DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[billd91]

There may be dissimilarities between RPGs and stories, but Chekhov's Gun is the biggest similarity of all. The DM sorts the infinite descriptions he could give for the myriad of details in a game, and focuses them based on relevance. If the DM spends a lot of time on a detail, the players can be forgiven for assuming its important.

There are tremendous metagame implications with this analysis. Players may assume he's describing based on relevance to the adventure and act accordingly. But that's a metagame assumption that may not be true. Players are, in fact, advised away from that sort of metagaming.

But what if the DM is describing based on relevance to the location? In that case prominent features get described even if they have no relevance to the plot whatsoever. The difficulty here, as with Chekhov's Gun, is that in a non-visual medium, the entire scene is set by the words of the describing author or DM. He must describe the visuals in the scene including things both relevant to the adventure and non. But by introducing objects into the scene, everything is in danger of being called Chekhov's Gun.

The question is what's relevant to the background scene and what's relevant to the story? I would say that not everything intended for the background should really be considered appropriate for the Chekhov's Gun label. If they were, you'd end up with nothing but extremely spare set design.

The interactivity just makes this sometimes spiral out of control- lets call it Chekhov's Railgun. The DM describes some detail that isn't actually important but which, for whatever reason, he thinks is cool. The players investigate that detail. The DM responds with more description, but nothing useful. The players, sensing the focus of the game centering on this item, investigate even further, determined not to miss whatever the DM has hidden there for them to find.

At some point, this reaches behavior lampooned brilliantly in Knights of the Dinner Table. Bob, Dave, and Brian are constantly engaging in this kind of behavior and treating everything BA describes as important, including random cows standing in fields. But whenever BA responds by either trying to shut them down by declaring the situation irrelevant or impossible to actually and directly investigate further, it only inflames the players to investigate even further until BA finally gives in by making the situation relevant or include a payoff.

In other words, they're always expecting Chekhov's Gun to fire and do so immediately. They're looking at everything in view, from gazebos to cows to piano-players with funny eyes, and investing in it as relevant. Now while they may be fictitious characters and exaggerated for satire, you can see how their behavior matches what you describe above. And like the KoDT fellows, not every player is dissuaded with a simple explanation that the element isn't relevant to the adventure at large or that its relevance will depend on other events or will only be apparent later.

 

[Varis]

Some observations...

• There's nothing wrong with the drain pipe being a dead end.

Agreed.

• However, there is something wrong with spending a lot of table time on a dead end (if that happened).

Agreed.

• If I were the DM, I probably would have whipped up an improvised encounter for inside the pipe.

I attempted to introduce a skill challenge. They decided to take 10 (see my previous posts for more details on this)

• Or I would have fast-forwarded over not finding anything useful while exploring it ("It takes 6 hours to climb up and then back down the drain. You find no entrance into the citadel").

The issue here is that during that time, the remaining three PC's out of the pipe wanted to push forward up the mountain road,..and they encountered orcs (see my previous posts for more information on this).

As for the top of the drain pipe being a potential death trap if the player's monkey with it... that's just bad form. How are the players supposed to know they couldn't survive the Big Flush, maybe hang on and then somehow gain entrance?

It was 5 pipes adjacent to one another, that evenually connect to become one large pipe that can accomodate 3-4 people abreast. The pipe is sealed with a large slab of rock at the very top, water trickling down the sides. This was drawn out a described. What would you conclude?

Surviving the drain pipe is no more ridiculous --or heroic/creative-- than any one of a number of commonplace D&D occurrences, for instance, the jumping off of high places and not dying of one's injuries at the bottom (assuming one is mid-level or above), or surviving the frequent exposure to explosive fire.

So it's often hard to tell the fatally ridiculous from the strategically sublime, without the DM's help.[/quote]
Agreed. Players should question, and DM's should point out the obvious observable facts, without drawing conclusions for the players.

(This is largely the product of D&D simulating the frequently ridiculous and almost always contrived worlds of adventure stories, in which logically absurd actions are often effective -- see Indiana Jones and Co. jumping out of plane using an inflatable raft as a parachute/wing.)

{Insert FUN here}

Which leads to another issue: tedium is never a smart outcome in a game that's supposed to be about adventure. If player choices lead to nothing exciting happening, there's no need to play it out in detail. Move on. Lingering over dead-ends for the sake of verisimilitude is probably something called the mimetic fallacy (I think).

The only problem with this is that both the players in the tunnel and the players outside the tunnel wanted to continue on their chosen course of action (for more detail, see my previous posts), which used hours of PC game world time, where other things were done.

One last thought (finally). Simulation in an RPG a laudable, even enjoyable, thing. But it's a means to an end. At the point it becomes the end itself, the DM needs to start rethinking his priorities.

I set the scene and act as a conduit for the players to act in that. If you consider that as a the end itself, then I'm guilty.
My first priority is ensuring the players enjoy themselves.
My second priority is protecting the integrity of the scene, so when the players earn their victories, they can savour the fact that those victoies were legitimate ones, not just 'gimmes' or 'gifts'.
For instance, in the second half of the game, the 5 players got together and had an extended rest, buying the time for the orcs to gather more forces together (the orcs thought that there was potentially a small army on the way, and took defensive measures)They party eventually took on 18 orcs and 2 ogres - I managed to send 3 players into negatives, with the 4th on 1 hit point,..but they won! A great victory, hard fought, and well earnt. And well enjoyed,..as a team. I couldn't stop them grinning. They beat me and stomped on my ego to boot. Ah well,..plenty more orcs out there...

 

[LostSoul]

I think Varis handled everything well, including the fight with the orcs. The only thing I would have done differently is that I probably wouldn't have run a skill challenge.

I say "probably" because maybe Varis' players are really interested in exploring things like old dwarven drainage systems. They might have enjoyed the inclusion of something that makes the game world seem more real, appreciate the time Varis put into it, enjoy his description and working with it, etc.

So maybe, for Varis' players, that time spent crawling through the pipe wasn't wasted? I don't know, I wasn't there.


I probably would have done the climb with a handwave until they make it to the cap, and then see what they do. Either way they wouldn't have been able to catch up with the other PCs fighting the orcs - meaningful choice needs consequences (especially if it's a gamist sandbox).

If the DM had changed the pipe to become an entrance into the keep, that would have been an example of narrativist play - the players believe that there should be an entrance, even if there wasn't one before, and so the DM changes the world to fit the players' belief.

I don't think you'd have enough information about the game to say it's narrativist. I think you could say, "This is an example of a technique used in some games designed to facilitate narrativism", but that's about it.

 

[Varis]

And one last time: where does the big flush come from at the top of the pipe? The preasure can´t be that high up there... at least after the first flush is done (water falling through the empty pipe, the pipe will fill if no whirl is created and the preaure will so low at the top that you may be able to climb upwards...

if the flush however is so short, that the water can´t create a backwater, then its also no problem...

My apologies for not responding sooner.

Think of the mountains in Lord of the Rings. Large snow capped mountain range.

Before the dwarves dug their citadel into the side of the mountain, the ice flow melted down the side of the mountain and fed into the start of a river in the valley below.

The dwarves dug an elaborate hydrosystem to serve all the needs of the citadel. The water has been channelled into the mountain by yet more pipes. They have a main mechanism that relys on moving gears and counterweights to control/divert the water flow as they require.

At midnight, they use this mechanism to divert all the flowing water to one main drainage pipe (which the PC's discovered), in order to flush out the collected waste and smell.

 

[Ydars]

This thread just shows how important it is that the DM makes the players aware of his preferred playstyle before the game begins.

Actually, both styles presented in this thread are valid and I shift back and forth between them, but only when I change campaigns I am DMing.

And when I do change styles, I ANNOUNCE that I am doing it and what that means for how they players should approach the game.

Here are some issues you should deal with Up front, when you start a game:

1) Magic: are magic items bought and sold or are they rare and can only be swapped.

2) Detail: Is the game austere and gritty where encumberance matters and every gold piece accounted for, or is it epic and the details glossed over.

3) Game type: is it RIGID or REACTIVE. In a rigid game, the dice are never hidden and if a PC dies because of a roll, they die and the DM never changes his deisgn to satisfy a player (except if the players find a hole in the design: see later). In a reactive game, there is far more fudging going on, usually because of the needs of a story or situation and the game is usually not so tactical as a result, and is less about the mechanics.

In fact, most games are somewhere in between (often the game is stated to be RIGID but is in fact more reactive than the players realise).

The problem the OP posits is not a problem that the DM is right and the players are wrong or vice versa: it is that they failed to communicate and come to an agreement about how the world they are jointly exploring functions.

The DM is working from the assumption that his world has some "integrity" and doesn't just exist to satisfy the player's whims. Such a world is fixed and only reacts to the actions of the PCs when it is logical to do so. So to the DM, the pipe exists because undergound cities have to have some way to get rid of waste, not because it is a cool way in.

The players who went up the pipes were indeed working from the principle that anything in the world that exists, does so solely for them to interact with: Chekov's Gun. Also sewers are a common way of circumventing danger in fantasy novels, CRPGS and other media that deal with pseudo-medieval stories.

Working from this premise, the mistake the DM made, from his point of view, was in DESIGN! Since the sandbox type of DM tends to adhere rigidly to his design, then his design had better be very good. It should be very flexible: by this I mean that there should be multiple ways of achieving any particular outcome/aim or getting to any particular place. Otherwise, sticking rigidly to the design combined with only a single path can quickly equal a railroad.

If I were designing this adventure, I would have made it possible for PCs to enter via the pipe, at the design stage, as there is no particular reason for water pressure to be enormous in a waste pipe (in fact I can think of some good reasons why this is NOT a good idea). If the DM had no other way for the PCs to enter the city, and this is his normal way of designing adventures, then I would say he needs to start with the "rule of 3": there should be at least 3 ways into and out of every important location that the PCs might visit and at least 3 ways of getting past any obstacle they might encounter or of dealing with every monster.

The other issue with the rigid game is that, if the PCs try something where the DM has NO design: i.e they try to interact with something that has not been planned, the DM is NO LONGER justified in being rigid when dealing with that obstacle and should allow the players actions to succeed if they could reasonably do so. You cannot just make something up on the fly and then be rigid with it unless you are an extremely talented and quick thinking DM because you will likely make a mistake in adjudication unless you are incredibly careful. Rigidity is only justified in highly planned and prepared games, which is why everyone is now tending towards more reactive games, because they are so much easier to prep.

Just my two pennies worth!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My apologies for not responding sooner.

Think of the mountains in Lord of the Rings. Large snow capped mountain range.

Before the dwarves dug their citadel into the side of the mountain, the ice flow melted down the side of the mountain and fed into the start of a river in the valley below.

The dwarves dug an elaborate hydrosystem to serve all the needs of the citadel. The water has been channelled into the mountain by yet more pipes. They have a main mechanism that relys on moving gears and counterweights to control/divert the water flow as they require.

At midnight, they use this mechanism to divert all the flowing water to one main drainage pipe (which the PC's discovered), in order to flush out the collected waste and smell.

Ok, that is actually a problem

Sometimes there is just nothing you can do as a DM... i also wouldn´t change such a significant construction on the fly...

I also ran my party into dead ends, once it was such an epic failure, because my red herring was a bit too attracting...
sometimes i even tried to disencourrage my players to do follow it... and sometimes i can´t do anything to get them into the pipe, which is actually a possible entrance...

 

[Shadeydm]

Not in the presence of Chekhov's Gun. Chekhov's Gun is a noteworthy detail even if it is only present as a brief glimpse in passing. Consciously or subconsciously, Chekhov's Gun compels attention.

The players are approaching a mountain keep. The GM presents them with what appears to be an alternate way of getting in. Of course the players want to pursue more detail. It doesn't matter how much or little detail the GM initially gave it.

I'm sorry but I don't believe this applies to the DMs playstyle. You are essentially saying that you cannot describe anything unless it is relevant. In your world of GMing apparently I cannot describe the grass in the clearing as green just in case some PC wants to delve into the theory of Photosynthisis or I cannot describe that the room the PCs have entered has a painting unless it has some relevant information on the mission at hand. In your world a painting cannot just be a painting and a drain pipe cannot just be a drain pipe, and while i'm sure you enjoy this sort of game for your group, I say thanks but no thanks.

 

[Varis]

This I think is fundamental in the following decisions made.

If the DM is simply saving them from boredom, and saving himself from the uncomfortable situation of splitting his attention and time between two groups, especially having decided that one path is a dead end and any persistence trying to bust through that dead end will turn it literally into a DEAD end.

From my point of view, giving them information that lets them know this is acceptable. They have done it. It was fruitless. You tell them as such.

The issue here is that in that 6 hour period, the other 3 players walked off and did their own thing,..and ran into orcs, who are stationed in front of the citadel entrance. The players decided to attack.

If you want to let them have a chance to bang their head against a wall for a while in real time, because you think they should be allowed to make bad decisions, in that case at least let them know they are making a bad decision from the start.

Please, read the decriptions I provided the players (see previous posts) and consider that they also had to a. Invest significant game world time b. Split the party in do so.

From the facts presented, they can draw their own conclusions.

However, I still don't see the point to punish them for this fairly banal 'error', by having them sit out of a combat + the other 15 minutes of climbing up to the dead end.

I didnt 'punish' anybody. Why would I even think like that?
They were given the facts, they made decisions, and took action.

I also think knowing when to 'step in' and when to 'step back' is part of the art.

Agreed. The players still have the final say though.

Also, how much real time do you really want to spend describing everything to miniscule detail when its of no importance? Do you want your players describing how they wake up, eat their breakfast, wash their privates and do their business? Aren't you brushing over these very natural and important details with brief sentances like' we wake up and get ready', in order to get to the interesting part more quickly in real time? Isn't this similar to saying:'you explore the tunnel for five hours and discover its a dead end' ?

Three factors resulted in my actions not reflecting the above.

a. I was suddenly dealing with 2 groups, so I had to divide my attention to understand the PC actions in game world time. One group of auomatically burnt 6 game world hours had I simply said "You go there, and come back".

b. I was attempting to provide the players with an additional opportuny to turn back early and allow the two group to reunite sooner. The second group (out of the pipe) proceeded up the mountain path. By switching between the two groups, I was hoping that the 2 PC's in the pipe would begin to understand the scope and difficulty of the path they wanted to go down, especially when I described to cramped, slimy pipe going vertical up to the limit of the drows dark vision. But they were adament.

c. Since they 'were' adament, I decided to set up a skill challenge,..they were burning real time anyway, and they were doing a dangerous activity, they might as well earn xp. But they circumvented this process by taking 10 on all the checks. Defeating the point of a skill challenge. I have since read up on this very issue and learnt that you can't do that, but at the time, I wasn't about to waste 'game time' resolving an unknown rule issue (which for all I knew could of taken another fifteen minutes to make an accurate determination). So I allowed it, because they were potentially in a life or death situation, and they at least had the wisdom to be cautious.

I didn't advocate fudging, railroading or generalizing this decision for every situation. If a bad decision leads to something dangerous or exciting, then step back, take your time. If a bad decision leads to an uncomfortable situation with the party splitting, frustration and boredom. Then move it along swiftly. I'm sure there are other situations bad decisions might lead to, and as a DM you have to make the best call you can.

I agree.

I do think the situation the DM was put into was tricky. I think its useful and positive to read the two sides of the story (both, from my point of view, understandable.). It helps me think with the benefit of hindsight what I would do if I find myself in that situation in the future ( a luxury he didnt have). Given that I now have that luxury, I think I would do as I said above.

Except for the last line, for reasons stated above, I agree.
I dont contend I had the ideal solution, only that I did my best in the given circumstance and with the knowledge I possessed.

 

[Varis]

If Varis is open to a recommendation, here's a technique I use in my games to try and warn players that their character is about to do something foolishly suicidal or wasteful, in the DM's opinion:

"Are you sure you want to do this?"
"Are you *SURE* you want to do this?"
"Alright guys, I'm asking you, the players, one last time: Are you really, really sure you want to do this? Yes? OK." At that point the dice fall where they will, I make no alterations to the situation, and if they complain about getting flushed off the side of a mountain, I refer them to the above three warnings.

Please feel free to modify the above suggestion so that it fits with your play style and group.

Whilst I didnt use these requesions,I did say things like:

"You realise that it's a 3 hour trip, and you'll move at half speed, and that your in cramped conditions that will hamper your ability to fight, and it IS a water drain?'

Having said that, I like your technique better.

Hell, I was second guessing if I was SURE I really wanted to answer your post.

Top recommendation.

Thanks.

 

[Varis]

I'd like to join his game, if he's in the San Jose area.

Alas, I'm in Melbourne, Australia. Buy I'd like to visit sometime, assuming of course, there's nice beer to be had in San Jose? (err, where exactly IS that, anyway?).