DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[CharlesRyan]

One irony of all this is that Chekhov wasn't talking about a gun either. That was just a metaphor he was using to tell another playwright to cut out a superfluous monologue.

Right. But he chose a gun as a metaphor because it makes the point very nicely.

But I'm not really sure a dwarven fortress's sump drain really fits my definition of naturally suggestive of relevance.

Well, perhaps, but let me then put the question to you: Why was a climbable drain included in the adventure?

If the answer is "because the keep needed to be realistic," I don't buy it. I live in England and have visited scores of real castles. Not one had a climbable drain. More to the point, how many thousands of dungeons have been designed and successfully played with no attention to realistic plumbing?

If the answer is "because the designer really wanted to exercise his engineering skills," then I suggest he's putting a secondary interest ahead of the his DMing duties.

If the answer is "because sometimes there are just dead ends," well that's fine, but again why is he surprised that including dead ends means players will waste time (perhaps in ways that aren't fun for him or them)?

If the answer is "because it's significant, but not as a way to get in," that's great! But again, why was it climbable? Why wasn't the hole too small to crawl into, or too high in the cliff, or whatever? Or, if it needed to be climbable (for the players to know it was a potential escape route, for example), why is anyone saying it was a waste of time for the players to climb it?

Did I miss something? Seriously, not trying to be snarky, what other reasons might there be to include this climbable drain in the adventure?

 

[Ydars]

Sorry Charles; no offense, but many castles had a drain from the "jakes" and some were climbable. You can't see them anymore because the upper works of most castles are badly weathered now, but they did have them. In fact, at least two castles in the UK were taken by someone climbing up the "gong channel" and at least one King evaded capture by climbing down one.

However, I do agree that having a climbable drain with no real dramatic purpose was a bit pointless and is an example of what I talked about earlier; poor design.

 

[Varis]

*Spoilers from Bordrin's Watch*

Well, perhaps, but let me then put the question to you: Why was a climbable drain included in the adventure?

If the answer is "because the keep needed to be realistic," I don't buy it. I live in England and have visited scores of real castles. Not one had a climbable drain. More to the point, how many thousands of dungeons have been designed and successfully played with no attention to realistic plumbing?

If the answer is "because the designer really wanted to exercise his engineering skills," then I suggest he's putting a secondary interest ahead of the his DMing duties.

If the answer is "because sometimes there are just dead ends," well that's fine, but again why is he surprised that including dead ends means players will waste time (perhaps in ways that aren't fun for him or them)?

Once alerted, the orcs open this drain to prevent/delay further reinforcements from the city and to cut off the PC's they have spotted.

THATS its purpose in the game.

And yes, it also 'could' be used as an escape route by the PC's provided they correctly divert the water flows elsewhere (this can only be done from the control room in the citadel inself).

If the answer is "because it's significant, but not as a way to get in," that's great! But again, why was it climbable? Why wasn't the hole too small to crawl into, or too high in the cliff, or whatever? Or, if it needed to be climbable (for the players to know it was a potential escape route, for example), why is anyone saying it was a waste of time for the players to climb it?

Did I miss something? Seriously, not trying to be snarky, what other reasons might there be to include this climbable drain in the adventure?[/

To answer this, I need to provide more setting detail.

Bordrins Watch is a fortification and wall which spans the length of a pass in the middle of a snow capped mountain range (think, Lord of the Ring in terms of scale of this Mountain range).

On one side, is a lush firtile valley and river, the city of Overlook, half a dozen townships and serveral Dwarven structures built high in the mountains,..one of which, the PC's are investigating.

The other side is Orc territory. Bordrins Watch has never fallen to an orc attack, although its walls are now almost completely black as a result of the blood of eons of orc assults.

Bordrins Watch is the main defensive structure for the region. The pipes are on the 'safe' side of the mountain range.

Furthermore, the citadel was built in an era when the dwarves first cast aside the chains of slavery and forged their first mighty dwarven nation,..which spanned BOTH sides of the mountain range. At the time, the pipes were built without an emphasis of defence against a serious seige (their ememies were broken, there lands vast, and the mountain range was in the center of their territory).

As time went on, the orcs began to rise in numbers and slowly pushed the dwarves back towards the mountain range. Bordrins Watch was built as a means to defend the remaing half of the dwarves territory.

The citadel served as a place of training for (mainly) dwarven paladins, who servered at Bordrins Watch. The city of Overlook supplies all of the merchantile needs of this ancient defensive fortification.

So,..to answer your question, the pipes were not created with an empahsis on defence. It was sufficient if they denied access to the average NPC.

A non PC level character would of had a greater deal of difficulty in;
a. Climbing up the mountainside to the pipes
b. Travelling through the pipes without slipping and falling to their death.
c. Would of found it far more difficult to travel vertically up the pipe.
d. Would of been denied access by the cap anyway.
e. Would of had sufficient common sense not to try.

Some people feel it was a waste of time because:
a. The pipe was a dead end, the part spit up (2 opting to explore the pipe, 3 opting to continue up the road).
b. It took the PC's 3 game world hours to get up the pipe, in which the other three players managed to pick a fight with some orcs.

So the 2 players were left waiting in real time for the fight to be resolved. Some people think that this was due to my failing (Kzach for example), and I that I had a resonsiblity to make things exciting for the 2 players in the pipe, or somehow prevent the party from splitting up in the first place.

Have a read of the previous posts. Tell me what you think, based on all the information provided.

My opinion is simple,..it was just a pipe.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Sorry Charles; no offense, but many castles had a drain from the "jakes" and some were climbable.

Sorry, you're quite right. I was caught up in the context of this thread, and when I said "drain" I was really thinking about a sort of underground tunnel that lets out at some distance from the keep itself--like what was described here.

Most castles do, in fact, have rudimentary plumbing, and some of that is climbable. Most, however, leads only to the base of the wall, well within the castle's defensive infrastructure.

But I refer back to the larger point I was making: 99.98% (not a verified number) of dungeons and castles designed for RPG adventures have served that role with distinction in the absence of any form of realistic plumbing. Maybe the realism of plumbing details is interesting to you (often, realistic details are interesting to me, so I'm not condemning that). But if you make the pipe climbable, why be surprised when the players actually want to climb it?

 

[CharlesRyan]

My opinion is simple,..it was just a pipe.

Fine, nothing wrong with that. And there's certainly nothing wrong with your plans to have the orcs use the pipe to cut off the players. In fact, that's exactly how, as a Chekhov's Gun type element, it works well.

But as the DM, you invented the pipe. And you invented a pipe that was accessible and climbable, as opposed to a pipe that could serve all the same goals without being accessible and/or climbable.

The price you paid for that design decision is a few hours of wasted time and possibly some disgruntled players. And a big debate on ENWorld.

If there's a reason the pipe was accessible and climbable (even if that reason is just "that's the way I imaged it, so that's the way it is"), the question is simply one of whether the reason was worth that price. It may well be; if so, end of discussion.

If not, I posit that Chekhov's Gun illustrates that the price was inevitable. So you can't blame your players for wasting time.

 

[Varis]

Fine, nothing wrong with that. And there's certainly nothing wrong with your plans to have the orcs use the pipe to cut off the players. In fact, that's exactly how, as a Chekhov's Gun type element, it works well.

All Good.

But as the DM, you invented the pipe. And you invented a pipe that was accessible and climbable, as opposed to a pipe that could serve all the same goals without being accessible and/or climbable.

Thats how it was built.

The price you paid for that design decision is a few hours of wasted time and possibly some disgruntled players. And a big debate on ENWorld.

There was a time cost paid, not because of the pipe, but because of the fact that the player split up.
They were provided the necessary information to know that splitting up at this juncture would cost time.

Frankly, there wasn't any reason for them to go up the pipe. They were supposed to evacuate the citadel. They did not know at that time that it was overrun. So why climb up a pipe? Why split to party to do so? Why spend 6 game world hours apart in order to explore a pipe? Because it was there?..ok, if you really want to... they decided to do it, despite knowing the costs involved timewise and the greater risk to the party simply because they have split. Would you choose to do this?

The design decision was based on the historical context of the citadels construction, NOT on how I might imagine the players reacting to it. The only reason this thread exists, is because THE PARTY SPILT UP. If they had for example, all gone up the pipe, 6 games hours would go by in about 2 minutes.

There are other citadels and other roads, and other pipes for that matter, and they are free to explore them all whenever they want. I shall serve their needs to the best of my ability in this respect. Its my job to provide the setting, and allow NPCs to interact/react to the players in the setting. Simple.

If there's a reason the pipe was accessible and climbable (even if that reason is just "that's the way I imaged it, so that's the way it is"), the question is simply one of whether the reason was worth that price. It may well be; if so, end of discussion.

The price had nothing to do with the pipe. For all intensive purposes, the pipe could of been another road. The time cost resulted from the party splitting up. Period.

If not, I posit that Chekhov's Gun illustrates that the price was inevitable. So you can't blame your players for wasting time.

For all intensive purposes, Chekhov's gun exists all over the setting. Roads, houses, bridges, pipes, streams - I'll describe them at times, even if not relevant, just to complete the setting,..and i'll give more feedback if more questions are asked about a certain road for example. It doesnt mean its important as a road, and therefore deserves further exploration. It means i'm providing the players with the observable facts in front of them. Its up to the players to decide on a course of action.

If the players are expecting me to guide them by virtue of 'placing' things in front of them and nudging them in a certain direction, they will be waiting a long time. This to me, is artificial.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Random thoughts on the Chekhov's Gun thing.

Sometimes the not using of a the gun is what creates the dramatic tension. Or, better: the option to use/not use the gun causes the dramatic tension.

How do we know what the audience will consider significant and what they wont?

If we're creating a full mis-en-scene for the sake of making a lush/full/realistic setting we're going to include a lot of stuff that is just detail for the sake of detail. (as a GM I am soooooo guilty of this.)

A thing's significance may not become obvious until it is 'interacted' with. (I put interacted in inverted commas because in an RPG it's interacted with by the audience but in a traditional narrative the author has to interact with it on the audience's behalf.) In fact by drawing attention to the gun for no other purpose than to say 'this is significant' the author/GM/whatever is being bloody ham fisted.

In order to create any sort of mystery there needs to be red herrings. (Where did that phrase come from? ) ie: things that are by definition not Chekov's Gun.

A good tight narrative will focus only on those things that are necessary to the narrative: everything is a Chekhov's Gun. In an RPG I can see this leading to accusations of the dreaded railroad. But in a novel I do prefer it.

We were attacked by a tribe of literary critics but we fired a few bursts from our chekov guns and the blighters took to their heels.

I don't know how important any of the above is (except that last one), as I said just some random thoughts.

 

[DonTadow]

Bingo. Some posters here think that the pipe was "naturally suggestive of relevance" -- I imagine because they are used to DMs who only mention things like the pipe when they are relevant. Other posters (myself included) are used to a play-style in which details like the pipe are mentioned all the time, so there is nothing "naturally suggestive of relevance" about it.

This situation reminds me of a time when i had players do a very similiar thing. And, giving the dm more credit, it may come down to a difference in playstyles depending on how long you've been playing with this player.

We had brought in a new girl to our group and she had been playing with us for a few months. She was use to a style where whatever was in the dungeon was obviously apart of solving the dungeon. Over the few months, I had clearly demonstratd that my design style was not like that, and that everything i describe is not a peg on the linear path to solving the puzzle. THe last game I played with her (and it was the last because it had become evident that our styles were too far apart) was when the PCs were in this old grand magical library. Because some magics often went "bad" there, they created an interdeminsional hole, hidden by a pentagram with a written warning of dangerous. While the other pcs were fighting the big 5 head dragon, she decided that she'd go off by herself and investigate the pentagram. But her idea of investigation was to take a running leap into the middle of it. As the other players tried to figure out tactics for the dragon, they flat out stopped and was amazed by her decision. She looked at them and told them her reasoning. It's in the dungeon, and thus it must be a way to get out here or figure out how to get out of here. She had encountered something like this before, and pentagrams are usually switches to turning on and off things.

LIke i said earlier, the dm did everything right except move on after the encounter. However, if the dm is diverting from his usual playstyle, this may have confused his players. Does not sound like, though, that the DM has deviated from anything he has done in his past.

 

[Cadfan]

Thats how it was built.

This is the DM's version of "I don't know why everyone's mad. I had to do that. It was my character's personality!"

 

[Kraydak]

This is the DM's version of "I don't know why everyone's mad. I had to do that. It was my character's personality!"

Well, I'm not the DM, I almost invariably side with players, and I *still* don't grok why people are complaining.

Lets look at the suggested "solution" (I'm still not granting that there is a problem):
split the party, have BOTH groups take up lots of time that the other part of the party can't contribute to.

Frankly, having only one part of the party eat up game-time (and that by their deliberate action, not forced by the DM) is better than having both parts of the party doing that.