Stop being so paranoid

[Hussar]

Bite me.

The obligation of the DM to do that… to constantly use, abuse and ultimately kill the PCs is not something unique to 4E or the current columns on WotC. Those were simply handy examples, not unique ones.

From the out set the relationship between the PCs and the DMs is utterly adversarial – it is designed to be a no holds barred, no compromise, winner take all, zero-sum-gain relationship. One wins only in so far as they can expressly make the other party loose. If you believe anything else, then you are an idiot.

Paranoid is just them using survival technique, and if you let them win at all, in any way, on any level, they you are failing in your job.


Read the books, Read the columns. Stay current stay alert.

Wait... what?

I don't know what books or columns you're reading, but, I'm thinking that something written in 1979 may not be current. Old style adversarial DMing hasn't been advocated in the game for quite a while. In fact, it's been pretty much the opposite in Dragon and Dungeon for at least a few years. Read the Dungeon Craft articles from Dungeon for example. Adversarial DMing has a pretty bad rep.

Heh. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

 

[Derren]

Absolutely not. But that's real life, and I'm playing what I hope is a fun and exciting game - huge difference.

The point is that the PCs are risking their lives in a dungeon. And unless you want them to metagame that a single trap won't kill them then the PCs have a very good reason to be paranoid.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Old style adversarial DMing hasn't been advocated in the game for quite a while.

Bullcrap.

Pay more attention.

The game is all about hurting other people - it is about finding fun in hurting other people.

If they are not paranoid, then the DM isn't doing his job. If they are not paranoid, the PCs don't deserve to live.

 

[Mean Eyed Cat]

My group is not paraniod enough. Not about door and traps and that sort of silly thing but about the real evils of the campaign and the threat they pose.

This is also very true with my group

 

[Brown Jenkin]

It hasn't happened to me before, but if the players ever showed excessive caution like that, I would be sorely tempted to do the following in a large dungeon complex:

"You hear footsteps approaching."
"We hide."
"From your hiding place, you see what appears to be another adventuring group heading for the exist. They seem to have several big bags filled with valuables with them.

Well, I guess they were faster..."

Personally I would be going:
Cool, I remain hidden until they get to point blank range then attack.

After the fight:
Wasn't that nice of the other party to spring all the traps and fight the monsters for us so we didn't have to. So what loot did they bring us.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Personally I would be going:
Cool, I remain hidden until they get to point blank range then attack.

After the fight:
Wasn't that nice of the other party to spring all the traps and fight the monsters for us so we didn't have to. So what loot did they bring us.

Sure, that's a possibility. But then at least you have a potentially fun fight instead of an evening of non-fun checking of every room for non-existent traps.

And, of course, the fact that the party is apparently willing to slaughter another adventuring party in cold blood might have plenty of moral and other consequences... which any DM worth his salt should be able to exploit. Which, again, is more fun than checking every floor tile for traps.


Note: I like tormenting (not killing. Death is too quick) player characters as much as the next DM. But I'd rather put the screws on them because of something that they did instead of something they neglected to do - real, significant choices instead of boring, repetetive checking for minor details which contribute little to the story.

 

[haakon1]

One thing that might help is established rules to cover such things. ie Every door you open, you listen, check for traps, then unlock, then let the fighter step through. I'll tell you if anything comes up before the fighter steps through.

We even have a name for this -- SOP and pop. SOP = Standard Operating Procedure.

However, they only pull up the "SOP and pop" idea in particularly hairy-seeming dungeons, not for run of the mill stuff or when they want to move fast. For something like the World's Largest Dungeon, though, it makes perfect sense, and fits with the ten minute workday plans too.

 

[El Mahdi]

Personally I would be going:
Cool, I remain hidden until they get to point blank range then attack.

After the fight:
Wasn't that nice of the other party to spring all the traps and fight the monsters for us so we didn't have to. So what loot did they bring us.

Hey, if adversarial DM'ing is bad, then adversarial playing shouldn't be allowed either. (we should just make the game a series of Diplomacy skill check roll offs - to see who can be the least adversarial)




(I wanted to make it clear this is just a joke, before anyone starts getting too adversarial about my post.)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I'm against players being paranoid out of combat, but expect them to be paranoid in combat? Can you clarify what you mean by this - I'm not following you.

In combat or out of combat - I expect my players to function, but no more. I play a light-hearted game, heavy on "fun" - beer'n'pretzels if that's an easier way of visualising it. I'm not trying to kill the players too much, I prefer just to let the dice roll where they may and assume that the published adventures are at about the right difficulty. They killed Irontooth OK, so so far it's going well.

In terms of traps - if I was writing my own adventures then I'd sprinkle in a trap where appropriate, and I'd be likely to include it as part of a larger encounter, rather than filler. For example, no kobold encounter would be complete without at least one trap or warning system. Possibly even devils and demons would have complex magical wards to help them repel an attack. I certainly don't consider them just filler.

Not the paranoia, the experts bit.

" I don't judge my players on whether or not they're acting like a highly-trained military squad, and they don't play like it."

That only seems to run until combat comes up, at which point the team is expected to play just like those highly-trained military squad. Hell, the whole point of 4e is "YOU'RE THE HEROES!" But all that seems to vanish once the combat ends.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

But I'd rather put the screws on them because of something that they did...

You are suppoed to put the screw to them at any time and in any way you can. Unless you already got a "winner" selected...

Hey, if adversarial DM'ing is bad, then adversarial playing shouldn't be allowed either.

It all adversarial, all the time. The only qualifier is how much the DM can get what he wants out of the players, which means interfering with the PVP so one side always wins. The illusion of a fair fight is important, more important than everyone having fun - the losers will keep coming back becuase that is what losers do. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who says it is not adversarial and that the outcome should not be determined in advance, is a fool or a liar.