DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Orius]

I'm with Crothian on this too, though I think Firelance put it cloest to my thoughts on the matter: there are a number of skills involved in DMing and using them all together just right is an art.

As for the pipe: sometimes there are just dead ends. Depends on DMing style. Is it open-ended adventuring opposed to railroading? A plot railroad likely won't contain anything unnecessary, while something more open-ended will have more dead ends, false leads and just totally unrelated stuff. Is the DM the type to try to present a realistic world, or is he just putting in only elements he thinks is necessary?

Personally, I would have run the adventure with the dead-end intact. I much prefer exploration to railroading as a player, and I DM that way as well.

 

[DonTadow]

I had an argument with a friend last night about DM'ing. He'd just come back from a game he'd run and was telling me about how the players did something he thought was a waste of time and just silly.

I disagreed.

We then argued at length about what he should and shouldn't have done and since then, I've decided that I think DM'ing is really a skill rather than an artform. By that I mean that, sure, everyone has their own way of doing things, but at the end of the day, there are some pretty fundamentally key aspects to it that should be shared across the board.

He disagreed.

In my opinion, everyone at the table is relying on everyone else to not be a douche and to contribute to the fun rather than detract from it. I believe this is an unwritten social contract people make when agreeing to get together for a game.

He was of the opinion that, as a DM, if he sets something in front of the players, then it is what it is, no matter what. If he's decided it's a dead-end, then it's a dead-end and he won't alter that for anyone or anything.

So what do you think?

For the sake of completeness, I'll relate the issue that sparked the discussion. Basically, there was a water tube coming out the side of a mountain that led into a dwarven citadel (I think this is the scales of war path so this could possibly be a spoiler). The citadel was occupied by orcs or something. The tube was originally for getting rid of waste from mining and forging. Every so often they'd open the valves and dump a load.

So anyway, the PC's split the party. One half thinking it'd be a great idea to climb up the tube to get into the citadel, the other half thinking that's just dumb. The half that went up the tube spent quite some time clawing their way to the end of it, only to discover it was locked and there was no way through.

My argument came from the stance that he should've made the tunnel climb interesting and had some sort of reward at the end of it. What that reward was could've been anything and not necessarily the achievement of the PC's goal of getting into the citadel, but then again that's an option as well. I said I would've made it a skill challenge to get up and probably would've had a trap or two in there and water hazards, possibly an ooze or something.

In other words, it would've been a fun adventure in itself getting to the end, and getting to the end would've resulted in further adventure.

He was of the opinion that the tube was just a damned tube and that was that. No adventure. Player's wasted their time going up it in the first place and he wasn't about to change the situation to cater to the players whims. And on the matter of traps and whatnot, he was of the opinion that any sort of trap would be insta-kill so he couldn't put them in there. I argued that there should really not be such a thing as an insta-kill trap as it defeats the purpose of the game. Damage is abstract for a reason.

I'm sure he'll chime in at some point to correct me of my bias against his stance, but until then feel free to bag him

It's a bit of both. Its a skill in that there are fundamentals that are just specific, you have to do to be good at DMining. But every DM has their way of doing things to perform these skills. I know a half dozen Iron DMs, all of us have a different artform of dming, yet our level of skill at dming is about the same. Different players like different dm styles.

I"m the kind of DM that relishes in the unexpected, but I know of darn good DMs that would have sided with your friend. The truth is neither of you are right.

 

[korjik]

Varis, do you think that the players got the impression that it was just a drainage pipe? That it was just a special effect?

I occasionally end up with the same problem. My players are too smart and sneaky and they occasionally go off on a tangent like this.

Sometimes you have to tell them it is just a cow.

That is where I think you made a mistake. When the party started to split up, you should have taken an action to avoid that, since the split would end up with alot of wasted time.

I am not saying that you shouldnt allow them to split up, or that you should railroad them, but that when you see that they are going in a direction that will leave 60% of the party twiddling their thumbs while the other 40% wastes part of an evening of play, you should take action to try to prevent that. You knew it was a waste of time and that it would leave several players with nothing to do for a while. They didnt know.

 

[Varis]

Hi Korjik,

Thanks for your thoughts.

To answer your questions...

I made it plain as day that it was a pipe that carried waste water out of the mountain with significant pressure. They climbed up the mountain side and checked it for archers and traps...and found none

You are correct in saying that they did not know that the pipe was a dead end.

However, I disagree when you use the defense 'they did not know' and therefore were justifed in pursing that course of action.

Lets look at what they did know. They knew, for instance, that it would require a significant 3 - 5 hour journey up a mountain side, inside a cramped tunnel, crouching at half speed, in a pipe filled with 'gunk', where even if they did meet a 'nasty', they could not effectively fight or if they had their rope cut (which had the situation occurred, I would definately target), they would effectively fall to their deaths. Only one of the two had darkvision, so a lightsource was used.

More importantly though, in my opinion, is the fact that they willingly left three other party members without a care in the world as to what they do or what becomes of them. This was completely in their control (and had I been a player, I would of considered this completely selfish behaviour and unacceptable). They could of easily been killed in this fashion.

Btw, they roleplayed aprroximately 15 minutes exploring the pipe (I switch back and forth 3 times), although it did result in the party being seperated for half the game and the other three players fighting orcs alone.

Interestly, the other two players (which were in the pipe) believe they should also be awarded xp for the fight that the other three players were involved in. They believe it would be 'fair' and prevent uneven distribution on player xp.

I'd love to know your thoughts in this.

 

[Kzach]

Interestly, the other two players (which were in the pipe) believe they should also be awarded xp for the fight that the other three players were involved in. They believe it would be 'fair' and prevent uneven distribution on player xp.

Egads. You didn't participate in the encounter, you don't get the XP. Simple. Maybe next time they won't be so quick to run off by themselves.

 

[Beginning of the End]

We then argued at length about what he should and shouldn't have done and since then, I've decided that I think DM'ing is really a skill rather than an artform.

First off: The distinction you're trying to draw seems meaningless to me. Artists spend years training and honing their skills. So the idea that there's some sort of division between "art" and "skill" is ridiculous.

By that I mean that, sure, everyone has their own way of doing things, but at the end of the day, there are some pretty fundamentally key aspects to it that should be shared across the board.

So really what you mean to say is that you think everyone should like the exact same type of novels... err movies... err music... err games... Right, games.

What were we talking about again?

Oh, right. You were claiming that everyone should like the exact same things that you like.

Whatever.

Personally, I wouldn't want to play with either of you. He locked the far end of the tube not because there happened to be a lock there (that could theoretically be picked or penetrated in some other way), but because he wanted the players to do what he wanted them to do. You, on the other hand, wanted the game world to rewrite itself so that the players are carefully coddled and constantly rewarded, regardless of whatever harebrained scheme they cook up.

I'm a sandbox guy, so neither of you would satisfy my gaming itches.

(Finishes reading the thread.)

Okay, I take it back. Varis can DM for me any time. Clearly he had a sandbox and the players were allowed to play in it. Exactly my type of game.

I am not saying that you shouldnt allow them to split up, or that you should railroad them, but that when you see that they are going in a direction that will leave 60% of the party twiddling their thumbs while the other 40% wastes part of an evening of play, you should take action to try to prevent that. You knew it was a waste of time and that it would leave several players with nothing to do for a while. They didnt know.

If you decide to split the party and do something that can be very quickly resolved but takes 3 hours of game time-- knowing that the rest of the party is going to go do things in those 3 hours that will take substantial amounts of time to resolve -- then you're making a decision to be audience members for that portion of the evening.

The players had all the information they needed and they made the decision anyway. Whether there was something interesting at the end of the drainage pipe or not wouldn't have had any effect on the 3 hours they spent climbing it while the other PCs were dungeon-crawling.

I had a player make a decision like that a couple of months ago: While the other PCs went dungeon-crawling, she decided to stick in town and make a Gather Information check. Well, 1d4+1 hours of dungeoncrawling chewed up a good chunk of that session. The Gather Information check took about 2 minutes to resolve.

(The information proved very useful and she didn't regret the decision at all. But she easily could have. And she knew that when she made the decision.)

 

[Tewligan]

I'm Tewligan, and I endorse Varis' decision and DM'ing style.

 

[Nightson]

While in most cases XP should be distributed even to absent members, in this case given the circumstances under which they parted I would be disinclined to award them the XP.

But you should also take into account how they'd handle this. People can have very different perspective's on things.
In your view they may have seized on an irrelevance, split up the party, been rude and selfish and delayed the game, then asked for XP they didn't deserve.
In their view they may have seized upon a hook you provided, then roleplayed their characters, then got shot down by you for no reason and now you're denying them XP out of spite.

So be careful, the XP is a small thing, you should be willing to give it to them, it's easy to fall into an adversarial mindset regarding the DM-player relationship, from both the DM and the player side. It's also easy to fall into trying to 'correct' player behavior through DM control of mechanical rules of the game world, which is usual something that leads to bad results.


And on a sidenote, if you're worried about splitting up the party, have the group come up with a solution in-character. Something as simple as when presented with two options agreeing to abide by majority rule.

 

[JackSmithIV]

I disagree.

DMing absolutely is an art. There are just more skilled artists than others. I can make aweful paintings, and Salvador Dali can make wonderful paintings. It's still art, even if my painting sucks.

Art and skill are not mutually exclusive. Good DMs have technique. They understand how to craft the collaborative experience of sitting down at a table to enter imaginative worlds and build stories together in a way that is fun and engaging.

But the end result is absolutely work of art. I am typing this post after I've just DMed a wonderful session. My work of art was was in the way I made the great library of Candlekeep come alive for my players, and how they explored the monastic library with wonder and excitement. My work of art is how they hung on every word for an hour as I imporvised new lore that they discovered while poring over the pages of new tomes. My work of art is how they fell for a visiting noblewoman from Durpar, and how their blood boiled when they discovered that she was a succubus sent to sabotage their efforts.

My art is how they had the best night of their week, because they got to wander a fantastic imaginary world with some of their best friends. And I'm an artist, and that's really all there is to it.

 

[Kzach]

Okay, I take it back. Varis can DM for me any time. Clearly he had a sandbox and the players were allowed to play in it. Exactly my type of game.

You might want to understand the term before you use it.

Varis' method was definitely not sandbox. He'd decided there was no possible way in which the PC's could attain anything by going up the tunnel. He was sticking to the very linear story-line by not adapting to the situation. He was following the module.

Whereas I just would've made something up on the spot. And in so doing, I wouldn't lead the PC's down a road that led nowhere... unless there was a reason for doing so that contributed to enjoyment of the game.

Here's a helpful reference for what 'sandbox gaming' is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_(video_games)