DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[LostSoul]

I was just looking at some of the advice in WotC publications like Dungeon and it does tend in that direction. It seems like players are supposed to be pampered, rather than challenged to step-on-up.

That's one of the few times I've heard that D&D is moving away from gamism!

 

[Zimri]

It got noticed initially because a player has a passive perception of 24.

It was remarkable because
1. Its an distinguishing feature, compared to the otherwise barren rockface of the mountain.
2. It does serve a game purpose, just not the one the players imagined

Yay let's use the fact that a player has a high perception against them. Do you also point out which flower in a field has the largest stamen, or the heights and weights of everyone in a village, the general size and consistency of dragon droppings ? a high perception would notice those things as well. Perception in game is for finding things that are useful, in the real world we all have our own filters to determine what is or isn't important in the game world you are that filter.

Ok, this is a good thought.

There are several reasons why this did not occur.

The first is that there is a orc war going on. One of the party members is a half orc. When the party is in his compay, nobody wants to do anything other than stick a knife in him. However, there are reasons (which I won't go into) why he is still breathing.

As for your example, they did ask about the citadel,..but who's going to talk about the plumbing? It's like asking a Priest about the Vatican and getting feedback about its toilet facilities. They were informed that dwarves trained paladins there, that served at the watch, and that weapons were also made at the citadel (this information was used to correctly form the theory that pipe water was used to flush out waste, including slag, metal shavings and whatnot, which a simple check of water traces confirmed).

So they didn't spend any time in a bar or walking through the city at all ? a 24 perception can get you to see moss growing on a hole 3 hours up a mountain side but nothing lets you overhear conversations or rumors ? If the plumbing is extraordinary then I would sure mention it. "Hey you may not want to be on the road at midnight cause this happens" I assume the vatican of today has the common plumbing of today or something similar. If the type of drain found at the citadel is "common" then there is no reason it should have been something so out of the ordinary that it raised any "flags" when noticed. If it is extraordinary then it should have been mentioned by someone who had noticed it prior.

This a mistake made by the players. It was just a pipe. It was still a good idea to check it, but it was a dead end. I don't care what they experienced in other games,..it has no bearing on this game and its unreasonable for them to expect it to.

Or the fact that historically this maneuver has been used in the real world by countless civilizations ? Using the sewer system as a form of ingress/egress is a brilliant strategy both in game and in the real world. If you are going to ask them to "turn off" every experience they have had or read about in the past then better communication will be paramount.

I'm not sure I understand this. Exploring the pipe took 3 hours of the characters time (About 15 minutes in real time to resolve). The three PC's who refused to go in the pipe, seeing that the other two PC's were adamant about exploring the pipe, decided not to wait around, and continued walking up the path. Hence a split party. Did I address this issue?

Repeatedly by insulting the two that went up the pipe and refused to address what historically both in the RL and in gaming worlds has been a great stealth tactic. I fail to see how "hey the 5 of us should just walk up the main road pound on the main gate and deal with whatever answers" is the more reasonable approach

The purpose of the drain was explained,...as a drain. Two players obviously imagined it was something more. Three players saw,...at best a drain, at worst, a death trap.

Two players saw an atypical and stealthy way to perhaps gain entrance and have the upper hand/surprise on whatever was waiting in the citadel three wanted to blindly follow the road up to the part where the enemy had defenses ready and likely should have seen them coming and have been prepared. Were I in your party given the information you had given me, none of which appears to have included (to the players at the time) anything about high pressure water shooting out this hole, but did include "it will be a long difficult trek" which in my mind translates to "they won't have bothered guarding this area" I know precisely what I would have done.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

A few times I saw you use "for all intensive purposes" I was pointing out for your edification that the phrase is actually "for all intents and purposes" not being snarky about it just thought you might like to know the difference. The monopoly reference was to a post after yours because well someone brought up free parking.

 

[Bloosquig]

It does sound like you might have made a mistake in pointing it out just enough to get them interested and then sat on them when they tried to explore it.

The problem with games like this is they can only rely on you to tell them what's important. When you describe a pipe next to a fortress it sounds like your rewarding them for a high skill check or giving them a clue how to get in. Do you describe the bathroom at the inn or go into detail about the silverware they use to eat their meals?

If you still feel like putting it in because you have went to all the trouble of designing a realistic citadel (which IS cool by the way ) be prepared to stomp on them when they try to explore it further so things don't go sideways or be prepared to let them find something worth wasting more time on.

"Its a fairly standard looking drainage pipe, obviously still in use. And it looks stupidly dangerous and slippery to climb into. In fact a truly impressive gush of sewage blasts out of it as you watch and doesn't land till it's halfway down the mountain."

If they still want to climb in then flush em down the mountain.

And I agree that they don't get xp for the orc fight. They took their chances with the pipe. Though I'd probably give them smarty-pants xp equal to the orc fight. At least they TRIED to do something innovative.

 

[lin_fusan]

I have a concrete example from my own game that I want people to comment on so I can better understand the arguments presented:

I'd like CharlesRyan, Cadfan, and others who believe in the entertain-first camp to comment specifically, but of course anyone can contribute...

In this 3.5 scenario, my PCs were exploring a partly sunken ship and encountered a giant living mass of seaweed. I described the creature as vaguely anthropomorphic including a gaping maw where a person's mouth would be.

The halfling wizard player glomped onto the idea of the gaping maw and on his initiative said, "I throw myself into the gaping maw!"

(I knew he was going to do the "activate a Swan Boat inside a monster" and instantly kill it cheese...)

Now, I knew the creature didn't really have a mouth. It was a detail to create an image of horror. Since it's a plant, it simply absorbs, not chews.

Here were the issues I had:
1) The player was expecting that the Swan Boat trick would instantly kill the creature.
2) The player didn't know know that the gaping maw wouldn't lead into the stomach of the creature.
3) By all rights, I should have gotten a free attack on him, and I think the creature's Grapple check was so high against the weak, small halfling wizard he would be toast. In essence, the player was unwittingly going to kill himself.
4) The player was getting frustrated because he thought he was not be effective. (I don't know where this was coming from. I think he prepared all utility spells or something.)

Now, I fully understand how Chekhov's Gun worked here. The player heard a detail, thought it significant, then acted on that knowledge.

The dilemma I had was that I wanted this to be entertaining to the player, but the monster, by the combat rules, would have ripped him a new one.

What should I have done? Ignore the combat rules to allow him to do something suicidal? Please note that all of the other players were trying to talk him out of it.

Allow him to do this impossible maneuver ( since he had no Tumble skills or even spells to ease this maneuver he would fail)?

Lastly, since he was expecting the Swan Boat to instantly kill the creature, do I give in to that expectation?

From the discussion with Varis, it sounds like some of you would, as DMs, allow this maneuver to automatically succeed because the "Chekhov's Gun" of the gaping maw was such an important detail that it must be the monster's weakness. And because the player thought it was true, then it must be true.

 

[Darkthorne]

Axe to grind?

Some people are coming across as having an axe to grind for whatever reason. They seem far too eager to tell Varis he screwed up or did it wrong. It's HIS game, HIS players and if he was so horrid I believe they would have bailed long before now. As for the people who like to pick apart each instance out of context for his explanations of what and why he did something I have one question are you that perfect? If so, that must be nice. Or a question to the people that seem to want to blame him no matter what he explains, did you have a DM that screwed you over consistently due to lack of info or only giving useless info? If that's the case maybe you should keep that between you and that person.
I DM/ref and also play and I would be psyched to have a DM from my perception of his thought and caliber in my group. If you game with the same people long enough only putting items out there that only further the main plot gets boring but hey that's my POV. I think he did an excellent job of handling the situation he was given, trying to accomodate both groups of players and what was THEIR desired course of action. Remember seeing a problem with 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing but trying to handle a group of people and accomodate them while keeping things challenging is no simple task, expect mistakes to happen and not everything ever comes out "perfect".
Btw for the record I don't know Varis from a hole in the wall. As for the thread title, pulling the rules together and thinking how to handle the mechanics I would see as skill, keeping your players enganged and have the plot flowing is an art, but that's my POV.

 

[Bloosquig]

My apologies to Varis if he feels I was picking apart his decisions thats not what I intended. I merely was saying what I would have done in his case with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. In reality I probably would have let them find a way in and improvised a horrible side entrance to my original map that ruined the adventure But thats neither here nor there.

In the case of lin_fusan's giant seaweed monster I think you have a slightly different problem. Seeing a sewer opening and thinking, "thats a great spot to look for a sneaky entrance." is well supported by just about every movie where sewer entrances appear. On the other hand jumping into the maw of a giant monster hoping to find the big red button marked "self destruct" is a different beast altogether.

I would do my best to encourage the player that that would be a foolish idea but if he persisted he would get shredded. Or maybe I'd be nice and just have the monster drag him off to his underground lair for a unique rescue mission. Maybe the seaweed needs fertilizer for it's little pods back home so it goes and buries the halfling up to his neck in the seasilt where the weed makes its home.

Or maybe the seaweed is enchanted by a sea witch who is enamored with a party member so when the halfling makes the "jump" he gets captured and you have an interesting lil side quest in store as the witch bargains for the prisoner for her love interest. Depends on how rat-bastardy of a DM you want to be.

 

[Zimri]

Some people are coming across as having an axe to grind for whatever reason. They seem far too eager to tell Varis he screwed up or did it wrong. It's HIS game, HIS players and if he was so horrid I believe they would have bailed long before now. As for the people who like to pick apart each instance out of context for his explanations of what and why he did something I have one question are you that perfect? If so, that must be nice. Or a question to the people that seem to want to blame him no matter what he explains, did you have a DM that screwed you over consistently due to lack of info or only giving useless info? If that's the case maybe you should keep that between you and that person.
I DM/ref and also play and I would be psyched to have a DM from my perception of his thought and caliber in my group. If you game with the same people long enough only putting items out there that only further the main plot gets boring but hey that's my POV. I think he did an excellent job of handling the situation he was given, trying to accomodate both groups of players and what was THEIR desired course of action. Remember seeing a problem with 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing but trying to handle a group of people and accomodate them while keeping things challenging is no simple task, expect mistakes to happen and not everything ever comes out "perfect".
Btw for the record I don't know Varis from a hole in the wall. As for the thread title, pulling the rules together and thinking how to handle the mechanics I would see as skill, keeping your players enganged and have the plot flowing is an art, but that's my POV.

1) I've no particular axe to grind against yaris don't know him , makes no difference to me

2) I find that part of that module to be poorly written. IF the drainage happened at the same time every day like clockwork in as phenomenal a way as has been described here (after the fact) then somebody in the outlying area would have said something as the PCs were passing through. Probably not to the party themselves but they surely would have overheard something. If on the other hand that method of drainage wasn't out of the ordinary then it should tend to fade into the background much like the 100th gazebo or 500th tree that stretches hundreds of feet up. There is always scat on a path if your perception gets you to notice a particular piece of scat it should have something to do with something.

3) That he had planned to give them XP and now doesn't know if he will because he let them use a rule that he shouldn't have and that let them "avoid the dangers" because the d20 didn't roll a 1 strikes me the wrong way. I like keeping the group together xp wise they don't get the orc xp obviously but they should get equivalent from the pipe, or in terms of story awards or something so everyone levels together.

 

[Darkthorne]

Zimri
1) "Yay let's use the fact that a player has a high perception against them. Do you also point out which flower in a field has the largest stamen, or the heights and weights of everyone in a village, the general size and consistency of dragon droppings ?" Seems to me as a sarcastic reply in the extreme and out of context for what he was using the perception check for. If this makes no difference to you, why the tone? (intended or not)
2) Drains do not come out of moutainsides, regardless of it's actual importance to plot it should be something of note
3)That's your playing style and you are entitled to it, nothing wrong with that. However I would feel cheated (for a lack of a better term) if my character risked his neck, defeated the bad guys & came up with solutions to problems then I was awarded the same xp's as the guys who just climbed the pipe w/o any risk. At that point why should I put in the effort if no matter what I do I get the same xp? I can see this being a non issue if everyone is trying to pull their weight, but if you have someone just showing up for attendance as it were, why do I risk anything if I'll still get the same reward?

 

[Maggan]

Using the sewer system as a form of ingress/egress is a brilliant strategy both in game and in the real world.

Sometimes, in the real world. Not every time. Not even the majority of times, I suspect. Maybe once in a while.

Repeatedly by insulting the two that went up the pipe and refused to address what historically both in the RL and in gaming worlds has been a great stealth tactic.

Well, it's not as if there is a historical fact that every time someone climbs up a pipe, they break into the castle with great success.

It has happened. And I bet that 999 times out of 1000 pipes climbed, it didn't pan out for the intruders. But those occasions don't make it into the history books, I guess.

In my campaigns, if a player try to pull a trick and expect it to work because it did once when the world was young, if historical records are to be believed, he will often be sorely disappointed.

If it works, it's because the the circumstances are right. Not because a history book said it would work.

Regarding the "situation" ... the players split up. The minority chose to leave the majority. That group would not be long for the world, in my campaigns.

Not because they spent 15 minutes spent on something which didn't pan out.

But because they split the party.

That's intraparty trouble brewing, right there. No clear leader, no clear idea of a common goal, no clear ideas on how to achieve it together ...

To me, that sounds way more serious than the pipe being just a pipe.

/M

 

[Maggan]

From the discussion with Varis, it sounds like some of you would, as DMs, allow this maneuver to automatically succeed because the "Chekhov's Gun" of the gaping maw was such an important detail that it must be the monster's weakness. And because the player thought it was true, then it must be true.

I don't think those who talk about Chekov's Gun also are saying "auto succes for everything that follows!".

I think they are saying "that which follows should be interesting".

I don't actually agree a full 100% with that, but I do think it carries some weight, and is a very good thing to think about for any DM thinking to run an adventure.

/M