DM'ing is a skill, not an art.
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
jmucchiello
Hero
I'm not seeing the art vs skill part here. All I'm seeing is a disagreement on the level of simulation a DM should apply to his gaming.
By 'reward' I mean something more active than just "It's a dead-end." It doesn't have to be a good result, but there should be some sort of active element rather than just shutting them down entirely.
I guess my real issue is that if I was a player in that game, I would've felt peeved that I wasted a good deal of time for nothing. The suggestion of saying, "Ok, it's a dead-end, you're not going to get anywhere going that way, period," would solve my issues with the situation. With that, the players haven't been led down a road that went nowhere.
But that's not what happened. The DM allowed them to go up and everyone wasted time. It's hard enough to get people together for a game 'cause of life commitments and travel times and locations, etc. so I tend to value the time spent at the table.
So if the decision is made that they're going up and the DM doesn't shut it down right there and then, then I really feel the DM has an obligation to provide an interesting situation that everyone at the table can enjoy.
I don't see how these statements are mutually exclusive.
Everyone at the table agreeing to be polite to one another, and not to ruin the fun of the guy next to you, has nothing to do with whether that hallway is a dead end or not. One is Gamer Etiquette, the other is DM Philosophy.
I think that there are fundamental aspects that DMs share in terms of opinions. Or, simply, fundamental aspects that make a DM good or bad.
As to the specific situation, and extrapolating on it, there may be a very legitimate reason why a DM might choose to simply make it a dead end: lack of preparation. You site a "Water hazard, two traps, and an ooze"; traps, a water hazard, and an ooze of the appropriate level may require a bit more forethought and looking up rules than just whipping out a book and having it right there in front of you. There are only a few traps and hazards in the book, so you can't have one (even reskinnable) for every situation.
Some DMs also are just not good at improvisation, especially Action Improvisation. If the PCs on the moment's spur decide to invade the Lord's Manor, the DM now has to scramble for a battlemat and stats, or think of some sort of appropriate situation; it's easier to just say "No, you don't." Or to smack the PCs down. It's easier to just say "It's a dead end", because the DM has nothing in their pocket. After all, how does the DM change the map on the fly?
Granting the players a reward requirse you checking to see "What's balanced, what's appropriate for these guys, etc".
There's also a certain level of Fear of Reason. Your suggestion is that a DM should toss the players a bone, give them something story-wise for what they're looking for. But that something - the first thing the DM thinks of - might make no sense whatsoever, or lead to questions the DM has no answer for. If the PCs decide while walking through the State Capital Building, "I'm going to search for hidden stuff!" and the DM says, "Okay, you find a secret door", now the player says, "Okay, where does the secret door go, why is it there, who built it, who knows about it, what can I do with it" - the DM isn't ready for that.
Then there's the issue of red herrings. Even if you toss the PCs a bone, they might go way, way off course, for all the things you've prepared. See preparations earlier.
Last edited:
Pbartender
First Post
This...
...and this...
...sum up my thoughts on the matter nicely.
...and this...
...sum up my thoughts on the matter nicely.
I don't know about this art v skill stuff, but I do agree with you on the pipe. If a significant amount of game time was wasted climbing the pipe and accomplishing nothing, and if the players were annoyed at the waste of time as a result, then I view that as bad DMing practice. The pipe was a hook that the DM dangled in front of the players. He may not have meant it to be, but that was what it turned out to be. And by following the hook they accomplished nothing. Its not quite as bad as, say, offering the PCs a job guarding on a caravan on a desert journey and then sitting for four game sessions recounting, "Day 23, nothing happened. Day 24, saw a buzzard. Day 25, nothing happened." But its close.
I was running a detective game once. I gave the impression that the PCs were being followed, or at least watched, by some Organization. An NPC was going to lead the players from their current location to a new location, where they would arrive just in time to see an ally get blown up. The players spent five minutes actually devising a way to shake off any tails that might be following them, casting a spell to do it, establishing a code word for "Stuff be goin' down!", and even planned a meeting place in case they were attacked or things went south.
I then handwaved the entire trip, just "you leave, you get there, dude get blown up."
After the session, one of the players said, "You wanted us to feel tense; we bought into that, and came up with this plan. But then you basically just put a TV screen in front of us. You should've prolonged the trip, made us roll a few stealth and bluff rolls, make some rolls behind the screen to make us think we were being followed, let us execute our plan, and then use that big reveal. It would have had more of an impact if you had played up the tension we had created."
After that, I came up with a rule of thumb for handling situations like the above and the Water Pipe, and situations where PCs want to really investigate something that the DM originally had marked a dead end:
The amount of attention, time and energy PCs pay to something unrelated should be proportionate to the amount of narrative payoff they should receive. Because the more time, attention and energy a player puts on something, the more expectation they place on the activity. To have a large expectation squashed is a disappointment.
If a player, on a whim, just says, "I open that door," when you have nothing behind it? It's just a bathroom. But, if a player spends a lot of attention rolling to hear what's in the room, gauge the temperature of the doorknob, find some sort of vantage point to see into the room, shakes down every guard in the place for the key to that room, then by god something interesting should be in that room.
But yes, what you are suggesting is essentially a philosophical point. The two extremes are "I have my story, my map, and the PCs are to find my story, follow my map, and that's the game. Anything else really isn't important and I'm sticking to it" or "I have no story in mind; the world just reacts to what he PCs do, and no matter what they do, something is going to happen."
A middle ground (which is very controversial around here) is to have what's going to happen all ready prepped, but the path the PCs take is just "The way to get there". Let's say that the PCs want to reach the Hermit's House, but you want the PCs to walk into the Lair of the Big Bad Lich first. The PCs come to a fork in the road. If they pick left, they wind up in the Lair of the Big Bad Lich. If they pick right, they wind up in the Lair of the Big Bad Lich; it doesn't matter which they picked, that way is to what you want. You merely offer the illusion that their choice lead to where it was going. After the PCs fight the Big Bad LIch, they walk out of the lair, and take the other fork, and that path is the path to The Hermit's House.
There are variations of this, but the notion is to "draw the map" around the players actions, rather than "draw the map" ahead of time and let them just wander around until they find the right way.
I do think that one key to situations similar to this, is to have several situations planned ahead of time, just sitting in your pocket. It could be an RP encounter, a detail of your campaign setting, or anything. But, let's say, you just want a stand-alone encounter of PCs getting ambushed by goblins. You prep the scene, but don't put it in your adventure. When the PCs don't take the hint "Go to the Ugly Cave" and instead go somewhere you're not prepared, spring the goblin ambush on them. The ambush happens where you need to drop it.
I then handwaved the entire trip, just "you leave, you get there, dude get blown up."
After the session, one of the players said, "You wanted us to feel tense; we bought into that, and came up with this plan. But then you basically just put a TV screen in front of us. You should've prolonged the trip, made us roll a few stealth and bluff rolls, make some rolls behind the screen to make us think we were being followed, let us execute our plan, and then use that big reveal. It would have had more of an impact if you had played up the tension we had created."
After that, I came up with a rule of thumb for handling situations like the above and the Water Pipe, and situations where PCs want to really investigate something that the DM originally had marked a dead end:
The amount of attention, time and energy PCs pay to something unrelated should be proportionate to the amount of narrative payoff they should receive. Because the more time, attention and energy a player puts on something, the more expectation they place on the activity. To have a large expectation squashed is a disappointment.
If a player, on a whim, just says, "I open that door," when you have nothing behind it? It's just a bathroom. But, if a player spends a lot of attention rolling to hear what's in the room, gauge the temperature of the doorknob, find some sort of vantage point to see into the room, shakes down every guard in the place for the key to that room, then by god something interesting should be in that room.
But yes, what you are suggesting is essentially a philosophical point. The two extremes are "I have my story, my map, and the PCs are to find my story, follow my map, and that's the game. Anything else really isn't important and I'm sticking to it" or "I have no story in mind; the world just reacts to what he PCs do, and no matter what they do, something is going to happen."
A middle ground (which is very controversial around here) is to have what's going to happen all ready prepped, but the path the PCs take is just "The way to get there". Let's say that the PCs want to reach the Hermit's House, but you want the PCs to walk into the Lair of the Big Bad Lich first. The PCs come to a fork in the road. If they pick left, they wind up in the Lair of the Big Bad Lich. If they pick right, they wind up in the Lair of the Big Bad Lich; it doesn't matter which they picked, that way is to what you want. You merely offer the illusion that their choice lead to where it was going. After the PCs fight the Big Bad LIch, they walk out of the lair, and take the other fork, and that path is the path to The Hermit's House.
There are variations of this, but the notion is to "draw the map" around the players actions, rather than "draw the map" ahead of time and let them just wander around until they find the right way.
I do think that one key to situations similar to this, is to have several situations planned ahead of time, just sitting in your pocket. It could be an RP encounter, a detail of your campaign setting, or anything. But, let's say, you just want a stand-alone encounter of PCs getting ambushed by goblins. You prep the scene, but don't put it in your adventure. When the PCs don't take the hint "Go to the Ugly Cave" and instead go somewhere you're not prepared, spring the goblin ambush on them. The ambush happens where you need to drop it.
Last edited:
Toben the Many
First Post
Interestingly enough, I agree with your position entirely - although I think DMing is more of an art form than a skill.
See, I believe it's an art form to preside over a group of friends and get everyone not to act like a douche. It's like the art of throwing a party. Some people throw good parties. But some people throw epic parties.
Like any art form, you can learn how to do something. You can learn how to get people to get along. But certainly people are definitely more talented at it than other.
But you're friend is just 100% wrong.
Ironically, he's a lot better at getting people to get along (and with getting along with people) than I am. Now if only we could merge our personalities into one and become SUPER DM!
Varis
First Post
Skill, art, the meaning of (DMing) life,...all these considerations laid bare just because of a drainage pipe.
Hello, I am the DM who's woefull skills have been put under the spotlight.
I am happy to explain the issue and situation in context (as I see it), however, my feeling here is that this is an issue of 'what I could of done v's what the reality was'.
The real question is 'Should a DM change the reality to make things fun for it's own sake?'
My answer to this is,...ask an orc! The world is set. Actions have consequences which players can influence. Looking for an alternate way in is a great idea, which in this case didn't work.
The Situatation
The pipe lead to a dead end, because it was 'closed' with a heavy stone locking mechanism diverting the water flow elsewhere.
The reasons why the dwarves don't trap the pipe is because:
a. When in use, high pressure water flows through the pipe and outflows over the side of a mountain. These pipes (or more accurately, carved out tunnels in the mountain side) have been smoothed by the intense water pressures/flows over the eons. A slimey substance clings to the sides of the pipes (the result of the muck in the water composition, which is constantly being flushed and replaced with new muck/slime). To traverse the pipes successfully, you have to brace yourself against the sides and move at half speed. In addition, rope and pinions are required when the pipe starts going verticle.
b. When not in use, the source of the pipes is sealed with a heavy stone cap that can be opened from within via a mechanism of counterweights being engaged. Anyone powerfull enough to actually break through this cap, would instantly be overcome by the torrent of water (think of a dam releasing water), sliding them right through the pipe system and over the side of the mountain. Anyone secured to the pipe first, would drown. If they can breath in water, they would be pinned down by the water pressure until the cap was replaced. Moving/resiting the water pressure is an auto fail due to the players strength being insufficient.
c. Because of it's use, no creatures have made the pipes home, as they would ineviatably be flushed away.
Two players decided to explore the pipes. I decided to make this a skill challenge and thus reward them for at least trying (with xp), however, they decided to 'take 10' on all skill checks and take their time, use a climbing kit (pinions & rope), effectively making making the encounter an auto success. So no xp, but no risk of certain death.
They were told it would take anywhere from 3-5 hours to get to where they believed was the original source of the pipe.
Two players decided to go ahead over the disagreement of another three party members. The other three were not going to hang around idly, so they continued onwards. I should note that at the end of the game I was encouraged to not 'split the party', as if that had somehow been my intention?
I can see (at least) half of you pulling out your hair saying 'You've missed the point!".
It wasn't fun. Why didn't you do something about it?
Did I want them to go up the pipe? No.
Did I want them to split the party? No.
Did I want them not have fun? No.
Did the players actions result in these three things occurring? Yes.
If DMing is art, I provide the canvass, and the players are the artists. They provide the direction and I provide feedback on the results.
If DMing is a skill, then I use that skill to navigate the players through the adventure and work off their feedback to maximise their enjoyment.
If it's a bit of both, then DM and players feed off one another to maximise thier enjoyment.
What is this the right approach? I'll let you decide.
So, if the question is, 'should I change things if they see another drainage pipe in the future?'
The answer is, 'no, after all,...its just a drainage pipe'.
Hello, I am the DM who's woefull skills have been put under the spotlight.
I am happy to explain the issue and situation in context (as I see it), however, my feeling here is that this is an issue of 'what I could of done v's what the reality was'.
The real question is 'Should a DM change the reality to make things fun for it's own sake?'
My answer to this is,...ask an orc! The world is set. Actions have consequences which players can influence. Looking for an alternate way in is a great idea, which in this case didn't work.
The Situatation
The pipe lead to a dead end, because it was 'closed' with a heavy stone locking mechanism diverting the water flow elsewhere.
The reasons why the dwarves don't trap the pipe is because:
a. When in use, high pressure water flows through the pipe and outflows over the side of a mountain. These pipes (or more accurately, carved out tunnels in the mountain side) have been smoothed by the intense water pressures/flows over the eons. A slimey substance clings to the sides of the pipes (the result of the muck in the water composition, which is constantly being flushed and replaced with new muck/slime). To traverse the pipes successfully, you have to brace yourself against the sides and move at half speed. In addition, rope and pinions are required when the pipe starts going verticle.
b. When not in use, the source of the pipes is sealed with a heavy stone cap that can be opened from within via a mechanism of counterweights being engaged. Anyone powerfull enough to actually break through this cap, would instantly be overcome by the torrent of water (think of a dam releasing water), sliding them right through the pipe system and over the side of the mountain. Anyone secured to the pipe first, would drown. If they can breath in water, they would be pinned down by the water pressure until the cap was replaced. Moving/resiting the water pressure is an auto fail due to the players strength being insufficient.
c. Because of it's use, no creatures have made the pipes home, as they would ineviatably be flushed away.
Two players decided to explore the pipes. I decided to make this a skill challenge and thus reward them for at least trying (with xp), however, they decided to 'take 10' on all skill checks and take their time, use a climbing kit (pinions & rope), effectively making making the encounter an auto success. So no xp, but no risk of certain death.
They were told it would take anywhere from 3-5 hours to get to where they believed was the original source of the pipe.
Two players decided to go ahead over the disagreement of another three party members. The other three were not going to hang around idly, so they continued onwards. I should note that at the end of the game I was encouraged to not 'split the party', as if that had somehow been my intention?
I can see (at least) half of you pulling out your hair saying 'You've missed the point!".
It wasn't fun. Why didn't you do something about it?
Did I want them to go up the pipe? No.
Did I want them to split the party? No.
Did I want them not have fun? No.
Did the players actions result in these three things occurring? Yes.
If DMing is art, I provide the canvass, and the players are the artists. They provide the direction and I provide feedback on the results.
If DMing is a skill, then I use that skill to navigate the players through the adventure and work off their feedback to maximise their enjoyment.
If it's a bit of both, then DM and players feed off one another to maximise thier enjoyment.
What is this the right approach? I'll let you decide.
So, if the question is, 'should I change things if they see another drainage pipe in the future?'
The answer is, 'no, after all,...its just a drainage pipe'.
Similar Threads
