DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[the Jester]

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 couldn't disagree more. The dm, imho, absolutely should let the party waste all the time they want to waste. It's not the dm's place to decide what the pcs do.

If a group is heading for a dead end, I have no problem with letting them discover that. Am I going to fill every single place the party goes with a threat, hazard or trick? No. That's just silly. Why would the interior of a waste disposal pipe be trapped? How would the pcs know there is nothing up there?

I think I have to come down on the side of the dm on this one.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Well, you're free to have that opinion. And I don't agree with it. Here's why...

The DM does not know for sure that it is going to be a complete dead-end before the PCs go up and decide to do nothing when they get up there. Even if I expect it'll be nothing, I cannot count on it.

Players think up the darnedest things, sometimes. At the table, I have one brain, they have several - in general, I can count on them to come up with more ideas than I. So, just because I cannot think of what they could possibly gain going up there, shutting them down is doing them a disservice.

In a real sandbox game, I have to be prepared for the players to make the trip interesting on occasion, rather than always feeding them obvious stuff for everything I allow them to try. The world is there, and they can affect it, but they have to think of how. They have the right to choose not to, of course.

 

[kitsune9]

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'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

I don't think it falls snuggly into an either/or. I think it has to be both. Of course, it doesn't really matter to me what it's really called so long as the DM is person who is prepared and just doesn't flub the adventure, the rules, and everything else in between.

 

[Mallus]

That's just simulationism.

Most simulations are created for a reason. They don't exist for their own sake. I thought the simulations (ie settings) found in role-playing gaming existed to facilitate the enacting of adventure stories. The simulation, in this case, could be said to be simulating these kinds of stories themselves.

What a "sandbox" implies is that there is no railroad whatsoever, no expected path for the players to take.

Which is to say any path leads to some kind of adventure (or is skipped over as quickly as possible). If the paths lead to tedium and endless milling about the DM will soon find his sandbox empty.

They can go anywhere they want in the world, and do anything within the limits of their abilities, the world's physics, etc.

And whatever they do eventually leads to adventure (or the campaign ends). Because that's what RPG's simulate -- adventure stories.

If you put a path in front of the players at all, you're not "sandbox gaming." It would never even occur to a sandbox DM to say "But don't go down it," because there is no path.

Again, because wherever they go there will be the killing and taking of stuff, it's endemic to the medium.

Let's not make too much of 'simuationism' eh? In the end it's no less contrived than more directed modes of play, because, again, it's a simulation of the worlds found in contrived fantasy adventure fiction. It's not like the characters in a 'sandbox game' are likely to stumble into scenarios like those found in a Jane Austen novel or a Beckett play (or, rather, if they did, those scenarios would inevitably end in the of killing things --eat this fireball Mr. Darcy!-- and taking of their stuff).

 

[Cadfan]

I couldn't disagree more. The dm, imho, absolutely should let the party waste all the time they want to waste. It's not the dm's place to decide what the pcs do.

If a group is heading for a dead end, I have no problem with letting them discover that. Am I going to fill every single place the party goes with a threat, hazard or trick? No. That's just silly. Why would the interior of a waste disposal pipe be trapped? How would the pcs know there is nothing up there?

I think I have to come down on the side of the dm on this one.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. If they players try, you didn´t discourage them enough.

Did they actually see this pipe in action? As I understand, it only used once in a while during the day, exactly to discourage someone using water breathing and cimbing up.

So when your PC´s try to get up there, you could tell them something like:
It is used for flushing down water etc. The walls are damp, so it seems still to be in use. Probably closed.

Alternatively you could let them see how it works, either before they climbed up, or just at the moment they tried... allowing them to cut themselves free from their rope... this would have ended their expedition quite early.

Traps in the pipe don´t make sense: because noone expects anyone to climb up there when it is in use, and it is locked when not...
so you could give some advice like: interestingly noone even bothered to put some bars at the lower end...

And lastly, maybe you could have them observe the use of the pipe, allowing them to recognize if it is used regularly, so that the can meet just the right moment to be at the top of the pipe when it is opened, i am certain the preasure on the top is not too much (only the height of the water above your position contributes to the preasure)

So: it could have been made an interesting entrance into the fortification, or you could have discouraged them even more, but:

Now they know an escape route out of the fortification, this is not so bad. If they use it, you can give them XP afterwards.

DMing is a skill, as you can learn how to do it. But it is a bit ar involved...

Allowing PCs to contribute to your world however is important, because they also play the game. Reward good ideas or make it clear when PCs are on the wrong route. And when you allow them to walk on the wrong route, following a red herring, even then it should be interesting or useful.

 

[weem]

For me, I feel DM-ing well is an art. You can know all the rules and have all the DM-ing skills needed to run a game, but that in no way translates to a fun or engaging game. You need to know your players and be able to tell a fun and compelling story that draws those people into it based on their individual needs/desires. I consider writing (well) an artform and for me DM-ing is the same, if only in audio book format and much more interactive? haha.

Anyway, we'll leave that alone and get to my point...

Draw your players into the story - make them feel as though their actions matter... that's what I feel my job is basically as a DM... I am damaging those efforts if I do not reward players for trying... had your DM let them discover something, or at least have some fun getting up there (encounters, etc) you teach the players that taking chances and adventuring off the beaten path is a good thing. To me, if I didn't want them to get in that way, I would either sum it up (as has been mentioned) "You move your way up the smelly, dirty tube only to find your path blocked... but you make your way back safely enough, if not smelling good"

Again (as has been mentioned) a reward does not have to be treasure... it could simply be a combat encounter, or some kind of insight into the story - maybe they can not go any further, but they CAN see through a grate and gain some information about what is inside that they otherwise wouldn't have had, etc.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

DMing is a skill, and there is an unwritten contract that everyone refrain from douchery, but I have to agree with your friend in this particular instance. If the party splits up, I want to get them back together ASAP. I don't like half the players sitting around bored, not to mention the IC dangers of separating the group. So I don't want to invent a skill challenge, traps and monsters on the spot to prolong the separation time. Now if the PCs all decide to climb up the tube, I might decide on the spot to let them take their chances with drowning and being crushed to get in. But maybe not; if the BBEG is on the other side of the tube lock I won't. Just because the players come up with a creative idea doesn't mean it will work; that's life.

TS

 

[billd91]

Players think up the darnedest things, sometimes. At the table, I have one brain, they have several - in general, I can count on them to come up with more ideas than I. So, just because I cannot think of what they could possibly gain going up there, shutting them down is doing them a disservice.

In a real sandbox game, I have to be prepared for the players to make the trip interesting on occasion, rather than always feeding them obvious stuff for everything I allow them to try. The world is there, and they can affect it, but they have to think of how. They have the right to choose not to, of course.

Indeed. As a player in a game where this occurred, I'd be thinking right now that if the situation gets desperate in the adventure site, I now have one more potential escape route scouted out! Flush the water and follow it down the pipe. Dangerous for sure, but now the party knows how dangerous and whether or not it can be attempted.

Dang! Beat to the punch by ungeheuerlich. I've got to type my responses faster...

So. A waste of time? Possibly. But we'll have to see how the adventure all turns out in the end, won't we?

 

[aboyd]

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.

I think that's lame. I side with the other guy.