I don't think it has to be a given that D&D plays this way. Or, to put it another way, I don't think that a player who uses 3E Plane Shift is, per se, agreeing to the acceptability of the GM running a more-or-less freestanding, unrelated scenario for a session while we get from the point of arrival to our desired destination.
You approach this from the perspective that it is impossible the GM could design the desert crossing scenario to be relevant and related to the larger ongoing scenario. Why? As I see it, the players had one way, plane shift, to get where they needed to be. That approach is unreliable – they will arrive some distance away. Walking in, they should know some further travel will be required. This has become an inescapable part of achieving their goal.
Given that, I would expect the GM has incorporated the travel into his scenario plan, and that it will be relevant to the game as a whole. Will it have immediate relevance to the city destination? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps it will foreshadow later events, provide information that will be important in a later arc, provide resources that will be helpful at some later time or introduce characters who will resurface later. Maybe it will advance other plot threads (perhaps, to be very facetious, signs of that Grell who escaped your righteous vengeance some time ago have been here will arise – what’s the Grell’s connection to this scenario? Do we break off our “get to the city” priority to chase the Grell, or is the city more important today?)
Of course, in a certain sense the GM is always free to frame things however s/he wants, including on insisting playing through the desert. But for a player-driven group that would be bad GMing, regardless of the use of a Plane Shift spell.
You seem to confuse “player-driven” with the GM laying out a roadmap of every step the players might consider taking and providing instant gratification to every player whim or desire.
But this doesn't require any extended playing out. Within the confines of 3E, for instance, it can be resolved within 5 minutes via Gather Information checks ("What's their reputation?") and Sense Motive checks ("Do they seem shifty or unreliable?").
How much does this delay the PC desire to return to the Grell? “Gather Information” is a skill that takes considerable time to perform. I thought they (PC’s, not players) wanted to hire these mercenaries and get back to Grell slaying without delay. Do the PC’s have the patience to run extensive background checks, contrary to the player’s desire for immediacy? Is “You return to the Grell’s lair two weeks later” satisfactory to the players, even if it takes 2 minutes of table time or less? Hussar seemed to indicate some in-game time pressure to get past the Grell.
Maybe Hussar and I are the only ones on these boards who have encountered such GMs, but in my part of the world they were a dime-a-dozen at least in the late 80s through late 90s. (Maybe still today, but I don't get out as much as I used to.)
Maybe you are the only ones who project that approach on every situation with the assumption you will be gaming with a poor GM. If you expect every GM to be a lousy one, I am surprised you would still bother to game.
But, also, why "at best"? Why do I get poor results when I want to skim over a scene?
I would suggest you surrender any control over the results. You want to dictate the precise results with no effort or resources expended.
Not quite. I'm a player, and DM, who presumes that this level of minutia is a given and I simply don't even reference it. If you are going out into a winter scene, of course you have winter clothes, even if it's not on your character sheet, unless there is a reason why you don't that is established in play. For example, you are teleported naked into the snow would be a good reason why you don't have any winter clothes.
OK, you’ve been travelling through standard territory for some time when you discover a location you wish to go to is on another plane. You Plane Shift. Turns out this new location is arctic cold. Were you carrying cold weather gear through a temperate zone, or is it reasonable to question whether you have immediate access to such gear? I would certainly expect players knowing they are headed into arctic climes to purchase cold weather gear. I would also note that “purchase means “sacrifice the in-game resource of cash in exchange for cold weather gear”, not “assume the character has a full wardrobe with him at all times with clothing suitable for every occasion and climate”.
So, yeah, I view a DM who would consider a wanted criminal to be the "best" to be an aha-gotcha DM and not someone I would care to play with.
I suspect some PC’s might also be wanted criminals. Are they aha-gotcha players?
The problem is, the players cannot ever know when that 10% will come up, so, they have to treat EVERY situation as that 10%. They can never skip by any scene because there is a non-zero chance that they will get lame horses, or miss needed resources, or get lame men-at-arms. Not because they are doing anything wrong, particularly, but, because they know that if they don't treat every scene as having complications, then the one that they don't will bite them on the ass.
For myself, I don’t like the concept of PC’s being completely paranoid lunatics with food tasters, contingency plans for buying groceries, etc. etc. But I also don’t like playing a game where everything is simple, predictable and obvious. That means I accept the GM will throw in complications at time, and I accept that no, my PC would not have pre-tested every possible purchase to ensure no possibility he would ever be placed at a disadvantage. I trust the GM not to abuse that aspect of his control over the game (just as you trust your players not to abuse the “sure you can have reasonable equipment” rule).
I think the key thing to note here is that Celebrim and Nagol (and likely others) prefer a simulationist style where everything is set up and can't just be handwaved while Hussar and Permerton (and likely others) see the game as being there to be fun first and foremost, even if a sense of verisimilitude is lost by breaking the simulation to get on with more interesting things. Neither way of playing the game is, in and of itself, wrong. The only wrong part would be if those people come together and their massive differences in what they expect the game to be led to problems for themselves and other people.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional, but I find the statement that one approach prioritizes fun to strongly indicate a negative view of the other approach, which is by implication less or no fun.
Ok, the setup is that we want to hire 6 mercenaries (1st level warriors/commoners - keep it 3e) and 10 applicants have shown up. Let's not get into how the hiring was done, it's not really a big issue. There's many ways that could be handled, and that's more or less up to the table. So, on with hiring. Let's say the group does the right thing. They interview each prospective troop and pick the six they like. Takes about 40 minutes of table time. Reasonable?
Other than the fact that the manner in which the hiring is done is the aspect which will most likely bring a measure of engagement to the 40 minutes of role play. Since we are making assumptions let’s assume that the NPC’s had well established and played personalities, the 40 minutes flew by, and the players talk for years about how these fully fleshed out NPC’s enhanced the game experience.
But OK, we spent 40 very enjoyable minutes role playing our PC’s personalities and interacting with NPC’s who also had fleshed out personalities.
Now, they fail to find the criminal. They hire him unwittingly, despite everything, they still get this NPC. Then, they go to outfit the NPC's, playing through the equipping process because they want to be sure that the spears they are buying aren't warped or brittle and going to break on the first hit. Takes another ten minutes. Again, am I building straw men here?
I’m with Celebrim on the “playing out a shopping expedition” aspect. But let’s assume we have played out 10 minutes of fabulous role play with the players’ favorite weapons dealer from times past – consider him a deveel, a ferengi, etc., well fleshed out and the bargaining is an aspect of the campaign that players regale other gamers with at every opportunity.
On the way back to the lair, they are spotted and the authorities are called in to apprehend the wanted criminal. The party surrenders, not wanting to start a fight with the authorities and have no real loyalty to this NPC whom they've just met. The party is taken into custody for questioning as well. They get questioned, the authorities buy their story and they are sent on their merry way. Takes another twenty minutes of table time. I think this one might be the least likely since players never surrender, but, I digress.
Again, like Celebrim, I question whether this is the likely or best reveal, but let’s roll with it (even the prospect of PC’s surrendering!). In keeping with our theme that NPC’s are fleshed out and interesting, the authorities include a former colleague of one PC, whose background included working as a city guard. This colleague has worked his way up through the ranks, and is leading the particular group, so the PC was unwilling to just fight his way out, instead engaging with this old comrade. That comrade just KNEW when he heard his old buddy was looking for spearmen that he’d somehow manage to recruit this criminal who has gone to ground and been so difficult to track, so he staked out the group hoping for just such an occasion. After some discussion, the old colleague lets slip that there’s a reward for this fellow’s capture, and the PC’s negotiate being paid the reward in exchange for peaceably turning the criminal over. 20 minutes of great role play that maybe sets up contacts in the city guard going forward, perhaps results in a vengeful blood enemy if that criminal escapes, and leaves you one man down for the battle with the Grell – recruit another or carry on?
So, we have just spent about an hour and a half on scenes that have nothing to do with our goal. Nor do they further our approach of our goals in the slightest.
PC goals? No. Player goals? 80 minutes of great, in-character role playing action that furthered the goal of obtaining the mercenary support, developed more ties with that weapon supplier, established connections within the city watch and possibly set up a future adventure related to that criminal. What a great break between the grind of a dungeon crawl with nothing but constant, repetitive tactical combat scenes. Eighty minutes well spent, and bonus xp to all the PC’s for great role playing and developing their characters. On to the Grell!
This is the kind of thing that I hate with a passion. I loathe this kind of thing in games. And, I really do see this style of play as really stifling creativity. What do you think would be the odds that this group would ever try to hire someone again?
Pretty good, actually. Or maybe they’d try to track down and recruit some or all of the five guys who worked out well – we didn’t hear a lot about them, but I assume they are also fleshed out, interesting characters in their own right, so if I need help again in this neck of the woods, they (and/or that guard captain from one PC’s past) would be the first people I’d try to get in touch with. Wow, a world with interesting and engaging recurring NPC’s. You’re right – what player group could possibly want a game like that instead of one where you insert a gold coin in a slot and out pop three man-days of L1 Warrior service?
And, again, totally fine. But, that's what we want. So, obviously, you're not the right DM for this group. Which is what I've been saying all the way along. Not that your way is wrong. But, that we want different things out of the game. We have a clearly defined goal - kill the grell for killing one of ours. It's not exactly Shakespeare, but, then again, there's a whole lot of stories out there that are based on exactly this.
I've already clearly stated what I want the mercenaries for. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just one job and they're done. That's it.
I like to think the players are thinking past the next combat scene with a broader goal, and I think it essential the GM layer the game in such a fashion. The encounters as you try to recruit may not be directly relevant to the 10-15 minute battle to slay the grell, a one shot monster who will never be seen again, but will hopefully foreshadow future encounters, possibly tie in to the longer term goals of the party, maybe start the ball rolling to future adventures, and basically work to make a game that is a layered work of shared fiction rather than a series of loosely linked tactical combat exercises.
Like I said, in my games, you would hire the mercenaries, and the next scene would be outside the grell's lair. The NPC's would all be warrior 1's and pretty much completely under your control. Done.
Truly the stuff of songs and legend. **yawn**
Only if your measure of relevance is ingame geography.
If you measure of relevance is stuff that the players are invested in, then a siege of the city in which their destination temple is located strikes me as quite a bit more relevant than the surrounding desert.
That relation is purely procedural - I have to cross the desert to get to the city. Without more, it is not an emotional or thematic relationship.]
And I must get past the locked gates or beseiging force to enter the city. Where is the emotional or thematic relationship? It’s in the nature of the experiences in either the desert or the efforts to get into the city so we can pursue our next short-term objective within the city.
I don't know the books you're referring to. The Seven Samurai, though, read through RPG lenses, isn't about recruitment of NPC mercenaries. The samurai are the PCs, the peasants are NPC patrons.
Differentiating PC’s and NPC’s outside a game context is a challenging exercise at best. My preference is a game that does not assume PC’s are the only characters with any personality or potential to recur. Your own engagement in the NPC’s of a different campaign suggests I am not alone in this.
In any event, I don't play RPGs to experience the GM's narration of his/her gripping stories and NPC personalities, nor do I have that sort of goal in mind when I GM. (This is another version of @
Hussar's "fanfic" comments upthread.)
Agreed. At the same time, I don’t think the game is nearly as interesting if the PC’s live in a vacuum with a tattered backdrop, rather than a living world, in which to adventure. There’s a balance to be struck, and “skip along to the next scene” doesn’t strike it, any more than watching the GM play out interactions between a bunch of NPC’s however compelling his dramatic fiction.
BTW, the GM rolling dice for 6 spearmen vs the Grell is at risk of falling into that trap as well.
This way of looking at the situation is very foreign to me. If it's the players' goal to kill the grell, by way of vengeance, then that's their goal. If I as GM want to link that in some way to a bigger picture, or some other - perhaps more profound - player gaoal, then the onus is on me to do that without getting in the way of the players. And frankly there are dozens of ways to do that, some involving the mercenaries, some not, but none of which involves free narration in 90-minute detail of the hiring process.
One reason given for the importance of the grell was that it occupied a choke point the PC’s needed to get past with limited time. That suggests some other, longer-term, goals of which we are not aware. Whether the mercenary recruitment can be used to link into those goals is a question we can’t answer because we do not have that broader context. The GM, I assume, has the context of the PC’s mid term goals (broader picture of what they presently seek to accomplish), their long term goals (character background, etc.) and the upcoming events likely or possible in his own game milieu, so I think he has a lot more specific detail to work with in planning the mercenary recruitment than we do.
@
JamesonCourage and I are far from identical in playstyle, but look at his description upthread of his "mercenary's widow" complication: he didn't divert play for 90 minutes onto stuff the players weren't engaged with and weren't interested in. He introduced the complication as an immediate and integrated component of resolving the actions that the players had declared for their PCs; and then followed the players' leads in developing it. That's the sort of GMing that I admire and enjoy and try to learn from.
But he delayed the party getting their vengeance on the Grell. That is the only thing Hussar is interested in at this moment in time, and anything deviating from immediate return to the GrellQuest is tagged as unacceptable.
Is the real problem that the GM wanted to spend time on the NPC recruitment process, or that he did a poor job with the NPC’s themselves? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] questions whether the players will ever try to receuit NPC’s again. How many times will the GM try to create engaging NPC’s with real personalities and backstories to interact with the PC’s, only to have the players say “Nah, just want cardboard cutouts” before he simply reduces his game to a series of loosely connected tactical combat scenarios, since the players seem to just want to skip from one of these to the next?
The player group should be prepared for the explicit and expected consequences of their actions and be prepared to deal with them. They can request to DM to skip them if they feel they are inconsequential, but they should be prepared to deal with them if the DM disagrees on their irrelevance. The group is in the desert because they chose to go there -- they may have hoped to avoid it by rolling low, but such is the nature of relying on luck. Now that they are here, they have to get there and the DM thinks the travel in consequential let's get started. If the situation is unacceptable the player group should prepare the PCs to mitigate those consequences.
The group knows that 50% of the time the group would be 200+ miles from their destination. If it does not prepare to mitigate that journey and the DM believes the journey to be consequential then the outcome is a lot of walking. In a tightly-focused story-based game, the DM is likely to consider the travel inconsequential or it is consequential and it is time for the players to figure out why.
So a GM shouldn't feed the consequences of player action back to the players in a player-driven game? You and I have different definitions.
Agree fully. If the choices the players make have no consequences, and no impact on where the game goes next, they didn’t really have any choices at all – they are just railroaded along between scenes, with their choices having no bearing on whether they succeed or fail, or how effective they are at achieving their goals. The only difference is that, instead of frustrating the players’ ability to guide their PC’s destiny, the GM is acquiescing to their whims so there is no real challenge to achieving their goals.
I suspect the DM didn't spend 90 minutes of time presenting a monologue to the players regarding who showed up. That means one or more players participated. Obviously, Hussar did not enjoy the episode. I will not comment on how appropriate the time spent was since I do not know how engaged the other players were in the scene. It has certainly been the case for me that the players have spent much longer talking to what I thought of as bit players than I thought reasonable. I won't comment on the DM's motivation or competency since we only have part of one side of the story.
What the other players were doing is a question that continually goes unanswered. This can have a few meanings. It could mean they were engaged and having a blast, and Hussar’s pressure to push along would ruin their fun, so Hussar doesn’t want to answer the question because it will not favour his position. It may be that Hussar has no idea because he was focused solely on his own experience at the table, and not on the other players’ fun, despite his assertions (which seem to have faded) that he is focused on the enjoyment of everyone at the table, not just, or even primarily, his own, altruistic fellow that he is. Or maybe they were also bored to tears, but I would have expected that to have been mentioned before we were 50+ pages in, especially with numerous questions about their level of engagement (sheesh – that’s a cue that we want to explore that aspect of the scene, Hussar!)
Because you can think of even more scenes based on player cues and desires set in their current location and you can make the location and poor spell result memorable, fulfilling, and relevant i.e. story now? Why are you assuming the desert had no value to the table? Because a single player doesn't see that value immediately?
A concise summation of the issue.
It's the GM's job in player-focused games to make the consequences of player action meaningful and valuable and advance the narrative. Here's a consequence the group won't experience everyday -- trapped in a desert in the Abyss; that should be tied back to something.
Again, the sense I get is that we are to trust Hussar’s judgment as to how the game will be most fun, but we should never extend any trust to the GM, as GM’s are consistently out to ruin the players’ fun, over and above all other objectives.
Linking this to the siege idea from upthread - as the GM narrates the PC's crossing of the desert on their arthropod, s/he also mentions the airborne scout who flies overhead (maybe a vrock?). So when the PCs arrive in City B, some relevant antagonist is alerted to their coming. (Or even sends out some sort of advance hit squad.) There's any number of ways of making the Plane Shift displacement a cost without dissipating plot momentum.
This could very well be a couple of encounters in the desert. However, if you read Hussar’s posts, he posits that the centipede ravel
eliminates all possibility of encounters in the desert – he has pre-judged that all such encounters are both meaningless and easily avoided by his centipede mount. There is no reason the encounters you suggest (or, despite some voiced acceptance now, a siege or locked city gates) would be any better received than the “bandits in the desert” he so consistently refers to. Maybe those bandits include that criminal from GrellQuest – closure, or extension, of that story arc. Perhaps they are deserters from the besieged or the besiegers, providing foreshadowing of that upcoming complication and/or some intel to assist in resolving it successfully. Or would that also be contrived?
I recently started a new job. Unknown to me, also working here are a lady I worked with about 15 years ago, and a lady who I went to elementary school with well over 30 years ago. That sure sounds contrived, doesn’t it? I mean, who could ever credit such a coincidence as being reasonable – shocks me right out of my suspension of disbelief.
Yes, I got that much. That's not my question. Surely the whole campaign wasn't about killing this particular grelll. Surely you were trying to accomplish something before the grell interrupted that. Are you saying that once you as a character establish a new subgoal, the skillful DM interrupts all existing story lines and all prior character motivations and just focuses on that new subgoal?
The tunnel vision is a significant contributor to the problem. “Accomplish one task and move on to the next” seems a very dull way to run a campaign. But to each his own, I guess (to follow the theme of disparaging another game of which I have minimal knowledge, then dismiss it that others may enjoy such monotony in their leisure time).
I guess that depends on what you ask for. Right now you are asking to not merely for the ability to hire mercenaries but to dictate to the DM the mechanical attributes of the NPCs, to obtain control of NPC's as if they were 100% loyal henchmen/followers/companions, and dictate the game's scene framing. As a general approach to play, this seems likely to become dysfunctional in a hurry.
I question how [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would react if the GM insisted on exercising a similar level of control over scenes in the game. Or perhaps much of this thread indicates exactly how he would react.
There is no next scene in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s world – he is focused exclusively on a single scene to the exclusion of all else.
but, I digress.
