Chumming the dungeon

[baradtgnome]

I don't often use the ideas that players inadvertently blurt out, but sometimes I'll write them down behind the screen just to hear them moan. An evil smile is appropriate too. I think the cry "Don't give the DM any more ideas!" is universal.

 

[Pbartender]

My players refer to this as "Rule One."

Rule One: don't give the DM any ideas.

I have one friend who is like a glorious canary in a coal mine: give her any scenario and she immediately imagines many possibilities that are far, far worse than anything I'd thought of. She's a DM's muse!

On the other hand, if used carefully, chumming the dungeon can, in a way, be good for the players.

Very often, when there's an investigation or a mystery, I find my players way off track chasing red herrings -- and sometimes red herrings of their own devising. While they sit there mulling over the clues and what they mean with regards to the maniacal machinations of the Big Bad Evil Guy, I find them coming up with with convoluted, evil plots and motivations that are nothing like what I'd originally envisioned for the BBEG.

Instead of stringing them along, wasting valuable gaming time, and then dashing their hopes and making them start the investigation all over from the beginning, I think to myself, "Maybe that's just what the Bad Guy is doing." I use the player's plot whole cloth, or perhaps adjust it a little bit into something better that's half-right.

It lets the adventure move forward without getting bogged down and without the players getting frustrated by the utter lack of progress. And in the end, it lets them brag about "See! We knew it all along!"

 

[Bullgrit]

I absolutely do not do this. It sets up an adversarial relationship, it stifles discussion among the Players and it stops communication with the DM. And sometimes it directly screws the Players. Not good.

I want my Players to air their thoughts about the dungeon/campaign/setting/plot/story in front of me. For one thing, it's fun to hear. For another thing, it lets me make sure we're all on the same page.

Bullgrit

 

[darjr]

I guess part of the idea is to do the stuff they want as well. It doesn't always have to be bad news for them. And yes, doing it a whole lot is probably bad, as with all things.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To do this a bit, especially when you're struggling for ideas or the players are going wildly out of your expected way, is a good thing. Even if the idea is risky, players get a little something out of having correctly anticipated the threat.

To do this all the time is probably just going to teach your players to not use their imaginations to wonder about what might be ahead. Which would be sad.

When I take the ideas, I try to twist them somehow, so that the player doesn't have the whole answer, and I'm not just taking their worst fears and using them. It's a "Yes, but..." moment of DMing.

"Chumming" is not a great term (something grandma-unfriendly, or the practice of luring monsters out, is what came to my mind, too). I go with the old stand-by "slipping the rope around your own neck" and similar.

Oh, and Rob?

dreadsharks

Maybe Dreadtooth Bloodsharks?

If you're going to Donkeyhorse a random word, make it count, Heinsoo!

 

[Celebrim]

If Hercule Perot and Sherlock Holmes can spend a considerable time chasing red herrings, then I figure its good enough for the player's heroes as well. Besides, if every good red herring turns out to be true, the game just teaches the players to either leap to false conclusions or punishes them for speculating. Moreover, every good mystery has red herrings in it and much of the enjoyment of a mystery is that momment of ephinany when you figure out that what you've always assumed was just a red herring and something quite different is actually going on. That's 'the twist'. That's the point where the direction of the story radically changes. That's like my favorite point in an adventure when I'm a player.

I think that this method runs counter to the notion of developing 'skillful play' and is lazy story telling on the part of the DM. I can see the attraction and it might even once in a while be a useful technique, but I don't think its the best possible practice.

Which isn't to say that you can't invent things in midstream. In my current campaign I inadvertantly created a new red herring improvising a scene I hadn't anticipated, and it's a good one and some of the PC's are already lured by it. I briefly considered completely changing who the main villain is. However, I realized that while its a good idea with lots of play potential, it's also a sterotypical one and would be completely unsurprising. I'm not going to change the story to put it on the new path, but I probably will develop contingencies along that path in case the players end up chasing the story in that direction.

In another scene, the players got distracted from there goal and ended up spending a long time chasing a red herring before finding the main plot again. That's ok. It's ok to be lost from time to time, and they might find that red herring comes back later to complicate things.

 

[darjr]

Well, it's not every PC idea you should take. That I totally agree with. But the players are imaginative folk and sometimes I'm not. I know a good idea when I hear one, and sometimes I'll squirrel it away for something else, some other game session or campaign or even a one shot.

I think the idea is only any good with bit of moderation. I'd never use it every time. In fact it's probably best if used rarely.

 

[darjr]

Oh and the players know what scares them better than I do. So if they blurt it out I pay heed.

 

[Pbartender]

If Hercule Perot and Sherlock Holmes can spend a considerable time chasing red herrings, then I figure its good enough for the player's heroes as well.

I'm not saying that it should be done every single time. That's ridiculous and predictable. However, you mustn't forget...

"The players are not Sherlock Holmes."

I think that this method runs counter to the notion of developing 'skillful play' and is lazy story telling on the part of the DM.

Why? Because I'm willing to hand the story-telling reins over to the players once in a while?

If the players come up with a great idea, why not let it work? If you limit the solutions to the mystery, I find that it equally limits 'skillful play' on the part of the players. They get frustrated and bored as all their exciting plans turn out to be dead ends. They stop looking for interesting, inventive ways to solve the problems, and end up resorting to rolling dice -- hopefully well enough so that the DM will give them the obscure and specific answer they can't quite figure out on their own.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not saying that it should be done every single time. That's ridiculous and predictable. However, you mustn't forget...

"The players are not Sherlock Holmes."

I never said the players were Sherlock Holmes.

If the players come up with a great idea, why not let it work?

But we aren't talking about a great idea. To remove the blush from the pig, in point of fact in cases like this the players are just plain wrong. This isn't like me saying, "No." They are free to chase the red herring however they like. I'm not quashing reasonable choice here.

If you limit the solutions to the mystery, I find that it equally limits 'skillful play' on the part of the players.

??? I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm using 'skillful play' in the Gygaxian sense of someone who well, begins to avoid having all the failings listed by Justin Alexander. They do thoroughly research. They find clues and figure out there significance. They don't latch on to conclusions immediately, but create several tentative theories that they keep and mind and refine. They don't get frustrated if they find out they were on a red herring, and they start looking for the information they missed. I've played with these sorts. You go from worrying whether you can keep the game on track, to wondering if there is any mystery they won't see through in the first hour of play. They become preternatural mind readers, and you have to work hard on your poker skills just to keep from giving things away.

There is generally only one solution to a mystery. The trick as a DM is to make sure that there is more than one way to get there. Although the essay you link to is pretty good, the rule isn't '3 clues' however good advice that may be. The rule is 'clues in all directions'. If you put three clues to pick up the trail, but you put them all in one location along one avenue of investigation, you created another chokepoint. You have to have ways to get the players back on track of the right solution. Each red herring needs to led to its own bit of vital information that might help out. You need to try to figure out what wrong paths the PC's might go down. Chase enough red herrings and a picture should eventually emerge. You also probably also need to plan for the possibility of failure. In other words, what happens if the PC's don't save the day or get the wrong person? In most cases, life goes on and the adventure that they screwed up just lies in wait for another day. You've probably inadvertantly created a reoccuring villain.

If I had to recommend against anything in a mystery its very tight timelines. Most of the games of this sort that I've seen go wrong have rigid timelines where the players have to figure out something by some time (and I've seen many published scenarios with this flaw in spades). That almost always goes wrong unless the DM is experienced enough to see the problem ahead of time and fudge or plan accordingly.

They get frustrated and bored as all their exciting plans turn out to be dead ends. They stop looking for interesting, inventive ways to solve the problems...

What a minute.... "interesting, inventive ways to solve the problems" does not equal "imagining a problem you might be able to solve and then assuming that this problem is that problem". That's the exact opposite of an interesting and an inventive solution. It's rewarding player laziness.

...and end up resorting to rolling dice -- hopefully well enough so that the DM will give them the obscure and specific answer they can't quite figure out on their own.

Whatever. I see where you are going with that, but I'm assuming that we are playing with adults here. Run with the whole 'the players aren't Sherlock Holmes' concept, and pretty soon it turns into, 'the players are stupid' and 'treat your players like children'. While a certain amount of success illusionism is probably inevitable because pretty much every scenario in a long running game is stacked in the players favor, at some point this 'chumming' takes away all possibility of real success and for my part, I tend to figure out that the DM is doing this really fast, and generally, once I do, I start finding excuses not to play. If there is anything worse than being on a railroad, its a DM that won't let you fail.