Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

So I'm going to look at this impossible castle except for the sewers from a player's perspective. That set-up is pretty much guaranteed to keep the players from using the sewer. I mean, a king who is highly competent and protects his castle from every conceivable circumstance, yet leaves an enticingly easy sewer entry?! Admiral Akbar would immediately start screaming in my head and I'd try looking for creative ways to break the "impossible."

That's the way I tend to think, too, but that's not so much a railroad as psychological judo. If you know your players are more straightforward (and you know they have a hard time being otherwise) I think there's something to be said for not having the unguarded sewer inevitably be a trap, especially if finding the sewer is as hard as fighting your way through the main gate.

 

[FrozenNorth]

This has been pretty much my experience of published adventures, always. They don't make sense to me as a player, and they don't make sense to me as a GM. I don't particularly enjoy playing through them, and I do a horrible job of trying to run them.

I used to believe this, but I have since modified my stance.

A good Published adventure is great for giving a “spine” to the campaign (this is the overall goal, these are the principal enemies and obstacles, this is the flavour, here is what the players should know before creating characters) but the DM absolutely has to complete the spine with bones, muscles, skin and organs (not necessarily in that order).

If you do that, you will end up with a perfectly cromulent Frankenstein’s monster of an adventure (to return to our discussion of horror tropes).

 

[prabe]

I used to believe this, but I have since modified my stance.

A good Published adventure is great for giving a “spine” to the campaign (this is the overall goal, these are the principal enemies and obstacles, this is the flavour, here is what the players should know before creating characters) but the DM absolutely has to complete the spine with bones, muscles, skin and organs (not necessarily in that order).

If you do that, you will end up with a perfectly cromulent Frankenstein’s monster of an adventure (to return to our discussion of horror tropes).

Alas, they make so little sense to me that I'm in roughly the same boat as @Maxperson where it's literally more work to adapt a published adventure than to write my own. I enjoy the doing, there, so it's not punishment or anything.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I want to preface this by pointing out I am discussing when a DM blocks certain actions. Not when they are left to the dice to determine the outcome. I am talking about the paths to success when faced with an obstacle, and how if those paths are removed because the DM decides that they cannot work, no matter what, then the DM is pushing things toward a specific path.

If you don't do this, then whatever you're saying isn't really what I'm talking about.

No. Thought different, sure. Thoughtless no. It depends on the kind of game the players are looking for.

If the DM is not considering the threats he is placing in the PCs path, relative to their level/capability, then the DM is being thoughtless about the game. This is not the same as saying that every thing placed in front of the PCs needs to be something that they can defeat. It simply means that if the DM is responsible for the elements of the game world, then he should give some thought to how they will play, not just the fictional justification for their existence.

And they need not be mutually exclusive. Yes, things should make sense in the fiction. They should also make sense as a game. Sure, it makes sense that the lord would place his most capable knight at the front gate. It also makes sense that the knight has been sent on a quest by the lord, and so is unavailable to guard the gate. The fiction can be anything the DM wants......so whatever the fiction is, is the DM's choice.

So if the DM decides that the super high level knight is guarding the front gate, it's because he wants to deter the PCs from attacking. Which in and of itself is fine. I've absolutely done this in my game.....sometimes, it's interesting to remove one of the most obvious options, or perhaps the option that the PCs most often use....to see what else they come up with.

It only starts to become a problem when more and more options are thus removed by the DM, not because the PCs fail due to dice rolls, but because the DM decides that they simply cannot work.

Sometimes those things come into play during adventure design and sometimes not. That's why I said, "I think maybe you're looking for things that may not be present."

If the DM is not giving consideration to these things, then he is being thoughtless about the game.

If you only ever consider fictional justification....which as we've established can be almost anything you want it to be....then you're not considering the game that's being played.

Exactly. In the example above they messed up on the sewer and there's the possibility that someone inside can be bribed to weaken a defense, and more.

If multiple paths are being allowed, then this is not something I see as a problem. The DM is considering alternate paths for the PCs to get into the castle.

If the DM's notes say "the front gate is so heavily guarded that it's suicide to go that way, and all those who work in the castle are terrified of the lord to the point where they'd never consider betraying him, and there are no sympathetic NPCs outside the castle who will help the PCs.....but there is a forgotten and unguarded sewer grate that leads inside" and then play consists of the PCs fumbling about until they find the DM's one path to success......that is what I think is bad design, and is very much a railroad in my opinion.

Assaulting the gate by simply rushing into it can be suicide. Maybe they start a fire nearby and see if some or many guards can be pulled away by an emergency in the city. Maybe have the wizard launch a fireball at the gate to get attention and resources pulled that way and try a different gate while things are chaotic. Maybe...

The DMs job is to set things up and if the basic set-up has only the sewer as the easy way in, it's really up to the players whether to take that easy path or try something else that might work. It's not a railroad if the players decide not to challenge the basic set-up and take the easy path.

Yes.

Why not? I fully admit that I am responsible for setting things up so that they make sense with the fiction. Seems compatible to me.

The fiction is not the reason that anything is happening. As you say, the DM is responsible for all the fiction. Therefore, whatever happens in the game is very much determined by the DM, not by the fiction.

The fiction isn't deciding anything.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but I find that statement to be truly funny. I can count on one hand with 4 fingers and a thumb left over how many pre-written adventures I haven't had to change due to things not making sense or not being considered. They give away too much info here, too little there, don't account for X in this place, and Y in that. It's more work for me to use a pre-written adventure than it is for me to just make one up myself.

As I just noted, I learned that lesson decades ago.

Plenty of other people have run adventures exactly as written. Plenty of other people aren't worried about X in this place, or Y in that. Other people may think just the right amount of information is given here and there. Opinions on this vary, obviously.

I think this thread clearly shows that many folks cling too much to what's written, whether it's a published adventure or one of their own design.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion? Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?

You said that your players came up with 10 ideas, and that 3 could have worked. They chose poorly. Now, I don't know how you decide what would or would not work, but again, I'm talking about the cases where the DM blocks a certain path. So if 7 of 10 ideas simply cannot work, I'd not spend a lot of time on them. I'd instead focus on the three that may, or maybe on the three that may and then one or two of the impossible ones just for reference. I wouldn't want to spend 70% of our time on stuff that won't ultimately matter.

If you're not talking about paths that you simply would not allow, then I mistook your comment.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the way I tend to think, too, but that's not so much a railroad as psychological judo. If you know your players are more straightforward (and you know they have a hard time being otherwise) I think there's something to be said for not having the unguarded sewer inevitably be a trap, especially if finding the sewer is as hard as fighting your way through the main gate.

For sure. I often have easy ways not trapped for in fiction reasons. That doesn't stop the suspicious mind, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Alas, they make so little sense to me that I'm in roughly the same boat as @Maxperson where it's literally more work to adapt a published adventure than to write my own. I enjoy the doing, there, so it's not punishment or anything.

For me, I use published adventures when I'm having a bit of a creative slowdown. It may be more work, but it supplies the creativity and weeks of adventure, while I come up with other ideas on my own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@prabe I've snipped your post a bit to rely to only the parts below. I don't think I've changed any context by doing so.

Agree-ish. I think the GM who considers the possibilities ahead of time is maybe thinking more than the GM who is intending to see where the players wanna go (and I think the GM who's intending to see where the players wanna go is likely to be thinking--or at least creating--more during the session).

Thinking about the possibilities ahead of time or at the time of play is all fine. I think that what is a problem is deciding ahead of time that certain paths simply won't work.

Now, of course the fiction and logic come into this. But beyond that, if the DM decides ahead of time that certain paths cannot work, that seems questionable. The more options he removes in this way, the more problematic it becomes.

And sometimes those things have been previously established in the fiction, so the GM is ... kinda stuck with what he's said before. I do not doubt there are different preferences for that kind of internal consistency, but there's nothing inherently wrong or thoughtless about it.

If the fiction is established solely through DM choice....if the players have little to no input into the fiction....which is pretty much the default for 5e D&D....then he is not bound by the fiction in any way. It's hard to get stuck when you can say anything you want is so.

I don't think it's a matter of internal consistency so much as these things need to be considered on two levels. One is the fiction. The second is the game.

If everything I decide for the fiction.....the lord has vast resources of all kinds at his disposal....wizards, highly trained guards, golems, magical wards, and so on......and therefore his castle is impenetrable, this is all consistent, fictionally. It also sucks as a game if the PCs have come to think they need to get into the castle.

If the PCs are never allowed to reach a wrong conclusion, it'd seem as though their choices didn't matter. For some people, not being able to lose is as frustrating as not being able to win. Sure, there may be things the characters have a better sense of than the players--because it's their world--but that gets into a different kind of discussion.

When I DM 5E, I tend to flat out tell the players lots of details for which I think many other DMs would require a check. I want them to make informed decisions rather than hope to roll high enough to be able to do so. I'm more interested in the result of the stealth roll to get past the guard than I am in the perception check to see if there is a guard. That kind of thing.

I'm not at all advocating for not allowing the PCs to be able to lose.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM is not considering the threats he is placing in the PCs path, relative to their level/capability, then the DM is being thoughtless about the game. This is not the same as saying that every thing placed in front of the PCs needs to be something that they can defeat. It simply means that if the DM is responsible for the elements of the game world, then he should give some thought to how they will play, not just the fictional justification for their existence.

And they need not be mutually exclusive. Yes, things should make sense in the fiction. They should also make sense as a game. Sure, it makes sense that the lord would place his most capable knight at the front gate. It also makes sense that the knight has been sent on a quest by the lord, and so is unavailable to guard the gate. The fiction can be anything the DM wants......so whatever the fiction is, is the DM's choice.

If no thought is ever given to challenges, etc, the game can be considered thoughtless on the part of the DM. If thought is given in other areas, thought, then what I am describing is not thoughtless.

So if the DM decides that the super high level knight is guarding the front gate, it's because he wants to deter the PCs from attacking. Which in and of itself is fine. I've absolutely done this in my game.....sometimes, it's interesting to remove one of the most obvious options, or perhaps the option that the PCs most often use....to see what else they come up with.

This still is not true. If I place the super high level knight at the front gate because it's the most sensible thing in the fiction to do, it's not because I want to deter the PCs from attacking the front gate. My desires don't come into that decision other than the desire for things to make sense and the desire for the game to be fun for myself and the other players. That is also not a thoughtless decision. I put a lot of thought into what would make sense and why the knight is there.

It only starts to become a problem when more and more options are thus removed by the DM, not because the PCs fail due to dice rolls, but because the DM decides that they simply cannot work.

This is entirely dependent on what those options are and why the DM is deciding that they cannot work. If you have a jerk that is just removing options and saying no, because of what he wants to happen in the game, that's bad. If you have a thoughtful DM who is saying no to an option because it just flat out can't work, then it's not a problem at all.

If you only ever consider fictional justification....which as we've established can be almost anything you want it to be....then you're not considering the game that's being played.

I think you're looking at this through the lens of your preferred method of running the game. There are a lot of people for whom this type of play is most enjoyable. If I were to run it differently for my players, then I would not be considering the game that is being played. We emjoy a different playstyle.

If multiple paths are being allowed, then this is not something I see as a problem. The DM is considering alternate paths for the PCs to get into the castle.

To be honest, I rarely consider paths into and out of places. I just make the place in the way it seems like it should be made, given the fiction and have at it. Players are a very ingenious lot and will think of ways that work................and ways that don't. They may even figure out a way past Sir Invincible.

The fiction is not the reason that anything is happening. As you say, the DM is responsible for all the fiction. Therefore, whatever happens in the game is very much determined by the DM, not by the fiction.

The fiction isn't deciding anything.

I disagree. I look to the fiction to inform me of why to do something first and foremost. It's only after that fails, since the fiction far from covers all things, that I become the sole determiner for what will happen. For example, if the fiction has 1 or 2 probable ways something might happen, I will pick from those 1 or 2 options. The fiction is entirely the reason why that decision is being made by me. It's a shared determination, not solely mine. However, if there's nothing in the fiction to provide me options, then and only then is what is happening not being determined by the fiction and entirely my decision.

Plenty of other people have run adventures exactly as written. Plenty of other people aren't worried about X in this place, or Y in that. Other people may think just the right amount of information is given here and there. Opinions on this vary, obviously.

And plenty of other people use the Rule of Cool or anime style games. I'm not saying that my way is the only way or that other ways don't work. I'm saying that the way I run the game and my players like to play it, I cannot use any published adventure as written. They all(for the last 20ish years anyway) fail the to pass the bar.

I think this thread clearly shows that many folks cling too much to what's written, whether it's a published adventure or one of their own design.

Sure, but I think this is more due to inexperience than anything else. I grew out of that and all the DMs that I've seen from their early days on for a long period of time grew out of that. I'm sure some never go past that limitation, but I think most do grow.

You said that your players came up with 10 ideas, and that 3 could have worked. They chose poorly. Now, I don't know how you decide what would or would not work, but again, I'm talking about the cases where the DM blocks a certain path. So if 7 of 10 ideas simply cannot work, I'd not spend a lot of time on them. I'd instead focus on the three that may, or maybe on the three that may and then one or two of the impossible ones just for reference. I wouldn't want to spend 70% of our time on stuff that won't ultimately matter.

There were brainstorming how to solve the problem. What might or might not work. To show two of the ideas and how I made that determination I will give a bit of background.

There was an old woman in a small town of about 400 people. She was fairly mean and had lost her husband a few years earlier. He was what kept her from getting out of hand. In the few years prior to this adventure, she clashed a lot with several townsfolk. Some of the kids would tease her, because of how she acted and one broke one of her windows. Several neighbors got into arguments with her over one thing or another.

Nearby was a decrepit church to Beshaba(The Maiden of Misfortune) which had not been used in at least 100 years. The locals would not tear it down out of fear of Beshaba taking offense. The old woman eventually became angry enough to go into that church, knelt on the floor and prayed for misfortune to strike her tormentors. He prayer was answered, though not as she expected. The floor gave way beneath her and she plummeted into the basement and died upon impact, whereupon Beshaba brought her back as a ghost out for vengeance against those who she felt wronged her.

Every 7 days after she died, her anger built up enough that she manifested at her home and basically sought out one of her tormentors with single minded rage. The players discovered her motivation after talking with the townsfolk. They discovered her corpse in the church. And knowing what the PCs knew about ghosts, tried to decide how best to lay her to rest.

One of their ideas was to have all the townsfolk who had clashed with her go to the church and apologize at her body. I hadn't actually thought of that, but I knew that she rested at her body and was calmer during the 7 day build-up and would listen, and that would work. I'd have simply roleplayed out that scene and it would have worked. No roll involved. Another idea idea was to have the townsfolk at the site that she manifested and apologize as she came out of her hut. Since I knew that she was in a single minded rage at that point, the apologies wouldn't even register to her in that state. That method would fail. The nature of ghosts. They went with the second option and had to fight her off, at which point they gave up on the apology avenue and solved the issue another way.

If you're not talking about paths that you simply would not allow, then I mistook your comment.

I almost never say no they can't attempt something. If they wanted to try and jump a three mile wide chasm that is one mile deep, I'd let the player have his PC make that attempt and roll up a new PC. I'm not about stopping them from trying things. Things will just sometimes result in an an outright fail.

 

[Lanefan]

I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?

Either to a) make getting in more of a challenge either in fact or by appearances (that could, for example, be a simple grunt guard carrying a mockup of Sir Ancelyn's shield as a decoy*); or much less commonly b) - and sometimes there's good reasons for this - trying to funnel the PCs in (or away from) a particular direction or option.

* - and there could be some intrigue here if it ever comes out that Sir Andelyn isn't aware his shield design is being so used...

 

[prabe]

@prabe I've snipped your post a bit to rely to only the parts below. I don't think I've changed any context by doing so.

No worries. I suspect we're disagreeing around the edges, not at the core.

Thinking about the possibilities ahead of time or at the time of play is all fine. I think that what is a problem is deciding ahead of time that certain paths simply won't work.

Now, of course the fiction and logic come into this. But beyond that, if the DM decides ahead of time that certain paths cannot work, that seems questionable. The more options he removes in this way, the more problematic it becomes.

There is, I think a difference between the DM removing options that lead away from a preferred story and the DM removing options because they don't make sense, whether "they don't make sense" is because of something that has arisen in play or because there's something the DM knows that the players don't. It could even be just the way the DM thinks. For example, I was playing through the early stages of a published WotC adventure, and we came upon what were clearly signs marking the entrance to a Thieves' Guild Hideout; I said out loud at the table that if this were happening in a campaign I were running, those signs would lead to death traps, because what serious Thieves' Guild has fricking signs. The DM told me flat-out that he didn't want to play in a dungeon-crawl if I ever wrote one.

If the fiction is established solely through DM choice....if the players have little to no input into the fiction....which is pretty much the default for 5e D&D....then he is not bound by the fiction in any way. It's hard to get stuck when you can say anything you want is so.

This isn't entirely untrue, but it is eliding the possibility that the players may have acted in ways that have had ramifications. If this is well into a campaign, the players may have had more input into the fiction than you seem to be presuming. I'll admit that I was thinking of the possibility that the DM might have established something as a fact in the fiction, which the players might reasonably be expected to remember--and which it's also not unreasonable for the players to be reminded of, if they seem to have forgotten. If the campaign has much focus on world-building, that sort of thing should be consistent, IMO, and that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. (Also, if the place the PCs are going has been described previously ...)

If everything I decide for the fiction.....the lord has vast resources of all kinds at his disposal....wizards, highly trained guards, golems, magical wards, and so on......and therefore his castle is impenetrable, this is all consistent, fictionally. It also sucks as a game if the PCs have come to think they need to get into the castle.

Oh, sure, there needs to be consideration of the game, and the emergent story, and there should be at least one path through a given obstacle (or a willingness to allow paths to work--I don't insist that the DM know beforehand everything that will work). None of that seems as though it has to contradict the thought that there might be things that just won't work. It's maybe not horrible DMing to give PCs a chance to know that if the players don't (like making an Arcana check before casting Hypnotic Suggestion on a bunch of constructs--something I've done for a new player recently).

When I DM 5E, I tend to flat out tell the players lots of details for which I think many other DMs would require a check. I want them to make informed decisions rather than hope to roll high enough to be able to do so. I'm more interested in the result of the stealth roll to get past the guard than I am in the perception check to see if there is a guard. That kind of thing.

This isn't too far from how I DM--especially the one party that has several PCs who are effectively researchers, and spend lots of time in various libraries. Letting them know (or have a chance to know) stuff that allows for informed (or better-informed) decisions is kinda rewarding them for building and playing their characters that way.