DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Nightson]

Couldn't one of the adventurers tied off the rope to a point outside the tube while the other end was around the one inside the tube. One inside breaks stone cap (if he can, damages cap so it starts to break then jump out of tube), water pressure pushes him out, rope makes him pivot, he exits water stream and loses momentum fast although he might still take some damage when he hits the cave wall. Not a lot though, we're talking maybe 20-30 feet of falling damage maximum if they do it right.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Absolutely 100% wrong. A sandbox is a wide open field in which the PCs have freedom to do what they wish, and is generally designed with verisimilitude and simulation in mind. The drainage pipe exists because it has to -- the construction of the keep or castle demands some way to get the glacial melt or whatever out (lest its inhabitants drown and/or erosion causes the place to fall down). The PCs found it and decided to explore it. that the DM allowed them to do so is the perfect example of sandbox DMing -- the players make the choices and the DM relates the situation and/or setting.

And, quite frankly, I find it more than a little distressing that anyone would say the DM did the wrong thing here. While it *might* have led to a more entertaining evening if the DM had some encounter occur in the tunnels are just "let them" get through and into the castle, it sets a bad precedent. A) It obviates the importance of player choices by removing consequences for those choices, and b) encourages the DM to ignore verisimilitude and good sense and do whatever, whenever - -which can just as easily be very unfair to the players as it can benefit them.

Of course, I am not suggesting the players did anything wrong, either. It was a good plan -- go in the back door. But they shouldn't have been expecting the door to just be open for them. Maybe they should have scouted, realized the situation, then withdrew to replan or acquire resources that would allow them to take advantage of the back door. But no player should expect a "gimme" just because they chose to spend many real-world hours on an activity.

 

[Cadfan]

And, quite frankly, I find it more than a little distressing that anyone would say the DM did the wrong thing here.

The players didn't waste part of the evening because they like wasting time. They did it because they didn't realize they were wasting time.

I'd put the odds at... lets say 95% chance that was the DMs fault.

You might not like a particular solution, but the fact that a problem occurred should be self evident.

 

[billd91]

The players didn't waste part of the evening because they like wasting time. They did it because they didn't realize they were wasting time.

I'd put the odds at... lets say 95% chance that was the DMs fault.

You might not like a particular solution, but the fact that a problem occurred should be self evident.

I'm not certain that it is self-evident that a problem has actually occurred. I don't see characters spending time doing unproductive things in an in-campaign plot line or adventure as being a problem.

 

[Reynard]

The players didn't waste part of the evening because they like wasting time. They did it because they didn't realize they were wasting time.

I'd put the odds at... lets say 95% chance that was the DMs fault.

You might not like a particular solution, but the fact that a problem occurred should be self evident.

I'm not sure it is even possible to "waste time" playing an RPG. But then I think that the primary draw of the RPG as an entertainment medium is the freedom it allows, but for there to be freedom there needs to an internally consistency regarding the results of making choices. Sometimes, that means hunting down a false lead or having to "waste" an entire session exploring.

More to the point, in this situation the players wanted to investigate an avenue. It didn't pan out. It happens. But, as I stated before, they could have used the information to their advantage anyway.

 

[jbear]

Well, you're free to have that opinion. And I don't agree with it. Here's why...

The DM does not know for sure that it is going to be a complete dead-end before the PCs go up and decide to do nothing when they get up there. Even if I expect it'll be nothing, I cannot count on it.

Players think up the darnedest things, sometimes. At the table, I have one brain, they have several - in general, I can count on them to come up with more ideas than I. So, just because I cannot think of what they could possibly gain going up there, shutting them down is doing them a disservice.

In a real sandbox game, I have to be prepared for the players to make the trip interesting on occasion, rather than always feeding them obvious stuff for everything I allow them to try. The world is there, and they can affect it, but they have to think of how. They have the right to choose not to, of course.

Although I see where you are coming from with what you say, it seems in this case it was a dead end with no solutions, and the DM had decided that, knowing that any attemts to break through to the other side by any means would result in an unresistable jet of water hurling their bodies thousands of feet down the mountainside onto the rocks below.

Which is why I would advocate for summing up the situation with a few sentences like 'after several hours of climing you realise this is a hopeless dead end. Frustrated and weary you climb back through the water pipe cursing your bad luck.' Meanwhile what were you other 3 doing?

And so 5 seconds later the game is back on track, or if not on track at least not bogged down in a dead end.

 

[lin_fusan]

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.

I've DMed similar situations. It's a 'Catch-22'. If I say right away it's a dead end, then I'd be accused of railroading. So to avoid that stigma, I'd have to let them make choices that would appear to be 'wasting time'.

The main problem I see here is the actual splitting of the party.

Once a party splits up, not only does the load double for the DM to provide entertaining choices, but the amount of danger increases for the characters.

The first instinct I'd have is to throw a monster (the forementioned ooze) at the piping-PCs. But, what about the other PCs? They'll need something entertaining. A fight for them is one answer, such that everyone is rolling initiative and participating, but sometimes throwing in a fight feels arbitrary and 'railroady'.

But, having one group in a fight, and another group in another situation (non-fight) creates its own problems:
- Some players feel like a fight is a reward, especially since there is XP involved. The non-piping PCs would feel ripped off unless you presented them with a fight and/or Skill Challenge.
- Often times, however, the non-piping PCs will feel like they should deserve some reward because they are actually progressing plot while the piping-PCs aren't. By 'rewarding' the piping-PCs with a fight or information or treasure, you are establishing a precedent: this game isn't about teamwork.

So let's say both groups get an encounter. Now, if the piping and non-piping PCs are in their own separate fights, there's the danger of overwhelming them with encounters that are too difficult. Since 4th ed is designed for team play (at least in combat), I could easily see a half-PK.

Of course, I probably would have thought to myself 'screw it' and had the pipe open (and rewrite the adventure to have the pipe open at that precise time), then present it as a Skill Challenge to escape unharmed, but some players can see through this decision and think the DM is trying to kill them, instead of making the whole situation interesting.

 

[Umbran]

You might not like a particular solution, but the fact that a problem occurred should be self evident.

Maybe, but I am not at all convinced it is where you think it is.

Consider - we've got a bunch of folks hanging out with friends, probably eating snacks, drinking soda and maybe a few beers, pretending to be someone they aren't. This is an atmosphere where productivity should be a primary concern?

I mean, honestly, the whole thing is a waste of time! Surely, I don't want a player to be sitting around bored for an entire evening, but if a player finds 15 minutes of unproductive time to be a notable problem in their overall gaming experience, I am not at all sure the issue is with the DM.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I understood that they spent much more than 15 min of real time in the tube, because the DM thought attacking the party with orcs inbetween is a good idea...

(maybe it is) but then those 2 persons in the pipe should have had to do something...

maybe better timing does the trick... let those other players just be attacked, when the PC´s returned frustrated, wet and unprepared... or make those attacking orc party minions only with maybe one scout which has to be captured before beeing able to flee... it just has to be done fast...

 

[lin_fusan]

Which is why I would advocate for summing up the situation with a few sentences like 'after several hours of climing you realise this is a hopeless dead end. Frustrated and weary you climb back through the water pipe cursing your bad luck.' Meanwhile what were you other 3 doing?

I have players that would call this railroading...