DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Varis]

I understood that they spent much more than 15 min of real time in the tube, because the DM thought attacking the party with orcs inbetween is a good idea...

Actually, the three party members out of the pipe instigated the fight. The orcs were not on patrol, they were defending the entrance to the citadel.
I said something along the lines of "There are 9 of them" to which they replied "yep, we know, it'll all good, we'll wipe the floor with them".
And they actually did too. I was certainly surprised.

maybe better timing does the trick... let those other players just be attacked, when the PC´s returned frustrated, wet and unprepared... or make those attacking orc party minions only with maybe one scout which has to be captured before beeing able to flee... it just has to be done fast...

I wasn't going to alter the strength and compisition of the orcs due to actions of the PC's, of which the orcs had no knowledge.

 

[Kraydak]

Chekhov's Gun is an important point:
In RPGs, you need the DM to provide guns that the PLAYERS shoot.

If the players had climbed up, burned a magic item that let them travel through 5' of stone and used some waterbreathing effects, they would have bought themselves a stealthy entrance. The other <5' thick walls would probably have all been guarded.

Of course, DMs can never guess where the players will drill holes, which holes the players will fill with gunpowder, and, even then, which holes filled with gunpowder the players will bother to set off. Or whether they will bother taking cover first, even after using multiple barrels of gunpowder.

Side note: I have, as a player, been in a party that used a token of pit to open a hole connecting a shallow, boiling lake to volcanic tunnels below... to sweep an enemy party off a narrow mountain trail as part of an ambush.

Sometimes the players will arrive at a dead-end and blow it up. Other times they will grouse. As has been noted elsewhere, the biggest problem was splitting the party.

Second side note: while I agree with the DM on almost everything, I feel that any action that deserves XP deserves the same XP if done intelligently, even if doing it intelligently removes the risk. Being smart shouldn't punish you, being dumb shouldn't reward you. Taking 10 on the climb shouldn't reduce any xp reward.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I don't disagree with this part. but, as a literary device, CG can't be applied and players should be able to figure that out.

They don't, of course, but that's players for you. They also tend to want to make sure your big bad is dead Dead DEAD, rather than let him reappear later and rarely, if ever, purposefully fail in order to increase the drama.

Nor should they.

 

[Mallus]

Until there's a resolution, it is something else.

Suggest a better term.

As to whether the DM can be "blamed" for providing the players detail when they ask for it -- well, that's just silly.

Who said this?

 

[Reynard]

I wasn't going to alter the strength and compisition of the orcs due to actions of the PC's, of which the orcs had no knowledge.

For what its worth, this is the exact right way to run the game in order to preserve meaningful choices for players.

Have some XP.

 

[Reynard]

Suggest a better term.

Playing?

Who said this?

More than one poster has suggested that the DM is at fault for "allowing" the PCs to "waste time".

 

[Mallus]

For what its worth, this is the exact right way to run the game in order to preserve meaningful choices for players.

Correction... it's one way to preserve meaningful choices for players. Others exist.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I don't disagree with this part. but, as a literary device, CG can't be applied and players should be able to figure that out.

They don't, of course, but that's players for you. They also tend to want to make sure your big bad is dead Dead DEAD, rather than let him reappear later and rarely, if ever, purposefully fail in order to increase the drama.

Nor should they.

I won't disagree with your conclusion, except to point out that with a strictly simulationist/sandbox approach ("The tunnel is there because that's where the dwarves dug it, dammit; if the players mistakely react to the Chekhov's Gun expectation, that's their problem") you end up with unsatisfactory game sessions and contentious ENWorld threads.

Alternatively, you could respect the fact that everyone has preconceptions, and avoid the problem by either

1. Incorporating some sort of payoff for exploring the dead end; or
2. Not putting an apparently important but actually unimportant element in the adventure.

 

[Mallus]

Playing?

Too vague. Doesn't convey that the thing being discussed is a kind of narrative.

More than one poster has suggested that the DM is at fault for "allowing" the PCs to "waste time".

Ah, sorry... I misread your paraphrasing. Yeah, I'm in the camp that says a DM isn't just a referee, they're also part novelist and theater/film director. They need separate the atmospheric details from the actionable ones and they certainly need to move the action along from time to time.

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.

I hesitate to react to this, because it's entirely tangential to my point, but I can't help myself.

I completely reject this notion. I'm running a campaign now that is following a very distinct story arc. We've been playing for a year and a half, and there's likely another year of play ahead of us before we reach the conclusion.

You're basically saying this campaign is a tree falling in the forest--that if nobody talks it out after it's done, the story never existed. That's hogwash. The story exists within the minds of the players, regardless of whether they write it down or talk it out.

Completion has nothing to do with it either. An unfinished story may be unfinished, but that doesn't mean it's not a story. If I sit down with a novel, does it fail to be a story until I finish the last page? It may fail to be a complete story, but it's a story nonetheless.