DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Kzach]

Either way, I point you back to Chekhov's Gun. If you put something in your adventure that seems important, your players are going to assume that it is.

In our argument (between Varis and I), he used the example of "So you're saying if there was a wall and the players wanted to go through it, I should provide a door?" No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you show the PC's a door, don't have it be a concrete wall behind it

Wise men

 

[Aeolius]

I'm saying that if you show the PC's a door, don't have it be a concrete wall behind it

Of course not. That's what the gelatinous cube is for.

 

[Varis]

Couldn't one of the adventurers tied off the rope to a point outside the tube while the other end was around the one inside the tube. One inside breaks stone cap (if he can, damages cap so it starts to break then jump out of tube), water pressure pushes him out, rope makes him pivot, he exits water stream and loses momentum fast although he might still take some damage when he hits the cave wall. Not a lot though, we're talking maybe 20-30 feet of falling damage maximum if they do it right.

They travelled 3 hours inside the tube (admittably at half speed) before they got to the cap - not enough rope for it.

 

[Reynard]

Anyone ever heard of Chekhov's Gun? ...
it's a basic law of storytelling that when an element is introduced into the story that seems like it might be important, it probably should be. ...
If the pipe does not serve the story, why is it there?

All this assumes that an RPG session/adventure is a story.

Which it isn't.

 

[Mallus]

All this assumes that an RPG session/adventure is a story.

Which it isn't.

It assumes there are similarities between RPG's and stories (particularly with regard to how detail functions).

Which, BTW, there are...

... actually details like that in an adventure function exactly the same way as in fiction. Broadly speaking, detail is either relevant to the action of the story (Chekov's gun), or it exists to convince the reader of the realness of the scene (verisimilitude).

The difference is the effect of confusing the two. When reading fiction, mistaking the significance of a specific detail might lead to some confusion, usually corrected as the reader progresses and the overall context becomes apparent.

When gaming, mistaking a decorative detail for a relevant one can result in faffing around pointlessly for several hours instead of play-acting out a life of high adventure.

 

[CharlesRyan]

All this assumes that an RPG session/adventure is a story.

No. It assumes that players' responses are conditioned by the rules of fiction in which we're all so thoroughly indoctrinated.

Your game may or may not be storylike. And your goal may or may not be related to story. Regardless, there is so much similarity in the experience of how events unfold in an RPG and how they unfold in a film or book that the rules of drama are still going to sway people's expectations and responses, if only subconsciously.

 

[Mallus]

Your game may or may not be storylike.

I'm going to go out on a limb here Charles and say everyone's game is story-like, whether they're inclined to describe it that way or not.

You can't have a game based around the portrayal of fictional characters leading fictional lives of high --or base-- adventure in fictional settings without it being story-like. RPG's have too many common features w/fiction not to be story-like (using any reasonable definition of 'like').

 

[Varis]

You proudly proclaim what the players knew, and proclaim that obviously they knew enough not to waste fifteen minutes of game time pursuing nothing at all. Technically they didn't know it was a dead end, but you claim that they knew enough to know they shouldn't pursue it.

I never said that the players knew the pipes were a dead end.
What the players were given was the observable information around them.
Based on this information, two players wanted to go up the pipes. The remaining three were staunchly against the idea.

But obviously you are wrong.

I just described what the players saw. I have simply communicated to readers on the forum what information the players had before they committed themselves, as well as drawing the readers attention to the fact that the party members were prepared to committ a 3-5 hour journey (in the worlds time) and split the party for a minimum of that time.

It wasn't about me being right or wrong.

The players are free to make whatever decisions they want.

If they HAD known, they wouldn't have wasted the time. The fact that they pursued the red herring for so long conclusively proves that they didn't know it was a red herring.

Fair enough, if they HAD known that all the orcs in the citadel were dead or dying because the dwarves spiked their water with poison, the players wouldn't have wasted their time climbing up the mountain in the first place (This didnt actually occurr btw)...

If they HAD known that a +10 Vorpal Greatsword was buried along with 100,000 gp just 1 km away, unguarded, they would not of climbed the mountain...

If they HAD known that the god of madness would destroy all other gods in 2 years time and subsequently kill all life on the planet, they would of stayed in the local taven, gotten drunk alot and 'entertained' some lady/man friends all day long...

My negligence in this matter is starting to be apparent to me. I haven't told the players anything about what they HAD to know,...

DMs, particularly DMs with simulationist bents, tend to forget that the game world exists only within their head. And by "their head," I mean the DM's. Not the player's. The details of the game world have to get from the DM's head to the player's heads, and that doesn't always go as well as you think. Clearly, in this case, you failed to get across what you had hoped to get across.

I just described what the players saw and what they experienced in the tunnel (eg, slime on the walls, the cramped conditions etc).

The proof is undeniable- had you communicated what you intended, this never would have happened; it did happen, therefore, you did not communicate what you thought.

You are absolutely 100% right in this aspect. It is not my job to communicate what 'I' think. I'm not a player. Its up to the players to act on what 'they' think,..classic DM error, I know,..especially the DM's with a simulationist bent...but we all have our burdens I guess.

At least in this situation you only lost fifteen minutes of game time.

What? No comment about the players splitting/weakening the party for 3 hours in the game world? Nah, why would we talk about that,...

Change a few words, and your post becomes a classic "The TPK was totally the players fault and not mine and they're mad at me anyways!" post. We see those about every other week around here.

Yep, correct here as well,...and I'd be mad at them for taking actions that, despite the observable information provided, they nonetheless took that resulted in a TPK. I wouldn't stop them though, or tell them what I think,...there's an orc army out there, if they stroll into it, the 'great sheltering hand of the DM' won't protect them,...they'll get ripped to pieces unless the players provide a damn good reason they shouldn't be.

My apologies for the delay and tone of this reply. It's not my intention to cause offence to you personally, just to attack your argument.

 

[Reynard]

No. It assumes that players' responses are conditioned by the rules of fiction in which we're all so thoroughly indoctrinated.

Your game may or may not be storylike. And your goal may or may not be related to story. Regardless, there is so much similarity in the experience of how events unfold in an RPG and how they unfold in a film or book that the rules of drama are still going to sway people's expectations and responses, if only subconsciously.

The dissimilarities are for more pronounced, IMO. First of all, there's the issue of interactivity. Second, there's the issue of non-linear and emergent progression. Third, there's the issue of information dissemination and interpretation. Finally, there's the issue of the social construct.

What you are talking about, i think, is the tropes of traditional, linear storytelling that do not apply to RPGs. Story with RPGs is constructed out of, often after, play.

 

[Varis]

Nonsense.

Look, its really simple.

1. The DM mediates the players' knowledge about the game world.
2. Sessions where the PCs pursue dead leads tend to be boring.
3. Unless you, as the DM want the session to be boring, you need to make sure they don't pursue dead leads.
4. Players generally don't pursue dead leads because they like them, they pursue them because they don't know better.
5. Which could be because they're morons.
6. But is more often because they don't know enough about the game world to recognize that they're pursuing a dead lead.
7. Which is generally the fault of the person who mediates the players' knowledge about the game world.
8. Which is the DM.

Not saying that you HAVE to flat out tell the players "that's a dead lead, stop pursuing it."

But there are other options. Use them.

Knowing the information I gave the players (detailed in my previous posts) would you, as a player, be willing to split the party for possibly 5 game hours and go up the pipe?

Do you think 15 minutes actual game time pursuing this appropriate?

Do you think the remaining party members, who, based on that same information I provided, refused to go into the pipe should be left vulnerable/idle? Would it be fun?

Whatever choices you would of made, know that as your DM, I would of done my best to exercise them.