5e GMs - Why or Why Not Wandering Treasure?

[pemerton]

I have never seen players in a game with as much fiddly gritty combat bits as dnd who liked the "fall when gm likes" npc approach when discussing systems of play. "Why make me do all this work for a result of GM chooses?"

But suppose some do it seems.

Not my thing tho.

Right. What's the point of all those mechanics if they don't matter?

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] didn't say the GM notices the combat failed to entertain and so spices it up. He said the GM thinks the PCs won too easily and so throws in more enemies. I am responding to that: the GM wanting to change an outcome.

In the particular case I'm thinking of, the GM genuinely meant well and was trying to provide a fun play experience. She was experienced in running 4e D&D and was thinking in terms of applying fun & dramatic pressure to the PCs. Unfortunately we were playing 2nd level 5e PCs and had just blown through all our resources taking out the tentacle demon (reskinned otyugh) in one round, while mobs of weak creatures (in this case troglodytes) in 5e are far more deadly than 4e minions, or mobs in earlier editions. So there was going to be a TPK. So the DM, looking rather mortified, fudged like crazy to avoid the natural consequence of her mistake.

IMO she is an excellent DM and I love playing with her. We all make mistakes; she learned from hers and improved, adapting to the new system. I was playing with her on Sunday for the first time in a few years and there were definitely techniques she employed that I learned from; eg her very good use of a group skill check (Stealth) when the party hid in ambush, with 50% successes needed. It matched my IRL experience of night fighting exercises in the army reserve and trying (failing) to get another soldier to cover up his metal watch that was shining brightly in the moonlight.

My other example was a guy who ran 4e Swords of Punjar and just took both the end bosses, and a bunch of other monsters, threw them into a single encounter with our 1st level PCs, then had the monsters sit there taking no actions. He's a nice guy but he was a weak GM. He had no understanding of the 4e encounter balance system - which unlike 3e or 5e, actually works. I don't really know what he was going for; extra drama maybe.

 

[Sadras]

Firstly, that is a great pic.

@S'mon didn't say the GM notices the combat failed to entertain and so spices it up. He said the GM thinks the PCs won too easily and so throws in more enemies. I am responding to that: the GM wanting to change an outcome.

Fair point.

And you introduce the notion of "no one is the wiser". In my view this just doubles down on the GM manipulating outcomes. If the issue is about entertainment, then there is no reason why the GM needs to keep what s/he is doing secret.

I hadn't intended to use a roper in the encounter, but the player made it salient via his action declaration, and I took up the idea and ran with it. I didn't keep it secret from the player what I was doing! I don't need to keep it secret that I'm doing stuff that I think will be fun.

Personally I find that odd, not that it is wrong - just that in I have never encountered that style of play at the table where the DM would say, hey I planned for two beholders but your actions made me rethink and so I injected a roper. I cannot see my players enjoying that style of play.

 

[pemerton]

Personally I find that odd, not that it is wrong - just that in I have never encountered that style of play at the table where the DM would say, hey I planned for two beholders but your actions made me rethink and so I injected a roper. I cannot see my players enjoying that style of play.

It's obviously table-variable. Also system variable - 4e is amazingly forgiving, especially above about 6th level or so (ie once the PCs have three encounter powers plus a couple of utilities), so that this sort of thing is very unlikely to hose the players; and 4e is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Advanced Squad Leader-type play, at least in my experience, and so gets better not worse when the players sacrifice caution for boldness and the gonzo is turned to eleven. The roper gives another way for the players to stretch their tactical muscles, and to show off what they can do, and to have intra-party bickering about who is piddling about with the roper while someone else has to solo a beholder, etc.

 

[Sadras]

It's obviously table-variable.

Agreed.

Also system variable

Maybe, but I'm not necessarily convinced. I agree 4e is very forgiving.

In our table's last 5e session, the party went up against a skeletal dragon, 4 winter wolves and a wizard's simulacrum in difficult snow-ridden terrain with their visibility reduced to 30 feet due to the hostile weather conditions. It was the only combat of a rather significant session (table-wise, not due to story) and despite the terrain and weather conditions being so much against them, the characters had their full allotment of resources and were able and did take advantage of it. So early on in the fight (which was entertaining and full of decision making) I increased the skeletal dragon's hit points by 50.

The combat proved challenging but not insurmountable with 2 out of 5 characters unconscious. Fun was had by all. It was going to be the last combat and session we were going to have with one of our players so I was pushing for something more nail-biting. Railroad or not, for me I did the right decision for our table.

 

[Lanefan]

In our table's last 5e session, the party went up against a skeletal dragon, 4 winter wolves and a wizard's simulacrum in difficult snow-ridden terrain with their visibility reduced to 30 feet due to the hostile weather conditions. It was the only combat of a rather significant session (table-wise, not due to story) and despite the terrain and weather conditions being so much against them, the characters had their full allotment of resources and were able and did take advantage of it. So early on in the fight (which was entertaining and full of decision making) I increased the skeletal dragon's hit points by 50.

The combat proved challenging but not insurmountable with 2 out of 5 characters unconscious. Fun was had by all. It was going to be the last combat and session we were going to have with one of our players so I was pushing for something more nail-biting. Railroad or not, for me I did the right decision for our table.

Worth noting that you did this on a one-time (I assume) basis because it was a special occasion and due to that you needed something truly memorable right now. Cool!

It's when this on-the-fly tinkering happens every session it becomes a problem.

 

[5ekyu]

Lol. I wonder who decides what and how much information to provide the characters on a knowledge check? I wonder who chooses whether an opponent will stay or leave the battlefield or at what point? I wonder who chooses whether 1 persuade check will be enough to convince the NPC to reveal information?

Still not your thing tho, right?

You know, it's odd to keep citing examples of the GM playing up front and above board with the rules that he and the players understand and agree to as if somehow they support a gm changing the rules and hiding that he is doing so from the players.

I tend to suggest the group plays by rules they agree on and use, instead of rules they agree on and then secretly when nobody "will be the wiser" one player decides to discard.

There are so many game systems with mechanics for far more fluid "drama based" less action based resolutions. Some of them require far less wasted effort and complexity on stuff like combat bonuses, weapon properties, critical hits doubling dice but not bonuses **because** its openly known within the rules that its preference or flavor or drama that decides when the conflict is over, not all those fiddly bits that eat up time.

Combat in those systems can be as quick as one for roll, maybe one each, and then shared narration instead of a whole lot of back n forth and time in creation and fighting when the **actual deciding factor** is just what the gm wants it to be.

More mid road simply provide gimmick points that allow varying levels of control beyond the character scope to the players, not just the GM, or even have the GM give gimmick points for "I muck with the outcome" etc etc etc.

Guess I never get why some folks think recieving others about the rules we play by is better than choosing rules that suit what we all prefer.

 

[5ekyu]

Right. What's the point of all those mechanics if they don't matter?

Yup. We have played games with lot less bits lot less chargen focus on fiddly bits... was fun... but if we gonna buy into fiddly bits and "building in that sense, we dont wait it resolved by fiat, secret behind the screen fiat at that.

"Choose rules you want to play" seems so obvious.

 

[Sadras]

You know, it's odd to keep citing examples of the GM playing up front and above board with the rules that he and the players understand and agree to as if somehow they support a gm changing the rules and hiding that he is doing so from the players.

I tend to suggest the group plays by rules they agree on and use, instead of rules they agree on and then secretly when nobody "will be the wiser" one player decides to discard.

There are so many game systems with mechanics for far more fluid "drama based" less action based resolutions. Some of them require far less wasted effort and complexity on stuff like combat bonuses, weapon properties, critical hits doubling dice but not bonuses **because** its openly known within the rules that its preference or flavor or drama that decides when the conflict is over, not all those fiddly bits that eat up time.

Combat in those systems can be as quick as one for roll, maybe one each, and then shared narration instead of a whole lot of back n forth and time in creation and fighting when the **actual deciding factor** is just what the gm wants it to be.

More mid road simply provide gimmick points that allow varying levels of control beyond the character scope to the players, not just the GM, or even have the GM give gimmick points for "I muck with the outcome" etc etc etc.

Guess I never get why some folks think recieving others about the rules we play by is better than choosing rules that suit what we all prefer.

There was a thread recently about GM cheating.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, GMs do you use "Wandering Treasure" or whatever you want to name "theres stuff scattered around they can find on searches that i did not detail to the room and container" for your indoor scenes, sometimes, never, always, mostly, rarely?[/B]

Do you treat "foraging" (DC for scarcity and Success = get stuff - plus possibly pre-determined set pieces) and search resolutions the same or differently?

No I don't use wandering treasure, mainly because I still love the exploration pillar of the game more than anything (especially indoor), and therefore I like stretching it... and a good way to stretch it, is to have the player characters deal with the details: to let them think where and how they want to search for things they are looking for (treasure, traps, hidden doors...).

But if you aren't interesting in stretching the exploration phase, then the idea of bulk-rolling for treasure against a table is sound. After all, I have done the same for other areas of the game when I didn't feel like getting down to the details, for example the "information gathering" phase: sometimes I like having it roleplayed in details, but many other times I just had the PCs roll e.g. a group Cha check against a preset table that yields more information based on the result.