You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[jasper]

Generally, when players use novel solution, I take 5 minutes to collect myself and drive on. But if players are use the novel solution as a “I Win Button”, I have problem. I used to fight it with bigger “I Win” button to include “You TPKed!” but that lead to more problems.
..
If Hussar does the Jedi Mind trick “jasper! I summon the centipede falcon and the pcs avoid the desert”, and I reply skill check and everyone rolls, no problem. And then Encounter F blocks their path, and they overcome it, again no problem. But if Hussar tries to Jedi mind trick to avoid all the encounters (aka I Win button) just to be a pill, he will get written down as problem. But I will roll with it. Too bad the R2 unit at Encounter F gave the party +10 on skill check to get the plans at Encounter S. Now if all the players are doing the Jedi Mind Trick to avoid the desert, I will call a break. Then start shuffling the needed clues, and rewards, elsewhere. Note post 91 Hussar says shortcutting to Encounter F is okay since part of the adventure but he held the line at Encounter C where the NPC Gnome Trickster change one the centipede’s horseshoe to a whoopee cushion which attached wandering monsters on 1 on d6 instead 1 on d 20.
Let me edit Greenfield quote, “If the DM went to all the trouble to set up an adventurer like this, the least we can do is Play through it." It's a "spirit of the game" kind of thing. That the way I generally played and DM. Part of the social contract was we heard to play the game. Not to see who can tick off one the player the fastest. Or as Nagol post #98 "You have arrived at the dungeon to seek the mystical kazoo." Is the beginning of the adventure and the reason to go into the dungeon.

 

[billd91]

Generally, when players use novel solution, I take 5 minutes to collect myself and drive on. But if players are use the novel solution as a “I Win Button”, I have problem. I used to fight it with bigger “I Win” button to include “You TPKed!” but that lead to more problems.

You can count me as someone who isn't a fan of the "I win button" attempt. Yes, wizards are often powerful and have ways to get around obstacles that martial classes may not (or may if well-equipped) have. But that's not really an "I win" as much as it's a shift from one set of ongoing consequences in the game to another. And, as the DM, I'm going to treat it as such. Summoning a succession weird mounts to run into death across a desert will avoid some of the consequences of hiking... but will lead to others like players coming up with creative ways to explain how they're not falling off a mount climbing a near vertical escarpment.

Some of the games that have players engaging in the oddest behaviors, in my experience, are superhero games. Modern sensibilities matched with super powers sometimes lead players to think of odd ways to go around obstacles. I ran the Villains and Vigilantes Death Duel with the Destroyers adventure for my players back when we were in middle school. Rather than trying a traditional frontal assault on the villains' base or stealthy infiltration, one notoriously odd player came up with a plan that genuinely surprised me. He 3 of the PCs dress up as exterminators and then used explosives to blast into the lowest floor of the skyscraper HQ. Fortunately, the situation was easy enough to react to and the trio was confronted by the two closest Destroyers (both of whom had been on the floor), bewildered at their odd behavior. They managed to defeat Iron Maiden, but Behemoth polished them all off... leading to a classic situation of captured heroes in the villain's lair.

 

[Lwaxy]

a) They need to be believable.

But that goes for about everything else, too. I have a lot of issues with monster placements, plants encountered and totally messed up reactions of animals not only in the earlier modules. I'm constantly adjusting, rewriting and adapting scenes that make no sense to me if the world should be believable to me and my players.

The traps don't fall in that category, as the rich folks, especially the wizards of such dungeons, can be easily considered capable of placing the traps as they are. Minus the kobolds, preferably So, at least the games I was involved in, the more dangerous and shrewd a trap was, the more fun it seemed to be. And as much as I love Tomb of Horrors, at times I have been wondering why in the world would anyone bother to place such relatively easily defeated traps.

But Grimtooth gets so invested in beating the players

That's the point, though. The books are done from the perspective of Grimtooth, so of course he wants to get the adventurers. Asides from the traps themselves, it makes the books a lot of fun to read. I had never thought that anyone would translate this to the table other than for survivor-style crawl competitions.

What's really bad about the Grimtooth approach is that it seemed to encourage placing Grimtooth styled traps not just in 'Tombs of Horror', but randomly about the game world. As a result, it forced players to spend the game as if the whole world was a death trap, and had to be meticulously inspected using the full panapoly of anti-trap defeating patterns all the time. As a result, games would slow to a crawl and become basically games of 'GM may I'.

Never noticed this. PCs encountering those traps were usually of a high enough level to find ways around them or be resurrected later. Those traps were also considered to be expensive enough to build that they wouldn't be affordable for the standard dungeon architect. Come into a well cared for dungeon? Chances are you'd find at least one really bad trap. Otherwise, be more wary of weird monsters

The book can't excuse itself. Because it never steps out of its declared stance and examines its suggestions critically. It doesn't provide the means for actually teaching the DM. It tries to excite the reader about using these traps. It makes it seem like this is the normal desirable path of normal play, and not a potentially deginerate tangental side path. It's proposing to teach GMs about traps, so you can't blame the students for absorbing the lessons.

As the books are done from Grimtooth's POV, they don't need to be critical. They make it rather clear that this is what a troll does for fun. So if you are a troll GM, go for it I'm known as Grimtina for a reason But then, my groups at that time weren't fond of hack and slash, but of traps in any weird fashion. No orcs in room 4, please - why would they be there, anyway? - but put a deadly trap in there and we were game. Even if it took us an hour play time to figure out how to probably get around it. And if we die before we cross, grab a new guy and cut our loss.

All in the play style, I suppose. For us, this was fun and, fitting with the original topic of this thread, GMs got surprised a lot (myself included) with solutions often very out of there and sometimes so simple the fictional trap makers would have banged their heads on the walls.

 

[Hussar]

I think the very vision that there is a need to set out guidelines for how we decide whether to skip a scene suggests that this is not expected to be a freak occurrence impacting only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of scenes that make up the campaign, but a fairly regular, recurring situation. I think what comes of either of these is the unwritten rule that a player who too often (and once every gaming session would be far too often, in my view) slows the game down to request a scene skip needs to seriously consider why they are in this game at all. If a scene every game is so mind-numbingly boring, or otherwise offensive, that Charlie simply cannot bear to play it out, this seems like a sign Charlie is a poor fit for the game.

No, we need to set out guidelines because after a 30 page thread, you guys still cannot accept the idea of skipping a scene.

Even if it only happens once a campaign, you're still set on telling me that it's automatically Charlie that's the problem. If it is a recurring thing, then yes, I totally agree that Charlie should be looking for a new group. OTOH, if it's the first time, or even the second time in a campaign, no one should be telling Charlie to shut up and play, nor should he be berated for having an opinion.

 

[Hussar]

You can count me as someone who isn't a fan of the "I win button" attempt. Yes, wizards are often powerful and have ways to get around obstacles that martial classes may not (or may if well-equipped) have. But that's not really an "I win" as much as it's a shift from one set of ongoing consequences in the game to another. And, as the DM, I'm going to treat it as such. Summoning a succession weird mounts to run into death across a desert will avoid some of the consequences of hiking... but will lead to others like players coming up with creative ways to explain how they're not falling off a mount climbing a near vertical escarpment.

/snip

And, for some DM's, that vertical escarpment only came into being because of the player's actions.

Just as a question, since the PC's were originally intended to walk across the desert, how would they navigate this obstacle? Why is it any different since we now have a mount that can climb?

 

[billd91]

And, for some DM's, that vertical escarpment only came into being because of the player's actions.

Just as a question, since the PC's were originally intended to walk across the desert, how would they navigate this obstacle? Why is it any different since we now have a mount that can climb?

The visual imagination is certainly sillier, much less dignified. It isn't hitting an "I'm a caster, I'm an I win button" at all. It's just a different set of consequences.

 

[pemerton]

If we assume that campaign runs for, say, a year of gaming 10 hours a month, that’s 120 hours At 15 minutes a scene, we get 480 scenes, so we’re up to those “hundreds of scenes” you describe.

<snip>

I think the piece of the puzzle not discussed is how many scenes get skipped. If, in that campaign I suggest above, we have each of five players reject one scene, that’s a bit over 1% of the scenes. However, if each of them rejects one scene a month, that’s 60 scenes, or 1/8 of the overall campaign. That seems like a lot.

Once again, you seem to have a very particular idea of how the game is being played.

If the GM is doing his/her job in the way that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is advocating, scenes won't be framed that don't engage the players. And if that happens because the GM, being human, makes a mistake, we quickly correct it and move on to a better scene. And so on until we've played out our 480 scenes. The only way any of the campaign would be lost was if all 480 scenes were plotted in advance! That's a hell of a lot of GM force.

 

[N'raac]

No, we need to set out guidelines because after a 30 page thread, you guys still cannot accept the idea of skipping a scene.

I find the scene skipping parameters have changed a lot over the course of this discussion. Your initial statement was that you Summon the centipede to send a message that you are not remotely interested in engaging in anything within the desert, sight unseen, don't care what is in the desert, don't care how many different scenes it might entail and just asking me "Will you ride it bareback or try to rig up something to help you hang on" makes me a bad DM for not immediately letting you press the "I Win - No Desert" button. Now, however, the players should make a commitment to try to play through the scene, and any request to skip the scene should be rare, and only ONE scene, not a series of scenes or specific types of challenges. So which is it, and how often is acceptable or unacceptable?

Even if it only happens once a campaign, you're still set on telling me that it's automatically Charlie that's the problem. If it is a recurring thing, then yes, I totally agree that Charlie should be looking for a new group. OTOH, if it's the first time, or even the second time in a campaign, no one should be telling Charlie to shut up and play, nor should he be berated for having an opinion.

But it's OK for Charlie to tell the GM "shut up and cut scene" (ie the GM asked how the team would secure themselves to the centipede, so Charlie gets shirty)? Again, how far have we moved from your initial shorthand of the situation? We have clearly moved, and you are clearly telling us that your initial description was not accurately interpreted by us, but I don't know where the new parameters lie.

Is it OK for one or more other players to tell the GM that, for them, this scene is relevant, is enjoyable and they do want to play it out? IOW, is it only OK to complain if your fun is reduced/spoiled by the presence, rather than the absence, of the scene? I note that you suggested that only a bad DM would have you return with your spearmen only to discover the Grell had sought greener pastures, so clearly removal of a scene is not always acceptable, but there was no indication in that case that another player had indicated playing out another fight with the Grell was unfun for him. Let's assume one does - what takes precedence, your desire to get revenge on the grell or his desire to get on to something more interesting?

And, for some DM's, that vertical escarpment only came into being because of the player's actions.

And for some players, the assumption is that any challenge to their "I win - move on" tactic can only arise because the GM is trying to block their brilliant solution, and cannot possibly be a natural interaction of their tactics to the scenario as already written. You mention above the need to assume that the players aren't just being dicks. Why does your DM not get the same benefit of the doubt? You're assuming the GM is so jealous of your brilliant plan that he's making up obstacles to thwart you, rather than giving you the benefits of your strategy based on a reasoned assessment of how it interacts with the existing scenario and environment.

If a giant Roc who finds centipedes delicious swoops out of the sky each time you summon a centipede, returning to the skies after chomping it down, then I would agree with you that the GM seems to be making up a plot to foil your plan. The possibility there was an escarpment in the desert, a monster waiting in concealment to spring an ambush, a creature that can move faster than a 40
move rate or any of a number of other encounters that could still occur despite the centipede seems one that can hardly be dismissed out of hand. It's also tough for the players to know what they did avoid unless the GM makes statements like "you pass by a village of desert nomads who probably would have attacked you for your supplies if you had been on foot" or "the centipede is too big/fast so the concealed trapdoor spider does not attack".

Just as a question, since the PC's were originally intended to walk across the desert, how would they navigate this obstacle? Why is it any different since we now have a mount that can climb?

They might have to break out the ropes and climb (and be at a disavantage in the event there is an encounter at that location, all dangly from those ropes). Perhaps they have to go around the escarpment, adding time to their journey (and tension to the race, if the crossing is time-sensitive), so the centipede might well give the characters a significant advantage - but they still need a way to hang on! Perhaps a careful search reveals a cave - is it worth exploring it to see whether it provides an easier route than climbing or circling round the escarpment? Or maybe they would have summoned a creature that can fly or climb and used it to haul a length of rope to the top of the cliff and stand there while one character climbs up and ties the rope off. It hardly seems impossible that characters with the resources to have the centipede available all day might, with a different group with different abilities, have means of dealing with the escarpment, even if we let out entirely the possibility they can't just walk across the desert in a straight line without moving around some obstacles.

Once again, you seem to have a very particular idea of how the game is being played.

If the GM is doing his/her job in the way that @Hussar is advocating, scenes won't be framed that don't engage the players. And if that happens because the GM, being human, makes a mistake, we quickly correct it and move on to a better scene. And so on until we've played out our 480 scenes. The only way any of the campaign would be lost was if all 480 scenes were plotted in advance! That's a hell of a lot of GM force.

OK, celebrim has already said he sees no real motivation to your BW Sword scene. Cancel it - what's the next scene, and let's see if we find it any more engaging. A lot less scenes will engage the player if the player dismisses the scene at the outset rather than making some effort to interact with it and see what it has to offer. "No, desert travel is boring, you must move along immediately" means that no scene within the desert gets any chance to engage the player. "A sheer vertical escarpment - lucky we have this centipede, guys, or we'd have to go around. Now, how can we secure ourselves to hang on up the sheer rock face." seems likely to present a much more engaging scene then "You just put that escarpment there because you're mad my ingenious plan allowed us to avoid your boring irrelevant desert encounters - I demand you remove it and skip immediately to our arrival in the city, you bad DM you"

 

[Umbran]

OK, celebrim has already said he sees no real motivation to your BW Sword scene. Cancel it - what's the next scene, and let's see if we find it any more engaging. A lot less scenes will engage the player if the player dismisses the scene at the outset rather than making some effort to interact with it and see what it has to offer. "No, desert travel is boring, you must move along immediately" means that no scene within the desert gets any chance to engage the player.

There is a point here - unless the GM shows you the full notes, and outlines everything that is intended to happen in the scene beforehand, how do you know you won't like it? Sure, there are times when you can tell beforehand ("No, I really am not interested in spending two hours on the minutiae of buying rations and torches. Can we move on?"). But, on the other end, there's the kid who, upon viewing an unfamiliar vegetable on the plate, announces that he or she does not like it before tasting it.

The player who has asked to skip an entire desert, saying, "I am not interested in the desert," has missed a very important point. The truth is actually, "I don't know of anything in the desert that I'll find interesting," which is a different kettle of fish.

I am not fond of absolutes, so to me the, "I will never make someone else sit through a scene that bores them," is overstated. Gaming is a cooperative social activity. In such a thing, I don't expect every moment to be reduced only to the common factors, but I instead expect some give and take. I'll sit through a scene that isn't interesting to me, if I know someone else is having a blast. I then expect them to have the patience to return the favor, so that we all get stuff we like. If, in a given session, I see one player's really sitting on their thumbs the whole time, that's not good, but have a little flexibility!

 

[billd91]

I am not fond of absolutes, so to me the, "I will never make someone else sit through a scene that bores them," is overstated. Gaming is a cooperative social activity. In such a thing, I don't expect every moment to be reduced only to the common factors, but I instead expect some give and take. I'll sit through a scene that isn't interesting to me, if I know someone else is having a blast. I then expect them to have the patience to return the favor, so that we all get stuff we like. If, in a given session, I see one player's really sitting on their thumbs the whole time, that's not good, but have a little flexibility!

There's one unfortunate trend I seem to have been noticing over the last decade of being on ENWorld, and it may entirely have to do with the evolution of rhetorical positions by people on this board rather than reality, but that expectation of patience while others have their spot in the light seems to have eroded. Rather than everyone getting their spotlight time, their peak fun activities, and achieving a balanced game by that method, the focus has shifted to everyone getting involved in everything all the time. Some posters seem to have a real jealousy over how much fun other players seem to be having if they're not personally as involved.

Several years ago, in a discussion of balance at the gaming table, I posted something to the effect that the only balance that really matters is giving everyone something to do in which they are the star and being fair and equitable with that. I got a LOT of positive feedback for that statement and virtually none negative. But here in 2013, I think the set of responses I would get would be radically different. I'm not sure how widespread the change really is but it seems to be a big change in approaching RPGs like D&D and I don't think it's a good thing. Is anyone else noticing something similar?