Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[hong]

So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of

PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't beat this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just playing it."​

won't take place? So your players know to make sure that they make those decanters elsewhere, without telling you what they are for, and then teleport to the desert city later, because you aren't going to make up something to foil them on the spot?

Sorry, but while I have no difficulty with the idea of the DM not having his/her world fully defined beforehand, this sounds like you are taking an adversarial role that punishes the players for thinking outside the box (or off the railroad).

The second step in fostering a non-adversarial gaming environment is ensuring congruent expectations among all participants, grasshopper.

 

[JohnSnow]

OK, thats entirely different from how you framed it originally. Had you responded with that, I wouldn't have blinked much (though it still comes across a bit as a statement 'and so I'm going to punish you by not running a game this week'). But instead you responded with 'The DM decrees that your scheme fails', followed by some justification for same. Thats why it came across as adversarial- it was just an decree from on high, not an honest discussion with the players.

Well, it's not a punishment so much as a statement of fact. I can't always run an adventure "off the cuff," and more importantly, I don't want to. If I go to all the trouble of preparing an adventure, I expect that the players will let me run it (more or less) rather than try to poke holes in its internal logic so they can "beat it." The latter may be "fun" for them, but it isn't for me.

So, yes, it is a "punishment" in that sense. By saying "we don't want to go on the adventure you've spent all week preparing," the players are collectively telling me "your adventure doesn't look like it'll be any fun." And by doing this before it's even started, they haven't even given it a chance. I think that's horribly disrespectful of my hard work, but whatever. Still, I reserve the right to say: "Fine. But pulling this other adventure you have in mind out of my ass doesn't sound like fun to me tonight. And if I can't have fun, neither can you. If this is what you insist on doing, we won't be doing it tonight."

As for why I didn't phrase it this way sooner, one constant problem with hypothetical situations is that they're hypothetical. That means lots of important factors are left open to interpretation. When presented with this hypothetical situation, I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that this was a group that made a habit of this sort of thing. Because to me, people who do this sort of thing tend to do it all the time. I would not enjoy being the DM for such a group, because I don't enjoy constantly flushing my hardwork "down the drain" just because the players want to be "creative" or "clever." I have no problem with my players going "off the rails" once in a while, but if they make a habit of trying to avoid the adventure I've planned, I'm going to stop DMing for them. Because for me, constantly making stuff up isn't any fun.

As presented, the players seem to have decided that the adventure will "suck" without even giving it a chance. They're essentially saying they have no faith in their DM. What kind of person would want to DM for such a group? Not I.

Some DMs don't prepare anything in advance. They would love a "creative" group like this. Some give players the illusion of choice but actually railroad them into the adventure they have planned by "tweaking it" to fit the player's new agenda. However, let's be clear. That's still a railroad. If you wanted the players to kill goblins in the mountains, and they go kill kobolds in the hills, but you use the same lair maps and almost identical stats, what you've actually done is railroaded the players into your pre-prepared little goblin dungeon and filed the serial numbers off.

So, how many of you, when faced with that situation, actually make up a new dungeon and generate new challenges on the fly? Be honest.

On topic, I have no problem telling my players they can't use something, even if it's in the PHB. As others have said, it's a game, not a virtual reality simulator. Push too hard on the rules in any direction and they'll break.

Obviously, not everyone thinks that's a problem. But I think that touches uncomfortably on "the degree to which the rules define reality" argument again.

 

[Bohemian Ear-Spork]

Honestly, people....

If the players want to be water-merchants, run with it.

Let 'em discover that the reason that there's no Decanters is because the merchants backing the water caravans don't like the idea. And they aren't shy about using bribery, violence, or whatever to keep their monopoly going.

There you go. Plenty of room for conflict and strife.

 

[kennew142]

Caliban: I don't know why you think Ken needs you to defend him. My impression of Ken's experience is based on his statements. Specifically, he said:

"Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."

And that's fine. Good for him. But that is an admission that his experience is more limited in some ways than mine, because he's saying, "I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."

"Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."

is not equal to

"I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."

You have an interesting way of jumping to conclusions. My statement means what it says. No one, once they've experienced the way my game works, would ever consider trying to game the system in such a way. If you are a an intelligent and perceptive player, you can easily pick up on a GM's style in only a few sessions of play.

It is true that my current group of players has been together for about five years, and that four of them have been with me even longer. Nonetheless, I have done my fair share of gaming with high turn around tables.

My players appreciate the storylines of the campaign, and the ways in which each character's individual storyline is interwoven in the grand tapestry of the campaign. If I had a character who was interested in forging trade relations and making money, I would be sure to incorporate that element into the game. But they also know that I have very little tolerance for any scheme that entails finding a loophole in the mechanics of the game and exploiting it for an in-character benefit (such as a get rich quick scheme).

I may add that this particular situation would never arise in one of my homebrew worlds. I always acknowledge the existence of magic. The last desert city I ran already had great fountains, the equivalent of multiple decanters of endless water, shooting into the sky. They were a gift from a great mage-lord in ages past.

It is the idea that players must always be free to do whatever they want, while GMs may only react to their desires that I find so disturbing. Gaming is a social activity. In my mind, the players and the GM have an unspoken contract that they will participate together in the crafting of a story. Each has input, although the GM must adjudicate the outcome of all interactions between the characters, the world, the NPCs and the story.

I have played in games (I guess the term for them is sandbox), in which there was no story. The GM basically said, just do whatever you want. IMO these games are pointless. I didn't have fun and I left them. I don't think the people playing them are bad, or poor gamers. It's just not what I enjoy.

This is where the issue of compatibility comes in. I don't like to play in games that are incompatible with my style. I also do not enjoy GMing for players who are looking for something that I'm not offering. I have some friends (gamer friends) with whom I do not game. It's a better thing all around in my mind.

 

[JohnSnow]

"These decanters certainly are exquisite," observes the cabal official to the wizard, letting the water pool in his hand before overflowing into the basin, "obviously the work of one who is as fine of a magician as they are a sculptor." "I must warn you, though, that this town can be quite dangerous - one must always be wary of thieves." A thoughtful expression crosses his face. "Perhaps my organization would be willing to purchase these wonderful fruits of your labor - our guildhall is rather well guarded, and these would make magnificent decorations."

His eyes meet the warlord's. "After all, we wouldn't want any harm to befall you or your property..."

"I'm sure you will think over it." With that, he turns toward the door, gesturing to the companion he entered with. The companion, standing in the corner till now, steps beside the official, the heavy robes he wears despite the searing heat concealing all aspects of his person, save for a golden falchion resting at his hip. It is not until they've crossed the portal and into the bustling streets that you notice the damp trail left behind by the the robed one.

This is pretty cool.

And as I said, after giving it some thought, if I were in the right mood, I might let there be a political reason rather than a metaphysical one. But there will be some reason. Because I think it's far more fun if there is a better one than just "the players caught the DM with his pants down."

Perhaps there's a secret cabal of merchants that profits from the situation the way it is. So they "take care of" any competition. Maybe the church leaders believe the devastation is a punishment from the gods and that skirting it magically is blasphemy. Maybe they're right! Maybe it's some combination of the above.

Maybe the merchants also provide some other valuable service to the church in exchange for the church paying them to deliver water. So inquisitive PCs might get the "blasphemy" or "punishment from the gods" answers only to find out later that the situation is far more complex.

I guess I just don't hold with the theory that the PCs should be able to just make up whatever adventure they want to go on, and totally ignore the work their DM has done to prepare for the session.

On the other hand, in my mind, a "good" adventure is more open-ended than "you must guard the water caravans." If the PCs have a choice, the adventure should never entirely hinge on the choice the PCs make. What happens might change, but there should always still be a way to involve the PCs in the adventure.

 

[JohnSnow]

Honestly, people....

If the players want to be water-merchants, run with it.

Let 'em discover that the reason that there's no Decanters is because the merchants backing the water caravans don't like the idea. And they aren't shy about using bribery, violence, or whatever to keep their monopoly going.

There you go. Plenty of room for conflict and strife.

Sure. Assuming that I, as DM, have planned the adventure around the intrigues of the water-merchants, there's no problem here. For example, if I was planning to have the PCs work for Merchants A & B as they deal with the nefarious plans of Merchant C, the PCs deciding to go "off the rails" is totally acceptable. A tweak here, and a tweak there, and I can use most of what I prepared.

On the other hand, if the adventure hinges on the PCs signing up as Caravan guards and the situation they have to deal with when the caravan is attacked by a sand dragon, I really think I, as DM, have a right to be ticked if they won't even give my adventure a chance because they've decided they'd rather work on their Decanter of Endless Water business.

As I said before, I don't usually enjoy having to make up an adventure out of whole cloth. I'd do it on occasion, but if my players made a habit of this kind of behavior, I'd suggest they find a DM whose style they like better, rather than constantly subject myself to the aggravation.

 

[Campbell]

So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of

PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't beat this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just playing it."


won't take place? So your players know to make sure that they make those decanters elsewhere, without telling you what they are for, and then teleport to the desert city later, because you aren't going to make up something to foil them on the spot?

Sorry, but while I have no difficulty with the idea of the DM not having his/her world fully defined beforehand, this sounds like you are taking an adversarial role that punishes the players for thinking outside the box (or off the railroad).

There is another way. One need not either make excuses or blindly go with the flow even when it hampers game enjoyment. One can instead engage in a discussion with one's players on how they wish to precede, including the game play ramifications of different decisions. The general idea is to approach the game is a cooperative juncture and enable decisions to be made with full disclosure.

Basically what hong said.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Basically what hong said.

I'll just note that this was your 666th post.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'll just note that this was your 666th post.

My 3000th will either be "You say that like it's a bad thing" or a long badly spelled rant accusing 1e of being too videogame-y.

 

[Thaumaturge]

My 3000th will either be "You say that like it's a bad thing" or a long badly spelled rant accusing 1e of being too videogame-y.

You say that like that's a game of Diablo!

Thaumaturge.