DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[jbear]

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.

I think there is a big distinction here from the start: your whole party wants to investigate that tunnel.

That would be a whole new ball game for me. If they really want more info and I have decided noone is getting in there (not my case - the DM in this case's decision). I'd probably have them make history rolls (since in 4e there is no Knowledge: Architecture check available in 4e) or even Dungeoneering. The information gleaned here would let them know this is not a weak point in the fortresses construction and that unwary prodding could result in a swift and pointless death.

Personally I wouldn't have a tunnel like that into a fortress be impenetrable in the first place. Dangerous, risky, but breachable sounds like more fun to me. I use WotC adventures as I don't have the time available to build my own from the bones up. I do however give each and everyone major reconstructive surgery. I also enjoy building in plot hooks and skill challenges that allow the PC's wipe/defeat/conquer/bypass large parts of the dungeons in one fowl swoop. I love roleplay and creative thinking and probably would have tweaked this tunnel in a way that if discovered gave a chance for just that.

But that's me and my style. Everybody has their own way. That's great. I do think though as a vast majority we want our players going away from our game table with anyother feeling, be it awe, fear, enjoyment or excitement, than frustration and boredom. that's not always possible. But learning from past experiences is important and necessary to avoid that feeling again in the future.

 

[Kzach]

So basically you and some other members of your party decided something the rest of the party thought was stupid and you came on here to get people to massage your ego. i liked the dressing it up in philosophical terms. DM's are under no obligation to customize an adventure on the fly.

Wth? *I* posted this, not the DM or the players of that game.

I'm not involved in their game other than to hear the results since I'm friends with the DM. I happened to disagree with him on a minor point and figured it'd make an interesting discussion.

That's it. Where are you getting this 'massaging ego' thing?

 

[Kzach]

Some observations...

Agree 100%.

 

[Kzach]

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.

Although I agree with everything else you've said, in his defence he never intended it to spill here. Again, I have nothing to do with the group. I left because I didn't get along with the host of the game.

*I* was the one who brought it here and I only did so because I thought it'd be an interesting discussion point. Which I feel it has been.

 

[Reynard]

I think there is a big distinction here from the start: your whole party wants to investigate that tunnel.

In truth, this is probably the crux of the issue anyway. Three hours wouldn't have been "wasted" if the party was together -- 15 minutes of "The pipe smells bad, is uncomfortable and really long... at the end is a really big plug you can't seem to open... No, that didn't work either... you broke your axe... are you sure you want to use the torchbearer as a battering ram?..." and so on and the party would crawl back down the pipe, irritated that they "wasted" 15 minutes and the adventure would have moved along (and, hey, the pipe might have come in important later after they got in; quick exits from dungeons are always useful).

But because the party split up, "game time" had to be kept equal between the two groups. So now you've got one group doing "interesting" things while the other group is doing "pointless" things. This is, without a doubt, the players' fault. If there'd been any justice, the PCs out fighting the orcs would have been overwhelmed and the ones in the pipe would have emerged to find themselves sorely outnumbered in an enemy encampment on full alert.

 

[Varis]

Consider - we've got a bunch of folks hanging out with friends, probably eating snacks, drinking soda and maybe a few beers,

What! I'm supposed to be getting snacks and beers? Ripped off, all I got was a Tim Tam (although, admittably, double chocolate coated).

 

[lin_fusan]

I think there is a big distinction here from the start: your whole party wants to investigate that tunnel.

I'd like to note that in a previous post I suggested the real problem of the OP is that the party split up. If the whole party had gone into the pipe and the same thing happened, there would be some slightly different issues.

Deep down you can frame the issue to be: should the DM turn every player decision important and meaningful? The 4th ed DMG suggests in a couple of examples that the DM should make every decision important and meaningful.

There is value in that sort of play, especially if you have a group that is incredibly indecisive. They eventually learn that it doesn't matter what you do only that you do it.

In a weird way, this kind of play is great for a group that has strong, decisive player goals. Because strong player goals means strong interests which makes it easier for the DM to create on-the-fly stories since he/she has something concrete to latch on to.

 

[Kzach]

What! I'm supposed to be getting snacks and beers? Ripped off, all I got was a Tim Tam (although, admittably, double chocolate coated).

Most Americans don't know what a Tim Tam is; I feel this is their loss

 

[merelycompetent]

FWIW, I think it was handled well by the DM in question. Sure, some things probably could have been done better. Or not. I wasn't there. I certainly think an after-the-game chat with the players to make sure everyone's on the same page as far as game expectations goes would be a good idea. Because misunderstanding and mistaken assumptions have been around since the early days of gaming.

As for DMing being a skill or an art, put me in the It's Both camp. DMing ability can certainly be improved through practice, greater understanding, and improved insight. Most people, IMO, can be good at it. A few can be great. Most of the time I just do the best I can, take as much advantage of the high points as possible, and learn how to avoid the low points. I imagine most DMs are like that.

If your play style includes cooperation with the players, then the players bear some (or greater) responsibility for the game - all parts of it, including the not-so-fun parts. If your play style gives the players the freedom to have their characters insist on doing foolish, pointless, or suicidal acts, then it's up to the DM to determine how far he or she is going to go to keep them from throwing their PCs off a cliff. Or climbing up a sewage drain pipe.

To me, the players made their choices to split the party, proceed along separate paths, and one group got bored and wasted time. They made the choices. If their playstyle is such that they expected the DM to alter the encounter/setting for more enjoyment, then a talking-to is in order. If no such expectation was set, implied, or understood, then I'm not going to try and tell that group how to play. (Although from what I've read so far, it looks like fun to me.)

If Varis is open to a recommendation, here's a technique I use in my games to try and warn players that their character is about to do something foolishly suicidal or wasteful, in the DM's opinion:

"Are you sure you want to do this?"
"Are you *SURE* you want to do this?"
"Alright guys, I'm asking you, the players, one last time: Are you really, really sure you want to do this? Yes? OK." At that point the dice fall where they will, I make no alterations to the situation, and if they complain about getting flushed off the side of a mountain, I refer them to the above three warnings.

Please feel free to modify the above suggestion so that it fits with your play style and group.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Nonsense right back atcha.

All the stuff in bold I disagree with. Dead leads are a perfectly reasonable use of the party's time, aren't necessarily boring and often result from the fact that they have not yet figured out enough about the situation to recognize that they're pursuing a dead lead.

Look, when pcs are investigating things, dead leads are a perfectly valid part of the experience. Otherwise, there's no investigation; they look at something, you tell them whether to bother and then they know. It's not the dm's job to decide what the pcs poke at and what they bypass, it's up to the pcs. A lot of players cry foul when the dm tells them what their character does- and rightfully so!- how is this any different? And if the party splits up, it's certainly not the dm's bad if each half of the group has to wait their turn.

It's the same principle as "the dm occasionally rolls random dice to make the pcs nervous." Which, actually, is not to make the players nervous per se, but is more so that they don't know what it means when you roll dice.

This is a playstyle difference, but it seems like some people are trying to make it a badwrongfun issue here. If my group likes spending half a game session wandering back and forth trying to decide which way to go at a crossroads, what's wrong with that? If your group doesn't, then don't do it, and if splitting up is the issue and it spoils your fun, don't split up.