Is this "Fair" - Part III

[T. Foster]

I never said that they had no where else to go.

You are assuming that that was the only plot hook that they had available.

I never have only one plot hook out there for them to look into, but they chose the one that they had zero information about and followed it.

They made the choice to follow a map they had no info about, not me.

OK, that modifies my previous response a bit. If the players had other plot hooks available and chose to follow up on one that they had no info about, that's a decision that did them in, not just a bad die-roll, so I'm more okay with it. Of course, I don't know the quality of those other plot hooks -- it's quite possible that the treasure map, even without any other info, seemed like the "best" hook, but even so, the players perhaps should've been more wary and sought out less uncertain avenues of adventure (or at least tried harder to gain additional info once they got closer to the location -- I assume the DC on a Gather Info check would be easier right next to the location of he dungeon?).

 

[mcrow]

What do you hope to accomplish by "not saving them" (or as I would phrase it, "wasting their time")?

If you just want to teach them a lesson, then perhaps a verbal explanation of the lesson might suffice rather than trying to communicate it through the game.

My comments are based on players who have been playing a while. People who know better than to just run head first into a dungeon(other locations) without checking out first. So really I haven't played with a group yet that would not have researched it yet. Also if the players were newbies I would give them a hint just because they likely don't have a clue of what could happen.

Now if they researched it and found out that it is way above what they can handle and choose to go there anyway I will let them go. They know it is to much for them but they WANT to go anyway. I'm all about letting player have what they want (for the most part) and if that is really what they want, then they can have it.

Honestly I'm pretty sure I haven't had anything like this happen in any of my games before.

 

[spectre72]

What do you hope to accomplish by "not saving them" (or as I would phrase it, "wasting their time")?

If you just want to teach them a lesson, then perhaps a verbal explanation of the lesson might suffice rather than trying to communicate it through the game.

I guess I am a bad DM because I do not feel that is my place to "save them from themselves".

If they make a decision I will let them follow through on it no matter what the outcome.

I have always found that learning something in game is remembered longer than me spouting off about something.

Just my opinion, but one that has been formed over many years.

 

[mcrow]

I guess I am a bad DM because I do not feel that is my place to "save them from themselves".

Count me as one too.

Maybe I'm a heartless bastard.

 

[spectre72]

Fine, assume it's not. Then what about the augury spell that is so hailed in the thread about the lever. What about all those previous adventurers who went in and got killed? Why don't we see their bodies?

If the players had of had someone cast augury I would have given an appropriate response.

Of course they could not have cast it themselves so they would have had to bring someone with them to cast it before entering because embarking on the journey would not have been either good or bad in the next half hour.

No one did so they got what was coming to them, and in the example they triggered a trap and never got past one of the defences (a false entrance).

They never even got int the main tomb....

We could go back and forth like this all day.

IMHO there are times when Characters step in something they shouldn't, and bad things happen.

It is not my job as GM to protect them from themselves.

 

[spectre72]

Anyway, it's their prerogative to run their games as they wish. I'm sure they'll have a great time, with their one remaining player

Thanks for thinking about me.

Just a little harsh there aren't we.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You know what I've come to realise, both from these threads and also from my gaming experience?

There is a segment of DMs, the vast majority of whom have been running games for years and have been doing so since 1st Edition days*, who consider the deathtrap dungeons of yore, exemplified by "Tomb of Horrors" as the exemplars of adventure design. And so they model their adventures on the works of the master, putting all sorts of obscure and deadly traps into place without sufficient thought or reason, and without considering the notion that their players might not think exactly as they do in order to solve the problems. They think they are designing in the vein of the legendary Gygax, without realising that virtually none of them have the wit and wisdom of the master.

Looking at "Tomb of Horrors", one finds lots of deadly traps, it's true, but these have clues to their existence that go beyond "you find a lever in a room." Besides, "Tomb of Horrors" isn't a master-class in design. It's a tournament adventure designed to 'catch out' arrogant players who think they're untouchable.

These DMs tend to have no problems filling their tables. They generally have a strong group they have played with for years, and who turn up week after week. Lulled by the strength of their group, therefore, they consider themselves the absolute masters of the craft...

Except that as time goes by, players have to drop out of the game, for one reason or another. They try to attract new players, who come for a session or two, get frustrated, and quit. Either they give up gaming entirely, or they seek out DMs who understand that the appropriate level of difficulty is somewhere between "challenging" and "abandon all hope, ye who enter here".

Anyway, it's their prerogative to run their games as they wish. I'm sure they'll have a great time, with their one remaining player.

One more thing: you cannot convince me that an undetectable extreme-save DC insta-kill trap is an example of good design. You can't convince me that springing an ambush by hill giants on a 1st level group is good design. You can't convince me that a map saying "great treasure" that leads the a group to a TPK that they could not have predicted coming is good design. These are all examples of really sloppy DMing. Any fool can kill off PCs. The challenge comes in putting together an adventure that requires them to use every skill, every spell, all their brainpower, and a lot of luck to come out alive, but which guarantees success if all these elements are in play.

* Which is not to say that all DMs who've been running since 1st Edition, or even all those who are still running under 1st Edition, are like this. But a minority are.

And I've just come to realize that the "modern" gamer is a crybaby.

Thankfully I have a nice group of older gamers who have been there since the 1970's and like to game like I like to DM.

 

[spectre72]

If the location is so secret that no-one knows anything about it, then by your logic there is no level at which the party should dare to go there. If there's no way to know about the danger, and not knowing about the danger necessitates staying away, then you always have to stay away. Guess that map was just a waste then, eh?

My opinion is that as characters gain experience and put skill points into gather info and knowledge skills they would increase their chances of learning about the location through better contacts, research, ...etc.

So those first level characters reach level 5 and have put points into appropriate skills and one of them starts to investigate the map again and finds references in an ancient text that tells them "blah, blah, blah, ...etc."

Once they learn the initial information they would research further, perhaps learning that there is more information in the cronicles of Bob in the library of fubar.

Thus a quest is started to gain more information through plot hooks that the players decided to follow.

Again just my 2 cents on the topic

 

[wayne62682]

One more thing: you cannot convince me that an undetectable extreme-save DC insta-kill trap is an example of good design. You can't convince me that springing an ambush by hill giants on a 1st level group is good design. You can't convince me that a map saying "great treasure" that leads the a group to a TPK that they could not have predicted coming is good design. These are all examples of really sloppy DMing. Any fool can kill off PCs. The challenge comes in putting together an adventure that requires them to use every skill, every spell, all their brainpower, and a lot of luck to come out alive, but which guarantees success if all these elements are in play.

Well said, delericho! I agree 100%.

The issue here is not so much "Is it fair?" but "Is it fun?" If the answer to that question is yes, then the fairness of the scenario doesn't matter; the group has fun and that is what counts. However, if the answer is no, then the DM needs to re-evaluate their own playing style and how it meshes with the group's percieved idea of what makes an enjoyable game.

 

[Wolfwood2]

IMHO there are times when Characters step in something they shouldn't, and bad things happen.

It is not my job as GM to protect them from themselves.

What about protecting yourself? Aren't you as the GM suffering equally from whatever negative consequences there might be?

From a purely selfish perspective isn't it better for you, spectre72, if you warned them?