Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Sadras]

@Celebrim great post #64- can't XP at this time

Yeah, I respect my players' agency enough to let them fail when they make a bad decision.

I agree with this.

What's wrong with giving the players what they asked for at this point? They've indicated that they don't want an encounter at this point, so what's wrong with just giving them what they asked for and moving on?

If memory serves me, the original poster's reason was that the PCs genuinely had no idea where they were in this new city. Are you suggesting the DM suddenly breaks immersion (for himself at least) and feeds players information just to keep the story going? As a DM I do not find it appealing. Like Abed in Community said "I have to remain objective, otherwise the game has no meaning"
You see it hasn't come down to the luck of die like in combat, where we as DMs might fudge once in a while, its come down to character decision-making which has brought them to be lost in the sewers.
Surely they could have done their research - purchasing maps of the town & maps of the sewers and began tracking their movement or attempt to get a guide (cleaner, architect, perhaps a sewer kid..etc) They didn't think it through, they fracked up, lets not defend the PCs here. Consequences of decision making...this is starting to sound familiar

This all relates to the same point - player knowledge. I would be hesitant to have the player learn whether or not his/her plan can succeed, in virtue of the gameworld backstory, only at the point of resolution. I generally prefer to have the players make their choices against a backdrop of known story elements, but in which they can't achieve everything they want (or, at least, not easily or obviously).

What is your opinion in the instance where PCs misread the desires/motivations of the NPC? Surely characters can be wrong? Do we as DMs have to spoon feed the PCs so that all information is readily available and known?
I agree we should at least hint at the information/knowledge is out there, but to only rule on whether a PC can be wrong if they have had all the knowledge known, is not something I subscribe to, gameworld backstory inclusive.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Another interesting (and oft-ignored) source of advice:

Finding new ways to challenge your players without resorting to capricious and arbitrary limitations on magical power can be a daunting task, and many DMs find themselves at one point or another treating the increasing capabilities of arcane spellcasters in their game as a trial to be overcome one spell at a time: monsters with blindsight and scent limiting the utility of invisibility; villains wearing rings of mind shielding to ensure the PCs can't easily scry them; greater dispel magic suddenly becoming the only spell your NPC wizard villains know how to cast; and so on.

This approach can too easily turn the campaign into an arcane arms race between the mages' capabilities and your own inventiveness. Even worse, it can trivialize the characters' accomplishments-if there's no advantage or benefit to having labored long and hard to add teleport to a spell list, why bother trying? You have to allow arcane spellcasters to use their new abilities, and let your game evolve accordingly as their power grows.

It goes on to provide a variety of common-sense advice for dealing with some of the more commonly game-breaking effects. Turns out, they're not really all that game-breaking. Surprise!

To a new DM though, it is a very important to just kind of reason through these things, as the implications of magic do require some thought.

 

[Emerikol]

Interesting discussion. I'm going to have to check out all D&D more often.

I think the choices you make in response to this thread is largely about your playstyle.

For me I want my players to...
Know what their characters know.
Be motivated by their characters motivations.
Avoid any metagaming.
Be tied closely to the setting in many ways.

For me the DMs job is....
Provide an engaging setting.
Help tie the PCs to the setting.
Objectively adjudicate the setting.

I achieve these goals by...
Doing the prep work. Know the river is at the bottom of the chasm.
Play the NPCs independently using THEIR predefined motivations.
Encouraging relationships that matter between npcs and the pcs.
Make your npcs have a personality!!

I never want to do anything that breaks the immersion of the players if I can avoid it.

 

[Emerikol]

Another interesting (and oft-ignored) source of advice:
It goes on to provide a variety of common-sense advice for dealing with some of the more commonly game-breaking effects. Turns out, they're not really all that game-breaking. Surprise!

To a new DM though, it is a very important to just kind of reason through these things, as the implications of magic do require some thought.

My goal is to play the Npc true to type.

If arms race behavior makes sense then it happens.
If not then it doesn't.

I try to stay true to setting and Npc background and experience.

 

[Mallus]

To a new DM though, it is a very important to just kind of reason through these things, as the implications of magic do require some thought.

The trouble with this is that D&D magic is a collection of spells & effects drawn from a wide variety of fictional & mythical sources, many of which were explicitly designed to be dungeon-exploring/problem-solving tools, collected over the course of several decades now.

ie - it's a bit of a mess. A big, honking mess (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Add to that the fact D&D magic is supposed to exist in settings which happen resemble the worlds of classic fantasy fiction & film, if not actual medieval Western Europe.

ie - worlds different from what would reasonably result from D&D magic existing.

I'd say "reason" isn't the best tool in this situation. I'd go with "a talent for rationalization & clever BS".

It's best that a beginner DM not get caught up trying to beat the inherently illogical into a logical shape. That way lies madness, or simulationism. Take your pick.

edit: I've found the best way to handle the logical implications of D&D magic is with tongue jammed firmly into cheek, using the spirit of Lewis Carroll as your guide. Then again, I may just be a sucker for the parody of logic.

 

[pemerton]

Emerikol, thanks for checking out the thread.

I never want to do anything that breaks the immersion of the players if I can avoid it.

I agree with this - but I think we have different approaches to doing this.

I think the choices you make in response to this thread is largely about your playstyle.

For me I want my players to...
Know what their characters know.
Be motivated by their characters motivations.
Avoid any metagaming.
Be tied closely to the setting in many ways.

For me the DMs job is....
Provide an engaging setting.
Help tie the PCs to the setting.
Objectively adjudicate the setting.

I achieve these goals by...
Doing the prep work. Know the river is at the bottom of the chasm.
Play the NPCs independently using THEIR predefined motivations.
Encouraging relationships that matter between npcs and the pcs.
Make your npcs have a personality!!

I agree with you that it's about playstyle. That was pat of my reason for starting the thread, to see what different people thought about these different approaches.

The bit about NPCs is interesting. I tend to prefer to leave NPCs flexible in their details and motivations, to be concretised in play as part of action resolution.

If memory serves me, the original poster's reason was that the PCs genuinely had no idea where they were in this new city. Are you suggesting the DM suddenly breaks immersion (for himself at least) and feeds players information just to keep the story going?

I would do this, yes, absolutely. Without informatioin the players can't engage the game. If it turns out that they don't have enough, my solution is to give them more!

There are a range of techniques for doing this. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s suggested one.

Surely they could have done their research - purchasing maps of the town & maps of the sewers and began tracking their movement or attempt to get a guide (cleaner, architect, perhaps a sewer kid..etc) They didn't think it through, they fracked up, lets not defend the PCs here.

For me, at least, my focus is not primarily on the PCs but on the players. If the game is stalling, that's something I want to rectify.

The research/guide thing isn't a solution for all styles - some tables prefer a "boots and all" approach (say, like an X-Men comic or an REH Conan story), in which the PCs jump into the situation and muddle things through.

What is your opinion in the instance where PCs misread the desires/motivations of the NPC? Surely characters can be wrong? Do we as DMs have to spoon feed the PCs so that all information is readily available and known?

Do you mean "PC" or "player"? I assume the latter.

This relates to Emerikol's comment about NPC motivations. I tend to prefer to keep them flexible in the backstory, so they can be used to keep things moving forward during actual play. If the player declares that his/her PC is going to try and turn Luke, and is sincere about making the attempt (ie it's not the player deliberately playing his/her PC as mistaken), then I would prefer to frame it as a skill check and narrate the details of Luke's character around the outcomes of that. (In the other thread I posted an example of a social conflict from my campaign that illustrates the technique I mean.)

 

[Sadras]

For me, at least, my focus is not primarily on the PCs but on the players. If the game is stalling, that's something I want to rectify.

Sure 100%.

The research/guide thing isn't a solution for all styles - some tables prefer a "boots and all" approach (say, like an X-Men comic or an REH Conan story), in which the PCs jump into the situation and muddle things through.

Yeah, personally I'm not good with the latter table approach. I'd be lost. I mean, what if your PCs went mountain climbing and forgot to purchase the rope, grapping hook, map...etc Is equipment out the window too or just the research/guide thing? I guess our table prefers the grittier more natural approach, than the devil may care mess. Even our XP rewards lean far heavier on travel, new experiences, research, social interactions, meeting new persona as opposed to primarily combat.
Both styles work of course, I just do not think it was fair to ask for the DM to yield information in that sewer situation having not identified his or the group's playstyle. This all is interesting because I think you could easier adapt to my group (research/guide/equipment) as they would just give you more to work with as a storyteller, than if I would to your PC group (muddling things through).

Do you mean "PC" or "player"? I assume the latter.

Sure via extension the character. Player doesn't do the thinking, the character doesnt to his homework.

This relates to Emerikol's comment about NPC motivations. I tend to prefer to keep them flexible in the backstory, so they can be used to keep things moving forward during actual play. If the player declares that his/her PC is going to try and turn Luke, and is sincere about making the attempt (ie it's not the player deliberately playing his/her PC as mistaken), then I would prefer to frame it as a skill check and narrate the details of Luke's character around the outcomes of that. (In the other thread I posted an example of a social conflict from my campaign that illustrates the technique I mean.)

From the above the equation one can formulate..
(PC Knowledge + Abillities) x Sincere Attempt = Possible Skill Check with Success/Failure as an Outcome

where,

Without information the players can't engage the game. If it turns out that they don't have enough, my solution is to give them more!

​

PC Knowledge = Adequate Knowledge

Right, so ignoring the Luke/Vader scenario and going back to the sewage one as I feel they run somewhat parallel:
Your PCs miss your intial clues to get required knowledge (i.e. they ignore the town's library archives), you continue to adapt the story so that the PCs acquire the information anyways (they bump into an old retired architect's assistant at a tavern), or (they find a kid in the sewers that guides them) or (they hear the gong of a church bell, knowing where they are in the sewers). So something along those lines?
Continually pushing the storyline forward, minimising setbacks and overlooking the Players/Characters "oversights"

 

[Gilladian]

I guess in this sewer situation, my solution to "you don't know where you are in the sewers" would be to then offer them several options for finding out, without negating their current choices/decisions.

1) you observe a grating in the roof of the sewer wherein a dim trickle of daylight filters down. If you climb up, you may see something. But did you bring climbing gear?
2) you heard voices 2 intersections back. It might have been a cleaning/maintenance crew, or maybe it was a group of rogues. Do you want to double back and find them?
3) there could be critters in the sewers. You've seen rats and that one gator. Could you get info from them, somehow?

I might not phrase each choice quite so bluntly, and I might not bother with one of these options if I knew they had no way to use it (ie no druid or ranger with animal communication skills). But I do think when the PCs ask for something it is incumbent on the DM to offer them a chance to figure out a way to reach their goal. NOT offer them the answer on a plate, not break immersion totally, but give them a choice, or remind them of a choice they've forgotten/ignored. It's a game, we're here to have fun, and it doesn't hurt to be a little generous now and then.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My goal is to play the Npc true to type.

If arms race behavior makes sense then it happens.
If not then it doesn't.

I try to stay true to setting and Npc background and experience.

A valid point. If the NPCs are specifically aware of the PCs' capabilities, an arms races is natural. There's also a general one-upsmanship occurring as everyone tries to get the best powers and shore up their defenses.

It only becomes problematic when there's a metagame aspect added, where the DM goes beyond what's reasonable in the context of the world.

 

[Hussar]

A thought about the Luke as NPC example.

I'd prefer that Luke's character develop in play rather than be pre-determined. Is it possible to turn Luke to the dark side should be determined in play.

If the Vader PC fails, then
Yes, Luke is not turnable. Otoh, if Vader succeeds, then Luke's feelings aren't so carved in stone.

I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see any inherent superiority over letting the story follow the trilogy over departing from canon and starting a new story where Luke and Vader team up to usurp the Emperor. Or maybe chase down Leia only to see Vader redeem himself. Or any of a number of alternate scenarios.

Which, if you predetermine results, can never occur.