DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[billd91]

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?

My answer to this one is simple. All PCs get all the same XPs, whether the player is there or not. I've tried it the other way, where only the present players get XP for their characters or giving out different XPs when split up, yadda yadda yadda.

It all ended up just being a big headache. It's a lot easier when the PCs all advance together, for both me as DM and for the other players. All XPs won by the party are put in a big hopper and simply divided out across the whole party. If someone feels cheated by it, they can find another game.

 

[C_M2008]

I agree that the area/world shouldn't change because a player goes there, but if the players came up with a creative way to get past the plug that should be fine (maybe heat boreing a smallish hole to drain the water and relieve the pressure before opening it).

It might be a deadend but it's the DMs job to accept the fact that players can come up with ways to get around/negate them.


One thing I thought was odd was that I though "taking 10" was gone with 4e. If it's still there surely it's not allowed in risky situations (like climbing a slick, slimy drain pipe).

 

[Reynard]

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

While I think this case is altogether different than Varis' situation, I'd like to comment.

What the player did here was act impulsively. The player didn't ask further questions, didn't examine the istuation more closely and didn't listen to his fellow players. instead, he got an idea, grabbed hold of it, and jumped.

This hapopens in real life, too, often with the same disappointing or even tragic consequences.

If I were GMing that session, the monster would have done what the monster does -- grappled and torn into tiny little pieces the halfling wizard. Now, it would have done it by the rules -- an initiative roll, an attack roll, etc... -- but by your description the outcome would have been the same: a dead PC and an unhappy player (probably -- I know some players that would laugh it off as their own stpud mistake; I also know players that would cry foul and claim "DM fiat" or rules breaking).

While I want the players to succeed in havinga good time, I want the PCs to suffer adversity and danger around every corner. Players and their characters that act rashly tend to get killed.

But I also don't play favorites or "cheat" in favor of the monsters or even my beloved BBEGs. If the 4th level party rushes the Lich and manages -- through luck and/or tactics -- to destroy it, they get the XP and the treasure. There's no such thing as a "level appropriate" world, either in favor of or hedged against the PCs. The world is the way it is, with a demon haunted ruin here and a goblin warren there. Players must make an effort to figure out which is which: through research, "gathering information" and *careful* exploration.

But jumping into the gaping maw of a monster? I don't care how many times you've seen it in a movie or how cool it was. Chances are, you're dead.

And, if you're not dead, if you pull it off and cut your way out of the purple worm's stomach holding its still beating heart in your hand, good for you! You just created one of those awesome memorable moments we all game for. Giving those moments away cheapens them and cheapens the game.

 

[lin_fusan]

While I think this case is altogether different than Varis' situation, I'd like to comment.

What the player did here was act impulsively. The player didn't ask further questions, didn't examine the istuation more closely and didn't listen to his fellow players. instead, he got an idea, grabbed hold of it, and jumped.

I feel like situation is similar to Yaris because of the following points:
1) There was an obvious difference between my conception of the situation and the player's conception. What I saw was narrative text, he saw as a detail that stood out and meant something.
2) Because of this conception, the player thought there was an instant win situation, such as the weak spot in a video game shooter.
3) If I don't reward him for this "innovative thinking" or "attention to detail" the player would probably be pissed.

Obviously, the situation is different because there are direct, dangerous consequences for failure in my example than in Yaris's, but I feel the core issue is the same.

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, having been on Yaris' side all through this thread I have a question: How did you describe the area under the drain pipe? If the runoff from the mountain is collected and used to flush the waste out of the citadel daily at midnight there would tons of detritus and the beginnings of a river bed under the drain pipe. Has this thing been here for centuries? A deep hole or precipice should have been carved into the mountain side by this daily flush. Did you describe this to the PCs as well?

 

[S'mon]

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

4e and to a large degree 3e focused on challenging the PCs, not the players, IMO.

You're right that that approach is not really Gamism, challenging the players as players.

I suppose you could say the main Challenge in 3e & 4e is to Build your PC right, a la building a MagicTG deck.

 

[S'mon]

Challenged to do what, exactly? Make smart choices in a context largely defined by implausible, if not outright absurd, kinds of fiction?

I think the original D&D approach, the one that Yaris follows; is that the GM impartially simulates a world that is internally consistent, although not all its laws are those of the real world. There are obervable clues whether in a particular case the PCs are dealing with reality-based reality (the default), fairy tale-based reality, pulp swords & sorcery based reality, and so on. The players interact with the environment, the GM impartially arbitrates success or failure.

For original D&D the impartial simulation fundamentally enables the game - the challenge - as I have said elsewhere (so GDS and GNS theory don't really work since they posit this as 'incoherent' and dysfunctional play). The players make their choices, the GM makes rulings as an impartial referee, the dice fall as they may, the PCs succeed or fail.

 

[S'mon]

C
And as for prodding the in-game action along... the whole shebang is designed to produce contrived fantasy action stories. Those are the things the simulator was built to simulate.

Well, uh no. Not necessarily. The way Varis is doing it, the D&D way at least pre-Dragonlance, is to simulate an environment, not to create a type of story.

Before Ron Edwards mucked it up, the GDS Threefold Model he borrowed distinguished environment-simulation (Simulation) from story creation (Dramatism). Edwards conflated those two as a messy Sim category in order to create room for his special favourite, Narrativism (Premise-based story creation), a particular subset of Dramatism.

In any case, like I said, the D&D way was to impartially simulate a comprehensible though fantastical environment in order to create a fair challenge for the playing skills of the players.

(edit: For fairness' sake I guess I should point out that per GNS theory, Gamism or Sim are technically supposed to describe only the stance of the player - playing to win or playing to experience - and then you design a game to facilitate that. They (G, N and S) are technically not supposed to describe what the game itself is doing, but that seems to be the more common useage).

 

[S'mon]

Actually, having been on Yaris' side all through this thread I have a question: How did you describe the area under the drain pipe? If the runoff from the mountain is collected and used to flush the waste out of the citadel daily at midnight there would tons of detritus and the beginnings of a river bed under the drain pipe. Has this thing been here for centuries? A deep hole or precipice should have been carved into the mountain side by this daily flush. Did you describe this to the PCs as well?

I was wondering this too. The area of the path where the high pressure jet sweeps it would to my mind be swept clear of all debris and look quite different from the neighbouring areas; that (and the lack of smell) might be a warning this wasn't just a sewer drain.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... an issue of 'what I could of done...'

... had I been a player, I would of considered this completely selfish behaviour...

They could of easily been killed in this fashion.

Had it been open, water would of been gushing out of it.

... they would of had torrents of water crashing down on them...

Heh, that certainly would of been the case if they tried breaking the stone.

Had the timing been a little different, I would of had pleasure...

... they would not of climbed the mountain...

... they would of stayed in the local taven...

Whatever choices you would of made, know that as your DM, I would of done my best to exercise them.

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

To discover this, the PC's would of had to of travelled 3 hours in game time.

... which for all I knew could of taken another fifteen minutes...

Had they done this, then yes, I could of said...

A non PC level character would of had a greater deal of difficulty...

c. Would of found it far more difficult to travel vertically up the pipe.
d. Would of been denied access by the cap anyway.
e. Would of had sufficient common sense not to try.

... the pipe could of been another road.

Why couldn't the other two players simply of 'jumped into the void in the pentagram' so to speak?

In this example, the players would of acted because of a 'lack' of information, and thus got themselves killed.

For all I knew, it could of taken another half hour to work it out had I tried to look it up on the spot.

Yes, the pipe COULD of been something...

It would of saved a lot of time.

Gah!

-Hyp.