DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Varis]

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.

Yes, and all pipes should be explored, all trees should be climbed, all orcs should be killed (actually, there's an arguement for that), and all roads must be travelled. Chekhov's crossbow awaits them at every turn and black dragons help little old grannies across the road.

Yes, the pipe COULD of been something, but in this case it wasn't. The party splitting up caused a waste of 'real' time. If it had not occured, the pipe would be a non issue.

 

[DonTadow]

I wonder if she played a lot of computerized adventure/puzzle games like the Indiana Jones, Zork, or Gabriel Knight ones. In those just about anything that you can interact with really is something you will need to solve a puzzle in the course of the game.

No, she played dungeons and dragons for some 15 years,m but her DM before me was the kinda person who was straght forward hack and slash, what is there is what can be interacted with. Essentially she was used to monopoly without free parking.

 

[Zimri]

Yes, and all pipes should be explored, all trees should be climbed, all orcs should be killed (actually, there's an arguement for that), and all roads must be travelled. Chekhov's crossbow awaits them at every turn and black dragons help little old grannies across the road.

Yes, the pipe COULD of been something, but in this case it wasn't. The party splitting up caused a waste of 'real' time. If it had not occured, the pipe would be a non issue.

Yes but because of the time spent in describing the pipe there was certainly a "reasonable" expectation that it would be noticed. If it is reasonable that it would be noticed then it is not unreasonable to expect some action to be taken regarding it otherwise why have it noticed ? I also find it verisimilitude breaking that such a regular dramatic expulsion of water is not talked about by the locals ie " Wow you should see how the moonlights sparkles through the ...." or " It's pretty alright pretty noisy and stinky"

I only ever recall drainage/sewage/aqueduct/plumbing at all being mentioned in gaming as means of ingress or egress . This drain didn't need to be climbable to serve the purposes you've mentioned it serving.

to the people that mentioned "paintings" et al as being redundant if you follow this path to you I say a painting won't cause a party to split up, doesn't take 3 hours of game time to examine, etcetera.

If there is a garden filled with gazebos not each one nor likely any need sat in or burned down, in a forest you don't climb every tree. But put one gazebo or one tree someplace where attention is drawn to it that can't be explained away (as was the case with this drain) then as I stated in the beginning it is not unreasonable to expect an examination to occur.

sorry editted to add

as an aside it's "intents and purposes"

and free parking is only supposed to be a free resting spot there is no "pot" you get for landing there.

 

[korjik]

Hi Korjik,

Thanks for your thoughts.

To answer your questions...

I made it plain as day that it was a pipe that carried waste water out of the mountain with significant pressure. They climbed up the mountain side and checked it for archers and traps...and found none

You are correct in saying that they did not know that the pipe was a dead end.

However, I disagree when you use the defense 'they did not know' and therefore were justifed in pursing that course of action.

Lets look at what they did know. They knew, for instance, that it would require a significant 3 - 5 hour journey up a mountain side, inside a cramped tunnel, crouching at half speed, in a pipe filled with 'gunk', where even if they did meet a 'nasty', they could not effectively fight or if they had their rope cut (which had the situation occurred, I would definately target), they would effectively fall to their deaths. Only one of the two had darkvision, so a lightsource was used.

More importantly though, in my opinion, is the fact that they willingly left three other party members without a care in the world as to what they do or what becomes of them. This was completely in their control (and had I been a player, I would of considered this completely selfish behaviour and unacceptable). They could of easily been killed in this fashion.

Btw, they roleplayed aprroximately 15 minutes exploring the pipe (I switch back and forth 3 times), although it did result in the party being seperated for half the game and the other three players fighting orcs alone.

Interestly, the other two players (which were in the pipe) believe they should also be awarded xp for the fight that the other three players were involved in. They believe it would be 'fair' and prevent uneven distribution on player xp.

I'd love to know your thoughts in this.

All this discussion over fifteen minutes?

Since it was only 15 minutes of play time, and since you threw in a skill challenge to offset the orcs, I would have done the exact same thing as you did, Varis.

I was under the impression that this was some big deal that wasted a large portion of the game session. In that case, letting the group split up means sitting around doing nothing for too many for too long. When it is something that is resolved in 15 minutes, and gives you a fight that was extra hard cause half the group is missing, that is a good thing.

The only thing that I would maybe have changed is the XP, but that is more because I dont want to have to keep track of differing levels among the players. That is just personal preference as DM.

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.

I think this perspective is at the crux of a great deal of the cross-talk here.

What I read here--and maybe this isn't what you meant--is that the integrity of the world you created is paramount; more important than how good a time everyone has at the game table. This is emphasized to me by the way you express yourself: You say "that's how the world was built," not "that's how I designed the scenario (or world)." It's like you're distancing yourself from your own input as a DM--the world has been created; every detail is immutable; how the players interact with it is out of your hands.

As for "I gave them the observable facts," that's a statement that completely disregards every nuance of human perception--or indeed, the very concept that human perception might be nuanced.

I'm not saying your players were right--they might have made a completely boneheaded decision based on what you presented them. But I for one would not want to play in a game where the GM's vision of is so utterly fixed beforehand that not a single detail, or even the nuances of how that detail is presented, can be altered on the fly. Or where I will be held "responsible" for decisions based on "the observable facts, no more no less."

 

[S'mon]

though in all honesty 70% of people at University here in the UK probably shouldn't be.

Hi Ydars! I too am a UK University lecturer, so I found your analysis intriguing. I have had one or two D&D players at my public D&D club, aged ca 20-22, whose gaming attitudes (and English language abilities) appeared to have been corrupted by our dire educational system.

Off-hand though I wouldn't put the % of students who shouldn't be at University at more than 40%, but I do teach a fairly rigorous subject. My understanding is that US Universities traditionally have had an easy-entry easy-exit approach but that they are going more towards an "every student who drops out is a failure of the University" approach, which IMO has been highly destructive to UK education. You make an interesting comparison with current trends in GMing advice and game design. I was just looking at some of the advice in WotC publications like Dungeon and it does tend in that direction. It seems like players are supposed to be pampered, rather than challenged to step-on-up.

 

[Varis]

Ok.

Yes but because of the time spent in describing the pipe there was certainly a "reasonable" expectation that it would be noticed.

The pipe was originally checked as an ambush site, or a trap. The players asked for greater detail about the pipe, and did a dungeoneering check.
They discovered
1. It was fit one person at a time.
2. It probably connnected with the citadel
3. It probably travelled in a direct route to it, but moving inside the pipe would be at half speed.
4. There was evidence that the pipe carried high pressure waste water out of the citadel.
5. it would take 3-5 hours to get to the citadel if they tried to travel inside the pipe.

Each point detailed above was given in response to a question. THEY wanted to know more.

Two of them decided it would be fun to go up the pipe. The other three did not. This resulted in a split party.

If it is reasonable that it would be noticed then it is not unreasonable to expect some action to be taken regarding it otherwise why have it noticed ?

It got noticed initially because a player has a passive perception of 24.

It was remarkable because
1. Its an distinguishing feature, compared to the otherwise barren rockface of the mountain.
2. It does serve a game purpose, just not the one the players imagined

I also find it verisimilitude breaking that such a regular dramatic expulsion of water is not talked about by the locals ie " Wow you should see how the moonlights sparkles through the ...." or " It's pretty alright pretty noisy and stinky"

Ok, this is a good thought.

There are several reasons why this did not occur.

The first is that there is a orc war going on. One of the party members is a half orc. When the party is in his compay, nobody wants to do anything other than stick a knife in him. However, there are reasons (which I won't go into) why he is still breathing.

As for your example, they did ask about the citadel,..but who's going to talk about the plumbing? It's like asking a Priest about the Vatican and getting feedback about its toilet facilities. They were informed that dwarves trained paladins there, that served at the watch, and that weapons were also made at the citadel (this information was used to correctly form the theory that pipe water was used to flush out waste, including slag, metal shavings and whatnot, which a simple check of water traces confirmed).

I only ever recall drainage/sewage/aqueduct/plumbing at all being mentioned in gaming as means of ingress or egress . This drain didn't need to be climbable to serve the purposes you've mentioned it serving.

This a mistake made by the players. It was just a pipe. It was still a good idea to check it, but it was a dead end. I don't care what they experienced in other games,..it has no bearing on this game and its unreasonable for them to expect it to.

to the people that mentioned "paintings" et al as being redundant if you follow this path to you I say a painting won't cause a party to split up, doesn't take 3 hours of game time to examine, etcetera.

I'm not sure I understand this. Exploring the pipe took 3 hours of the characters time (About 15 minutes in real time to resolve). The three PC's who refused to go in the pipe, seeing that the other two PC's were adamant about exploring the pipe, decided not to wait around, and continued walking up the path. Hence a split party. Did I address this issue?

If there is a garden filled with gazebos not each one nor likely any need sat in or burned down, in a forest you don't climb every tree. But put one gazebo or one tree someplace where attention is drawn to it that can't be explained away (as was the case with this drain) then as I stated in the beginning it is not unreasonable to expect an examination to occur.

The purpose of the drain was explained,...as a drain. Two players obviously imagined it was something more. Three players saw,...at best a drain, at worst, a death trap.

sorry editted to add

as an aside it's "intents and purposes"

and free parking is only supposed to be a free resting spot there is no "pot" you get for landing there.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

 

[Varis]

I think this perspective is at the crux of a great deal of the cross-talk here.

What I read here--and maybe this isn't what you meant--is that the integrity of the world you created is paramount; more important than how good a time everyone has at the game table. This is emphasized to me by the way you express yourself: You say "that's how the world was built," not "that's how I designed the scenario (or world)." It's like you're distancing yourself from your own input as a DM--the world has been created; every detail is immutable; how the players interact with it is out of your hands.

I disagree, and have stated previously that fun comes first, then the integirty of the world.

This is because no one wants to win in a 'fudged' world. Winning in a world with integrity makes the victory all the sweeter. The players know that I adhere to this belief.

As for "I gave them the observable facts," that's a statement that completely disregards every nuance of human perception--or indeed, the very concept that human perception might be nuanced.

Huh, what am I supposed to do? Just give them all the answers. Make it REALLY obvious, ALWAYS (since that's what they'll end up expecting),...no thank you.

Of course different people percieve differently, this is actually my point. Three players had the wisdom to say no, based on the same information provided. Frankly, I wouldnt care if they explored the pipe or ignored it,..so long as they had done it as a team. It would of saved a lot of time.

I'm not saying your players were right--they might have made a completely boneheaded decision based on what you presented them. But I for one would not want to play in a game where the GM's vision of is so utterly fixed beforehand that not a single detail, or even the nuances of how that detail is presented, can be altered on the fly. Or where I will be held "responsible" for decisions based on "the observable facts, no more no less."

Strange, I wouldnt want to play in a game where the DM makes it up on the spot, changing details to fit the situation and his motives at a whim.
There ARE fluid elements in the game. Opponents for example, react to decisions made by the party, (they wont just stay in one room if they hear fighting down the hall), and obviously the players actions and thoughts can influence events elsewhere.
Descriptions of what the players see, I do re-word if necessary,..I'm not THAT bad.
However static things, like structure, yes, I won't change. I make no applogies for that.

I certainly wouldnt make the pipe an access point, just because the players decide to walk down it. It was a good idea, which in this case, didnt work out.

 

[Odhanan]

"DMing is a Skill, not an Art."

I don't know if anybody adressed this in this thread, but I actually think this statement is nonsensical. The practice of an art implies skills you develop over time. Ergo, the statement above basically confuses the end and the means.

If anything, I would think of DMing as a Craft. As such, it requires the development of a set of various skills you then use for greater performance. Just like any Craft, DMing may become "art". It's all in the eye of the beholder.

If a craftsman makes shoes for a living, he may go at it competently, albeit mechanically, without pretense or soul, or, on the contrary, put all his being, ambitions and passion into the work.
The former ain't an artist, the latter definitely is.

 

[Mallus]

It seems like players are supposed to be pampered, rather than challenged to step-on-up.

Challenged to do what, exactly? Make smart choices in a context largely defined by implausible, if not outright absurd, kinds of fiction?

Is there any real consensus on what smart, challenging play is? Seems to me D&D has always been about doing the clever and stupid in equal measure. Which is the main reason I'm not a big fan of just relaying the observable facts when I DM. Sometimes you need a bit more to establish context (ie the level of realism currently in effect). This go round are things more 'real' real or 'action movie' real?

And as for prodding the in-game action along... the whole shebang is designed to produce contrived fantasy action stories. Those are the things the simulator was built to simulate. So pretending the DM is just some sort of elf-happy documentarian pointing the camera whenever his subject choose to amble never made much sense to me.

But YMMV and all.