DM Expectations = One Solution?

[Bullgrit]

Every time a DM posts an anecdote from their game and they say something like, "I expected the PCs to do this, but they did that," the DM gets castigated for making an encounter with one solution. I've seen this many times over the years, in this forum.

It's like if a DM has any expectation of what the PCs will do in the game, he is narrowly confining the "correct" options, and might even be railroading. It's like a DM is supposed to place an encounter and just clear his mind completely of what he thinks might happen.

This is absurd.

For instance, if I put a dozen orcs in a room, guarding a treasure chest, my expectation would be that the PCs would attack the orcs and gain the treasure. This is how most PC adventurers handle such situations. And if the PCs in my game have always handled such a set up in that way, they have set the expectation.

But if the PCs try some other way of taking on the encounter, and it doesn't work (for poor dice rolls, by poor tactics, etc.), then the DM gets accused of having only one solution for the encounter.

Why is this? Why is a DM having an expected outcome for something considered bad design? How does a DM *not* have an expectation of an outcome? I mean, who makes an encounter with no idea of how it will unfold? "This may be a cakewalk, or it may end up a TPK. I can't have any expectations of the outcome."

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

Every time a DM posts an anecdote from their game and they say something like, "I expected the PCs to do this, but they did that," the DM gets castigated for making an encounter with one solution. I've seen this many times over the years, in this forum.

It's like if a DM has any expectation of what the PCs will do in the game, he is narrowly confining the "correct" options, and might even be railroading. It's like a DM is supposed to place an encounter and just clear his mind completely of what he thinks might happen.

This is absurd.

For instance, if I put a dozen orcs in a room, guarding a treasure chest, my expectation would be that the PCs would attack the orcs and gain the treasure. This is how most PC adventurers handle such situations. And if the PCs in my game have always handled such a set up in that way, they have set the expectation.

But if the PCs try some other way of taking on the encounter, and it doesn't work (for poor dice rolls, by poor tactics, etc.), then the DM gets accused of having only one solution for the encounter.

Why is this? Why is a DM having an expected outcome for something considered bad design? How does a DM *not* have an expectation of an outcome? I mean, who makes an encounter with no idea of how it will unfold? "This may be a cakewalk, or it may end up a TPK. I can't have any expectations of the outcome."

Bullgrit

An expectation is quite different from there being a single solution. If a DM expects the party to do either A or B and the party does C then that is simply a case of the unexpected. If the DM were to outline what happens when the party does A or B and decides that C-Z = fail ahead of time then the DM has set up "correct" limited options. This turns the test of play into a flat multiple choice type rather than the short answer version which has more depth IMHO.

Limited correct options are a staple of videogames. The advantages of tabletop play with a human DM are lost if the correct options remain so limited.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I agree with your point. Prep time is finite. Decisions have to be made about what to prep and what not to, what stat blocks to write, etc. That means a GM must make an assumption, not about what the PCs will do, but about probabilities. What the PCs are likely to do.

And 95% of the time the GM will be right imo. The PCs will kill the orcs and talk to the beautiful woman.

 

[TerraDave]

You are right...except that who is doing this castigating?

Presumably the reason we are doing this and not just writting stories is for playes to do the unexpected. We are rolling all those dice to be surprised by the result.

I guess there could be disagreement on how very unexpected outcomes are managed. Does the DM "facilitate" to keep things moving, lets the dice land as they may, just yell no, put his down on the table and cry...here, there could be all kinds a fighting words.

But I don't think many people will get upset 'cause stuff happens.

 

[Bullgrit]

An expectation is quite different from there being a single solution. If a DM expects the party to do either A or B and the party does C then that is simply a case of the unexpected. If the DM were to outline what happens when the party does A or B and decides that C-Z = fail ahead of time then the DM has set up "correct" limited options. This turns the test of play into a flat multiple choice type rather than the short answer version which has more depth IMHO.

Does C have to be a success?

Orcs guarding a door. The party may kill the guards and go through the door. The party may have a good bluffer, and so may try to lie their way past the guards and through the door. The DM can give thought to how this will work. The party may think of something else, but the DM figures one of these two options are most likely to be tried.

But then the PCs decide they'll surrender to the orc guards to get taken inside. If this tactic turns out badly, is it because the DM stuck to his list of "approved solutions" or is it because it was a bad idea?

Limited correct options are a staple of videogames.

And the Tomb of Horrors?

Bullgrit

 

[IronWolf]

An expectation is quite different from there being a single solution. If a DM expects the party to do either A or B and the party does C then that is simply a case of the unexpected. If the DM were to outline what happens when the party does A or B and decides that C-Z = fail ahead of time then the DM has set up "correct" limited options. This turns the test of play into a flat multiple choice type rather than the short answer version which has more depth IMHO.

I agree with this.

The original post is taking an unexpected choice from the party and attributing that choice immediately to failure because the DM was not expecting that choice. When really a party can make the unexpected choice and the DM just roll with it despite not having expected that option which is not a negative thing.

An unexpected choice is only an issue if the DM mandates the unprepared for choices are guaranteed failures because he didn't prepare for it. *That's* what people get riled up about.

 

[Nagol]

Every time a DM posts an anecdote from their game and they say something like, "I expected the PCs to do this, but they did that," the DM gets castigated for making an encounter with one solution. I've seen this many times over the years, in this forum.

It's like if a DM has any expectation of what the PCs will do in the game, he is narrowly confining the "correct" options, and might even be railroading. It's like a DM is supposed to place an encounter and just clear his mind completely of what he thinks might happen.

This is absurd.

For instance, if I put a dozen orcs in a room, guarding a treasure chest, my expectation would be that the PCs would attack the orcs and gain the treasure. This is how most PC adventurers handle such situations. And if the PCs in my game have always handled such a set up in that way, they have set the expectation.

But if the PCs try some other way of taking on the encounter, and it doesn't work (for poor dice rolls, by poor tactics, etc.), then the DM gets accused of having only one solution for the encounter.

Why is this? Why is a DM having an expected outcome for something considered bad design? How does a DM *not* have an expectation of an outcome? I mean, who makes an encounter with no idea of how it will unfold? "This may be a cakewalk, or it may end up a TPK. I can't have any expectations of the outcome."

Bullgrit

Can you cite an example? What little castigation I've seen hasn't been that open-ended.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Umbran]

Yes, it is a bit absurd.

In any finite rules system with some clearly defined success criteria, there will be optimum choices. Anyone who enjoys character builds and powergaming knows this.

But it goes for encounter design too - for a given situation, there are ways that are going to be more likely to get the PCs through to their goal. This in no way means that there's only one solution - just that one solution may be a darn sight easier and/or obvious than the others.

Discussions on messageboards tend to polarize - a thing is either one end of a spectrum or the other. It is a flaw in our way of conducting discourse.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I think the theme of many of the stories told on these and similar messageboards isn't "the DM had rigid expectations" but "players are really, really unpredictable."

IOW, you often see stories about how the DM had been DMing the same group for a good long while, and he set up a scenario that he thought could go one of a few possible ways, but when the players/PCs got there, they did something totally off the wall that no one could have expected.

How the DM reacts to this is what separates great DMs from the merely average, I think.