You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Greenfield]

I had a thought here--this isn't really very useful.

You make it disappear, it loses it's gaze for one round but gets an advantage in attacking you with it's natural weapons. That dispels the invisibility and he can use the gaze the round thereafter.

Just for the record: Dust of Disappearance is based on Greater Invisibility, and isn't dispelled when you attack. That's why I used it.

 

[Greenfield]

Someone questioned why use DOD on a Baselisk, when the PCs could just close their eyes and blind fight.

With DOD we can see the room and avoid attacking each other. We can make Spot checks to tell which square the Baselisk is in, or use Glitterdust to reveal the location (that won't reactivate the gaze attack, since it simply outlines the creature.) PCs can avoid other hazards, and can accurately place AoE spells without hurting their friends.

Someone else talked about PCs creating makeshift molotov cocktails from a bottle of oil and rags, and how the D20 rules don't account for AoE attacks with non-magical weapons.

I'd like to welcome this contributor to Basic D&D, where this exact item was detailed in the rules, and where "grenade like missiles" were first introduced. Since then, however, someone came to their senses and realized that olive oil ain't that flameable, and certainly isn't gasoline or even kerosene. That's why the oil-flask as a weapon kind of faded out under D20 and 3.* in favor of Alchemist's Fire. There is, of course, also Alchemical Acid, Liquid Ice, and Holy Water as further samples of relatively common, right-out-of-the-book examples of non-magical AoE attacks, See the Splash Damage rules.

A lot of the discussion has turned to talk of DMs "get you next time" and/or "passive/aggressive" players. That's kind of the reaction that prompted this thread. At what point does a player cross the line from "creative/unexpected use of spell or item" to "looking for trouble"? At what point does the DM cross from "upping his game to face the challenge" to "punishing" PCs who fail to follow the script?

The biggest problem with the game-changer trick is that it often interrupts the game session. The DM literally doesn't know what to do next, they weren't prepared for that abrupt a turn of events.

In a 1st edition tournament game one of the PCs was given a potion of Polymorph Self. Is 1st edition that spell was akin to Shape Shift, in that you could change form multiple times. We were inside a tower, and under time pressure to finish. So the Monk changed into a Rinocerous and my Wizard mounted on his back. We popped the door ahead and charged in. It was a room full of guards that we'd caught by surprise. Our declared action was to simply run acroos the room and through the door on the far side. The DM wanted to know who was opening the door. The answer was "We aren't. We are going through the door. We're on a Rinocerous, we can do that." That ticked the DM off.

Second to last scene was a bttle in a ground floor room, guards protecting a spiral staircase that lead up. My character went Invisible and snuck through and up the stair. The enemy Wizard, a so called Time Lord, was on that stair, preparing to fight the final scene. My character was several rounds ahead of the rest.

The DM got very pissed indeed when my PC one-punched his big bad. The earlier version of Sepia Snake Sigil was one that could be cast as a direct offensive spell, and it froze the victim in time pretty much until the caster wanted to let them out. The snake-like energy would strike at the target as a monster of the caster's level. If it hit, that was it, no Save.

The DM was so upset that he changed the scene in such a way that my character was killed, after we'd won. It was obvious and arbitrary, and the loss of that character was the difference between us winning and losing the tournament.

In an earlier section we had to make our way down a long spiral road around a circular valley with that tower in the center. There were armed guard posts visible along the route, and we were under time pressure. (The DM had taken to intentionally delaying us every time we'd solved something "too fast". We knew we couldn't fight those three battles and make it, so I suggested that we jump off the cliff. We had several magic items that would let PCs land safely. So we jumped, then one PC flew back up with those items so the next team could jump. The DM (and apparently the author) hadn't considered that we might pass a Ring of Feather Fall around this way. The DM nit-picked at eactly when the ring would kick in, or how fast you could descend that way, checking his watch as he did, to make sure to penalize us for bypassing the planned encounters.

We had consistently beaten planned encounters in unorthodox ways, and the DM didn't know how to score us for it, nor how to deal with players who failed to "follow the script". In fact, we ran roughshod over that dungeon.

Note: All characters, gear and spells were pre-gens by the tournament's author. The module was being played at many tables at the same time by different DMs who, in theory, had been briefed and were familiar with the module. There was no munchkinry, no power gaming, no possibility of us ambushing the DM with items or spells he didn't know about.

And we got punished for it.

So I'm careful no to overdo that sort of thing any more.

 

[Hussar]

I think it is very interesting in how we approach games differently. Look at how Celebrim frames the argument:

He has repeatedly admitted that this tactic was to force the DM to handwave the travel through the desert. In other words, all his recent protests about how he wasn't trying to steal narrative authority from the DM don't hold water. We have a whole thread about him admitting to doing that very thing.

To me, there is absolutely no forcing going on at all. The players, IMO, should already HAVE that narrative authority and don't need to steal anything. IMO, it's the DM trying to force their narrative authority on the players. In my games, the default is that the players have this level of authority. Obviously, in Celebrim's game, they do not.

Now, that's not saying one approach is better than the other. Just different. After all, if we reverse the situation, Celebrim would be just as disappointed as I was. If presented with a "crossing the wasteland" scenario, Celebrim summons his giant centipede to ride across the desert, and I, as DM, say, "OK, three days later you arrive at the city", he's going to be pretty disappointed. After all, he derives a great deal of enjoyment from engaging with the setting, using the skills of the characters and other elements.

All things which, for me, I do not enjoy.

So, at the end of the day, it does come down to playstyle.

 

[Celebrim]

And we got punished for it.

Was this DragonCon or just some fly by night tournament? Because my understanding of 'tournament rules' is that if you don't pull this sort of thing, you aren't going to see the podium. It's expected, or I thought it was.

 

[Hussar]

/snippage for good stuff
And we got punished for it.

So I'm careful no to overdo that sort of thing any more.

Yeah, I feel that. Having been in similar situations way too many times, I've come to the realization that sometimes it's just better to excuse myself from the table.

But, I think Greenfield highlights precisely what I mentioned earlier where the DM has become invested in how something is resolved. If the DM wasn't invested, he wouldn't care about the how, just that it was resolved. IMO, problems abound when DM's become invested in the how.

In particular is the example of the DM nit-picking the ring of feather fall. That's precisely what I mean when I talked about Celebrim forcing skill checks. The players have reframed the scene - from a dangerous climb to a 30 second speed bump. Obviously the players aren't really interested in the dangerous climb scene because, if they were, they wouldn't turn it into a speed bump. But, the DM in Greenfield's example is invested in how the scene plays out, and starts trying to undo the players reframing.

Which, to me, is not something I enjoy. The players, again, totally IMO, should have this degree of reframing power and I have zero problem with that. Obviously YMMV and all that.

 

[Celebrim]

To me, there is absolutely no forcing going on at all.

Yeah, when you are the DM that's probably true.

The players, IMO, should already HAVE that narrative authority and don't need to steal anything. IMO, it's the DM trying to force their narrative authority on the players. In my games, the default is that the players have this level of authority. Obviously, in Celebrim's game, they do not.

The biggest problem I have with offering players narrative authority is D&D has no means of reconciling narrative conflicts between players or between the players and the scene or really anything else. This isn't like Dogs in the Vineyard were we can mark off narrative authority like any other resource and balance consequences and risks. D&D just doesn't have the framework. It has its roots down in tactical wargaming. On the one hand you suggest that you run old school style skillful play contests where you attempt to challenge the PC's. And on the other hand you suggest that PC's have narrative authority, which would make all attempts to challenge PC's meaningless. So, could you give some concrete examples of running a cooperative story building game that also involves challenging the PC's?

After all, if we reverse the situation, Celebrim would be just as disappointed as I was. If presented with a "crossing the wasteland" scenario, Celebrim summons his giant centipede to ride across the desert, and I, as DM, say, "OK, three days later you arrive at the city", he's going to be pretty disappointed. After all, he derives a great deal of enjoyment from engaging with the setting, using the skills of the characters and other elements.

All things which, for me, I do not enjoy.

That's pretty much the size of it. It wouldn't take pulling that many times before I'd politely indicate that, unfortunately, real world commitments of some sort prevent me from continuing with the campaign. If "spend more time with family" can be a good cover story for cabinet members, I figure it can work for bored players as well. But tell me, what do you enjoy? How do you make the sort of table social contract you are describing here work?

 

[Greenfield]

In our current campaign we removed Teleport and Greater Teleport specifically so players couldn't bypass the overland travel part of the game. If a DM wants to say, "Okay, you arrive safely after a long hard journey through the mountains", that's fine.

BTW: When I say "we" I mean exactly that. Because everyone's a DM, everyone got a vote and this passed unanimously.

But I can see that not everyone will agree with that approach.

You don't like to bother, while the DM obviously had something prepared. In our games we have a saying: "If the DM went to all the trouble to set up a trap like this, the least we can do is fall into it." It's a "spirit of the game" kind of thing.

For example, one of our DMs owns every edition of Grimtooth's Traps. I, on the other hand, find trap-fests to be boring, a simple way for the DM to delight in damaging the party without really giving us much of a say in what happens.

DM: "Okay, there's a door ahead."
Us: "Do we reach the door before the trap goes off?"

Remember how long it takes to search a 10x10 section of floor for traps. Going through an entire dungeon like that means that the PCs are more likely to die of old age than anything else. And the players risk death by boredom. After all, the Rogue is the only one who gets to actually do anything. Oh, and the healer who has to reassemble the Rogue after each trap.

But that's what he likes, so we play along.

 

[Celebrim]

But, I think Greenfield highlights precisely what I mentioned earlier where the DM has become invested in how something is resolved. If the DM wasn't invested, he wouldn't care about the how, just that it was resolved. IMO, problems abound when DM's become invested in the how.

This seems to be an area we are in agreement on. I'll go further and say that a DM errs if he gets invested even in as much as whether something should be resolved. Obviously that's a mute issue for a tournament, but DMs can also get invested in ensuring that the players goals are the same as his own - even when the DM isn't really invested in the how.

In particular is the example of the DM nit-picking the ring of feather fall. That's precisely what I mean when I talked about Celebrim forcing skill checks. The players have reframed the scene - from a dangerous climb to a 30 second speed bump.

This term 'reframing' is getting bantered around way to loosely. There is nothing about reframing the scene in solving a problem. Solving the problem presented in the scene using in game resources is still clearly part of the scene. It may have a 'twist' or not, but its not scene reframing. That's just pure action resolution. Nothing about the setting has changed. The setting remains exactly how it was described. The players have done nothing to try to hijack the setting or force an outcome. I mean, if was running a tournament, I'd probably try to figure out how long it took to fly up and float back down too, but I'm not going to try to stop the plan, punish the plan or anything else. It's a good plan.

There is ZERO scene reframing going on in using magic items to jump over a cliff. There is ZERO scene reframing going on even in turning a combat problem into a stealth and evasion problem or a diplomacy problem or anything else. That doesn't reframe the scene because DM is never required to reset the stage, and the PC's aren't actually adding anything to the scene. We are still in the same scene, the players have just made some propositions based on the rules. That's not scene framing. Now if the player proposed an outcome to the DM, "Ok, we can do this in like 6 rounds, and then we hustle down through the fir would to the gate. What do we find at the gate?", that would be an attempt by the player to scene frame. Scene framing involves altering the game from the outside of game state. It involves being able to control the narrative. The player in my example is trying to sneak outside of the proposition/fortune/outcome loop by forcing a DM to accept a scene frame that is likely at least partially invalid (but favorable to the player).

The players, again, totally IMO, should have this degree of reframing power and I have zero problem with that. Obviously YMMV and all that.

This usage of 'reframing power' is getting so vague I'm not even sure what anyone means by it. It's not scene framing as I've ever understood the term to say something like, "I put on my ring of feather fall." How the heck do you consider that scene reframing? The term is taking from cinema and involves the director changing the focus of the shot. How can anyone inside the shot reframe that shot by any action they take? Now granted, the actors can 'walk off the stage' and now the director must compose a new shot - frame the scene - and in RPG's you can do lots of things to leave the scene and in a system like D&D there is normally a continious series of 'quick takes' - round by round or turn by turn or hour by hour resolutions. Actors in the scene can do unexpected things - and from a narrative perspective you hope they do. Bring the twists and stuff. But that's not scene reframing and it certainly isn't scene framing by the player.

 

[Celebrim]

owns every edition of Grimtooth's Traps.

For the record, I love traps both as a player and a DM, but I also hold the opinion that Grimtooth's books are abominations that should be burned and never mentioned again. Not only are they terrible lousy content, but they are one of the few books that I can point to that I can say did far more to harm the craft of game mastering than they did to help. It's just lousy design, terrible attitude, and that 'gotcha' mentality has all but ruined the concept of trap and ruined players on the concept of the trap.

 

[Celebrim]

. The DM wanted to know who was opening the door. The answer was "We aren't. We are going through the door. We're on a Rinocerous, we can do that." That ticked the DM off.

Technically you are going to try to go through the door and you are going to find out whether you can do that.

Sadly, the 1e rules are a little vague on the use of Rhinocerous's as seige weapons. However there is a pretty good chance that you were wrong; rhinos in 1e can't necessarily charge through a door in a single round. According to the DMG, wooden doors have 1 defensive point. So far so good. Hill giants are capable of doing 1 defensive point of damage to wood structures per attack, and Hill giants seem to me the closest analogue to a rhino on the table. So, if the door is a normal wooden door, I rule that you go through. But if the door is reinforced with iron bands, then you have a problem. Reinforced doors have 3 defensive points, and your rhino now can't bash through in a single attack even if generously allow double damage on a charge attack. Now, if you are in my normal game, by golly you are going through that door on shear coolness value alone. But in tournament? I'm going to be as stickler to the rules as written as I can.

Furthermore, I spent a lot of time polymorphed in 1e (and I do mean a lot) and I'm really familiar with the spell, and there is a huge nightmare of a rules problem charging through a door while polymorphed into a Rhino opens up. According to the text of Polymorph Self, the player doesn't get the attack forms of the creature he polymorphs into. So the DM is probably perfectly in his rights to just have the charging rhino be no more effective than battering your own head against a reinforced 4" thick wooden door. How would you have felt about that ruling?

As for Sepia Snake Sigal, yeah, the Unearthed Arcana was filled with broken stuff. In retrospect, I wish I'd never adopted it as a DM, but at the time I was way to young to evaluate a rules set properly.

The DM was so upset that he changed the scene in such a way that my character was killed, after we'd won. It was obvious and arbitrary, and the loss of that character was the difference between us winning and losing the tournament.

As much as I hate offering outcomes rather than propositions to a DM, that is a mortal sin in a DM. Once you set the scene, you never rebalance it against the player. The scene never evolves to cope with their actions. That's one of the biggest problems with improvisation. It's almost impossible for an improv DM to play fair when everything is evolving as a result of a player's actions.