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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1892384" data-attributes="member: 18280">First off, I am absolutely with you on the "The DM must have fun running the game" bandwagon.  I DM, almost exclusively, and have done so for about 25 years.  I put a lot more effort, and money, into my game than any one of my players, or even than all of them combined at any given time.  (Through the years, the sheer volume of players means that they probably spent more altogether on books, by this point, though!)  You hardly have to convince me of this.Ambrus was clear that his players (plural) were feeling down at the end of the session, and that some of them (again, plural) felt a bit strongly about this.  Upon reflection, some of those players decided that they weren't going to let this prevent them from enjoying Ambrus' game.  Indeed, they felt that they needed to defend him from the deconstruction going on in this thread.Our information available to decide whether or not the behavior (re: gnomes) was justifiable or not remains fairly scanty.  Several questions asked of Ambrus remain unanswered.  One of my own, ie, why the PCs could not go to the Church for help in shipping the artifact, seems to me to be relevant.  The fact is that, although I asked this question several times, and though other questions were answered around this time, this question was not answered.  Now, maybe this is because some upcoming plot thread hinges on the answer, and therefore Ambrus cannot answer.  Or it may be that he is simply not answering on the grounds that it may incriminate him.Ambrus' question was, "Am I a cruel DM?"  The answer is, clearly, "No."  If the question was, "Am I a good DM?" I would argue that, based upon what I have read here, the answer is clearly "Yes."  I would enjoy playing in Ambrus' campaign.Equally true, though, it is clear that the answer would be "No" if the question was "Did I handle this gnome betrayal thing in the best possible way?"  Moreover, I would contend that there is enough evidence to conclude that Ambrus' DMing would be improved by working more on his NPC skills.  It is my contention that the "simulationist" view that NPCs are "self-interested" fails to understand real human interactions, and by doing so fails to actually simulate human behavior.In general, people like to believe that they are doing the right thing.  This is true of nearly everybody, irregardless of their "alignment".  Some people, though, believing that they have done things which can never be forgiven, try to do as many bad things as possible, to "prove" that it was "in their nature" and therefore not their fault.  Gods help you if your Sense Motive check doesn't differentiate between the two.Real people who screw over people they like feel badly about it, and usually try to make it up in some way.  Real people who need the approval of their superiors to make a plan stick usually know this.  In order to make screwing people over palatable, most people rely on either an "us vs. them" mentality or simply dehumanize their victims.  I.e., among some D&D groups, "They're only NPCs" is the mantra of so-called CN PCs.As to the specifics of Ambrus' game, we only have details about two PC/NPC interactions.  In one, the gnomes who couldn't make a decision clearly thought they could make the decision, and the PCs were tricked into giving them the artifact.  In the other, the PCs made a deal with the Church, but the supposedly LG Abbess who Geased them was under a vow of silence, and therefore (despite writing out a charter...quills and parchment presumably being handy) didn't tell them that little detail.In both cases, the DM had a front man (or party of gnomes) who dealt with the party.  In both cases, the DM declared that the front man (or party of gnomes) was sincere, but didn't know what was going to happen.  In both cases, the decision maker is conveniently unable to interact with the party, even though in one case the party is in the same room with her.  To my mind, this suggests a pattern.  Moreover, this suggests a pattern specifically designed to counteract the high Diplomacy and Sense Motive skills of the party.In my experience, few groups contain as many high-Charisma characters as Ambrus'.  Few groups contain as many players who have chosen to purchase as many ranks of social skills.  This indicates that Ambrus' players, having gamed with Ambrus before, knew that they were going to need these skills.  And, having paid for these skills, they do have some reasonable expectation that they are going to be useful in the game.Despite this, Ambrus has a player who feels special for having his character Geased...something that I would consider requisite of a DC 30 Diplomacy check in and of itself.  From Ambrus' posts we have seen the level of work he has put into his campaign world to make it interesting and internally consistant.  At least one player specifically mentions this as his strength as a DM.  So, clearly, there is a lot of really, really good stuff going on in Ambrus' game.  Ambrus is a good DM.  He is not a flawless DM, though, and this is one area that the evidence suggests he could improve in.  The question is not black and white.RC</blockquote>

Verification