You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

What I wouldn't want is to spend half a session getting to the castle, dealing with lame horses that throw shoes, wandering sheep and a dozen other completely unrelated side quests that are just the DM roadblocking.

But why are we assuming that anything whose relevance is not immediately obvious with crystal clarity to player and character alike is GM roadblocking. And why is the travel to the castle likely to be filled with lame horses throwing shoes and wandering sheep, etc. but all will become grand and wondrous once we get to the castle? I can certainly make you play out discussions with a neverending series of petty bureaucrats trying to get an audience with the Duke just as effectively as a lost sheep or lame horse.

If we want to assassinate the Duke and we happen to be in the wrong town, is it totally unreasonable to want the DM to redline travel to where the Duke is located?

The only reasonable answer to this question is "maybe". If the travel between the two towns is trivial, then it is completely reasonable. If it is not, then redlining it is unreasonable. Why shouldn't Lucas have redlined Obi-Wan and Luke going to Alderaan? Why did we need to role play the trip into Mos Eisley past the stormtroopers, the cantina scene to meet Han and Chewie, the takeoff of the Falcon, etc. And when we get there? What a @#(*# that GM is - he made up a planet destroying moon-sized battleship JUST TO SCREW THE PLAYERS OUT OF whatever the hell they wanted to do on Alderaan. WORST.GM.EVER!

How do you, the player, know whether the travel is, or is not, trivial? Answer: you don't. But you HAVE to be right, so every example of a non-trivial aspect to a scene you decided was in your way and should be skipped is dismissed as GM wankery, inserted retroactively to punish you for not playing his way.

One player wants to skip travel to the Duke's town. Another wants to skip interacting with that town's locals to learn the lay of the land. A third doesn't want to play out the trivialities of getting past the guards and castle defenses to the Duke himself, and a fourth is bored by tactical combat, so let's just skip the fight with the Duke. So here we are, 17 seconds after deciding we should ambush the Duke, standing over his bloody corpse. It seems like the entire assassination of the Duke was trivial! What shall we do next?

See, and that's where our styles diverge. To me, provoking Endurance checks is trivial and meaningless.

If a central theme of my character's cool is his vast endurance, then it ceases being trivial to me. The fact that he arrives fresh while the rest of you are exhausted and taking penalties shines a spotlight on my character's coolness. That has moved those ensurance checks from the realm of the trivial to the highlighting of Character Cool.

And, to turn your questions around, where does it stop? If we're introducing endurance checks, why not nature checks to avoid getting lost? What about wear and tear on vehicles? Do we roll checks to see if our mounts go lame? Animal handling checks to maintain the health of the animals? Etc.

Do they have significant consequences to the story? Do they allow a character his opportunity to show off his cool abilities and shine? If either is yes, then these are not trivial. If both are no, then why bother? But then, why bother making rolls to hit or damage? This is just trivia dragging out a combat scene. Let's get past that lame scene and move on to the interesting "escape from the Duke's vassals and avoid execution for assassinating the Duke" scene!

Why would I skip over everything in the castle getting to the Duke? That would be killing my enjoyment as well as everyone else's. That's counterproductive.

Because, for whatever reason, you don't find that aspect of the scenario likely to interest you. Your choice of what interests you or not is subjective, and seems pretty random from the outside. Why would the encounters in the castle to get to the Duke be so much more fascinating than the enounters on the road to get to the Duke's town, or the in town encounters to get to, and into, his castle?

At the end of the 5th Harry Potter book, his godfather is killed. Would it not be reasonable for his character to want revenge above all else? So why are we playing out YET ANOTHER YEAR at this setting wank school with no actual action involving the enemy? Don't waste my time interacting with this new teacher. Quit pushing her up the ranks every time we ignore her - haven't we made it clear we want to skip past that scene? I don't want to play out this "learn occlumency with Snape" crap. Snape's the enemy - end of story. Cut scene. Why the hell are we in that tower sifting through history AGAIN? Get to the action!

Your focus on advancing the store seems to me a great way to miss the story entirely.

I'm sorry, I don't care about setting. Setting, for me, is the least important consideration. So, given the choice of engaging in events unrelated to the assassination of the Duke plus assassinating the Duke, or going straight to the events related to assassinating the Duke, I'll always choose the latter.

While the desert, the road to the Duke and the spearcarriers are setting, so is City B, the Duke's castle and the Duke himself, and the Grell and the dungeon he occupies. The story does not take place in a vaccuum. You are simply choosing which elements of the setting you wish to explore and which you do not. If the GM tells you the Grell left, you will challenge that because the setting provided no reason for the creature to leave. It is the setting which provides a city in which you expect to find mercenaries you can hire. And, if you are travelling to the city where the Duke is located in order to assassinate him, whatever happens along the way is both part of the setting and events related to assassinating the Duke.

I'll give another example, this time when I was on the receiving end of someone ending a scene and moving things forward. We were playing the first module in the WOTC adventure path, Ashen Crown ((IIRC)) and we had captured a hobgoblin to get some information about the area we were in. My character interrogates the hobgoblin and rolls fantastically on his Intimidate check meaning that we're supposed to get some information out of this guy.

This goes back and forth for several minutes. One of the other players declares, "I kill the hobgoblin." in the middle of my sentence. I was taken a bit aback and, as an aside asked the player, "What the?" His response was, "The Dm was stonewalling and I'm tired of screwing around with this. Let's go."

At the time I was a bit put out but then I thought about it a bit and I realized that the other player was 100% right. The scene was over and I was likely beating a dead horse trying to get more information. By executing the hobgoblin, the player ended the scene and we got back to moving forward.

In this example, the scene was played out. "I can't be bothered to interact with the spearcarrier recruits, the desert or the trip to the Duke's town" does not play out the scene, but skips it. Making your example similar would be more on the lines of "I will question the Hobgoblin" folllowed immediately by "I kill the hobgoblin - he will have nothing of any interest to say and the GM will just stonewalll us". He has ended the scene before it could begin.

I don't really see a whole lot of difference between what he did and what I've done in the past.

I do, as you can see.

Not all RPG players are interested in simply "overcoming challenges" as the goal of play.

Feel free to describe an exciting, engaging game session that lacked any challenge to the players or characters. Until then, I believe that overcoming challenges is a large part of the game.

Because it's part of the setting and backstory? Because it provides colour?

If it has no impact whatsoever on the game - the story - they it provides no colour and is just useless description. If I can replace "desert" with "lake", "forest", " mountain", "plain" or "field of bones from an ancient battle", and the game will play out identically regardless of which one I pick, then it is useless, providing no value to any backstory and no coour to the game.

That wouldn't be a MacGuffin, then, would it? It's no longer a plot device, but a significant story element in itself.

Whether it is a significant story element depends on how it is used in the game. You can be lead to City B to accomplish any of the goals I mentioned without them being in any way significant to the story. Whether it is player-created is completely irrelevant to that determination.

I took that to be an implication of your remark upthread that a good player would RP his/her PC rather than pursue the mechanically advantageous option.

I would use "tactically advantageous option". A poor role player will always play a pawn. "Torch to the groin" gets the best questioning bonus? "Torch to the groin" it is. Who cares that I am a devout follower of the Lady of Mercy and Kindness and have sworn an oath to do no harm? That's just setting and backstorty crap. In BW, I believe I would simply say "my beliefs mean nothing - I want to get the answers, so Torch To The Groin!"

I personally prefer to focus on characters, and on situation - what's the conflict? what're the stakes? - than on setting as such.

You want to get past 200 miles of desert? I would say the conflict is "man versus nature". You want to get past the bandits in the desert, we have shifted to "man versus man". You have a morbid fear of sand? Now we're at "man versus himself". I don't know the stakes since no one remembers what's in City B to make it so important we cross the desert and get there.

I don't understand this idea that because you want to skip the boring stuff, you'd want to skip the good stuff too!

What I'm seeing is "I want to skip what I think will be boring before it has a chance to develop". After determining Hobgoblin has no useful information, it has become boring stuff. Killing it with no interaction is skipping what I think will be boring. And it seems like Hussar bounces between "I want to skip it because it bores me" and "I want to skip it because I expect something shinier beyond and I want that RIGHT NOW!"

 

[N'raac]

You say you aren' a fan of 'linear play', but on some level it seems what you mean isn't that, but rather, "I'm not a fan of doing anything but making the DM repeat back to me the story I'm making up for myself. No twists. No surprises. No obstacles. No freaking DM input except to validate my success."

That's pretty much what I hear too. If the game isn't about immediate cut scene to whatever I think is best served up next, or if my approach to dealing with any problem meets with anything less than immediate and unequivocal success, then you are a bad GM.

 

[pemerton]

The way that I look at it is setting is a thing, but it is not the point. It's a tool that exists to serve the ongoing narrative of the game that can be mutated to serve the needs of the game.

<snip>

When I play I view my character in a similar manner. It's a tool to be used to create and resolve conflicts, a narrative construct.

That makes sense to me.

 

[pemerton]

But why are we assuming that anything whose relevance is not immediately obvious with crystal clarity to player and character alike is GM roadblocking.

It's not an assumption. It's a presupposition of some people's preferred approach to play.

And why is the travel to the castle likely to be filled with lame horses throwing shoes and wandering sheep, etc. but all will become grand and wondrous once we get to the castle?

Because once in the castle the key stakes - assassinating the duke - are in play. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, there is no mechanical rule here - it's a matter of taste and judgement, a bit like editing.

I can certainly make you play out discussions with a neverending series of petty bureaucrats trying to get an audience with the Duke just as effectively as a lost sheep or lame horse.

Yes. That would be equally frustrating.

If it is not, then redlining it is unreasonable.

You are assuming here that whether or not something takes time at the table should be determined by whether or not it is hard in the gameworld. That is one way to RPG, but not the only one. Hussar and I are articulating a different approach - as Hussar said upthread, it is non-simulationist.

How do you, the player, know whether the travel is, or is not, trivial? Answer: you don't.

If there are no salient stakes, then the player does know its trivial (by the sort of measure that Hussar and I are putting forward).

While the desert, the road to the Duke and the spearcarriers are setting, so is City B, the Duke's castle and the Duke himself, and the Grell and the dungeon he occupies. The story does not take place in a vaccuum. You are simply choosing which elements of the setting you wish to explore and which you do not.

No. City B, the Duke's castle, the grell, are situations - ie NPCs and PCs in some sort of confrontation over something at stake with which the players are engaged.

Feel free to describe an exciting, engaging game session that lacked any challenge to the players or characters. Until then, I believe that overcoming challenges is a large part of the game.

I said simply overcoming challenges. The relevant difference is, what are the stakes of the challenge? Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain involve challenges, but I have zero interest in playing or GMing either, because there are no interesting stakes.

If it has no impact whatsoever on the game - the story - they it provides no colour and is just useless description.

Disregarding the "useless", that's what colour is - description that adds flavour and vibe to the game. (I don't know why you'd think it's useless - description and flavour are part of being immersed in play.)

If I can replace "desert" with "lake", "forest", " mountain", "plain" or "field of bones from an ancient battle", and the game will play out identically regardless of which one I pick, then it is useless, providing no value to any backstory and no coour to the game.

First, why will the game play out identically? To cross the desert, for instance, the PCs might cross off their "heat resistance" potions, whereas going through a forest wouldn't have the same impact on resources.

Second, why is description and immesion not an end in itself? Apart from anything else, it plays a role in setting the fictional stakes.

In 4e, for instance, a thief in leather armour and a paladin in full plate have much the same AC, but the difference in colour is hardly irrelevant - it gives the two characters very different fictional positions.

You can be lead to City B to accomplish any of the goals I mentioned without them being in any way significant to the story. Whether it is player-created is completely irrelevant to that determination.

I'm not sure how that would be. How would it come about that a player-created goal would be simply a plot device for propelling the action along? Can you give an example?

That's pretty much what I hear too.

Then I think you may be mishearing. There is a pretty big difference between framing an obstacle/challenge within the context of an engaging situation, and framing a completely different situation.

To go back to the grell example, for instance: there's a pretty big difference between turning up to a rematch with the grell and finding it's recruited a gauth ally (a complication within the context of the grell situation), and spending 90 minutes of play recruiting hirelings to fight the grell (which is not a complication with the context of the grell situation, but a completely different, and also in context rather low stakes, situation).

if my approach to dealing with any problem meets with anything less than immediate and unequivocal success

No one has said that. There are any number of ways to introduce consequences of failure or less than full success without framing things into tedious and low-stakes scenes. Marking of resources is one of the most straightforward, but there are more story-related options as well. I've already indicated with the grell example, for instance: a hireling shows his/her cowardice, or tendency towards aberration-worship, when the group confronts the grell.

If the game isn't about immediate cut scene to whatever I think is best served up next <snippage> then you are a bad GM.

That's a caricatured framing of things, but take out the caricature and yes, you are a bad GM for me or Hussar.

 

[TwoSix]

That's a caricatured framing of things, but take out the caricature and yes, you are a bad GM for me or Hussar.

It's almost as if players with different agendas of play maybe shouldn't play together. If only there was a internet community of game theorists who had figured that out!

 

[JamesonCourage]

There are different ways of using terminology, but I not only believe Hussar but tend to share his preference. I don't think Hussar is objecting to colour ("The city lies on the other side of a 200-mile desert? Cool stuff.") But it's very feasible to keep this stuff basicaly to the level of colour and nothing more.

First... okay? That doesn't really touch on what I was asking in any way that I can see. Can you help me out?

I personally prefer to focus on characters, and on situation - what's the conflict? what're the stakes? - than on setting as such.

Okay. This is heavily dependent on setting; the stakes are set by the fiction, which resides within the setting. Right?

As a side note, most of your comments seem to be presenting what you like, and trying to argue why it's a valid style. First, I get that it's valid; no need to convince me. Second, in that vein, I'll tell you what I like about crossing the desert (but I'm not trying to convince you to do it): I want to see how important it is. Are we going to run out of food? That can be important / dramatic in fiction. Bandits might be; finding a town might be; finding someone who is stranded or needs help might be; finding a prisoner left to die might be; etc.

I, personally, would like to go, because all of it can be interesting or fun, and I need to play it out to find out. And, you can deliberately set the stakes there, just as you can anywhere else. But, again, none of this really has any bearing on what I asked Hussar, that I can see. Is there something that answers to what I asked him, or is this basically a "here's my preference, and here's why it's valid" post? As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I first want to say that though we often disagree, I'm asking these out of an attempt to clarify, not argue, because I'm having trouble following these statements.

It seems like you rather explicitly put your fun ahead of mine, unless my fun level automatically matches yours. What I mean is, if you're not having fun, but I am, you'd like to put your fun ahead of mine, so that we can skip to a scene where we both have fun.

If skipping the scene kills the fun for me ("I thought that scene was very important" / "I've been waiting for this for a long time" / "finally, the big reveal!" / etc.), what happens? I mean, if you're not having fun, as a fellow player, then my fun will be lessened; I'll empathize, and might push to hurry things along. But, what if my fun will be incredibly hampered by skipping this scene? Wouldn't skipping it be rather explicitly putting your fun ahead of mine? If not, why not?

Again, let's not forget, this is a nuclear option. Not something that is done just because a player feels like it. The player in question should HATE what's going on. I've maintained that all the way along. And it always gets ignored.

It's not a case of me feeling a bit put out by the scene. Hell, I have lots of patience. I'll sit back and let scenes unfold all the time. But, I also don't mind the players having the option of cutting to the chase when they feel like things are dragging too much.

I trust that the players are honest enough and have the best interests of the game at heart. I realize that others want to place all that power in the hands of the DM. Fair enough. I don't.

I find this basically impossible to believe, because the entire game is setting; the duke you want to assassinate, or the city you want to get to. Do you basically mean "exploration of the setting for the sake of it"? Or, something else like that? I just can't imagine it being possible to "not care about the setting" unless you basically saw it purely as game, and only worked from a rules-perspective, with disregard to the narrative. And, based on the rest of your post (where you mentioned your immersion being destroyed), I find this impossible. What am I missing?

Thanks, in advance, for answering. As always, play what you like

And, this is why we should never game at the same table.

No, the Duke is not setting. The Duke is plot. Setting is where the plot happens and nothing more. Setting isn't even really required. Look at something like Keep on the Borderlands which has virtually no setting beyond the most bare bones, generic fantasy elements. Yet it's considered one of the best modules of all time. IMO, it's considered that because it doesn't screw around with all this setting stuff and gets right into the action - ie. plot.

But, again, that's just how I like to play. All that scenery stuff that DM's seem to love to paper their campaign with? Pretty much of zero interest to me. Yes, I realize you need some setting. Of course. You cannot have a story without ANY setting. But, again, setting and setting consistency is the lowest priority AFAIC. If it has not been established in play, it is not a fact, only an opinion and subject to change at any time. Again, this is totally my opinion.

 

[Hussar]

That's pretty much what I hear too. If the game isn't about immediate cut scene to whatever I think is best served up next, or if my approach to dealing with any problem meets with anything less than immediate and unequivocal success, then you are a bad GM.

Yeah, I know that's what you keep hearing, but that's because you only hear what you want to hear.

Jeez, again for the umpteenth time, I'm talking about skipping one scene. One. Not a series of scenes, not a campaign, just one scene.

I know it's somewhat heretical to suggest that not every scene the DM serves up is 100% gold and deserving of our complete, undivided attention while we wait with baited breath upon the DM's every word, but, IME, I'm a mere mortal DM and I freely admit that sometimes the scenes I serve up are boring and can be skipped.

Doesn't happen that often. Once in a while. But, when it does, I just shrug and try to learn from the experience.

 

[Hussar]

It's almost as if players with different agendas of play maybe shouldn't play together. If only there was a internet community of game theorists who had figured that out!

ROTFLMAO.

 

[Hussar]

First... okay? That doesn't really touch on what I was asking in any way that I can see. Can you help me out?

Okay. This is heavily dependent on setting; the stakes are set by the fiction, which resides within the setting. Right?

As a side note, most of your comments seem to be presenting what you like, and trying to argue why it's a valid style. First, I get that it's valid; no need to convince me. Second, in that vein, I'll tell you what I like about crossing the desert (but I'm not trying to convince you to do it): I want to see how important it is. Are we going to run out of food? That can be important / dramatic in fiction. Bandits might be; finding a town might be; finding someone who is stranded or needs help might be; finding a prisoner left to die might be; etc.

I, personally, would like to go, because all of it can be interesting or fun, and I need to play it out to find out. And, you can deliberately set the stakes there, just as you can anywhere else. But, again, none of this really has any bearing on what I asked Hussar, that I can see. Is there something that answers to what I asked him, or is this basically a "here's my preference, and here's why it's valid" post? As always, play what you like

Ok, fair enough.

Now, the guy sitting next to you has 100% tuned out and is playing with his cell phone. It is very, very obvious that he has no interest in what's going on in the game right now, despite being engaged most of the time.

Do you continue to explore the desert or do you move on? As a fellow player, is exploring the desert more important to you than the guy sitting next to you engaging in the game?

For me, the answer is no. It's not. Questioning the bugbear was not more important than the other player's enjoyment of the game. In that case, the player could easily cut the scene short (rather literally) but, the approach is the same.