NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MurderHobo1" data-source="post: 6840493" data-attributes="member: 6824874">MehAs one of the MurderHobos in the group, I finally decided to register to chime in.I sent our Dragonlance campaign DM some of my thoughts in an e-mail.  I'll cover some of it here and address some other thoughts left out of that e-mail.I see Hussar's point but think it is 100% subjective.  He even alluded to it early on speaking to his expectation about advancing directly towards goals and being frustrated by obstacles that don't lead straight to an objective.  That is a preferred gamestyle and one I'd argue few players or DM's share.  Even as a murderhobo, I don't see it as "realistic" to go from goal to goal without "life" interrupting, whether it be random encounters, layers of guards to be defeated, land to be explored and traveled, contacts to be sought out, etc.That said, is there something to Hussar's point that every encounter that promotes infiltration yet will "ALWAYS" result in mass combat at some point?  I think so.  Arguably, where was the scenario that would allow the players infiltrate all the way to the objective and then allow the players to extricate themselves with little or no combat if they play it well?  In hindsight, I don't think any of those scenarios that Hussar is complaining about, would have provided that opportunity.  So I think it can be somewhat fairly argued that the DMs in question MAY be guilty of relying a little bit on a cliched scenario that's becoming quickly tiring (for Hussar).What Hussar is missing however is that much of the goal-delaying components of the story were successfully avoided (e.g. getting past the guard gate) because we did take actions to avoid them.Another component Hussar seems to be missing is that while our plans have failed, they have typically failed not because of planning (plans could have been better) but typically failed due to rolls.  He is quick, as others in the party are, to identify being f***ed by the die roller (we play via Fantasy Grounds) in combat.  Yet he seems to have failed to lay blame on the die roller when it f***ed us on skill checks in these general alarm situations and instead has faulted the DMs (both of whom allow group checks vs. individual).One of the suggestions I provided the Dragonlance DM in my e-mail came from reviewing this thread.  Telegraphing.  I think one barrier to the game is the inability for the players to see what's in the DM's mind.  No matter how well the DM paints a picture with words and maps, we won't always see what is in his mind either because his words translate in our heads to something else or we "SQUIRREL!!!" for a second and miss a key component in the description.  We often see players saying after it's too late, "Oh I thought X" or "Oh you meant, Y" when all along the player was thinking "Z."  It's just a part of the game.  Telegraphing would help to overcome the gaps between what the DM sees and what the players see.  Both DMs are good about telegraphing most of the time but I think it would be fair to say there are times they either choose not to telegraph or fail to telegraph when they ought to.  I'm not saying it's something worth assigning blame.  No DM (or player) is perfect.  I simply state it so they can consider working on it.Another suggestion I made was had to do with what was just mentioned a couple posts above and that is the DM speaking on behalf of the characters.  Good DMs are rarely reluctant to step in when a player metagames or does something that is inconsistent with their character when such behavior would benefit the character.  They are, however, seemingly reluctant to step in when the player does something inconsistent that harms the character and are more than willing to let the player punish their self.A good example is the repeated reminders about the party leaving bodies in the street.  I will not argue it was dumb but I would argue that it resulted from a couple of things that reflects the players and not the characters.First, I'd argue that we commonly hand wave the transition of ending one encounter and moving on towards the next for the sake of expediting our limited gameplay. "Yeah, no treasure, nothing of interest, room exits are..."  This sometimes conditions the players to sometimes prematurely end their actions in an encounter when the DM is still expecting the players to continue it.  Who's to "blame" in such a situation?  I'm not sure.Second, none of the characters in that scenario would have been dumb enough to leave bodies in the street (even if the players were) and I think DM should have stepped in to save the characters from the (in)actions of the players.  If you step in when players are playing the characters wrong to their own benefit, I'd say, for the sake of logical consistency, a DM is just as obligated to step in when the players are playing characters wrong to their own detriment.All that said, we have a good group of players and good DMs.  I've been playing with both the DMs and players for somewhere between a couple years to well over 5 years.  This is mostly just a moment of frustration, poorly relayed expectations, and normal(?) D&D drama.  Not all play styles are the same and no one is 100% consistent in their play.  It leads to a little friction.</blockquote>

Verification