Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Ariosto]

One thing that comes up to remind me how linear that campaign is that I mentioned earlier is we'll have a case in which, for instance, the DM cuts the number of monsters in an encounter because the dice were against us in the preceding one.

Do you think I objected when the DM did that? Think again! But it added to growing discomfort.

The DM in an earliet encounter had done just the "Really? I didn't realize that ..." routine underthumb suggested: arbitrarily "nerfing" my sleep spell -- the spell he gave me in the first place! -- to ensure that a fight would be as hard on us as he wanted it to be.

If we had a reasonable chance to avoid that sequence of fights, then it would not be necessary.

YES, the DM IS responsible for what happens when he or she takes critical decisions away from the players! I agree with that 100%!

I do not agree with the notion that, just because that other fellow chooses to take away that player freedom, it's incumbent on me to choose the same way.

Nor do I believe that, once having noticed it as a player, I have no share of blame for finding myself in such a scenario. How we go forward is something for all of us in that group to work out together. Most probably, we will finish "the adventure" that fellow has planned and then have someone else take over as DM (maybe me, although I took the last turn before this).

 

[underthumb]

Did the players forget? Did they know in the first place? On what basis are they choosing to risk such such an encounter, and how to respond in the event?

Assume that the players made an error generated from my own faulty preparation. That is, I presented them with multiple cues of a manageable encounter. They reasoned, based on all the evidence that I presented them, that it would be quite doable. But things went south very, very quickly. Say, in a single round. Now PC lives hang in the balance, and it's almost entirely because I made an error in my prior prep work.

Don't ask me a loaded rhetorical question like that, daring me to knock some chip off your shoulder.

I'm trying to understand how the rubber meets the road in your approach to GMing. To do so, I'm giving you an example that is not too far-fetched, and one that I've dealt with in the past. The situation is sticky, and not nearly so clear-cut as common fudging examples.

I agree that I should be able to "work it out" with friends. But the point is that the situation probably requires correction. It may require the dreaded dice fudging, or it may require, as you suggest, that I manufacture some other reason for the PCs to get out safely. But in either case, I would suggest that I have "nannied" them. I fudged either the dice or the situational characteristics.

The only non-nanny option is to let them die.

 

[Ariosto]

The only non-nanny option is to let them die.

That's your opinion, and it is at least better informed than the opinion of someone who cannot be present in the situation (even if it had some existence outside the confines of your mind). So, I would say that it's about as fine an opinion as one might reasonably desire.

But it is not some objective "fact" possessing a certain inalienable truth value that I (or anyone else) must either acknowledge or be simply wrong about. Even if it were that, any inference as to what you "ought to" do would be a subjective value judgment -- another opinion!

 

[underthumb]

That's your opinion...

-snip-

But it is not some objective "fact" possessing a certain inalienable truth value that I (or anyone else) must either acknowledge or be simply wrong about.

Feel free to add the words "I would suggest that" to the beginning of my quoted statement. It maintains consistency with my intent.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Hi, all--

This has been a terrific conversation--one of the most interesting I've been involved with in something like five years of visiting EN World on a daily basis. You all have given me a lot to think about, and I've learned quite a bit. (After 30 years of GMing, I still enjoy learning how to further polish my craft.) I've passed around a few XP in the process.

More than one person has commented that most of the opinion points in this thread are not as far apart as they might seem. I'll wrap up my participation in this conversation with this example.

My current campaign (very much plot-oriented) is set in Europe in 1199 (a Europe in which the magic and magical creatures believed in by medieval people are in fact real). In a recent adventure, the heroes faced a cult that formed around a relic brought back from the crusader kingdoms: a stone angel believed to have been carved by one of the Three Kings as a representation of the epiphany he experienced at the birth of Christ.

I did a little research on those kings when preparing the adventure, and discovered that one--the best candidate for association with this relic, in fact--was believed to have been called Gastaphar; the francophone Europeans shoehorned that into the name Gaspard. Wow, stumbling across that factoid was an epiphany in its own right. One of my PCs is named Gaspard!

This cast a whole new light on the adventure I was preparing; surely the cultists would see some sort of significance in this coincidence. As a result, both the preparation and the execution of the adventure went in some unexpected directions. I was, nevertheless, able to build in the plot points my campaign outline called for.

In the end, my players said they really enjoyed the adventure, and so did I. An unpredictable mix of a well-developed world, a thought-out but not slavishly adhered-to plot outline, and the never fully predictable decisions of the players led to that result.​

I'm pretty sure RC would consider my campaign setting a sandbox--it consists of the whole of medieval Europe, after all, and I have a library of history books (and the entire internet) as my campaign manual. And in some ways I might be what RC considers a sandbox GM: That adventure was set in Verdun, but the players made an unexpected side-trek to Paris. I would never undermine such a decision; I see it as my job to make the story fit their actions, not vice versa. (And I would bore quickly of the campaign if they only did things I foresaw.)

But I still see some of the tools that uniquely come from story planning as the most consequential to the experience I'm delivering, so I will forever think of myself as a "plot" GM.

I think this is my last post in this thread--not because it's taken a bad turn, but because I think it's run its course. Thanks again to everyone for making it a good one!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think we all agree that "fudging" can negate the significance of player actions.

I wouldn't use the word "can". I would use the "does".

But let's walk this reasoning back a bit.

Let's say, for instance, that I, as a GM, create an encounter with 6 orcs in it. However, let's also say that in doing so, I make a kind of error. It's not that I get the math "wrong" in some simple sense, but rather that I forget that certain weapons are capable of this or that action, and orcs have this or that power, and that these things, in combination, create an encounter that is far more deadly than my original intent. I only realize this when my PCs start dropping fast. (Who knows, maybe I made this encounter under time pressure or lack of sleep.)

So, if I understand it right, your question amounts to:

"If the DM does something totally inept during prep, should he fix it during play?"

My answer is "No", with the following caveats:

1. In an AP setting, the players are truly doomed, as the DM is pulling the strings leading them to this encounter. Poor, poor players.

2. In a sandbox setting, the players have pulled the strings leading them to this encounter.

3. Surely, for a good group of players, there is something other than "We can take them!" and "TPK!" to choose from. Please note that this is player choice I'm talking about here.

4. Surely, for a good GM, there is something other than "The PCs can take them!" and "TPK!" to choose from. I don't know about your world. If it is already established that orcs take no prisoners, then I guess that's just too bad. Play your monsters as they would act. Do orcs always kill prisoners? Even ones they are in no danger from? Or do they capture them for ransom? For enslavement?

5. Which edition are we talking about, where the DM sets this encounter up? The answer indicates just how inept our poor DM is!

6. The sandbox GM is not so concerned with how the encounter plays out, in general. In the sandbox, at least, a TPK is an acceptable -- but not a desireable -- outcome.

7. Taking away player agency will never compensate for shoddy GMing. Thinking that this is a solution is a mistake. One that will damage your game the more you do it.....and one that is harder to avoid doing again the more you do it.

All IMHO and IME. All YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some additional caveats, based off some later posts:

So, my understanding of the example is that the DM screwed up royally in prep work, failed to notice his screw up when presenting his materials, and essentially told the players there was an easy encounter ahead when there was a TPK.

The question asked is, should the DM change things on the fly?

My answer is, No. This would prevent the players from learning some valuable information:

1. Just because all signs point to an easy victory, they should not assume that the signs are right.

2. Perhaps the DM is not as competent as they might have thought.

EDIT: 3. I would also find limited retcon acceptable if, for instance, the DM forgot to mention that the orcs were attacking with turbolasers for three rounds....i.e., a temporal rollback to the point where PC actions would have changed had they better information that the PCs should have had. This does not mean back to before the encounter began, when the DM was telling them how easy it would be -- the orcs could well have been smart enough to avoid making their lair look like a death trap.

If the DM error is "Oh, did I forget to tell you that all of your characters know there is an ancient red dragon in this cave? Did I forget to mention the sulphurous scent? Or the tracks? Or the bones? Sorry about that, but you're facing the dragon now. What do you do?" the idea of a rollback is out. The only rational thing to do is end the session and get a new DM. /EDIT

Some subpoints for (2):

2a: In TSR-D&D models, PCs were intended to start at 1st level, and slowly gain in power. This not only gave players a chance to fully understand their characters' powers; it also gave the DM a chance to truly "learn the system" before being thrown into the deep end.

2b: It is easier to balance encounters using the TSR-D&D attrition model than the 3e attrition model or the 4e encounter model. In the TSR-D&D attrition model, if a few encounters are tougher than expected, the usual result is simply that the PCs withdraw (if they are wise). If not, well, they knew they were pretty banged up when they chose to press on.

2c. Anyone who can attract and keep players has a perfect right to GM, and to GM their game in whatever manner they desire.

2d. However, simply wanting to sit behind the screen doesn't mean that you are ready to do so.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm pretty sure RC would consider my campaign setting a sandbox

If

(1) when you use the word "plot" you mean "things the NPCs are doing", "things happening in the world" and/or "things the PCs decide to do, and if

(2) when you use the word "story" you mean "things that happened in the game", both opposed to meaning

"game events that I decided the PCs will experience in the way I decided the PCs would experience them"

then I would agree.




RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Suppose I were to set down the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief in my world. I treat it as a place with inhabitants pursuing their own objectives. Do they "have plots" in that sense? Yes. Can I "plot" the probable course of events based on what I know of them and other NPCs, and of other processes I have set in motion, hypothetically assuming that players' actions do not interfere? Yes.

That, however, is the limit of my "plot" creation. The players naturally have "plots" of their own, in the same sense as the hill giants and their allies. I am not interested in determining the outcomes of the intersections of those plots; the choices of players, the luck of the dice and the rules of the game shall do so in due time in actual play. My only concern is to referee the process fairly.

Whatever happens is "the story" we shall discover, and the grist for the mill that shall produce however many stories we will tell when we, "Remember that time when ...".

I had surmised that this was the case. Our play styles really don't differ at all. The way you have used the terms "plot" and "story" above are what I have been trying to explain all along. I mostly run pre-published adventures nowadays, but the NPCs in those adventures have their own goals and react to the actions of the players as I deem appropriate. I've never ascribed to the idea that monsters sit waiting in rooms for the adventures to show up. Sometimes much to my players' dismay.

The answer often comes quickly enough when they find themselves in a game without such a "nanny" DM, a game that instead tests their skills.

The DM can get into a Catch-22. "But if you don't change that roll, then my character is dead, and it's only because you wanted to kill my character! You're mean!" The DM who has not yet so changed a roll can honestly deny the desire while enforcing the outcome impartially.

Agreed. I took the Basterd moniker for good reasons. My players expect and respect that I let the chips fall as they may. And that I play my NPCs reasonably. As RC suggests, not every defeat ends in the death of the character and there have been many a hostage, prisoner, impending sacrifice. None of these events are plotted into the written adventure and come about only when the players do something to cause the plot to change.

My favorite Basterd moment was at a one-shot game day event when my players pleaded with my wife (who was participating in another game) to ease up on their PCs. She just smirked and said "He kills off my characters, what do you want me to do about it."

 

[Hussar]

If only it were that simple.

Note the "such a limited storyline" below.

How, oh how!, will we deal with our limitations!



Well, if fourteen people is too small........ Because I've run sandboxes with that many players engaged at the same table.

Currently, there are six players engaged in the RCFG playtest, and I have reached the point where I am turning players away.

How many players do you have?

How many players did you have while running the WLD (which is, essentially, a limited sandbox)? How did you keep them engaged? Are you ever going to answer any of these questions?



RC

Umm, RC, it would really, REALLY help if you'd read before you reply.

Those limitations you quoted were the limitations OF MY OWN STYLE. A sandbox is much better at dealing with large groups. I said that.

@ Tistur:

I am not sure what you are seeking here.

It sounds like a good game, and it doesn't sound like Hussar's approach to character creation at all.

In Hussar's approach, the players decide what characters they want to play, and then the GM crafts a world to match those characters.

In your GM's approach, the GM crafts a world, and the player designs a character who fits into that world (something which Hussar, apparently, cannot fathom).

It seems like it's working for your group, though!

I wonder if your GM can keep "six or seven people to be interested in such a limited storyline"?


RC

Sigh. Again, you are placing judgement where none exists.

I HAVE PLAYED AND ENJOYED SANDBOX GAMES. They do work. I never said they didn't.

However, I do have a problem with sandbox games in that they are generally not terribly deep. I asked how you add depth to your sandbox, and all I get are insults about abusing my wife, and flip, glib answers that say nothing.

I really wonder why you cannot answer the question.