid it. Which is why I have problems with it. It's too easy.
That's why coming up with the problem has to be part of the collaboration. Once it is, there's incentive not to avoid it, because there's no point in coming up with a cool idea, if it's just avoided. This turns the traditional mode on its head, because usually a DM comes up with cool ideas, and the players are considered clever if they avoid them. Now the players are clever for helping come up with the problems, the ways the problems can be solved, and the consequences of those ways failing.
If one is going to try collaboration, try collaborating on failure first. This is a primary cause of in-game strife and mitigation, so dealing with that will solve many problems right off the bat.
If players used "Yes, and..." to circumvent a challenge, why do you think they did that? And even if they did, do you suppose that "Yes, and..." obviates the need for dice? Or that coming up with the "and..." part isn't problem solving?
We got all of the things I bolded in spades in my games while using "Yes, and..." and interesting failure.
Because, although humans love a challenge, we are lazy by nature and will take the path of least resistance, generally.
This does happen, but it's primarily a reaction to being actively prevented by the DM from getting their way and from their characters being as cool as they want them to be.
With a DM to guide the discussion toward interesting failure, this dies down quickly. Once they can have whatever they want, the game becomes more about having scenes for their own sake, not because the players feel like they have to endure the scenes to get what they want. The path of least resistance to a cool, engaging game is through "Yes, and..." and, as you say, people like to take the path of least resistance.Coming up with the 'and...' part isn't problem solving. It's changing the parameters of the problem in order to avoid it. Which is why I have problems with it. It's too easy.
That's why coming up with the problem has to be part of the collaboration. Once it is, there's incentive not to avoid it, because there's no point in coming up with a cool idea, if it's just avoided. This turns the traditional mode on its head, because usually a DM comes up with cool ideas, and the players are considered clever if they avoid them. Now the players are clever for helping come up with the problems, the ways the problems can be solved, and the consequences of those ways failing.
If one is going to try collaboration, try collaborating on failure first. This is a primary cause of in-game strife and mitigation, so dealing with that will solve many problems right off the bat.
I think you don't quite give me enough credit sometimes. Or take into consideration that many players have a different mentality than what you describe.
Having the DM set up scenes (without players input) is something many players WANT to happen. They WANT the excitement of finding a secret door that is supposed to be a secret. They LIKE the idea of not knowing where the traps are in a trap-filled dungeon. They PREFER to be able to come up with solutions to problems they didn't create (and already know the answer to before they begin to solve it.
Most importantly, many are FINE to let their heroes take risks without having the safety net of being able to change the parameters of problems rather than overcoming them.
EDIT: Argh! I sound more negative than intended. Wish I had more time to edit, but please read it in the intended spirit of open dialogue. I know you are presenting an alternative way of playing and find it preferable to a more traditional approach. I also understand that what it looks like 'on paper'.. such as in a forum such as this and how it plays out in life are different and that the personalities of the players also dictate whether a particular style of play (traditional or otherwise) is successful or not. I know when I hear a lot of complaints about the traditional style, it generally sounds like the DM being described really is control-freakish, which is nothing like most DMs I've seen and the ones that are that way, don't sit in that seat very long.
I ramble. It's friday. Time to get my weekend on.
Happy gaming. Sincerely. Sir Joe.
I think you don't quite give me enough credit sometimes. Or take into consideration that many players have a different mentality than what you describe.
From where I stand, I'm the one not being given much credit, and others are the ones not taking into account the common factors in many of the problems on these boards.
Having the DM set up scenes (without players input) is something many players WANT to happen. They WANT the excitement of finding a secret door that is supposed to be a secret. They LIKE the idea of not knowing where the traps are in a trap-filled dungeon. They PREFER to be able to come up with solutions to problems they didn't create (and already know the answer to before they begin to solve it.
If this is true, it's only true to a point. Many of the same players who want these things then go out of their way to circumvent them. They want the trap-filled dungeon, but they don't want any of those traps to actually go off, and will push back and cry foul if they've performed what they think is (excessive) due diligence and the traps still go off, or if dealing with the traps is beyond their ability. They will block the idea they claim to be fine with, when it actually comes about.
Besides which, any such player who really does want those things can still have that under this system. No one is forced to do things they don't enjoy, while engaged in a game, and they're encouraged to help make them into things they do enjoy. That's the entire point.
Most importantly, many are FINE to let their heroes take risks without having the safety net of being able to change the parameters of problems rather than overcoming them.
No one is talking about this. Your use of the term "safety net" proves that you still have no idea what we're talking about. No one is "safe," but no one is bored, either. Maybe you should get into one of iserith's online games before you try to talk about this anymore. I'm sure he'll make a spot for you.
Please read my edited post.
If I'm mistaken about there being a safety net and there isn't one, it could be that I am indeed totally mistaken about what you are suggesting. It may be that the net is there but you and your players haven't looked at it that way, so it isn't a problem for your group.
I actually wish I could jump in on one of those games... or one of you in mine. Probably find more common ground with each other that way, f'sho.
You'd stop thinking I'm an evil control freak. I'd stop thinking your game is all easy-fluffy.
Fiendish Dire Unicorns, my friend. Fiendish Dire Unicorns.
Again, happy gaming.
If I'm mistaken about there being a safety net and there isn't one, it could be that I am indeed totally mistaken about what you are suggesting. It may be that the net is there but you and your players haven't looked at it that way, so it isn't a problem for your group.
Once the the players are in on devising what failure looks like, they remove the need for a safety net, because they'd be short circuiting their own ideas. Until then, yes, players do use their newfound power to nullify the DM's plans, because that's traditionally what players are expected to do.
I get that it seems like there's a safety net when failures like arrest and death and dead-ends (what I think of as "boring" failures) are no longer on the table. But speaking as someone who has taken trapeze lessons, just because there's a net doesn't mean it's not challenging. The point of the challenge changes from something that stops the fun dead to something that can actually be striven for in a fun way. And can actually be missed, if effort isn't put in.
If I'm mistaken about there being a safety net and there isn't one, it could be that I am indeed totally mistaken about what you are suggesting. It may be that the net is there but you and your players haven't looked at it that way, so it isn't a problem for your group.
Maybe I can explain it this way: I present a challenge or problem to overcome. The players are free to determine whatever solution they like and know that I will break that down into mechanics and we'll play it out to see if it works or not. I make no judgment as to whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, and we all make sure we're working within the confines of established fiction. Along the way toward testing their solutions, the players introduce reasonable details they need to foster their solution as well as complications they'd enjoy (either because of die rolls or choice).
You might look at that and ask what the hell the difference is between that and any other game. A fair question. The answer is: In a game like ours, a player’s ability to affect what happens in the game is not dependent on their character’s fictional or mechanical ability to do those things.
I actually wish I could jump in on one of those games... or one of you in mine. Probably find more common ground with each other that way, f'sho.
I'll pull the chair out if you sit in it. I have two games coming together now - "Island of the Frog" and "Star*Juice." (See my signature for links.)
I'd stop thinking your game is all easy-fluffy.
Indeed. You might even want to bring a backup character. Many PCs have died in the playing of these two games.
1)
If the players are the ones who decide the winning and losing scenarios ahead of time, then they won't feel any suspense simply rolling for which pre-determined scenario happened, however many steps involved in said rolling, and would instead want the DM to surprise them.
Or, some "players" would just decide to say "I win" and not actually play with the others.
2)
Since so many people are involved in "pre-determining" the scenarios, and continuing to be throughout the process, no one actually knows exactly what the scenarios will look like by the time they actually happen.
Instead of 1 DM having to surprise 4 players (without getting to be surprised herself) and each player only having 1 DM making the surprises, each player has the DM and other 3 players teaming up to surprise them, and the DM gets surprised enough herself to not to become visibly, contagiously bored.
Is this at all accurate? It really sounds like you guys are basically agreeing "Don't let the game get boring," but disagreeing about why you're agreeing. Or something
2)
Since so many people are involved in "pre-determining" the scenarios, and continuing to be throughout the process, no one actually knows exactly what the scenarios will look like by the time they actually happen.
Instead of 1 DM having to surprise 4 players (without getting to be surprised herself) and each player only having 1 DM making the surprises, each player has the DM and other 3 players teaming up to surprise them, and the DM gets surprised enough herself to not to become visibly, contagiously bored.
Yes, that's a good way of thinking about it. Throw dice into that mix and nobody really knows what's going to happen next, not even the DM.
The DM after the game said he didn't think it would be out of line for my character to give him a talking to, but my character's never done anything like that before and I have no idea how to approach it.
Any advice on how to handle this in-game and out would be much appreciated!
Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
Yes, a few times. It breaks down to two camps of advice: Deal with it in-game. Or deal with it out-of-game. I recommend the latter. Of course, this is just dealing with a symptom. It's likely to come up again in some other form.
Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
His character shoudl make it clear that they will toss him under the bus, as it were, if push comes to chove, so he needs to think first or at least consult with the rest of the group so they are on the same page.
"look, we are displeased with your actions and recklessness, you are just causing problems for the rest of the group, Shape up!" it basically translates to the same if you do it in game or out of game. Just make it clear what actions in particular and how they affected the others.
Of course, this is just dealing with a symptom. It's likely to come up again in some other form.
I agree. Just making sure since there was so much about dm'ing going on. Thanks.
Big topic. I only read a couple pages so before I get into this discussion, I am noticing something. Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
(Content Removed)
(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Forum/Room Disruption is against the Code of Conduct)
I have removed content from this thread. Please bear in mind that Room Disruption is against the Code of Conduct
Please keep the conversation civil and above all else, fun.
Thanks,