Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 1891957" data-attributes="member: 537">Because it clearly wasn't appropriate in the context of immediate past events in that game. For anyone who doesn't think of D&D only in narrow terms of world simulation (and that's the vast majority of people), that's a real and valid concern. As such, it's something the DM should take into account, unless they have players with much more focused tastes, or they actually derive pleasure from cleaning up messes at regular intervals.You seem not to realise that verisimilitude can be achieved in lots and lots of ways. It's entirely believable that the gnomes might betray the party. So effin' what?- It's also entirely believable that the gnomes might NOT have betrayed the party (maybe the leadership figured that the PCs were so badass it was better to suck up to them, rather than risking their wrath).- It's also entirely believable that the gnomes might have refused to deal with them (the gnomes don't want the PCs as an enemy, but past bad blood means they won't help them either).- It's also entirely believable that the gnomes might have attacked them on sight ("revenge for our dead!")Each of these options is plausible, but they lead to different challenges for the DM to handle, and have vastly different consequences if the DM doesn't get things right. Since the choice of which path to follow is ultimately up to the DM, it's also their responsibility to make sure they can handle the potential fallout. It's simple risk management: if you don't think you can handle something, don't do it.Your ability to use formatting tags is interesting, but does not help your argument.Hint 2: nobody ever said anything about the Diplomacy check affecting people who weren't there. You can continue bashing down this strawman if you like, but it died three pages ago.Swrushing has already pointed out one way to handle it, which would have produced far better end results than what actually transpired, and not required anything in the way of Diplomacy-at-a-distance. Clearly, swrushing is a good DM.IME, players tend to retain a lot less information from one session to the next, than the DM does. The DM is immersed in this all the time, in planning each adventure, keeping track of NPCs, figuring out how various organisations react to events, and so on. The players turn up each week, kill monsters, angst about their misfortunes, and go home. If they're particularly committed players, they might also write fanfics about their characters' exploits, or search for new crunchy bits that will allow them to cause even more mayhem. However, that comes nowhere near the volume of information that the DM is going to have.When we were doing the RttToH, in one session we got a password that would enable us to get past a locked door. Two sessions later (a month in real time), we got to that locked door, and none of us could remember we'd even found the password, let alone what it was: the DM had to remind us. And no, we're hardly lazy players.Oh dear.1) Movie is short.2) Campaign is long.3) "Movie" == "campaign" works not.Is it so hard to comprehend that the different storytelling frameworks involved mean that treating an entire campaign as equivalent to one, abbreviated storyline, is a nonstarter? We're not talking about a one-shot or even a short campaign. We're talking about a plot arc that's run for 35 sessions already.Try one, because the inherently messy nature of roleplaying means that you tend to get a lot less done in a session than you would in an equivalent amount of time in a movie or TV episode. And yes, as a general rule there should be a climax (read: big fight) at the end of each session (although like all general rules, deviating from it occasionally is fine -- just don't make a habit of it). It would appear that your sense of dramatic pacing needs work.That constitutes the NEXT plot arc. I guess it's a good thing you're not a storytelling DM.If you mean that I'm suggesting the DM must always follow genre, then of course not. However, it does put an onus on the DM to plan ahead if he's doing things differently, because unless clear information is given to the contrary, then the players will be expecting something other than what actually transpires. Failing to meet expectations is a great way to cause a trainwreck, and not doing his homework is a sign of a careless DM.Getting back to this particular scenario, everything about events up to this moment had pointed to the immediate storyline being finished. The party went into the dungeon, killed the bad guys, and got the artifact. In 99% of D&D games, that would have constituted a successful completion of an episode/storyline/adventure/whatever you want to call it. The logical next step would have been to start on getting the artifact repaired, and that would constitute another episode/storyline/adventure.Was there any hint from the DM that things might not yet be complete, in terms of retrieving the artifact? No.Was there any hint from the DM that they shouldn't think of repairing the artifact yet? No.COULD the DM have provided such hints, if he'd thought to do so at the time? Yes.WOULD such hints, delivered properly, have been detrimental to believability? No.Therefore, can the DM complain if the players get pissed off at having to start all over again? No.Are you finished putting up those strawmen yet? Gawd, I hope not.The climax of THAT PARTICULAR ADVENTURE, namely going into the dungeon, killing the bad guys, and finding the artifact, had occurred. Even if you don't believe me, the evidence of the players' reactions, who were the immediate audience for this narrative, is more than sufficient to demonstrate this. However, do continue attempting to justify a blatant anticlimax in narrative terms, if you wish. Next step: proving that black is white, and then getting yourself killed at a zebra crossing.As you said yourself, they remembered quite well what happened last week. You can continue arguing with yourself if you wish; however,1) given no indication (direct or indirect) that the gnomes might betray them (and don't start on that "Diplomacy doesn't work on the others" whine again, because it's absolutely irrelevant);2) given no indication that their expectations that the current plot arc was over might be wrong;I see absolutely no reason to believe that their reactions were anything other than what should have been expected.</blockquote>

Verification