DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Cadfan]

*shrug*

I'm not offended.

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.

What you intend to communicate and what the players perceive you as communicating aren't necessarily the same thing.

When this happens, and something bad results, there are three possibilities. You didn't communicate as well as you thought, your players didn't listen as well as they should have, or your players hate your game and want it to suck.

You seem to be the sort who defaults to the second. I, as a DM, tend to default to the first.

I find that it results in a lot less blaming my friends for being stupid, and a lot more improvement in my own skills.

Maybe it has to do with my career. I get paid to convince people of things. If I spent my time after every loss lambasting the fools for not listening better and agreeing with me, I'd go out of business. I guess your mileage varies. Good luck with that.

 

[Mallus]

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.

The point being made is that both are constructed out of similar bits. A point, I notice, you aren't trying to refute.

As I've said a number of times around here --incessantly, one might say-- a story in the process of being told (collaboratively) is still a story. It doesn't magically become a story upon completion, nor is mystically something else during the process of its telling.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

CharlesRyan is completely right and you're completely wrong.

There may be dissimilarities between RPGs and stories, but Chekhov's Gun is the biggest similarity of all. The DM sorts the infinite descriptions he could give for the myriad of details in a game, and focuses them based on relevance. If the DM spends a lot of time on a detail, the players can be forgiven for assuming its important.

The interactivity just makes this sometimes spiral out of control- lets call it Chekhov's Railgun. The DM describes some detail that isn't actually important but which, for whatever reason, he thinks is cool. The players investigate that detail. The DM responds with more description, but nothing useful. The players, sensing the focus of the game centering on this item, investigate even further, determined not to miss whatever the DM has hidden there for them to find.

 

[Varis]

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

No, I just communicated the observable facts.

Did they actually see this pipe in action?

No, but they did see evidence of the water erosion on the stone path they were using. The stone was smooth.

As I understand, it only used once in a while during the day, exactly to discourage someone using water breathing and cimbing up.

Yes, to clarify, it's used once at midnight, 7 days a week.

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.

I told them this, except for the 'Probably closed' part. There was no observable way for them to know this, except for the fact that water wasn't actually gush out of the pipe.

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.

If they had arrived at the pipe at midnight on any other night, they would of observed this.

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...

Agreed

so you could give some advice like: interestingly noone even bothered to put some bars at the lower end...

By the same token, saying this could be construed by the players to me that theres 'nasty' in the pipe waiting to be killed. The players had the pipes described to them, they knew the pipes had no bars on them.

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)

The clues to that were the slime on the pipe inner walls (as opposed to the pipe being bone dry), the waste nature of the water itself (which they were informed about), and the fact that it is servicing a citadel which is still used by the dwarves to this day.

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.

Correct.

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.

Rewards good ideas, yes. Making it clear the PC's are on the wrong route, (for it's own sake) however, I would disagree with.

They were given information to make choices. They made the. I described the result of those choices.

And when you allow them to walk on the wrong route, following a red herring, even then it should be interesting or useful.

It was my intention to present the two players inside the tunnel with a skill challenge. The they decided to take 10 on all checks, because they were happy to take their time. This ruined the skill challenge since it became virtually impossible to fail the DC's.
I have since read up on this and learnt that they couldnt take 10 during a skill challenge, because a skill challenge is considered an encounter, and you can't take ten during an encounter.

The error in this is mine. They will still be getting xp for the 'challenge', albeit, a minimal amount.

 

[Varis]

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.

I'm sold.

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.

I agree that I'm far from perfect as a DM. I did try to introduce a skill challenge for them, by they circumvented it by taking 10 on the checks (see previous post).

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"

To discover this, the PC's would of had to of travelled 3 hours in game time. The remaining 3 PC's wanted to take actions during those 3 hours.

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.

I agree.

They have discovered a potential escape route if they need it if they can get the mechanism to divert the water flow to another pipe/s and manipulate the mechanism to then open the cap. (however , they wont know this is an option until they get inside the citadel).

 

[Shadeydm]

If the DM spends a lot of time on a detail, the players can be forgiven for assuming its important.

You are assuming that the DM spent a lot of time on a detail. It sounds to me like a couple players decided to pursue more detail. This an important distinction. The fact that the majority of players felt it was not worth pursuing further exonerates the DM of being some how "in the wrong" in this specific situation. IMO

 

[Varis]

Which is why I would advocate for summing up the situation with a few sentences like 'after several hours of climing you realise this is a hopeless dead end. Frustrated and weary you climb back through the water pipe cursing your bad luck.' Meanwhile what were you other 3 doing?

And so 5 seconds later the game is back on track, or if not on track at least not bogged down in a dead end.

The only problem here, is that for those 3 hours, the other three players proceeded up the mountain road and took on nine orcs. The other two PC's were at least 2 hours away by this time. The two players had to wait out the fight.

 

[Varis]

I've DMed similar situations. It's a 'Catch-22'. If I say right away it's a dead end, then I'd be accused of railroading. So to avoid that stigma, I'd have to let them make choices that would appear to be 'wasting time'.

The main problem I see here is the actual splitting of the party.

Once a party splits up, not only does the load double for the DM to provide entertaining choices, but the amount of danger increases for the characters.

The first instinct I'd have is to throw a monster (the forementioned ooze) at the piping-PCs. But, what about the other PCs? They'll need something entertaining. A fight for them is one answer, such that everyone is rolling initiative and participating, but sometimes throwing in a fight feels arbitrary and 'railroady'.

But, having one group in a fight, and another group in another situation (non-fight) creates its own problems:
- Some players feel like a fight is a reward, especially since there is XP involved. The non-piping PCs would feel ripped off unless you presented them with a fight and/or Skill Challenge.
- Often times, however, the non-piping PCs will feel like they should deserve some reward because they are actually progressing plot while the piping-PCs aren't. By 'rewarding' the piping-PCs with a fight or information or treasure, you are establishing a precedent: this game isn't about teamwork.

So let's say both groups get an encounter. Now, if the piping and non-piping PCs are in their own separate fights, there's the danger of overwhelming them with encounters that are too difficult. Since 4th ed is designed for team play (at least in combat), I could easily see a half-PK.

Of course, I probably would have thought to myself 'screw it' and had the pipe open (and rewrite the adventure to have the pipe open at that precise time), then present it as a Skill Challenge to escape unharmed, but some players can see through this decision and think the DM is trying to kill them, instead of making the whole situation interesting.

Yes, a fair analysis of my thinking at the time (except for the last paragraph - I didn't think 'screw it' etc, etc).

 

[CharlesRyan]

You are assuming that the DM spent a lot of time on a detail. It sounds to me like a couple players decided to pursue more detail. This an important distinction.

Not in the presence of Chekhov's Gun. Chekhov's Gun is a noteworthy detail even if it is only present as a brief glimpse in passing. Consciously or subconsciously, Chekhov's Gun compels attention.

The players are approaching a mountain keep. The GM presents them with what appears to be an alternate way of getting in. Of course the players want to pursue more detail. It doesn't matter how much or little detail the GM initially gave it.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn't magically become a story upon completion

Actually, it does. A story requires a resolution to be a story. Until there's a resolution, it is something else. More importantly, that thing it is doesn't likely follow the conventions a story during the process of play. There's starts and stops, dead ends, "wasted time" and irrelevent detail. It only becomes a story when everyone is sitting around with a beer, talking about how awesome it was when they assaulted that orc stronghold. They modify the details, at least through inclusion and omission, and give it a narrative. Then it becomes a story.

As to whether the DM can be "blamed" for providing the players detail when they ask for it -- well, that's just silly. Castigating the DM for *not* railroading the players makes no sense at all. I mean, imagine:

DM: You see a few people around the tavern.
Player: Are there any women?
DM: Sure, there's a pretty half elf sipping a glass of wine.
Player: What's she wearing?
DM: A dress.
Player: What color is it.
DM: It doesn't matter. She;'s not important to the story I am trying to force you to play.