DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Kzach]

But the DM should also not be expected to set up the entire world just from the point of the player fun.

Again, not saying to change the world to suit the players. Saying don't waste everyone's time with something pointless. If there's a dead-end, say it's a dead-end. But if you're going to start rolling dice and spending fifteen minutes in complex explanations of opening gates and climbing up slimy tunnels, then have a reason for it.

 

[Varis]

At the very least, I would have allowed the PCs to overhear an enemy conversation while in the pipe (pipes are acoustic and all that) to make it at least somewhat worthwhile to the PCs. Maybe discover something stashed into the pipe. Something like that.

A couple of good points there.

In my defence.

Whilst I have used the term 'pipe', think of them as tunnels that have been dug through the mountain side. The function, to flush out waste water.

The PC's did make a listen check at the cap, and tapped at it with a spear. I told them that they could tell that it simply wasnt solid stone above them and further, they noticed the walls had water trickling down the sides (due to the water pressure above).

Finally, since high pressure water gets flushed down the pipe, there is nothing to find - anything that had fallen into the water got flushed over the mountain side.

Thanks.

 

[Varis]

Again, not saying to change the world to suit the players. Saying don't waste everyone's time with something pointless. If there's a dead-end, say it's a dead-end. But if you're going to start rolling dice and spending fifteen minutes in complex explanations of opening gates and climbing up slimy tunnels, then have a reason for it.

OK, some fair points there.

So how did it play out?

I thought, ok, I know they wont succeed, but I'll still make it challenging and fun and allow them to earn xp. I'll create a skill challenge.

In the 1st 5 minutes they spend a good 3/4 hours (in game) travelling deep in the mountain. Cool - I switch to the others and see what they are doing.

Then I switch back. In this 5 minute block, I describe the pipe as going verticle. I make them do endurance checks as part of a skill challenge,..then they break out climbers kits, hammer and pinions and start climbing. I'm asking for strength or athletics checks.

They decide they will 'take ten' on all checks, because they have all the time in the (game) world to do it in. This in effect ruins my skill challenge idea. So now there is little to no risk (I did make them roll one more time to see if they got a 1), and they have committed 10 minutes of real time and 2 hours of game time. Regardless of repeated descriptions such as 'as far as you can see (with darkvision), the pipe continues upwards', they decide to continue on.

The final five minutes was to confirm that they got it wrong.

I certainly wasn't going to 'make up' something for their amusement just because they were there.

 

[chronicali]

For DM Help

I recently reviewed a post concerning speeding up combat on DM's end and ended up creating a file that supposedly can work in Office or Open office and decided to post it up here. It is an xls file that randomizes several rolls for the GM so that it can speed up combat. I hope this helps anyone

 

[S'mon]

I'd have at least given the PCs a chance to break through the doors at the top of the tube. A very strong PC, or one with damaging spells, should be able to do it.

But GMing is an art.

 

[S'mon]

It's my understanding that if the door was opened then a big rush of water would've come down the tube. I was of the opinion that that's entirely plausible, give them a few checks to hold their breath and swim up to air or something, maybe take a bit of damage. He was of the opinion that they would be insta-killed if the tube door was opened.

Sounds like they would at least have been swept back down the tube while taking tons of damage, enough to kill low level PCs.

 

[Varis]

In their view they may have seized upon a hook you provided, then roleplayed their characters, then got shot down by you for no reason and now you're denying them XP out of spite.

So be careful, the XP is a small thing, you should be willing to give it to them, it's easy to fall into an adversarial mindset regarding the DM-player relationship, from both the DM and the player side. It's also easy to fall into trying to 'correct' player behavior through DM control of mechanical rules of the game world, which is usual something that leads to bad results.


And on a sidenote, if you're worried about splitting up the party, have the group come up with a solution in-character. Something as simple as when presented with two options agreeing to abide by majority rule.

I can't help but nod. There are some very good points here, especially about the point of views you offered.

I would disagree with you in regards to DM control (I simply didn't see it as an issue), the players were free to behave as they wanted. The pipe led to a 'dead end' because it was closed, not because I wanted to punish any particular behaviour. Had it been open, water would of been gushing out of it.

The other three players (two strikers and a multiclass healer/striker) took on 9 orcs by themselves. I felt that the attack would be risky and reckless even, but they proved me wrong.

My question to you is, do I award xp to these three only, or do I count the other two, who are two hours away in a pipe?

 

[S'mon]

I think the problem here is skill challenges - from my limited knowledge of 4e they appear to take a long time and potentially be very boring. It seems like a few seconds worth of simple skill checks would have been better, followed by "At last you reach the Great Stone Seal that blocks the top of the pipe. Thoin the Dwarf PC's stonecunning tells him that beyond the seal lies hundreds of tons of water, ready to be released down the pipe..."

Then the drama comes as the PCs try to escape the pipe before the release of water kills them all.

 

[S'mon]

You might want to understand the term before you use it.

Varis' method was definitely not sandbox. He'd decided there was no possible way in which the PC's could attain anything by going up the tunnel. He was sticking to the very linear story-line by not adapting to the situation. He was following the module.

They could attain dying. If you think sandbox means "Must be an Easter egg wherever PCs decide to go", I disagree. In a good sandbox the PCs should have a good chance to find the easter eggs, if they look for them. But they can find death or even boredom, too. Being a game, the boredom should be dealt with quickly, and that may be where the GMing fell short a bit.

 

[Varis]

I'd have at least given the PCs a chance to break through the doors at the top of the tube. A very strong PC, or one with damaging spells, should be able to do it.

But GMing is an art.

Had they succeeded (with magic for example) in fracturing the rock, they would of had torrents of water crashing down on them, sweeping them down the pipe, and affording them (assuming they passed enough endurance checks to hold their breath all that time), a magnificent birds eye view of the green, firtile valley below, as they launched out the side of the mountain and fell to their deaths.

GMing is an art, but players are the artists (heh, I just re read that,..lol, I don't even know what that means).