DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Mallus]

Some observations...

• There's nothing wrong with the drain pipe being a dead end.

• However, there is something wrong with spending a lot of table time on a dead end (if that happened).

• If I were the DM, I probably would have whipped up an improvised encounter for inside the pipe.

• Or I would have fast-forwarded over not finding anything useful while exploring it ("It takes 6 hours to climb up and then back down the drain. You find no entrance into the citadel").

• As for the top of the drain pipe being a potential death trap if the player's monkey with it... that's just bad form. How are the players supposed to know they couldn't survive the Big Flush, maybe hang on and then somehow gain entrance?

• Surviving the drain pipe is no more ridiculous --or heroic/creative-- than any one of a number of commonplace D&D occurrences, for instance, the jumping off of high places and not dying of one's injuries at the bottom (assuming one is mid-level or above), or surviving the frequent exposure to explosive fire.

• So it's often hard to tell the fatally ridiculous from the strategically sublime, without the DM's help.

• (This is largely the product of D&D simulating the frequently ridiculous and almost always contrived worlds of adventure stories, in which logically absurd actions are often effective -- see Indiana Jones and Co. jumping out of plane using an inflatable raft as a parachute/wing.)

• Which leads to another issue: tedium is never a smart outcome in a game that's supposed to be about adventure. If player choices lead to nothing exciting happening, there's no need to play it out in detail. Move on. Lingering over dead-ends for the sake of verisimilitude is probably something called the mimetic fallacy (I think).

• One last thought (finally). Simulation in an RPG a laudable, even enjoyable, thing. But it's a means to an end. At the point it becomes the end itself, the DM needs to start rethinking his priorities.

And by 'some' observations I obviously meant 'a lot'.

 

[jbear]

I have players that would call this railroading...

oO??? Call it what you like. You let them go up the pipe. You knew nothing was there. You tell them just that. Move along. If that supposes a problem because either you or the players prefer to bang your head against a pipe wall with thousands of tons of water waiting to mash your bones on the other side, splitting the party and feeling generally frustrated and useless while the others merrily slaughter heards of orcs... umm then I think THAT is a problem.

My idea of railroading is: Players don't want to follow a storypath, they want to take the story or adventure somewhere else; DM obliges them to follow his story by any means possible.

I don't believe what I suggest is the case. I don't oblige them to face the orcs. I just briefly let them know that the path they chose to explore was a dead end in a way that doesn't waste real world time.

 

[Umbran]

If that supposes a problem because either you or the players prefer to bang your head against a pipe wall with thousands of tons of water waiting to mash your bones on the other side, splitting the party and feeling generally frustrated and useless while the others merrily slaughter heards of orcs... umm then I think THAT is a problem.

Well, in general, it is not the DM's job to save the players from less-than-optimal decisions. This is most obvious in combat, where the character's bacon is on the line. Fudging to make sure they aren't killed by their own choices is generally seen as poor DMing. Some think it is okay to save them from poor die rolls, but from their own decisions is a different issue.

Now, when the only thing at stake is their own time, the DM is supposed to step in and save them from themselves?

I can see an argument for that - however, I don't see as there is a clear choice of where the line should be drawn. When do you save players from themselves, and when don't you? That's not something we can generalize, I think.

 

[lin_fusan]

'after several hours of climing you realise this is a hopeless dead end. Frustrated and weary you climb back through the water pipe cursing your bad luck.'


and


My idea of railroading is: Players don't want to follow a storypath, they want to take the story or adventure somewhere else; DM obliges them to follow his story by any means possible.

What I meant was that a few of my players would argue that: a) if I mentioned a water pipe, then it has to serve some important purpose, and b) they deserve some skill rolls for more description about the pipe. The more skill rolls would then lead to more description, explanation, and eventually wasted time until I gave them something to bite on, such as an encounter, treasure, or a way into the keep.

Basically, these players I mentioned would see this pipe as a major plot point and any attempt on my part to tell them that it's not important or a dead end would be met with accusations of railroading.

In effect, this means that unless I provide something "important" for every decision these players make then they could accuse me of railroading.

Once a player attempted to interrogate an NPC that, according to my notes, had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. So I invented what I thought was important information, but the player ignored it, threw up his hands in disgust, and said that he hit a dead end.

I've run two pure sandbox games before, once with Shadowrun and another with Mage: The Ascension. Individual moments were fun, but eventually the players felt like there wasn't an overarching narrative, which there wasn't, and lost interest in the games.

 

[S'mon]

Basically, these players I mentioned would see this pipe as a major plot point and any attempt on my part to tell them that it's not important or a dead end would be met with accusations of railroading.

Your players are foolish.

 

[Cadfan]

Maybe, but I am not at all convinced it is where you think it is.

Consider - we've got a bunch of folks hanging out with friends, probably eating snacks, drinking soda and maybe a few beers, pretending to be someone they aren't. This is an atmosphere where productivity should be a primary concern?

I mean, honestly, the whole thing is a waste of time! Surely, I don't want a player to be sitting around bored for an entire evening, but if a player finds 15 minutes of unproductive time to be a notable problem in their overall gaming experience, I am not at all sure the issue is with the DM.

Look.

The DM believes that he adequately communicated to the players that climbing up the pipe was a waste of time.

But they didn't get the message, or else they wouldn't have climbed up the pipe and wasted time.

Either this is the fault of the players for not listening or reasoning well, or, this is the fault of the DM for not communicating as well as he intended.

I happen to think that the latter is more likely.

This is no different from many other similar situations.

The DM intends to communicate that a certain fight is too dangerous and the characters should retreat, they don't get the message, and a TPK occurs.

The DM intends to communicate that a certain NPC is someone the characters can negotiate with instead of fight, the players don't get the message, and kill an important NPC.

The DM intends to communicate that a certain plot element is frightening or dramatic, the players instead interpret it as hilarious, and the session suffers from the mismatched expectations.

I could go on for a while here.

All the fancy arguments about D&D being inherently a waste of time or dead end pipes needing to be dead end pipes for verisimilitude are completely missing the point.

The DM didn't intend for the session to go this way. The players were annoyed that it did. We know this because the argument spread to ENWorld, which is usually a pretty huge clue. Obviously a problem occurred. Even if everyone had a great time, a small problem still occurred, in the sense that the DM intended to communicate something to the players and the message was not received. Even if the results had been amazing, it would still indicate room for improvement.

A freaking Knowledge: Architecture check, possibly prompted by the DM, could have nipped this whole thing in the bud. Never thought I'd hear myself saying that. "You've seen this sort of thing before, its a waste pipe and its probably impenetrably barred from the inside."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What I meant was that a few of my players would argue that: a) if I mentioned a water pipe, then it has to serve some important purpose, and b) they deserve some skill rolls for more description about the pipe. The more skill rolls would then lead to more description, explanation, and eventually wasted time until I gave them something to bite on, such as an encounter, treasure, or a way into the keep.

Basically, these players I mentioned would see this pipe as a major plot point and any attempt on my part to tell them that it's not important or a dead end would be met with accusations of railroading.

In effect, this means that unless I provide something "important" for every decision these players make then they could accuse me of railroading.

Once a player attempted to interrogate an NPC that, according to my notes, had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. So I invented what I thought was important information, but the player ignored it, threw up his hands in disgust, and said that he hit a dead end.

I've run two pure sandbox games before, once with Shadowrun and another with Mage: The Ascension. Individual moments were fun, but eventually the players felt like there wasn't an overarching narrative, which there wasn't, and lost interest in the games.

You deffinately need new players!

Noone should actually force the DM to change the story... he should adapt it as he sees fit...

And one last time: where does the big flush come from at the top of the pipe? The preasure can´t be that high up there... at least after the first flush is done (water falling through the empty pipe, the pipe will fill if no whirl is created and the preaure will so low at the top that you may be able to climb upwards...

if the flush however is so short, that the water can´t create a backwater, then its also no problem...

 

[jbear]

Well, in general, it is not the DM's job to save the players from less-than-optimal decisions. This is most obvious in combat, where the character's bacon is on the line. Fudging to make sure they aren't killed by their own choices is generally seen as poor DMing. Some think it is okay to save them from poor die rolls, but from their own decisions is a different issue.

Now, when the only thing at stake is their own time, the DM is supposed to step in and save them from themselves?

I can see an argument for that - however, I don't see as there is a clear choice of where the line should be drawn. When do you save players from themselves, and when don't you? That's not something we can generalize, I think.

I don't believe I generalized at any moment. I have been referring to this specific case. The DM was faced with a very tricky situation: a party splitting.

This I think is fundamental in the following decisions made.

If the DM is simply saving them from boredom, and saving himself from the uncomfortable situation of splitting his attention and time between two groups, especially having decided that one path is a dead end and any persistence trying to bust through that dead end will turn it literally into a DEAD end.

From my point of view, giving them information that lets them know this is acceptable. They have done it. It was fruitless. You tell them as such.

If you want to let them have a chance to bang their head against a wall for a while in real time, because you think they should be allowed to make bad decisions, in that case at least let them know they are making a bad decision from the start.

However, I still don't see the point to punish them for this fairly banal 'error', by having them sit out of a combat + the other 15 minutes of climbing up to the dead end.

I also think knowing when to 'step in' and when to 'step back' is part of the art.

Also, how much real time do you really want to spend describing everything to miniscule detail when its of no importance? Do you want your players describing how they wake up, eat their breakfast, wash their privates and do their business? Aren't you brushing over these very natural and important details with brief sentances like' we wake up and get ready', in order to get to the interesting part more quickly in real time? Isn't this similar to saying:'you explore the tunnel for five hours and discover its a dead end' ?

I didn't advocate fudging, railroading or generalizing this decision for every situation. If a bad decision leads to something dangerous or exciting, then step back, take your time. If a bad decision leads to an uncomfortable situation with the party splitting, frustration and boredom. Then move it along swiftly. I'm sure there are other situations bad decisions might lead to, and as a DM you have to make the best call you can.

I do think the situation the DM was put into was tricky. I think its useful and positive to read the two sides of the story (both, from my point of view, understandable.). It helps me think with the benefit of hindsight what I would do if I find myself in that situation in the future ( a luxury he didnt have). Given that I now have that luxury, I think I would do as I said above.

 

[Umbran]

The DM believes that he adequately communicated to the players that climbing up the pipe was a waste of time.

But they didn't get the message, or else they wouldn't have climbed up the pipe and wasted time.

Either this is the fault of the players for not listening or reasoning well, or, this is the fault of the DM for not communicating as well as he intended.

Um, you are leaving out one important possibility - it could be a little of both. I'd say it is probably a bit of both, given how common such is in human communications. The DM could have been more clear, they could have paid more attention to what it meant. Call it "no fault", consider how both sides could improve a bit, and move on.

 

[Silver Moon]

Storytelling has always been considered an art.

Serving as a referee is generally considered a skill.

And sometimes a drain pipe is only a drain pipe.