DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Kzach]

woot! Xp! :d

Awesome! Now you can upgrade with that brain you've always wanted

Ignore Chekhov's advice if it clashes with you playstyle--that's certainly your right. But don't be surprised if your players waste time, you all have an unsatisfying game session, and you end up talking about it in an 8-page ENWorld thread.

Thread winnar!

Lucky, 'cause I'd just run out of popcorn.

 

[billd91]

The theory is called Chekhov's Gun. Not Chekhov's Grass or Chekhov's Painting. It's about a gun because a gun, just by virtue of being there, suggests that it might itself be relevant.

Nobody--not me, and not Chekhov--is suggesting that anything you include has to be relevant, and that you must exclude all irrelevancies. But Chekhov's Gun states that if something is naturally suggestive of relevance (like a pipe that might be an alternate entrance into a heavily guarded keep), it should either be relevant (now or later) or should be edited from the scenario.

One irony of all this is that Chekhov wasn't talking about a gun either. That was just a metaphor he was using to tell another playwright to cut out a superfluous monologue.

But I'm not really sure a dwarven fortress's sump drain really fits my definition of naturally suggestive of relevance.

 

[Varis]

Thread winnar!

Lucky, 'cause I'd just run out of popcorn.

Heh, you wish.

I've seen some interesting point in this thread so far, including:

Narritive play v's sharing DM plot authority v's Verisimilitude/simulationism
Bordom v's Fun
Skill v's art
Meta gaming v's railroading
Current players v's new players
Insta kills v's skill checks
Being Dumb and smelly
Doors v's dead ends
Being a 'douche' v's contributing
Sandbox gaming
Communication v's percieved communication
Punishing players
Gazebo
Chekov's Gun (or mini gun or rail gun or whatever)
Differing DMing styles
Dungeon design and planning
Plot hooks v's cows
Beer v's getting enough of it
and Social contracts

...to name but a few.

Whilst interesting, and not without particular merit, all this could be avoided if the players had done 1 thing...

STAYED TOGETHER AS A GROUP.

Had they done this, then yes, I could of said "After 3 hours of climbing, you reach an dead end,..blah, blah, blah"

2-5 minutes spent on it at max,..unless they tried breaking through of course.

In hindsight, I'm glad it happened. The players all learnt something.

So,...

Varis and his supporters 1
Kzach and his popcorn 0

Time for me time get on my 'high and mighty' warhorse and ride off into the sunset.

Thank you all for your participation in this matter.

Hmmm,..I wonder how many pipes the players have to ride by next week,..., eh, who cares, they're just pipes.

 

[Vegepygmy]

But I'm not really sure a dwarven fortress's sump drain really fits my definition of naturally suggestive of relevance.

Bingo. Some posters here think that the pipe was "naturally suggestive of relevance" -- I imagine because they are used to DMs who only mention things like the pipe when they are relevant. Other posters (myself included) are used to a play-style in which details like the pipe are mentioned all the time, so there is nothing "naturally suggestive of relevance" about it.

 

[Kzach]

Varis and his supporters 1
Kzach and his popcorn 0

Sigh, how little you learn, Grasshopper. This was never a competition. This was about you learning your art.

I guess I'll just have to keep teaching

Hmmm,..I wonder how many pipes the players have to ride by next week,..., eh, who cares, they're just pipes.

Until, of course, the pipe is not just a pipe and no matter what subtle hints you give, you can't convince your players to go up it... Grasshopper.

 

[Cadfan]

Bingo. Some posters here think that the pipe was "naturally suggestive of relevance" -- I imagine because they are used to DMs who only mention things like the pipe when they are relevant. Other posters (myself included) are used to a play-style in which details like the pipe are mentioned all the time, so there is nothing "naturally suggestive of relevance" about it.

I think that most people, in fact, possibly everyone, are accustomed to the DM subtly redirecting the party away from wastes of time. Its a natural, human thing to do. It can be done using game mechanics (skill check, knowledge check). It can be done by having the DM bring up character knowledge ("you're pretty sure that won't work."). It can be done by telling the players what's going on. It can be done by altering your intentions so that something which would have been a waste of time is no longer so. It can be done by subtly altering the tone of your voice in response to a player's question.

I think one of these is more likely than the idea that you or anyone else has got the ability to always detect whether drainage pipes can or cannot be used as secret entrances.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I think that most people, in fact, possibly everyone, are accustomed to the DM subtly redirecting the party away from wastes of time. Its a natural, human thing to do. It can be done using game mechanics (skill check, knowledge check). It can be done by having the DM bring up character knowledge ("you're pretty sure that won't work."). It can be done by telling the players what's going on. It can be done by altering your intentions so that something which would have been a waste of time is no longer so. It can be done by subtly altering the tone of your voice in response to a player's question.

I don't disagree with you on this point. I think where our disagreement lies is whether DMs should strive to avoid their natural, human tendency to "subtly redirect" the players or embrace and develop it. (Or at least, whether only one or both of these are valid play-styles to enjoy.)

As a DM, I strive to be more of a neutral referee than a subtle director, and as a player I prefer DMs who do the same. What I am sensing from you and some of the other posters to this thread, however, is hostility toward my preferred play-style, and not a little bit of "you don't even realize that you're influencing your players." Both of which insult me. (If I've misinterpreted your position or motives, I apologize.)

I think one of these is more likely than the idea that you or anyone else has got the ability to always detect whether drainage pipes can or cannot be used as secret entrances.

That's a nice straw man you just made there.

 

[Varis]

Sigh, how little you learn, Grasshopper. This was never a competition. This was about you learning your art.

Huh, so now it's an art!

Until, of course, the pipe is not just a pipe and no matter what subtle hints you give, you can't convince your players to go up it... Grasshopper.

Like for instance, footprints, a locked grate, handgrips running along it,...those sort of hints? Fear not, pipes are my speciality,..err,..that came out wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

Late to the party as usual, I am; but a few thoughts...

1. As played, Varis got it right. Period.

2. Chekhov's Gun really should, in a D+D-type game, be an illusion more often than not. Dead ends exist. So do death traps. Characters will insist on exploring both regardless. In this particular case, if the outfall end of the pipe is obvious enough that the PCs can't help but notice it as they walk by, then it pretty much has to be described along with the rest of the scenery. If they want to explore it, more power to 'em.

Why should it sometimes be an illusion? To avoid the horrible sound of players saying "The DM mentioned it, it must be important!" whenever something unusual does get mentioned in a scene or description. Sometimes, unusual things are there just to, well, be unusual; and the players/characters have to spend effort and look for the important stuff among the irrelevancies.

3. I have no problem with the party splitting up. When my players do this they know damn well there's going to be some downtime involved for each group and that it might not be evenly divided; they accept that, and split anyway. Fine with me.

4. Those who fought the Orcs get the ExP for that battle. Those who weren't there - or who were there but did nothing - get nothing. I highly recommend this as a standing rule for all situations - if you're not involved in it, you don't get ExP for it, regardless what "it" is.

Lan-"the art lies in making the skill look like art"-efan

 

[Varis]

Late to the party as usual, I am; but a few thoughts...

1. As played, Varis got it right. Period.

2. Chekhov's Gun really should, in a D+D-type game, be an illusion more often than not. Dead ends exist. So do death traps. Characters will insist on exploring both regardless. In this particular case, if the outfall end of the pipe is obvious enough that the PCs can't help but notice it as they walk by, then it pretty much has to be described along with the rest of the scenery. If they want to explore it, more power to 'em.

Why should it sometimes be an illusion? To avoid the horrible sound of players saying "The DM mentioned it, it must be important!" whenever something unusual does get mentioned in a scene or description. Sometimes, unusual things are there just to, well, be unusual; and the players/characters have to spend effort and look for the important stuff among the irrelevancies.

3. I have no problem with the party splitting up. When my players do this they know damn well there's going to be some downtime involved for each group and that it might not be evenly divided; they accept that, and split anyway. Fine with me.

4. Those who fought the Orcs get the ExP for that battle. Those who weren't there - or who were there but did nothing - get nothing. I highly recommend this as a standing rule for all situations - if you're not involved in it, you don't get ExP for it, regardless what "it" is.

I like your thoughts. In respect with item 3, the players obviously too late realised the consequences of splitting the party in terms of xp lost.
I 100% agree with your sentiment in respect to the party splitting, so long as they players realise that there will be real world roleplaying 'downtime' and it might result in an uneven xp split.
If I were a player, I wouldn't want the party splitting.
As a DM though, all options are open.

Lan-"the art lies in making the skill look like art"-efan

Wow, that's deep.