You're doing what? Surprising the DM

Hussar said:

I'd say that's a valid point. Now, is it not possible for the players to declare what they find meaningful?

Click to expand...

That would be the playstyle choice we were talking about. In some playstyles, yes, it is possible to declare what they find meaningful. In some playstyles, the players do get a say in the consequences. In others, not so much.

Even if the consequences that the DM is putting on the table are outright killing the fun for at least one player at the table?

Click to expand...

Well, now we might consider re-framing this question entirely. How did the players and GM get into a situation where they had fundamentally different playstyle desires? I'd point to there being a more fundamental communication failure here than the one scene.

Also, I think I noted earlier, I seem to come from a tradition where players have a whole lot more patience than you seem to feel is appropriate. I'll go through a scene I don't particularly care for, if it is cool for someone else at the table. The GM can go ahead and bore me for a while, it isn't that big a deal to me. YMMV.

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], thanks for the reply.

Quite a way upthread I was mentioning the significance, to at least some of the issue being discussed in this thread, of "say yes or roll the dice". When that is part of the rules, then "handwaving" through stuff of little thematic significance isn't breaking the rules.

I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was also getting at this in post 688 upthread, when he was talking about a hand-waving approach in relation to players having the game-mechanically mandated resources.

In AD&D 2nd ed and Storyteller rulebooks there was the idea that the GM could suspend or fudge the action resolution rules in the interests of story. At least as I understand it in its BW version, "say yes" is extending this idea out of the realm of the GM into the realm of the whole group, and making it overt rather than secret: so we only engage the action resolution mechanics, as opposed to free roleplaying, when there are thematically significant stakes.

pemerton said:

Quite a way upthread I was mentioning the significance, to at least some of the issue being discussed in this thread, of "say yes or roll the dice". When that is part of the rules, then "handwaving" through stuff of little thematic significance isn't breaking the rules.

I think @Hussar was also getting at this in post 688 upthread, when he was talking about a hand-waving approach in relation to players having the game-mechanically mandated resources.

In AD&D 2nd ed and Storyteller rulebooks there was the idea that the GM could suspend or fudge the action resolution rules in the interests of story. At least as I understand it in its BW version, "say yes" is extending this idea out of the realm of the GM into the realm of the whole group, and making it overt rather than secret: so we only engage the action resolution mechanics, as opposed to free roleplaying, when there are thematically significant stakes.

Click to expand...

So, pemerton, despite our disagreements in this thread, I'd like to ask you to expand on this. Again, I don't see how this directly applies, or if it's accurate, but you're much more familiar with the text than I am, and I'm honestly curious to know what you think about this. A fairly quick search gave me this:

Luck Crane said:

Since we're having a party over here, I thought I'd join in, too. It irritated the hell out of me that no one referenced the exact text for the mythical and fabled "Say 'Yes'" in this kerfu , so I thought I'd post it. This is text from my game, which also happens to quote Vincent's original text. It's a double whammy on discount just for you:

Originally Posted by From The Burning Wheel page 75
Vincent’s Admonition
In his game, Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent Baker articulates a convention of Burning Wheel so well that I’d rather use his words than my own. He says:
Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”
If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
Sooner or later—sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis—they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice, or say “yes.”

Vincent’s advice is perfect for Burning Wheel. Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as your character wants something—needs something—that he doesn’t have, that he doesn’t know, that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome. Success or failure doesn’t really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.

Click to expand...

As you can see, the "Roll the dice or say yes" rule is for conflict resolution. The issues presented in the referenced thread surrounding the introduction of the crazy H-Bomb or the "solve the mystery now" or "I want be at the end of the dungeon" are not really covered by this rule. They are actually covered in an area above this rule -- the social contract of the gaming group. Egregious and outlandish requests that go beyond the scope of the game you've all agreed to play are addressed by the group as a whole, not by GM fiat or anything like that. You agreed to play DnD, so there's no H-Bombs and there's a particular system you must use to get to the end of the dungeon. That's some basic stuff that's left unspoken in most groups and games. In a few games and groups, it's explicit.

Also, it's worth noting that "Vincent's Admonition" is not a rule in the same context as, say, Advancement in Burning Wheel. It's not a "mechanic" per se. Just like in Dogs, it's advice for how to run the game for best results; it's an explicit statement not to roadblock the players and it's grease in the game set up wheels that helps get to big and important conflicts faster.


-Luke

Click to expand...

It seems like the rule is there to move the story along unless something is at stake. This seems like it could apply to a very basic, hot and sandy desert that saps your strength, if that threatens something you value.

But, regardless of that, I don't see where it says anything about breaking the rules outright (the centipede carrying them across the desert). If nothing is at stake, it does seem to say "they make it" without any problem, but not that the PCs can break the rules and summon powers they don't have (acquiring an H-bomb). He even explicitly says "Egregious and outlandish requests that go beyond the scope of the game you've all agreed to play are addressed by the group as a whole, not by GM fiat or anything like that."

To me, this doesn't seem like a "say yes or roll the dice" issue. It also doesn't mention "theme" in there, but the rest of the section / chapter / book might give a lot more context than what I got, here. But that's why I'm asking, really: is there something I'm missing? I'm honestly curious, because my quick search is leading me to believe something else. Thanks. As always, play what you like

Campbell said:

We're missing the forest for the trees here. This discussion shows the limitations of argument by example or analogy. Rather than focus on the real issues of play we end up nitpicking details and don't walk away with anything of value. Even worse because we can only know the mind of a single participant we inject our own bias into the other participants.

There are some interesting areas of argument based on the example to be pursued though:

• What should a player do when he is bored by the events of play? How does this differ from table to table?
• Should time spent at the table be reflective of character effort? When is it alright for it not to be?
• Who bears primary responsibility for player buy in?
• What takes precedence - setting or character?
• Does the GM's preferences take priority? Is he just another participant?

The answers to the above questions are fertile ground for discussion. I'd posit that their answers depend a lot on the individual group, but directly addressing concerns rather than through proxy will lead to a greater level of understanding.

Click to expand...

I'll likewise be doing a numbered list for this:

1: I expect this to not only differ from table to table, but to differ between people and maybe even differ for an individual depending on circumstances. For example, I've been told I'm probably too patient for my own good (and learning how to meditate has made this "worse," though I do have some triggers), but no one else is me and I certainly wouldn't expect them to react the same way as I do. I tend to be cool with most things as long as they aren't extreme. The primary thing I'd probably say were I to DM is "I'd prefer not to have nuclear options where people blow up. Nothing is one-sided, so if you feel you absolutely have to have your way you'd better make a damn good argument."

2: Time spent doing something is not necessarily a measure of effort. It's not always true investment either because someone might perceive something as jumping through hoops and would rather just jump through the hoops than make a ruckus by saying "I'm bored/don't find this interesting." DMs need to have a good "jump through the hoop" meter with regards to their players because there will always be times where a player is bored but knows that doing something will lead to more interesting things, so they do the boring stuff.

3: Players should have most of that responsibility, but the DM does need to create opportunities for the players to do stuff. Sometimes that requires directly or indirectly nudging them, especially if someone isn't very creative or might be forgetful.

4: Depends on the players mostly. Some will end up preferring character, others the setting. As a DM, I'd need to figure out what the players prefer and try to cater to that in my own way. As a player, if I had a preference I'd need to make sure it's clear so that the DM knows what's going on.

5: I have a hypothesis that most DMs end up having a preference due to what they're comfortable with and good at more than actually preferring a certain kind of play for the qualities of that playstyle. Another hypothesis is they eventually get so used to a certain kind of play because of their players that they end up having a preference for that because it's what they know best and is familiar. I don't really have much data to back either up much less test, but it's something I like to think about. I will say that at the moment I'd prefer my players to be happy because that makes me happy, but I'm so new to the DM game that I really can't predict where I might end up.

Quick Background: One of the main portions of the game was something of a riff on the Moses story. One of the primary characters was laid onto a river on a bed of strewn leaves as an infant by her mother. She floated down-river for an undetermined amount of time (it ways days and days, the child was almost dead by the time she was found). The elven child was raised by a frontier human settlement and it was clear early on that she had preternatural affinity with nature. A druid circle heard of her, traveled far and away to the frontier town and claimed her. The child was always haunted by the desperately forlorn and loving visage of her mother's face as she laid her on that river; the only memory she has of her. It drove her toward the relentless investigation of who her people were, what happened to them and why her mother "abandoned" her. Long story short. Finally tracked down mother's village. Snake-men empire demands tribute of a few children from each of the neighboring settlements. Her mother's settlement was cursed with "The Wasting" due to her insubordination. They perished. Another settlement had the exact same occurrence and they are now cursed with "The Wasting". The village Shaman needs the idol from the temple to perform a ritual to undo the curse. Insert PCs. Later, they will ultimately lead all of the settlements out of the thrall of the snake-men empire in a great OMGEXODUS.

The entirety of the session (as best as I recall it):

** GM (me), B (Bladesinger), D (Druid), R (Rogue) **

GM: <Transition Scene Exposition> You've traveled through the forest via ancient elven trails and have emptied out into the badlands of the snake-mens' domain. The wind-swept moor is bereft of life and greenery. From your position on high, you are greeted with a chorus of eerie howls as you behold a collage of broken crags, jutting plateaus, and schizophrenic ravines that portray a dizzying array of a dead landscape. There are no roads, no trails, no markers. You know the direction of the temple and that it sits on the only oasis in the territory.

B: Before we left camp I was debriefed by the local trail-warden as to the defining feature best used to pinpoint the location of the temple from the forest trail's mouth. I point out the crest of 3rd mountain on the horizon. I want to keep that in our foreground and intermittently track an object that lines up with the trail's zenith so it is in our background. That should roughly lead us there. I'm going to use Tracker's Eye and Peerless Exploration Martial Practices * (cost 2 healing surges + component costs) to ensure it and to try to keep us free of any hazards (enemies and geographical).

D: I'll call the spirits of the land to mask our travel. We move like Timber Wolves amidst the snow-capped peaks; Uses Traveler's Camouflage.

< We resolve Tracker's Eye and Traveler's Camouflage. That coupled with Peerless Exploration 100 % ensures that they do not want a wilderness exploration scene; they do not encounter any hazards or enemies along the way. I also decide that due to these efforts, if related, I'll give them a + 2 to the first Perception or Nature check in the upcoming chase Skill Challenge. >

GM: After hours of merciless travel fraught with switchbacks and perilous drop-offs, you locate patch of worn tundra that appears to have been traveled. It cuts a path through the deadly terrain and leads you to your quarry. It is night and the gloom is cut only by smoldering torches that flank either side of a ramp that juts skyward toward a sacrificial altar from a stone portico; the stonework is emblazoned with the snake-mens' dark God. How are you guys going to approach this?

Players: R is going to tie his horse off in a copse of trees not far from the temple, sneak in, locate, pilfer and escape with the idol. B and D are going to remain on horseback several hundred feet away from the temple to intercept any returning forces that may pose a problem for R's egress from the temple.

GM: B & D; your circumnavigation of the territory reveals no sentries nor any signs of snake-men. However, the beady eyes of a seemingly endless pack of hyenas dot the horizon in all directions. Their howls cut the night now and again. They are a cowardly lot and the moment you would waste a trot in their direction, they would scurry off. R; you've navigated the small temple at the top of the ramp where a second portico led you to the altar proper. One priest stood alone and with deadly, silent precision, you ended his life, dislodged the idol from its stanchion, avoided the sentries and made haste to exit. As you leave, the chilling sound of chirping, growling hyenas cuts the air...coupled with the defensive sound of your horse neighing and rearing in defense. You emerge; a pack of hyenas are working to take down your tethered horse! And making an awful racket while at it!

B & D: We gallop toward that direction.

GM: <Metagame - "Escape With the Idol" Hard complexity 3 Skill challenge 8:3. Of note; subsequent uses of the same skill by the same player in a skill challenge is used at - 2 and then - 5.)

R: I run over there, brandishing my rapier in a threatening manner, attempting to ward the feral beasts off my horse: <Intimidate to ward off the pack - Failure>

GM: Their exposed ribs betray the obvious fact that these wild canines get little food out here in the badlands. They're desperate and the pack is unmoved by your display. Two of them tear into the rear flanks of your horse, opening up red gashes. Your horse bucks them off. Worse than that, the snake-men have been alerted and the front portico is awash with sounds of alarm. Soon enough, it begins "crawling" with movement.

B: I waste no time. I know I'm well out of range but I call upon my faith to Correlon (help me in my time of need), my life-force and my battled-tested skill to extract the high arcana necessary to extend my spell. I want to use a Daily spell here; I spend a healing surge to extend the range of Arcane Gate so R and his horse can jump through to us: <+ 2 to the Arcana DC for extended range - Success and I give them 2 Successes toward the challenge due to the expenditure of the daily and the HS>

D: I'm doing much the same (spend an HS to extend the range) but I'm just gong to use my at-will Grasping Tide to have the earth awaken beneath the paws of the hyena pack, grabbing them and allowing the horse to pull free: <+ 2 to the Nature DC for extended range - Success>

GM: As the clatter of at the snake-temple erupts, you see several abomination sentinels emerge and head in your direction, tridents and spears leading. Behind them are cavalry mounted on giant monitor lizards. A flash of light explodes in front of you as a familiar rune-frame portal bursts into being. In the same moment and upheaval of earth sends the swarming pack this way and that. You and your horse have a moment's opening.

R: I step on the head of the closest hyena, vault over the rest of the pack onto the horse, cut the tethering line in one smooth motion and we sprint to the arcane gate - <Acrobatics - Success> I meet up with my companions and quickly show them the satchel housing the idol and nod at them. We gallop off with haste as the snake-men pour out of the temple after us.

B: I dismiss the Arcane Gate, of course.

GM: Of course. BS. As R pointed out, the snake-men are pouring out of the temple after you. They know these badlands intimately while you only know it from your trip in. Its a dark night and clouds drift across the moon. Your elven eyes reveal much but there is uneven ground everywhere. A fall now and a lame horse could spell disaster.

B: I guided us in. I'm confident I can guide us out. The trail-warden told me the arrangement of stars in the night's sky which I can use to navigate us roughly back to the forest trail. I hone in on them while keeping my presence of mind focused on the hazardous terrain before me. <Perception - Success> With confidence we head onward, wary of pitfalls, and putting increasing distance between ourselves and our pursuit.

GM: When you can no longer see their torches behind you, your senses focus in on the labored breathing and well lathered coats of your horses. You didn't realize it but you've been running for an hour or more. More than that, R's horse is showing signs of slowing, the wicked gashes on his hindquarters looking gnarly in the moonlight.

D: I slow our collective pace to a halt. I hand out herbs to the men to steep in the horse's water to steel their will for awhile longer. Then I retrieve my mortar and pestle and create an unguent to apply to R's horse. <Heal as augment for Endurance for Horses - Success>

GM: As the horses are resting and nearing being able to set off again, the torchlight of your pursuit ambles over a rise, coming into line-of-sight. Although, they lack the speed of your horses, you doubt the great lizards that carry the snake-men ever tire. They're closing. Fast.

R: Given the keenness of their eyes and their ability to track out here, I'm sure they know exactly where we are. That's good. Lets help them even more. I want their angle of pursuit to be perfect...I light a tender-twig to work as a flare. I reach into my pack and pull out my "camouflaged anti-cavalry caltrop net". I unroll it, lay it out several paces in front of the tender-twig and put as much sand on it as can be. I smile and say to my friends: "That should slow them down a bit." <Thievery - A Tool for Everything Background Power - Success> When we're a ways off we hear the sounds of my handiwork and exchange a celebratory smirk.

GM: Despite R's trap's success, the chase carries on for many hours. Your horses fatigue while their lizard mounts do not yield. Hours pile on and while you are nearing the last leg of your trek through the badlands, your pursuit gains. They are now within artillery range and as dawn breaks, their aim becomes more true. Javelins whir by your heads, the crackle of lightning sizzles next to your ears, startling your exhausting horses. The ground gives way in great chunks, switches back, rises and falls; death from a neck-breaking fall is everywhere.

B: I work in earnest to keep my horse steady despite it all. I curse the Goddess of Night for taking away the stars as I am now blind in guiding my companions. I hope my horse knows the way better than I. I hold tight, steering him free of any hazards and any incoming enemy fire. I look for natural signs of the trail that brought us into this harsh place...and hope. <Nature as Ride + animal handling + looking for the natural terrain signs. He elects to use his + 2 here from * - Failure >

GM: Your horse moves sluggishly and its natural sense of the way appears askew due to its state. You see none of the scant trail-signs that you marked in your mind on the way in. Everything looks the same. Over the next rise your worst fears are realized in the shape of a deep gorge. Your horses in their best state could leap across the chasm...but they are tired. Doubling back may be the only way out. But your pursuit closes in on you. <We are now down to next success or failure dictates the outcome of the Skill Challenge>

D: This place looks familiar from stories I was told in my youth. Many thousands of years ago, wildmen once roamed here and used hot springs for winter baths. A story told of a barbarian king who won this territory when the ground opened up and swallowed his enemies. As our enemies close in for the kill and my friends dismount their horses to prepare to fight, I consult the earth spirits and the annals of my mind for a means of earth-borne egress. < History - Failure>

GM: Were the stories right? Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. Regardless, "earth-borne egress is what you get." As the gathered force of the snake-men surrounds you, the earth yaws wildly beneath your feat. Screams from man and beast alike fill the air. The smell of dank, dusty death fills your nostrils for a moment and the splash of freezing water sends you to unconsciousness.

<Skill Challenge to escape with the idol lost. Complication ensues. Sinkhole manifests. Good guys loose 2 HSes apiece.

The PCs rouse themselves (they were only unconscious for a few minutes) at the same time as the living remnants of the snake-men (and their lizard mounts) pursuit does the same. They’re in a large chamber, hip-deep in water and bones of various creatures, blood and offal everywhere. Battle (L + 2) ensues and they slay the remnant force. When all is still, the R realizes the satchel with the idol is gone. They investigate the chamber, looking frantically for the idol. They take note that one of their horses (all of them dead from the fall) appear to have been butchered with gaping wounds where its flanks and haunches once were. They get out of the water and find a pool of fresh blood leading off down a narrow, claustrophobic chamber. Where the blood is most pooled, they find the torn satchel that housed the idol…but the idol is gone!

“Get the idol back!” Skill challenge ensues. This is basically riffed 100 % off of the movie "The Descent" with "mole-men" (Humanoid Lurkers that are fast, stealthy, wall-crawling, have blind-sight and use claws and fangs). It gets quite dangerous as their 2 failures result in short ambush encounters with wall crawling Lurkers that just attack them with surprise and the initial round of combat and then escape via wall-crawling and ducking into tunnels; just enough to cause them to lose a few surges. 1 of those failures is an Athletics check during a climb that turned pretty precarious with wall-crawling enemies. It ends with their success in the Skill Challenge as they get the drop on their enemies (Boss level - L + 5 and with a dearth of surges - combat in a large chamber where a nest of the creatures is located), slay them, retrieve the idol and use a natural chimney from that chamber to reach the surface and the edge of the forest.

Transition scene through forest via trail where color, role-playing and player planning is sorted out > Climax at village with Ritual freeing them from the Wasting curse.

Transition scene through badlands with color and planning including some resource deployment to ensure the transition scene and position them for success in future scenes > Non-combat resolution that is immediately relevant to the players' goals > Complications including combat and non-combat resolution that is born from and immediately relevant to players' goals > Transition Scene > Climax. That was one session. A "mini-adventure". I'm pretty sure a lot of this applies to @Hussar 's and @pemerton 's thoughts but I'll let them comment on that as I'm tired and I'm going to bed.

Celebrim said:

Ahh... you played in the FR didn't you? Yeah, that set a completely different expectation. FR NPC's were about double the level of NPC's in any prior setting, which totally could mess with expectations. Or to put it another way, FR NPC's were roughly on part with the power level of dieties of prior settings.

That being said, if you had PC's that reached 30th level, my first question is, "How long did that take?" Higher levels were soooooo slow. And my second question is, "Considering that our 13th-15th level characters were quite capable of challenging and often outright wiping the floor with fiend lords, what in the world did you do at 30th level?"



I'm guessing significant experience with high level play prior to 3e is a big part of that.



Lots.

Click to expand...

actually, no. never heard of FR until matzica. we played greyhawk. mordenkainen was in the 30's, for example. or maybe that was just how my dm's statted the circle members out. i seem to recall that he was in the 20's early on, but his level kept creeping up higher and higher the more d&d supplements came out.

say what? who were you gaming with? 13th-15th wiping out major entities? not a chance. i think i see the problem right there. the world is not a static place. if you are leveling, so are they. slower, of course, but still. those snapshot stats were taken at a specific point in time. no possible way they are still the same by the time you meet them. plus minions, and underlings, and resources, divination, preparation, traps, tricks, backdoors, etc., etc..

no major entity is a push-over unless the dm plays them stupid, or just doesn't have the talent or ability or (most likely) the experience to play them the way they would actually work out.

what do we do? oh, you know, the usual: save the kingdom, and the king gets the glory; destabilize an evil empire, and it's covered up by the media; save the world, still don't get the credit; save the universe, and nobody even knows; one of our home towns has poor starving orphans, and we get all the blame, dealing with politics, minor wars, invasions from hither and yon, starting up our own governments and small countries... just the typical fantasy version of a superhero group sorta stuff.

why? how about you? running out of stuff to do?

Hussar said:

<snip>

I'd say that's a valid point. Now, is it not possible for the players to declare what they find meaningful? Do the players not get any say in the consequences? Even if the consequences that the DM is putting on the table are outright killing the fun for at least one player at the table? Given that there are generally a very, very broad range of consequences to choose from, does it really hurt the game to allow players to veto one from time to time?

Click to expand...

The players did declare what they found meaningful -- they didn't acquire any form of in-game resource that shortcut travel. Therefore, long term travel is desired by the players -- or at least resources other than short-cutting travel were more desirable and long-term travel is deemed as acceptable option.

Of course, the players get a say in the consequences. The known consequence of using Plane Shift is a 5-500 mile positional uncertainty. The players and the PCs know this. When the players have their PCs use that in-game resource they choose the consequence of being potentially up to 500 miles from their target with all their PC in-game quick travel resources at their disposal -- that is to say none. If the players didn't want that consequence, acquiring in-game resources to avoid it generally or in any specific case is typically an option.

Umbran said:

/snip
Also, I think I noted earlier, I seem to come from a tradition where players have a whole lot more patience than you seem to feel is appropriate. I'll go through a scene I don't particularly care for, if it is cool for someone else at the table. The GM can go ahead and bore me for a while, it isn't that big a deal to me. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Oh, hey, let's not get too far ahead here. 99% of the time, I'm perfectly willing to sit through scenes. I just have no problem with the players, or me, speaking up that 1% of the time and skipping something.

Nagol said:

The players did declare what they found meaningful -- they didn't acquire any form of in-game resource that shortcut travel. Therefore, long term travel is desired by the players -- or at least resources other than short-cutting travel were more desirable and long-term travel is deemed as acceptable option.

Of course, the players get a say in the consequences. The known consequence of using Plane Shift is a 5-500 mile positional uncertainty. The players and the PCs know this. When the players have their PCs use that in-game resource they choose the consequence of being potentially up to 500 miles from their target with all their PC in-game quick travel resources at their disposal -- that is to say none. If the players didn't want that consequence, acquiring in-game resources to avoid it generally or in any specific case is typically an option.

Click to expand...

And thus, the playstyle difference. You are insisting on the procedural simulationist approach to gaming. The players didn't get X, thus, under no circumstance, should they be allowed to act as if they had X. They MUST deal with the consequences of lacking X, no matter what. At no point, can the players step back and just tell the DM, "I'm sorry, yes, I know I don't have the yellow key card, but, can we skip over me wandering around the maze for the next hour searching for it?" because that would be deviating from the simulation.

What you have to understand is that for some of us, that is not a priority. It's simply not a criteria for judging a game. Is searching for the keycard interesting? No? Then skip it. Is someone actually stepping up and saying, "Yes, I REALLY don't want to do this"? Yes? Then skip it.

Campbell said:

We're missing the forest for the trees here. This discussion shows the limitations of argument by example or analogy. Rather than focus on the real issues of play we end up nitpicking details and don't walk away with anything of value. Even worse because we can only know the mind of a single participant we inject our own bias into the other participants.

There are some interesting areas of argument based on the example to be pursued though:

• What should a player do when he is bored by the events of play? How does this differ from table to table?
• Should time spent at the table be reflective of character effort? When is it alright for it not to be?
• Who bears primary responsibility for player buy in?
• What takes precedence - setting or character?
• Does the GM's preferences take priority? Is he just another participant?

The answers to the above questions are fertile ground for discussion. I'd posit that their answers depend a lot on the individual group, but directly addressing concerns rather than through proxy will lead to a greater level of understanding.

Click to expand...

Fantastic stuff here.

1. By and large, a bored player doesn't really have a whole lot of options. Grit your teeth and bear it is largely the solution because, let's be honest, you don't want to be "that guy" who is disrupting the table.

2. Absolutely not. It takes 2 minutes for my rogue to Take 20 on a search check to find a trap. I certainly don't want that to take more than 2 seconds in table time. The whole purpose of a Take 10 is to skip over the trivial stuff. Table time and in game time are completely separate animals AFAIC.

3. Now that's a tricky one. That's gotta be shared to be honest. There's only so much the DM can do. And if the player just isn't buying in, there isn't much you can do other than move on to something else.

4. Character. Every time.

5. That's not a simple question. The GM's preferences are going to shape the game to such a large degree that you cannot ever really call him just another participant. Unless you're playing certain types of games that is. But certainly in traditional games, you cannot pull the GM preferences out. It's not possible. If the GM really likes undead, then you're likely going to face a lot of undead. If the GM wants to play a high RP low combat game, and the players have bought into that, then that's generally what you're going to get.

Hussar said:

Oh, hey, let's not get too far ahead here. 99% of the time, I'm perfectly willing to sit through scenes. I just have no problem with the players, or me, speaking up that 1% of the time and skipping something.



And thus, the playstyle difference. You are insisting on the procedural simulationist approach to gaming. The players didn't get X, thus, under no circumstance, should they be allowed to act as if they had X. They MUST deal with the consequences of lacking X, no matter what. At no point, can the players step back and just tell the DM, "I'm sorry, yes, I know I don't have the yellow key card, but, can we skip over me wandering around the maze for the next hour searching for it?" because that would be deviating from the simulation.

What you have to understand is that for some of us, that is not a priority. It's simply not a criteria for judging a game. Is searching for the keycard interesting? No? Then skip it. Is someone actually stepping up and saying, "Yes, I REALLY don't want to do this"? Yes? Then skip it.

Click to expand...

Sure, it s a play style. But it's not simulation: it's the GM responding to player cues and the GM not undercutting player choices with force. Negating a consequence that is entirely within control of the player does a couple of detrimental things in my view:

1) It negates player choice. If one or more of the players likes this type of struggle and has chosen appropriately for those desires, the application of GM force negates their choice to engage the game this way. This is particularly problematic when only a single player is asking for the pass. Table dynamics being what they are, someone who wants to do something will often remain silent if someone else is vocal about how he doesn't want to do it.

2) It skews choice value. If the players know that X can and will be hand waved away then there is (almost) no reason for the player to choose resources that handle that situation rather than taking the wave. This ends up making non-hand waved choice relatively more valuable and makes the PCs more rich in resources in other aspects of the game. This in turn makes the PCs more capable in situations the table doesn't advance pass and in more extreme cases make the PCs breeze through situations designed to challenge more balanced designs.

3) It negates previous player choices. This was stated above. The party is facing the consequence of previous choice. I expect the advantages from their choices have appeared; here is a visible indicator of what they surrendered to get those other resources.

4) It rewards poor planning. If X is a known consequence and the players decide to do it without mitigation, they should live with those results.

pemerton said:

This is where we have a different view. As soon as the GM mentions the siege, the players can become proactive - asking questions about it, casting scrying spells (if they have them), sending scouts (if they have them), making plans for their PCs'.

Click to expand...

As soon as the GM mentions the esert, the players can become proactive - asking questions about it (do they have relevant knowledge skills? Ranger favoured territory? character background?), casting scrying spells (if they have them), sending scouts (if they have them), making plans for their PCs'. Substitute "nomads" for "siege" or "desert", and the same applies.

pemerton said:

Whereas as soon as the GM mentions the desert the players can engage the desert to make plans for their PCs' goals (unless they have very powerful magic, as I noted above - eg if the players could turn the sand into a genie or golem that went to the city to do their bidding that would make a difference, but it seems clear to me that Hussar's group didn't have such magic).

Click to expand...

But they can somehow force a besieging army to do their bidding. Again, we are back to you being willing to allow the PC's to exercise their creativity to leverage the siege, but not to leverage anything in the desert.

Hussar said:

How could the siege not be relevant? You have to actively work to make the siege not relevant. If nothing else, the siege affects every single NPC encounter in the city - presumably they're not ignoring the siege. It will affect everything the PC's try to do - want to buy something? Good luck, there's a siege on. Want to find a room at the inn? Good luck, the inn has been destroyed by siege weapon fire. On and on and on. Every single encounter once you are in the city will be colored by the siege.

Click to expand...

If that is the way the GM chooses to run things. Maybe they have magical supply lines, so there is no shortage of goods for purchase. JC has postulated a siege where the city is not being damaged; the city might also have magical protections. The siege will colour the encounters in the city to the extent the GM wishes, and no more.

Hussar said:

How are encounters in the city colored by the desert?

Click to expand...

Again, as much or as little as the GM chooses to colour them. For example, want to buy something? Good luck, there's miles of desert someone would have to travel through to bring those goos in for sale. Want to find a room at the inn? Good luck, parked in the middle of the desert, the city has precious little call for inns. The last one burned down in a fire two years ago and no one has bothered to rebuild.

Yup - completely different from being under siege. And we could have the same reasons that these implications don't occur, so again, as much or as little impact as we choose to incorporate.

Hussar said:

I'd say that's a valid point. Now, is it not possible for the players to declare what they find meaningful? Do the players not get any say in the consequences? Even if the consequences that the DM is putting on the table are outright killing the fun for at least one player at the table? Given that there are generally a very, very broad range of consequences to choose from, does it really hurt the game to allow players to veto one from time to time?

Click to expand...

Does it really kill all the fun of the game for a player to be bored once in a while? Especially if what bores them greatly engages one or more of the other players? Again, I come back to how bored is the player, and how often does this happen? If, on very rare occasions, a number of players are disengaged, speed the scene along and get to something more interesting. However, if one player is commonly bored by the campaign events, then maybe that player is a poor fit for this campaign.

Umbran said:

Well, now we might consider re-framing this question entirely. How did the players and GM get into a situation where they had fundamentally different playstyle desires? I'd point to there being a more fundamental communication failure here than the one scene.

Also, I think I noted earlier, I seem to come from a tradition where players have a whole lot more patience than you seem to feel is appropriate. I'll go through a scene I don't particularly care for, if it is cool for someone else at the table. The GM can go ahead and bore me for a while, it isn't that big a deal to me. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Emphasis added. There seems to be an assumption of some posters that players have a hive mind. If most/all the players are bored, there is a problem with the game being run. If one player is bored by aspects of the game that interest the others, the game seems no longer to be the problem.