The best laid plans of mice and DMs

[KarinsDad]

Uh, no, actually, I believe you are telling me that your players are so much smarter than mine. But you don't know my players, or me, so maybe you're wrong. Maybe it's possible for DM intervention to be less heavy-handed. Maybe my players would see through your attempts just as well as yours do.

Since I wasn't telling you that, your entire assumption base is off. That was something you read into what I wrote that wasn't there.

That's funny. For me, fun equates to great heroism, thrilling storylines, drama, tension, humour, and last-minute escapes. You're describing YOUR preferences -- why do you feel the need to pretend you know what "most people" prefer? First off, you don't know what "most people" prefer, and when you pretend you do, you make your argument less convincing. Second, your preferences are just as valid as anyone else's -- and substantially more interesting to me than your vain efforts to make your preferences more "valid" than mine. Just tell me about what YOU prefer, and why, and we can have a pleasant conversation.

Actually, I misstated when I said that.

Fun is not equal to fairness. Fairness is a core prerequisite for everyone to have fun, most of the time for most people.

This can be seen in all types of fun activities. Look at sports. Do the players (of either team) have fun if the referees are calling penalties constantly on one team, but not on the other (when both teams are causing penalties) as much as when the referees are calling fairly?

How about other fun activities such a snorkeling or hang gliding or rock climbing? Would everyone have as much fun if you only had one set of equipment and one person hogged the use of that equipment so that he got to do the activity over half of the time while the rest of the people sat around watching?

Sure, some people do not mind watching or like to watch, but out of the people who want to participate, that wouldn't equate to fun.

Human nature. That's the exact reason we have rules for games.

Now, you can think that lack of fairness will result in fun for most people, but I do not and I doubt most people do.

PS. Your definition of fun matches my own.

What about DM's who fudge because they suddenly had some great idea that would make everyone go, "Holy crap. That's the coolest thing ever."? What about DM's who fudge because their group is getting discouraged and unhappy, and they alter some number they wrote down last week so that the session can end on a positive note? What about DM's who fudge because they realise they over-estimated the party's abilities and decide to scale the challenge since this isn't supposed to be a death-dealing encounter?

If you'll recall, I stated "frequent reoccurring basis".

There is no doubt about it. DMs occasionally have to make adjustments, because they miscalculated or they did not scope out all of the necessary detail or whatever. However, some DMs go overboard (which I think "fudging" is). And, the DMs (and I have seen quite a few of them) who think it is ok to fudge the dice will then start fudging the power of opponents and then will start fudging the entire scenario because one cool idea came to them. It can (and does) easily spiral out of control and they do not even see it because that is how they always play.

That's why I almost never plan events. I just have my NPCs, I know what they want and what their abilities are, and I throw the PCs into it and see what happens. I don't have plans about what's going to happen because I know my players will turn inside out any plans I might have.

You almost never plan events? You almost never on an off gaming day say to yourself "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if NPC 1 did the following?" You almost never have your NPCs do things because you suddenly thought of it out of the gaming session?

Hmmmm. Worse than playing with a chaotic player might be playing for a chaotic DM who throws a lot of stuff into the game on the spur of the moment without thinking out ahead of time the campaign repercussions.

Course, I would think that fudging is a self fulfilling prophecy. A DM fudges because he thinks the encounter is too tough and then turns around and fudges when it becomes too easy and then turns around and fudges because the right NPC is not in the right town and then turns around and fudges because another NPC who hates that first NPC would have prevented the action, so that second NPC is no longer in town, etc., etc., etc.

That you might not enjoy my campaign I accept. That I'm a worse DM than you I do not.

If you almost never plan and often fudge stuff and throw out a lot of stuff on the fly, than yeah, it sounds like I would not enjoy your campaign. But, it's hard to tell without actually playing in it. If I could tell you were fudging, then I would not enjoy it. If you could bluff me well enough that I have no clue that you are fudging, then I might enjoy it.

 

[Philip]

Another powerful reoccurring villain bites the dust. Sometimes, it's not even worth it to even figure out ability scores for NPCS these days.

Just recur some of the villains that do survive. That always worked for me.

As often as the PCs kill your prepared uber-villian, they let another seemingly mediocre one get away. I am especially amazed at the number of times my players forget to finish of ogre-mages, for example.

 

[KarinsDad]

A lot of the time, I don't plan. Last session, I walked past an interesting-looking hospital two hours before the game, memorized it's vague layout, drew a map and decided where the key locations were, and came up with the general assortment of who the bad guys were.

Which means you planned. You may have not put down all of the details, but you did not walk into the session cold either.

On a different example, with the cavalry, think of it this way. The DM, John Tolkien, wants to really scare the PCs, and make them see that the villains are probably too powerful, so he throws an army of hundreds of thousands of Orcs at them while the PCs defend a fortress. He's pretty sure the PCs will think of something crazy to save the day, like Gandalf's player did a few weeks earlier when he dropped the balrog down the pit, or like what Boromir's player did when the Orcs just couldn't deal the last few hit points to him after he'd been struck with three critical hits on arrows.

Unfortunately, the players just hang back in the fortress and hack at the monsters for a 30-minute slugfest, and John the DM realizes they're going to lose at this rate.

As a DM, he should have realized that way ahead of time. Granted, this is an example where it is obvious that the heroes are going to lose without help and sessions happen during the game where it is not obvious, but it is like anything else in life.

If you put down a plan (or design) ahead of time, there are typically fewer problems where you have to drastically adjust during the game.

If you do things on the fly, there is typically less thought put into the idea(s) and there are usually greater chances to "screw up" where you have to fix it.

If this is the way it is in the real world, why would it be any different for a game? Preparation is key to quality in all endeavors and people usually recognize quality (or lack thereof) when they see it.

Some DMs probably enjoy the pressure of having to fix a situation at the table, but as a player, I do not enjoy as much the scenarios that are "obviously" resolved that way (sometimes, it is not obvious or even known). They are often less fulfilling because they feel fake. They feel like spur of the moment solutions as opposed to reasonable ways for the situation to resolve. They feel like I am suddenly reading a book instead of participating in an adventure.

And you, reading the novelization or watching the movie, probably wouldn't criticize Tolkien for copping out and having allies help the heroes. It was a cool movie, and that's what matters.

No because Tolkien planned the entire story (and the filmmakers planned nearly every instance of film, although I'm sure a few sporadic events got captured on film), he did not fling it out on the spur of the moment.

 

[Mortanis]

If you do things on the fly, there is typically less thought put into the idea(s) and there are usually greater chances to "screw up" where you have to fix it.

True with some people, false with others. I rarely plan anything beyond a few general ideas of simple story arc, and make most of it up on the fly based off of that loose outline. And whatever anyone may say, my players, some of which have been gaming for 20 years, all agree that my campaign is the funnest and richest they've played in. And without getting into a "Toot my own horn" scenario, it still stands that you don't have to have everything scoped out to a fine detail to have a good game. Sometimes just the opposite. The original intent of this thread was to show that players do unexpected things. No amount of planning will allow a DM, even the most meticulous, to allow for every eventuality. I've always found that it's too easy to plan myself into an area that when the players beak out of the mold i've set for them, i'm unable to keep up because it wasn't in my planning.

I shoot from the hip. I doubt that's everyone's style. I'm a reactive guy. I think fast on my feet. If the players throw me a curve ball, i don't have to be ready to hit it. I just react and do.

*shrug*

That may not work for everyone. I doubt it.

But ultimately, it comes down to this. My players are not your players. I am myself, not anyone else. What works for me, what makes my players happy, what makes the game enjoyable, may not work for anyone else. Each group is it's own dynamic. No one can make opinion fact.

 

[Storminator]

Sigh.

I used to enjoy reading this thread.

PS

 

[KarinsDad]

True with some people, false with others.

Doubtful.

If someone is smart enough to shoot from the hip well, then they are also smart enough to do that ahead of time even better. Whether they choose to do that is a different issue.

it still stands that you don't have to have everything scoped out to a fine detail to have a good game.

Agreed. I am not saying that people must have every detail worked out. Like in all things in life, moderation is the key.

However, I would hazard a guess that even your game often runs more smoothly when you have fleshed out some details ahead of time as opposed to when you walk in cold.

Many of the posters here on the boards are quick thinkers, but even the quickest of thinkers do better with a plan (and with preparation) then without one.

I would also posit that prepared NPC opponents typically have more uniqueness and freshness than ones made up on the fly. When DMs prepare ahead of time, they can figure out new feats or new tactics or new personalities or new multiclass combinations to throw at their players. Unless a DM has the books memorized, it is difficult to combine classes and prestige classes and/or spells and/or feats to find a good fit unless he has done the same thing in the past (in which case, it will not be as unique or fresh).

In fact, that is why the message boards are so popular. So that DMs can read new ideas and use them (i.e. by familiarizing themselves with them ahead of time) in their game.

Even the quickest of thinkers would have a tough time suddenly coming up with the idea to combine Shrink Item and a 4000 pound rock and to place that shrunken rock over the doorframe of the NPC Wizards bedroom so that he can have a way to both damage any intruders coming through the door and to have him block off the room so that he has time to escape.

Sure, if you've done this in the game before or read it here on the boards, you may think of it. But, I'll never buy into the idea that whimsical spur of the moment thought is as thorough as prepared thought for the same person. That might be that persons preference, but it will typically not be as well thought out.

"Chance favors the prepared mind"

Food for thought, even for your game.

 

[Mortanis]

True enough, to some extent. An NPC properly prepared is probably more resourceful and more of a challenge to the PC's. But better prepared doesn't always mean a better fight or more entertainment for everyone. It easily can, however.

A DM is better prepared by spending time working things out beforehand, but I argue that doesn't automatically make it a better game because of it. It all depends again, on your players. Mine seem to prefer my newer style of DMing. One of my players has gamed under me for 12 years now, has been with me in my heavy planning and detail phase, and my go with the flow phase. He much prefers the new style.

But again, that's just my players. They are rather unique. I'll agree that planning things definetly adds a more "completed" quality to the campaign, but sometimes that isn't what is neccessary for a good game.

[EDIT] Both Tolkien and Stephen King wrote/write without too much forethought and planning. King frequently says he doesn't know the story until it's finished. To some people those are two of the best authors. Others, not so much. The style and flow appeal to some, and not to others. Or, maybe I'm just a bit lazy in preparations. [/EDIT]

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Originally Posted by KarinsDad
Fun is not equal to fairness. Fairness is a core prerequisite for everyone to have fun, most of the time for most people.

This can be seen in all types of fun activities. Look at sports. Do the players (of either team) have fun if the referees are calling penalties constantly on one team, but not on the other (when both teams are causing penalties) as much as when the referees are calling fairly?

The difference IMO, is that RPGs are not sports. There is not a winner and a loser. The point of the game is therole-playing experience. While random occurences caused by die rolls can be very interesting are a major element of the game, the way I play the game the rules and statistics are all there to complement the story, not control it outright. I encourage player creativity and reward unusual solutions to a problem, even if it results in the easy defeat of a villian or trap, but I don't let random die rolls, good or bad, destroy major components of the story line. I'm not saying a villian cannot be killed by a lucky shot when it is time for the encounter with the villian, that is part of the game, but if a lucky shot can kill the villian even before he has a chance to BECOME the villian, then all that shot does is wipe out the whole story. I don't have the luxury of lot of time to create lots of new stories, and I'm not great at creating whole new stories on the fly, so I try and avoid it. Yes, I am railroading my players into playing the adventure I have prepared, but since everyone in my group has jobs and families, they accept the price in exchange for the chance to play the game.

 

[Hecateus]

The best place to keep true villains is out of reach of the PCs. A really good 3v!l wizard would never reveal himself to potential enemies if given a choice. Always send minions or use illusions etc.

Failing that the villian should have the skills and spells to deceive anyone into thinking that the villian is actually a good guy...or at least not appearing bad enough to be a fair-game bad guy. Go rent the sixties movie, Masquerade.

Failing that, the Villain should make himself to valuable to kill or imprison, think Scorpius from Farscape.

 

[Steverooo]

I was being facetious, hence the smiley.

Oh, I know YOU were, but this doesn't change the fact that I have seen GMs try to use something just about as bad!

I honestly wish WotC would make it an "Official RULE" that you can't mix more than two halves! (You'd think folks could figure it out for themselves, but with the state of modern mathematical literacy, I guess some folks are confused, and think ye can be a half-and-a-half-and-a-half kinda critter)!