A More specific - how would you respond to this request?

[Mort]

honest, though, I don't really get the connection between this and the last thread. I mean, I see how they're tangentially connected, but not in any direct way. Then again, I steadfastly hold to a "it depends" viewpoint, so maybe that's why. As always, play what you like

Some posters in the last thread wanted did not like the "general" nature of the question - stating that the answer is far too often "it depends."

When my friend brought this situation to my attention it seemed like a pretty good example of a question with multiple answers - depending on the DM fielding the question.

OK SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ACTUAL CASE?

Also - the DM in this case fielded it in a way that was brought up in the last thread and (IMO of course) the game suffered as a result:

When my friend stated he'd like to cast Expeditious Excavation to put out as much of the fire as he could the DM responded "I don't think so, but convince me."

The DM expressed his concern as the spell not expressely saying a thing about putting out fires.

The player then pointed out that dirt puts out fires, the spell flings dirt (a lot of dirt) at the fire so should do something to the fire.

A half hour discussion followed with rule books being perused, arguments being made - and several other players just sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

After the half hour discussion (the group plays for 4-5 hours a night) the DM "gave in" and decided the spell would work as the equivalent of one bucket of water (which btw, sorry but one bucket of water, when I guess 10-12 were needed - really?).

But the bigger point, this is the first encounter of the first session and 15% was wasted on a (very) minor issue. It's a pretty bad message to be sending to the players that non-standard requests are likely to waste this much time - successful or not.

It's interesting that the responses in this thread have consisted of varying levels of "sure why not," which leads me to think this one is a relatively clear cut case (yet not for this DM). Can you imagine what would/will happen if the request is more out of the box, or the result is actually important in some way?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Um, isn't this more a problem with decision speed? I could have said "no" in the less time than I said "yes, and here's how it works, and here's my thought on how it'd affect the vehicle." The problem you're expressing doesn't have to do with yes/no, in my opinion, but of how long it takes to make that decision final. I've said, "I don't think so," before, but I was open to having my mind changed. Generally, I'll swing one way or another within 15-30 seconds, not minutes (and we play about 10 hour sessions).

I think we're coming to different conclusions on the actual problem based on your anecdote. I see it as a problem of overthinking player inventiveness and GM fiat, and you see it as "saying 'sure, why not' speeds up game play, and should be the default" (I think). If that's correct, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If I'm wrong, let me know, because I'm curious what you think. As always, play what you like

 

[Stormonu]

The setting is a desert - windy and lots of sand everywhere - not that much water (though here there is some it is not rare).

A gyspy wagon (part of a larger caravan, think a medium sized trailor) is on fire and the caravan master is trying to get help where he can.

The PCs are nearby.

One of them is a wizard with the spell Expeditous Excavation and wants to use it to put out some or all of the fire. As it is the Pathfinder SRD I doubt reposting it is problematic but instead I'll link to it and if there are any problems with that, gladly take it down.

How do you respond to the player's request?

[edit: replaced dessert with desert - oops!]

Knowing that dirt can put out a fire, I would have said "sure, if the AOE can cover the wagon, give me a Knowledge (Arcana)/Spellcraft check vs. DC X to see if you can smother it properly." (I guess that puts me in the "maybe" camp?)

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) the spell flings dirt (a lot of dirt) at the fire (. . .)

It doesn't seem to actually do that, so it may be that the DM felt the argument was a poor one. Of course, I wasn't there. As I said above, after reviewing the spell myself, I am prone to look for a way to make it work in some fashion (the "why" already being supplied).

Um, isn't this more a problem with decision speed?

That seems a fair assessment based on the information provided.


Mort - Did the DM continue the full half hour with a flat "No" or was it more along the lines of "You can't make the dirt go anywhere you like" but allowing for some of the fire to be subdued? Was the argument prolonged by the player not getting the full effect he wanted and not accepting that it could only do so much? I've been in some situations before where players wouldn't take some form of yes for an answer and it tends to be more problematic than just saying "no." Is this player one who often winds up in arguments over the DM saying "no" or is this an isolated incident?

In any case, once a DM has made a decision, and perhaps given a brief bit of time for the player to make a case, the player needs to just accept the answer and move on. I can't imagine that the DM said "no" and that the argument continued unless the player kept wanting to get his way. The DM can't argue alone and if the DM says "no" that really needs to be the end of the argument even if it seems unreasonable at the time. The DM's answer, for good or ill, is the bottomline.

 

[S'mon]

Knowing that dirt can put out a fire, I would have said "sure, if the AOE can cover the wagon, give me a Knowledge (Arcana)/Spellcraft check vs. DC X to see if you can smother it properly." (I guess that puts me in the "maybe" camp?)

Yeah, that would be my approach too.

 

[IronWolf]

A half hour discussion followed with rule books being perused, arguments being made - and several other players just sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

The amount of time to make the decision seems to have been the biggest issue. A good rule of thumb is to make rule calls within a minute or two. Make a ruling and move on while the game is in play. Then, after the game, take a closer look at the decision and allow people to make their cases and such. Then if the decision is different, keep that ruling in mind for future play.

That's what our group does. We make a decision in a short period of time and move on. Admittedly, often times the decision I make as GM is more on the player's side with a warning that I may change how an action works in future games. This lets us make a quick decision, generally not rain on the player's parade and then sort it out later to make sure we all agree with the decision made on the fly during the game.

 

[Mort]

Um, isn't this more a problem with decision speed? I could have said "no" in the less time than I said "yes, and here's how it works, and here's my thought on how it'd affect the vehicle." The problem you're expressing doesn't have to do with yes/no, in my opinion, but of how long it takes to make that decision final. I've said, "I don't think so," before, but I was open to having my mind changed. Generally, I'll swing one way or another within 15-30 seconds, not minutes (and we play about 10 hour sessions).

The decision speed is directly a result of the DMs "convince me" attitude. Had he just said yes or no and moved on, problem solved. So yes, decision speed is part of the problem I have but it's only part of the bigger issue here (see below).

I think we're coming to different conclusions on the actual problem based on your anecdote. I see it as a problem of overthinking player inventiveness and GM fiat, and you see it as "saying 'sure, why not' speeds up game play, and should be the default" (I think). If that's correct, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If I'm wrong, let me know, because I'm curious what you think. As always, play what you like

The two big issues at play here (for me) are time and trust. By adopting the attitude he did, on the first encounter of the first session, the DM has conveyed two things to his players:

First that any nonstandard decision will literaly stop the game and require a secondary debate with the DM. Basically the players only other choice is to try as hard as possible to only think inside the box and only with "standard" solutions to any problem (whatever that even is). I don't think this is something to be encouraged.

Second, and more importantly, that the DMs attitude toward the players is "I don't trust you, convince me why I should" and yes I do think that this type of attitude will lead to a worse game. The DM has essentially stated "I'll default to no unless you convince me otherwise", and of all the attitudes to addopt I think this is among the least conducive to a good game (IMO of course).

IMO the best games result when the players trust the DM (Not in a "nothing bad will happen to us sense" but in a "we know the DM is going for the best gaming experience sense") and that's not likely to happen if the players get the impression right of the bat that the DM has no trust for them.

 

[Mort]

The amount of time to make the decision seems to have been the biggest issue. A good rule of thumb is to make rule calls within a minute or two. Make a ruling and move on while the game is in play. Then, after the game, take a closer look at the decision and allow people to make their cases and such. Then if the decision is different, keep that ruling in mind for future play.

In my own game, I'll make a quick decision and tell the player we'll revisit it over e-mail or after the session. This was apparantly an experienced DM and he should have known to do that - so yes it's part of the problem

That's what our group does. We make a decision in a short period of time and move on. Admittedly, often times the decision I make as GM is more on the player's side with a warning that I may change how an action works in future games. This lets us make a quick decision, generally not rain on the player's parade and then sort it out later to make sure we all agree with the decision made on the fly during the game.

Again a good way to approach it (IMO).

Telling the player "no but convince me" was the worst of both worlds. It took a long time and rained on the players parade. I have no problem saying no to a player, but this long drawn out approach is just painful - and totaly unnecessary.

 

[Umbran]

The two big issues at play here (for me) are time and trust. By adopting the attitude he did, on the first encounter of the first session, the DM has conveyed two things to his players:

Gaming is typically a long-term thing. Everyone at the table should have an open mind, and remember that any individual can hit a speed bump, or have a bad night. You know how a TV series can take a few episodes to set into being good? Same basic idea applies. So, if this one incident has set anything in anyone's mind, I'd say they were jumping to conclusions.

Second, and more importantly, that the DMs attitude toward the players is "I don't trust you, convince me why I should" and yes I do think that this type of attitude will lead to a worse game.

With respect, it also says the PLAYERS in this game will settle in to argue a point for half an hour on a small item, as well as the GM. The player was invested enough to continue arguing, instead of just saying, "Look, it isn't that important, I'll try something else."

So, it seems to me to be a "it takes two to tango" moment. Maybe both sides need to reconsider how they approach things.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The decision speed is directly a result of the DMs "convince me" attitude. Had he just said yes or no and moved on, problem solved. So yes, decision speed is part of the problem I have but it's only part of the bigger issue here (see below).

Okay, we're in agreement so far.

The two big issues at play here (for me) are time and trust. By adopting the attitude he did, on the first encounter of the first session, the DM has conveyed two things to his players:

Was this the first session with his players? It sounds like it (otherwise I'm not sure why this would be setting the tone in the way you describe), so I'll be responding as if that's the case.

First that any nonstandard decision will literaly stop the game and require a secondary debate with the DM. Basically the players only other choice is to try as hard as possible to only think inside the box and only with "standard" solutions to any problem (whatever that even is). I don't think this is something to be encouraged.

If he has new players, I'd like to know more about the player that requested it. There are many possibilities as to why this took so long, or why a debate ensued. Did the player not give up? Did the GM want to clarify because he's new to the system? Did the player have a history or reputation of trying to game the system and calling it "thinking outside the box"?

It's very possible, however, that the GM just took too long, and that you're right. I can't make that call yet. I do know that the GM might be prodding his players to think within the box until everything gets settled. If they're new players, he may not want them getting used to "gaming the system". While I don't see that spell usage as gaming the system, it is a willingly liberal interpretation of the spell, and I might want to let the players know that they shouldn't try to game the system.

It's also possible, as I mentioned earlier, that the GM was new to the system, and didn't want his players to take advantage of him. That trust has to be built both ways.

Second, and more importantly, that the DMs attitude toward the players is "I don't trust you, convince me why I should" and yes I do think that this type of attitude will lead to a worse game.

Whoa, I did not get that out of your story at all. Trust is nowhere in there at all. After about a ten page debate with Hussar on the definition of trust, I'm just going to post it now and hopefully skip it:

trust
1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4.
a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.

Just for my two cents, saying "convince me" does not mean that you don't trust someone. The rules didn't cover something. This isn't someone saying "I saw this, you should believe me" and the GM saying "I don't believe you unless you convince me." That'd be the case if the GM was ignoring the rules in the book. In this case, it'd be like me saying (and forgive the analogy) "I think that modern rock is better than classic rock" and you saying "I don't know... convince me." Now I can name songs, artists, and state my biased opinion, but there's no way to prove it. Trust is not involved at all.

The DM has essentially stated "I'll default to no unless you convince me otherwise", and of all the attitudes to addopt I think this is among the least conducive to a good game (IMO of course).

That's some incredibly wild extrapolation. And while I see why some people might make that jump, I can definitively tell you (as someone who approaches questions with a "it depends" attitude) that this could be a very wrong assumption. If you assumed that with me, then you'd be cutting yourself off from some very inventive ideas in the game. Just because one idea is disallowed or discussed does not mean that the rest of the ideas will be shot down.

I still think that taking thirty minutes to decide is probably a problem, but, again, that's an entirely different issue. Trust is not an issue at all, in my mind, and while you have a chance of being correct when it comes to this GM's response, you're completely basing that on the fact that you believe everyone has a standard answer they lean towards. To those of us who prefer "it depends" and would like to see themselves as a fairly neutral arbiter (or referee), all I can say is that we strongly disagree.

IMO the best games result when the players trust the DM (Not in a "nothing bad will happen to us sense" but in a "we know the DM is going for the best gaming experience sense") and that's not likely to happen if the players get the impression right of the bat that the DM has no trust for them.

I think you're really jumping the gun, or you've heard more than you've relayed and you're basing your opinion on that. Because, really, I don't mind someone saying no to something when I ask. Taking thirty minutes is a problem, but no amount of "no, that won't work in this instance" will keep me from trying things in the future, unless it's qualified (with actual words) that I'm playing a completely RAW game, and that if the action isn't listed then I can't try it. I probably wouldn't play in that game, though.

Just my thoughts. I think either you're really, really into first impressions (when they aren't nearly as indicative as you might imply), or you've got more information than I do and you're basing your opinion on that (and, since I don't have that information, it's an unfair fight ). As always, though, play what you like