DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Varis]

*Bordrins Watch Spoilers*

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!"

Ok, lets address this.

If, in your mind, my DMing style equates to my personality, then I'm guilty. Using the term 'personality' also implies that I was doing things on a whim,..however, there is a reason why the pipes are as they are. THAT was a determining factor, and of course, as a game mechanic.

Please read:

"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."

I.E. THATS HOW IT WAS BUILT.

The players are responsible for their own decisions.

If the players climb up that mountain, they will find whats there,..no more,..no less. It's not because of my personality, or fickle nature, or because I think the party needs a cull, or because I wouldnt mind seeing a half orc fly. Its because its there. The consequences of that are dependant on player actions.

I gave them the observable facts, no more no less.

Things exist in the world where they exist, and I certainly won't 'change' that part of the world just because the PC's are stomping through it. The pipes serve a simple purpose as game mechanic - that purpose was a secondary design consideration when it was built.

It was a pipe, they decided to take a closer look, I gave feedback, two of them decided it was important to proceed up 3-5 hours up a pipe (did they consider water trapping them and drowning? It was never mentioned, but I'm betting the other three that didnt go, were certainly thinking about it). I gave feedback, they decided to committ more time to it, I gave feedback.

Thats my job.

The PC's are free to draw there own conclusions, and I facilitate/co-ordinate their observable world and actions, even then the PC's are in error.

Its not about Punishment, personality, blame, ego, malice, vengence, angry tomatoes, power tripping, favouratism, Chekhov's gun, or whatever.

They split up and paid a time/risk cost for it.

Two players are too new at the game to have known about the implied costs listed above (btw 1 chose to go up the pipe, 1 chose to stay on the road), the other three are seasoned players - they knew the inherent price, and they paid it.

Cool,..they are free to do that. They are not kids, they are in the real world now,..(well,..the real 'fantasy' world,..err,..you know what I mean).

It cost them 15 minutes of their time and it exposed half the party to a greater risk of being killed.

If they want to do it again,..they can.

 

[Varis]

The mistake Varis did make was allowing the Take 10 rule, which turned what might have been a dramatic moment into a boring non-issue.

Agreed. *Smacks head repeatedly against the wall "why did I allow it!"*

 

[billd91]

Agreed. *Smacks head repeatedly against the wall "why did I allow it!"*

I disagree here. Taking 10 is supposed to speed up play and reward PCs for being reasonably competent with their skills rather than subject them to the whim of the dice.

I would say that if their skills are so high that they could manage the task without substantial risk then the XP awards should be low. But I wouldn't conclude that because they actually took 10 rather than rolled. I would make that decision because I had set the task DCs so low compared to their ability. To me, there's no significant difference between taking 10 and rolling save in the ease and speed of task resolution.

 

[Varis]

I just don't think that the DM did a very good job of communicating what he meant to communicate to his players,

Why do you believe this? Three players, based on the feedback provided, opted not to go. Why couldn't the other two players simply of 'jumped into the void in the pentagram' so to speak?

and I also don't think that you can really use simulationism to justify events outside of the player's meaningful control that lead to a bad play session.

Agreed.

If I have incredibly good simulationist reasons for having a dangerous high level dragon in a particular region, but the players don't know enough about the situation not to blunder into the dragon and get their characters killed before they can retreat, that's still my fault.

Agreed.

Their actions led them there, but their actions were made based on the information available to them. And assuming that my players didn't actually WANT to get killed by a dragon, that suggests that I didn't give them the information they needed.

Disagree.
In this example, the players would of acted because of a 'lack' of information, and thus got themselves killed.
Lets change the senario a bit. Lets say you have 5 PC's. Two of them, despite the information you provide, decide to go walk towards the region where the dragon is.
The other three, say "No way,..even if it means splitting the party'", and they say this, based on the SAME information you provided.
Does this indicate you didnt give enough information?

 

[Varis]

make my players understand Basic Principles of Mountain Citadel Plumbing 101

Dungeoneering gave them the description and the probable source and function of the pipes. They knew the citadel was still occupied by the dwarves.

well enough to make logical decisions based upon it.

Hmmm, logic, it would seem, is a very elastic term in D&D

I can, however, use things like foreshadowing, character knowledge, glossing over of unexciting details, and other techniques to make sure that my players know what they need to know to grasp what's going on.

Ok the pipe drew attantion as a possible trap or sniper post. So two of them went and checked it.
Then, they started getting ideas. I was providing the details THEY requested of me.
My saying "Its just a pipe" could be as big a teaser for them as if I had said "Its dark and gloomy,..it looks interesting." In other words, player can and have been suspicious of the DM glossing over things, because they are of the impression I'm setting them up. For me its a no win situation. The solution I employ, is to approach each particular item/issue on a neutral basis and allow the players to make up their own minds based on the observable information around them.

The teacher issue is actually very illustrative. There's a certain drive to assign blame, and people who are blame-oriented want to blame lazy and inattentive students. People who are solution-oriented tend to look around for the best lever available to them to fix the problem, and that tends to be teachers. Because, as mentioned above, yelling BE LESS DUMB is not a plan. Educating teachers about how to instill interest or work ethic in lazy and inattentive students, is. Amongst the many factors that affect a student's achievement (the student, the student's parents, the student's classmates, the student's teachers), ONLY ONE is actually in our control.

Following the logic of this example, half the students agreed to a solution to a problem that the teacher has written on the board. The other half disagreed and storm out, determined to prove the like fish, people don't drown, and like birds they can fly.

Lets assume that this guy's players are genuine morons.

Which they are not. I know your only using it to illustrate a point.

Not only are they incapable of making even the simplest logical deducation, they don't even pay much attention to what he's saying. They probably aren't, but lets assume.

So what are his options?

1. Get new players.
2. Run crappy gaming sessions because he refuses to learn to DM for inattentive morons.
3. Learn to DM for inattentive morons.

Even in this, the most extreme and ridiculous scenario, he's the one who's going to have to step up to the plate. Because he can't wave a magic wand and make everyone less dumb. The blame may lie with the players for being inattentive morons, but what good does that do anybody?

Heh, there is a fourth option.

The players themselves (as apart from the PC's) have earnt xp.
Will they make the same choices given a similar senario?
Lets use the classroom senario. They are students who learn from their mistakes. Just like a DM who learns from HIS mistakes (like taking ten in a skill challenge).

Life goes on.

 

[Varis]

I disagree here. Taking 10 is supposed to speed up play and reward PCs for being reasonably competent with their skills rather than subject them to the whim of the dice.

I would say that if their skills are so high that they could manage the task without substantial risk then the XP awards should be low. But I wouldn't conclude that because they actually took 10 rather than rolled. I would make that decision because I had set the task DCs so low compared to their ability. To me, there's no significant difference between taking 10 and rolling save in the ease and speed of task resolution.

Ah, but the rules state you can't take 10 during a skill challenge. I'm trying to remain as faithfull as possible to them (but theres a lot out there already).
At the time I wasn't sure, so I allowed it. For all I knew, it could of taken another half hour to work it out had I tried to look it up on the spot.
As things are, they will be getting xp for it, albiet a lower amount.

 

[Cadfan]

Aside from this assumption being unforgivably insulting to the players in question,

I don't think the actual players in the OPs scenario are morons. I was responding to the specific argument of Ydars with a hypothetical unrelated to the OP. It was part of a discussion of why I don't find blaming the players to be fruitful.

 

[Varis]

I don't think the actual players in the OPs scenario are morons. I was responding to the specific argument of Ydars with a hypothetical unrelated to the OP. It was part of a discussion of why I don't find blaming the players to be fruitful.

Its all good. There was no intention to offend here. You were illustrating a hypothetical.

 

[Ydars]

I don't think the actual players in the OPs scenario are morons. I was responding to the specific argument of Ydars with a hypothetical unrelated to the OP. It was part of a discussion of why I don't find blaming the players to be fruitful.

Hi Cadfan!

I know what you mean about "more profitable" to focus on the DM or the teacher's role but I can tell you as a University Lecturer that we are paying a price for spoon-feeding our pupils and the same is true of our players.

If all the motivation and all the work is just coming from the person delivering the material, then there is a real limitation on how much you can ever actually educate people, or in game terms, how deep the game can go.

Sure, they might pass some exams, but develop real skills, a passion for learning and most importantly, initiative: I am not seeing this where I work or in my games either. You can lead someone to knowledge but you can't make them think.

The new system, in games and in society, teaches people that someone will kick them up the rear all the time and that there will always be a next time anyway so failure or reverse doesn't matter.

When I was in school and playing RPGs, the world was different. You KNEW that if you didn't take responsibility then you would just fail, fail, fail and no-one would care. It kind of made me push myself very hard in all aspects of myself, both educationally and gaming wise.

I guess the problem with this latter approach is how many people didn't used to make it through the system (and the same is true of gamers who dropped out of gaming as well), though in all honesty 70% of people at University here in the UK probably shouldn't be.

I guess I am saying I see exactly where you are coming from and there is probably nothing else we can do but make the leaders of games and education more skilled, but I would also assert that something has been lost in the process.

 

[Zimri]

The answer is, 'no, after all,...its just a drainage pipe'.

Right and a gazebo doesn't ever eat people, PCs don't summon animal companions to put the head of Vecna on their shoulders either.