You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[JamesonCourage]

But, see, this last part? DON'T CARE. I don't want to. That's something that keeps getting left out of the discussion. I don't want to do this. And, before the strawmen start coming out, by "this" I mean this particular scene. I do not want to talk to these people. I would not interact with these NPC's in any way, if I didn't have to. Learning their life story is not part of anything. I simply do not care.

That you don't care keeps getting left out? In the very post that you replied to, I said "You don't like that kind of game, which is fine." Am I leaving that out?

Both actually.

Then, as I said, I disagree with your opinion, and my experience differs.

I've never seen a DM who creates 50 pages of desert backstory then be perfectly fine leaving it on the floor if the players choose to ignore it. After all, I was told some pages ago that this was a perfectly good reason for the DM to force me to interact with the desert/wasteland. So, why is that a good reason, but this isn't?

Do you believe everything every GM says (even if you take it out of context) applies to every table and every poster in this thread? If so, then don't worry; I won't make you interact with the desert just because I think it's cool and I wrote a lot about it. There. Now you can apply that to every GM in this thread.

Fair enough. But, why are you forcing me into play that I don't want? Why are you adding complications when there are already things to do in the game? If I was just hiring camp guards and then bringing them along for an extended period? Ok, fine. There's all sorts of ways to add in the interactions. But, in this specific example, they are there for a specific reason. Why add in a bunch of extraneous stuff when it's not needed, and, if the players have their way, will never actually come up in play?

A couple of things, here. First, players don't always get their way. It's part of what makes the game fun. Last night -for the first time this campaign- a PC died. He didn't want to, but he accepted it, as did the player. He went out in an awesome way, but he thought it would be cool to live. However, he also saw how cool it was for his character to die there, and rolled with it. It opens up new possibilities. It changes the landscape of the entire campaign. It's interesting, even if it's not what he wanted. It's like "fail forward" in games; you get closer to your goal, but complications happen along the way. Complications that are hopefully interesting. To my group, they are. So I use them.

Secondly, I want to answer your "why are you forcing me into play that I don't want?" question. Basically, it's a very simple answer: because I'm running the game, and this is the way I run it. And, I run it that way because it's fun for me, and my friends seem to have a lot of fun with it.

Will I force you to play it if you're at my table? Yes, I will. Will I force you to stay at my table? No, I won't. Will I force you to play at my way at your table? No, of course not. I've already said that there's no problem with you playing your way, and I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Yes, they will. Because, over a long enough span of time, "sometimes" becomes always. Not every time, of course. But, it will happen.

No, they won't. And it's fairly unbelievable to me that you're telling me that every group that uses complications in their games will eventually end up with everything screwing over their PCs. But you are. So, I don't think we can go anywhere from here. You're so obviously wrong (as far as my table is concerned) that it's not even something I can put effort into debating. It might end up that way at your table, but not mine, and I'm guessing not pemerton's or Celebrim's or at a host of other tables.

Which means that the players have to treat every time as "this" time. Because, if they don't, then the sometimes will come up and bite them on the ass. Say that a bad thing will happen sometimes. The first three times we hire hirelings, nothing bad happens. So, we don't check. We don't bother playing through a bunch of pointless interactions, because the last three times we did, it was pointless because there was nothing to find. Then the fourth time, we miss the doppleganger and the entire party dies in their sleep. Or the thief steals our stuff. Or the spy reports on us. Whatever. The point is, unless we treat EVERY situation as the "sometimes" situation, we're going to have problems.

This is extremely different from what you just told me. This is the old "trap in the dungeon" problem. That, as long as their are traps in the game, you need to treat every place as having traps, or you'll probably eventually get hit by one. Which is true. And yes, the same goes for hirelings that might betray you, or whatever.

However, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no traps as long as you check, and no traitors as long as your talk to people, and the opposite as soon as you stop. Which still isn't what you said in your last small paragraph, but is what you might be implying now. And again, it's not true, from my experience. I've heard stories of that from tables before (only online), and I believe them, but this is not a universal problem.

So, play grinds to a crawl because we have to treat every situation as being potentially hostile. At some point, the players are simply going to stop bothering trying things like this because they get tired of playing pixelbitching games with the DM where they have to "find the complication".

To be fair, some complications are quite open. Like the scene where the party barbarian killed someone who had a wife that he didn't know about over a matter of pride. Very much in the open.

As for the group that needs to pixelbitch... why is every complication that arises devastating? I think I can see why it might be for your group. You seem very interesting in your party stuff, but not too much else. So, you value your lives, your gear, your plans, but it doesn't seem like you value other NPCs, cities, in-game philosophy, etc. (though you might, and I could be wrong). So, in your group, complications consist of hurting your party, your lives, your wealth, your gear, or your plans.

However, I get to use other complications that don't devastate the party very effectively. The man's wife, friendly NPCs being corrupted / threatened / killed, enemies maneuvering to worsen the social standing of the PCs, bad weather that affects the war effort (on both sides), and a host of other things. And none of it is necessarily devastating to the party. But it's a lot easier to use them, because my party is invested in so many other things.

So, yes, this is why I feel that the GM is forcing people to do this. And nothing in this thread has convinced me of anything different.

Well, after this particular post of yours, I'm not surprised by this.

When GM's interpret "best" as hiring someone who will kill me in my sleep? Yeah, that's about as antagonistic as it gets. When I get a lame horse if I don't play through buying a horse? Even if I buy five horses no problem, I still have to play through every single time, because I have no idea when the "lame horse" complication is going to happen. When I am going to miss necessary resources if I don't mine every scene, despite having no actual connection to or interest in the scene? Because if I don't mine every scene, I'm going to have to come back later and do it anyway.

Do you really consider this to be good DMing advice?

Depends. You don't want to, because it's not fun for you. It'd be bad for you. What if I found it fun? Would it be bad GMing then? If it is, am I doing "D&D" wrong? My fun is badwrong? That's why I don't like the "is this bad GMing" question.

But, you can also use the methods to resolve things that posters have said. Rolling things out works (have a standard "we take 10 to question them" thing going on for all potential problems). And, I doubt anybody who's mentioned a lame horse as a possibility has it being a common option, so it'd be a once/campaign deal, I'm guessing, and even then, you can have your "take 10" thing going.

But, I don't think anyone is suggesting that you screw your players over as much as you can as often as you can. And you seem to be saying that they are doing that, and are advocating it. Well, I vehemently disagree. That's just unreasonable, Hussar. It's ludicrous.

A later thought. ((Maybe I'm thinking too much about this thread. ))

Take the example of hiring the hirelings and getting a wanted criminal. Now, the DM adds in the complication of the wanted criminal. But, this complication is completely separate from the players' stated goals. In fact, this complication does nothing to further these goals whatsoever and can only serve to delay or distract from their goals. At best it's a wash and the players don't interact with it. At worst, significant table time is spent on a sidebar complication that is not relevant.

The "at best its a wash" thing clearly goes against what other posters in this thread have explicitly mentioned (making a friend in the guard captain if you turn him over, or something along those lines), and it does directly affect their goal of "kill the grell" by having one less guy. But okay.

My advice to DM's is, don't do this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding in complications. But, do so with the goals of the players in mind.

Nothing wrong with this approach, but it's hardly universal. I'll get to an example, below.

Compare the two desert city examples - the city is under siege and there are desert bandits. Now, in the city siege example, the DM has added a complication that is directly related to our goals. Obviously we cannot simply walk into a city under siege. Additionally, if the siege is successful, maybe our goals will be lost - thus adding a nice, possible, time pressure. As an added bonus, the siege might actually be turned into a resource - the PC's could potentially join the siege and help break into the city in order to reach their goal. It's possible and presents the players with a broad range of choices for achieving their goals. Great.

Okay.

Now take the desert nomads example with a prisoner. In order for this to become relevant to the players, they must first interact with the nomads, presumably defeating them in some manner in order to secure the release of a prisoner they don't even know exists and then finally interact with that prisoner in such a way that he reveals that he has resources that will help the players. In other words, there is no relevance to this complication for the players until the very end of things. The players are very much disconnected from the entire scenario until the very last.

Okay, let's look at a random encounter in a very popular TV series: Game of Thrones. Tyrion is captured, and on his way to await trail for a murder. Along the road, they are attacked by some hill tribesman. This does a couple of things.

One, it gives Tyrion and Bronn a somewhat superficial but real bonding experience afterwards, which might directly lead to him offering to champion Tyrion later. And two, it shows that the hill tribes are dangerous, and in the area, which sets us up for when Tyrion and Bronn meet them on the road later, where they go on to play an important role for Tyrion.

As a player, I'd have no problem with this. You might; it's not directly related to your current goal. But, for me, this random encounter might lead to a very different campaign than one where I hadn't played through it. If Bronn never championed, Tyrion, how different would things be in the series?

So, that's why I like them. I get why you don't. You've said as much. But I'd only suggest skipping these scenes if they aren't fun for you, or if you don't want the results they can bring. I don't think it's a good idea to skip it as a general rule, because, well, that'd be a bad suggestion for my group. We find that kind of thing interesting.

I've been asked repeatedly how I know that the desert isn't relevant. It's not relevant because there is nothing prepared beforehand to make it relevant. All of the relevance is invested in the goal - the city. Why would I interact with the nomads? I have no particular reason for doing so. At best, again, it's a distraction and a delay. Adding in a Macguffin at the end of the scenario in an attempt to retroactively add relevance rarely works IMO. Instead you have signficant time spent in frustration followed by a very brief, "Oh, that's why we did that." moment.

Wait, you mention 50 pages of backstory on the desert at one point... I think we can reliably assume that something in there makes it relevant. But, not, now it's retroactive? And, it's okay to force players to interact with it if it's planned relevance, but not improvised relevance? Why does that make sense?

My advice to DM's. If it's not relevant and by relevant I mean relevant to the players, don't do it.

YMMV, and all. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's as good an encapsulation as any I suppose. Nothing too controversial I don't think. I just try to make sure that we've coordinated enough regarding each player's thematic content such that I can challenge it appropriately and address their premise coherently. I'm sure most folks do something similar to one degree or another; pemerton for his campaign asked his players to have a cosmological hook (I think?) and to have a reason to fight goblins. I'm sure you do generally the same thing. It seems you tend to like your players (or perhaps it is better put to say they like it themselves) to have some eccentricity or something that sets them apart that you can challenge and that they can explore. Same deal.

I agree, nothing too controversial. It's definitely not universal, but plenty of players give clues to what they'd like (on their character sheet!), or outright say what they think would be a cool direction when speculating about events, etc., and plenty of GMs improvise based on those things. The pre-planning (insomuch as it is) is only a variant of that, I think.

And, I think pemerton asked for "a reason to fight goblins" and "someone you're loyal to", but I'm not 100%. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

You are the one that first brought the term 'morphic' into play.

Actually, you used that word in your post 548. I quoted your use of it in post 566. Which is how it then got incorporated in my exchange with [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION].

 

[pemerton]

You seem to be saying others are bad GMs because they play differently from you.

I'm saying that they would be bad for me, and I wouldn't want to play with them. And that's true. I'm not saying they suffer from any character flaws.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Wait, you mention 50 pages of backstory on the desert at one point... I think we can reliably assume that something in there makes it relevant. But, not, now it's retroactive? And, it's okay to force players to interact with it if it's planned relevance, but not improvised relevance? Why does that make sense?

I believe Hussar's point on this was that none of that 50 pages of backstory was given to the players, thus the DM really shouldn't be surprised when the players are like "Oh, it's a desert. Let's just get through this as fast as we can." because they don't have that information.

And do keep in mind people have been tripping over their words in this thread for some time. It's a passionate debate, so there will be complicated ideals that might not get fully expressed in so few posts and might seem hyprocritical at first glance. And they might very well be at odds with one another because people can't always be expected to be internally consistent or reasonable.

 

[N'raac]

As I've noted, there's another way to do it too - to have the PCs do it in depth but the table resolve it quickly.

That method means that he GM is forced to assess the priorities of the players. He must decide, or example, whether the PC's accurately assess the combat ability of the potential hirelings, and whether they determine hat one of them is unsavoury (perhaps a wanted criminal, perhaps just someone who won't have much loyalty to the PC's) and whether, having made those assessments, they would consider the combat ability of the unsavoury fellow to outweigh his less desirable attributes and hire him (1) or that his con's outweigh his pro's, so he his application is declined (2).

(1) and be accused of a Gotcha if something bad results from those unavoury attributes
(2) and be accused of a Gotcha if those inferior combat abilities result in th selected hires not getting the job done.

So the GM can avoid being dumped on by the players only if he delivers the precise best case scenario the players desire each and every time, or he makes the players assess the options for themselves.

Do you accept that neither of these statements is true for Hussar (or me)? That we prefer relevant things that are connected to the immediate situation (incuding the siege rather than the nomads).

Again, I come back to the dual possibilities that something not directly relevant can still add to the game, and that it may not be immediately obvious when something has relevance.

< snip>

So is the besieging force. The difference is that you assume you can easily go around the nomads, but not the besieging force.

Which two statements? I will assume the two stated as dual possibilities. I do not believe that these are subjective. I agee that you (and Hussar) do not acknowledge or accept these possibilities.

The plane of Limbo in AD&D is a morphic world - it changes over time and in response to its inhabitants whims.

You are the one that first brought the term 'morphic' into play.

you are the one that brought that red herring into this.

If you must label this, I suggest it's a 'schrodinger's universe'

'schrodinger's' is the term I wanted to use, and I settled on using 'morphic' for consistency with prior posts.

If a ravine suddenly appears, should the player not have an argument that ravines are typically visible from some distance, and perhaps he should have had the option not to ride towards the ravine? If there are two of us, and one rolls a 1 and the other a 20, does the ravine exist for only one of us? What if I want there to be a ravine - can I make a Nature check (or whatever) to cause one to spring into existence, conveniently where I wanted it to be? Can my opponent roll an opposed check against me to prevent there being this ravine that would be to my benefit and his detriment?

You don't. No one said you do. But unlike Hussar's GM, I don't have posters on these boards complaining that my game is boring and that I'm a bad GM. And I take that as a modest piece of evience that I'm not a bad GM - I'm capable of framing scenes in which my players are interested and ready to engage.

I don't see any of your players leaping to support you either. "No evidence" is not the same as "evidence". I also see no one else who was involved in Hussar's game clarifying the views of the other players or the GM. That doesn't prove anything, other than that we have only one participant's pespective to go on. It is no more valid to say the lack of anyone stating you ae a bad GM supports the view that you are not, than it would be to say the fact no one is posting comments on your DMing indicates you have bored them all right out of the hobby, if not to an early grave, so they are not here to comment.

This seems to me a pretty big point of difference between us. At least for my part, what you're describing here is a railroad - the scenario and sites of action determined by the GM without regard to the players.

So if the PC's are not omniscient - they must know the relevance, short and long term, of each and every action they take, this is a "railroad". In a sandbox game, the players have no idea what may or may not be relevant, nor how they might tie together. The fact they do not know these things does not, in my view, suggest a classically defind "railroad".

Yes. You seem to think that Hussar and I are whiners because, both as players and GMs, we play differently from you.

I think someone who is likely to get shirty when the GM does not accept his off the cuff strategy resolves any and all issues, known and unknown, in precisely he manner the player envisions, with no possibility of any complications, seems quite likely to be a whiner. I also think that classifying anyhing that does not accord with your preferred approach as Bad GMing is prety whiny. That in no way means I think everyone who plays differently is a whiner. It is the manner in which those differences are addressed, not the fact that they exist, which would establish someone as a whiner.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I believe Hussar's point on this was that none of that 50 pages of backstory was given to the players, thus the DM really shouldn't be surprised when the players are like "Oh, it's a desert. Let's just get through this as fast as we can." because they don't have that information.

That might be true, but his advice to GMs amounts to "no surprises", then? "No reveals"? There are enough positive posts on them from GMs and players alike on these boards that I'm having trouble why that makes sense as general advice to GMs.

And do keep in mind people have been tripping over their words in this thread for some time. It's a passionate debate, so there will be complicated ideals that might not get fully expressed in so few posts and might seem hyprocritical at first glance. And they might very well be at odds with one another because people are just that way.

I get that there are different play styles, and I've tried to often explicitly say "it's cool if you like/don't like this" in this thread. But, it's the general advice or misrepresentation I'm objecting to. But, yes, it's good to point out people might be self-contradictory at times. It's always hard to deal with, but, yes, it happens. So, thanks for pointing it out, and putting that into perspective. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

Wait, you mention 50 pages of backstory on the desert at one point... I think we can reliably assume that something in there makes it relevant. But, not, now it's retroactive? And, it's okay to force players to interact with it if it's planned relevance, but not improvised relevance? Why does that make sense?

As near as I can tell, the relevance must be clear and obvious to the players/characters, or it is not relevant. The fact that it may be relevant without their knowedge of how or why is not sufficient - it must be known by the players to be relevant.

I believe Hussar's point on this was that none of that 50 pages of backstory was given to the players, thus the DM really shouldn't be surprised when the players are like "Oh, it's a desert. Let's just get through this as fast as we can." because they don't have that information.

That's the view I would expect from the PC's, and the initial approach I would expect the players to take. As a player, my approach when complications arise in the journey may well be loud complaints as a character, but as a player, I would expect that the relevance of this "sidetrack" will become clear in time. Or, even if its relevance is tangential at best, hat the side trek will enhance, not reduce, the fun at the table.

 

[Abraxas]

I'm saying that they would be bad for me, and I wouldn't want to play with them. And that's true. I'm not saying they suffer from any character flaws.

Hmm, that's not what I got from your posts (or Hussar's) - it seemed that you were saying they were bad as in forcing the players to suffer through some DM ego power trip. Oh well.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

That might be true, but his advice to GMs amounts to "no surprises", then? "No reveals"? There are enough positive posts on them from GMs and players alike on these boards that I'm having trouble why that makes sense as general advice to GMs.

I get that there are different play styles, and I've tried to often explicitly say "it's cool if you like/don't like this" in this thread. But, it's the general advice or misrepresentation I'm objecting to. But, yes, it's good to point out people might be self-contradictory at times. It's always hard to deal with, but, yes, it happens. So, thanks for pointing it out, and putting that into perspective. As always, play what you like

I'm hoping he means that the players need to have something to go on, but realizes that making everything explicitly known would mean there can't be some fun or interesting surprises. What level of reveal and buildup he likes is not fully known, and might not ever be because it's likely going to change.

As for pointing out how people are people, I'm hoping to steer everyone away from "he thinks differently, thus he's subhuman" or something. There's been enough heated language that I'm somewhat worried we all aren't treating each other as we should.