DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Vegepygmy]

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.

I must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to S'mon again.

 

[Vegepygmy]

If I don't reward him for this "innovative thinking" or "attention to detail" the player would probably be pissed.

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...

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.

This sums up how I play and why I play the way I do. For me, nothing sucks the fun out of D&D faster than the DM changing things in the game world to "reward" (or punish) the players. IMO, it's not the DM who should be deciding what behavior gets rewarded or punished; the game itself should do that.

Jump into the right monster's gaping maw? You're a brilliant, daring hero! Jump into the wrong monster's gaping maw? You're lunch. When was the rightness/wrongness of your decision to jump determined? When the monster was created/placed there in the game world, not after you decided to jump!

Now I know there are those who will argue that the game itself doesn't make decisions about what environment the PCs will encounter, the DM does that. But the point remains: the DM determines the environment before the players encounter it. What happens after that should be determined by the player's choice of actions and the rules of the game, not the DM's whim. (IMO.)

If DM whim determines success or failure, the rules of the game become less important (in determining success or failure) than impressing the DM. In that case, the real game being played isn't "D&D," but rather "Impress the DM." And that game is boring to me.

 

[Varis]

"DMing is a Skill, not an Art."

I don't know if anybody adressed this in this thread, but I actually think this statement is nonsensical. The practice of an art implies skills you develop over time. Ergo, the statement above basically confuses the end and the means.

If anything, I would think of DMing as a Craft. As such, it requires the development of a set of various skills you then use for greater performance. Just like any Craft, DMing may become "art". It's all in the eye of the beholder.

If a craftsman makes shoes for a living, he may go at it competently, albeit mechanically, without pretense or soul, or, on the contrary, put all his being, ambitions and passion into the work.
The former ain't an artist, the latter definitely is.

I like this POV.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You're lucky if you don't have any players taking shameless advantage of this, by having their characters hang back and let others take the risks knowing the ExP at the end will all divide the same.

If the DM of any game I was playing in decided to allocate ExP this way, I'd be gone; probably after a long argument.

I completely fail to see why it's a headache for anyone if characters advance at different rates.

Lanefan

 

[Varis]

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.

Right, well,...

I should of ignored it, and if the party proceeds up the road and can't handle the orcs, (and thus retreat back down the road) from the players POV, a 'magical' pipe would of appeared (above the path they had already traversed and 'explored'), with water gushing out, effectively hampering their escape.

I can hear the accusations now,...like, for instance, "What! We DIDN'T noitce?! I'VE got a 24 perception, there's no way I would of missed it!"

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.

Unless of course, you've lived with it your whole life,..it's just water being flushed out a pipe. If your going to talk to a tourist, you probably:
a. get them to buy one of your ales at double the price first.
b. Talk about the things that make you proud, like the strength of the battlements, the fact that the citadel trains the legendary dwarven paladins and the like.
c. Not even think about the waste water.
d. Or simply (at best) not talk at all to the Half Orc and his friends,..since Orcs are attacking once again.

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.

Yeah, something like, "Don't bother wasting your time, you can't get in."
Subtle enough for you? Now, if you go forward, mind the turn, the railway veers a little to the left,..oh, and get your weapons ready,..you never know what's around the corner ,..actually, let me clarify any misunderstandings you may have,...your going to get ambushed by nine orcs, but don't worry, you'll be ready, and 5 of them are minions,...look for the little minis,..yes the grey one,...don't worry, I'll mark them for you."

Oh, what Joy.

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

OMG, your right! I've corrupted the accuracy of pipe design 101 both historically and in gaming worlds. How could I of overlooked such an obvious flaw?

The idea by itself is fine. But, coupled with,.. 3 'game world hours' crawling along in single file in a wet, slimey, pitch dark and verticle pipe which could be flooded anytime, resulting in me being flushed over the mountain,...hmmm,..I'll walk on the road thanks.

But they are free to explore it.

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

So now its an atypical entrance,...damn I'll have to call the architect again.

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.

True.

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.

Hmmm,..5 pipes adjacent to one another,...the stone on the road worn smooth by years of water erosion, no side barrier on this section of road, metal filings and slag residue found in water pockets, knowing weapons are made up there, snow capped mountains, a RIVER originating from the mountain underneath them, wet slime covering the pipe walls,...and you deduce that it must be perfectly ok to climb up the mountain side to the pipes, split and weaken the party, burn 3 hours in the trip, knowing you wont get flushed out because 5 PIPES only handle small volumes of water,..and find a trap door at the end of it, letting you in, because all architects include that in their design, don't they?"

Thats the information the party had.

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.

Oh! Thank you. I stand corrected.

 

[Varis]

"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."

5 days and 223 posts later I actually thought I that should of said something along the lines of "ok, just realise that for every 1 hour of the pipe, if it does flood, you'll have to pass 6 endurance checks to hold your breath with a successive penalty on each roll."

I'd love to of given them a demonstration, but doing so at that time of day would of been breaking my own rules (as to how and when the pipe is used).

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.

True. I totally agree with that. Which is why I'm struggling to come to a decision,..because I can totally understand the other side of the arguement as well

 

[Varis]

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

It does to me. Critise me all you want, but leave 'Yaris' out of it

3) That he had planned to give them XP and now doesn't know if he will

True

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.

Also true. It was simply a bad call by me. I take fully responsibilty fot this. The 1 on a d20 roll was to introduce 'some' risk, heck 'any' risk to justify xp.

I like keeping the group together xp wise

Me too.

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.

Ok, the Orc xp was a total of 926xp, divide by 3 players = 309 each.

To keep the xp equal, that would mean the two players would of earnt 618xp for the idea, the journey, the (take 10) risk, and come to think of it, the flood risk.

Does this sound appropriate?

 

[Varis]

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)

Hmmm,..(hangs head in shame) I'm guilty of this tone too. Good point Darkthorne.

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?

This is the issue I'm struggling with atm. If I were to adhere strictly to the DMG, how would I be required to award it?

 

[Fenes]

You're lucky if you don't have any players taking shameless advantage of this, by having their characters hang back and let others take the risks knowing the ExP at the end will all divide the same.

If the DM of any game I was playing in decided to allocate ExP this way, I'd be gone; probably after a long argument.

I completely fail to see why it's a headache for anyone if characters advance at different rates.

Lanefan

We've long ago switched to "all characters are the same level" (dropped XP altogether, actually). The reasons for those are manyfold.

One reason was that we'll not "punish" people who cannot make a game - especially not if they have to miss a game or even 6 months worth of games because they are serving in our army.

Another reason is that I want people to do what they have fun with during the game, without worrying whether or not it'll give exp, and how much.

 

[Varis]

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

Bingo.
This is my biggest concern in the entire situation.