Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6759403" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!The impression I got was that if the players decided to do something that would take, say, a half-hour of game time, doing something that has nothing to do with advancing the story, getting to the next adventure, or anything even related to "the main story line", you suggest that the DM hand wave that PC's through and not allow the players to explore/investigate. You said you see that as 'wasting time' (re: checking out a supposedly 'dress setting fluff' of an ancient stone statue in the forest they are traveling through on their way to the 'real' adventure...or checking for traps at a door that isn't trapped, or listening at each of 6 doors down an off-shoot corridor that has nothing in the rooms beyond, etc).To me, that seems like you would be taking much of the decision making and role-playing out of the players hands for favour of a "faster track to the good stuff". I contend that letting the players make whatever decision they feel their characters would make is the good stuff. The battles, puzzles and traps set forth to bar their path to the Great and Evil Mogg in his bleak Tower of Corruption isn't "the brunt of the game", nor is it the only "exciting stuff". I like battles too. Lots, on occasion. My typical 5e D&D session (of, coincidentally enough, 5 hours a week) can have zero "encounters" (as you put it; combat, traps, etc), or can have 15 to 20 combats...not including traps and puzzles. IMC, all of this is balanced by the players choices. If they feel they are in more of a combat mood, they'll get into more combats. If they are in a role-playing mood, they'll do that. These actions have consequences in my games. If they are on a time-limit of some kind, and they spend days looking for an abandoned manor house to purchase and set up a "base of operations" in town...well, that gives the bad guy(s) days of carrying out their nefarious tasks. The key thing is, however, that all of this stuff going on is dictated by "logical campaign conclusions". I absolutely detest adventures that say stuff like "This encounter will happen after the PC's have rested up and just set off out of town, no more than about two hours travel". That is HORRIBLE adventure design from a campaign perspective. It's "game designer meta-gaming in MY campaign" as far as I'm concerned. When these types of encounters occur the likely reason the writer is putting it in there is to make it a 'challenge', with the PC's at full strength for their level. Thing is, the writer has NO idea of what my players and their PC's are made up of, are capable of, or their favoured tactics. My players, for example, almost never sit and 'fully recuperate' (be it HP's, elixirs of healing, arrows/bolts, material components, etc) unless they KNOW they are going to need it. Travelling from Burkston to Westershireton less than a day away would not warrant "spending two or three days in town replenishing". So that encounter would never "happen". Anyway, I'm getting side tracked here. My point is that having set encounters with conditions being based on meta-game aspects are, to me, a form of railroading. The PC's choices don't matter. If they are being foolish and are almost out of spells and all down to half-hp's and low on ammo/material components (yes, I use them), and continue to press on deeper into the cave system and get to that cave that says "This cave is dangerous! Don't let the PC's find it unless they are at full strength!", well, tough noogies. I will let the dice fall where they may and PC's will fall. It's not my job as DM to try and help the PC's survive...that's on the players. By "railroading" them into not being able to do much else (re: spend time searching, casting spells, using resorces, etc), just so they can get to the "good stuff", I'm coddling them. IMHO, of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As I said, I think we have vastly different interpretations of "waste of time". It's all good though, as long as you and your players are having fun, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This I can grock. Nothing can suck the life out of a game session than boring stuff happening all the time. However, and this is where our play style tastes come in, spending 2 hours of game time searching for stuff (traps, secret doors, clues, or whatever) is (or at least can be) a fun and fulfilling time. The problem is, as I said in my first post, not really on you, the DM. I blame your players for much of it. If they sat there like deer in the headlights of an oncoming semi, waiting for you to dangle the carrot the way they "should" go...that's on them. That's how they obviously "learned" to play D&D; the DM presents stuff for them to overcome. Period.My tips for this is for the DM to do as much "background writing" as he can in his spare time. At lunch break, after classes/work, while riding the bus/train/subway, etc. Keep a note book and paper with you at all times (or near by). If you get an image of an old stone statue in the forest, half broken away, tilted at an angle and half-buried, with vines and chokers slowly breaking it apart...make a note of that visual. Then, when you have time, write up a couple of sentences about it. "Statue of Diedalla, an ancient nature demigod of travelers. Worshiped two hundred years ago by the Tengari tribesmen that lived in this forest at the time. Stone pieces taken from this statue are used from nearby woodsmen, settlers and loggers for use as talismans to ward off evil and bad tidings". Then, if you get a chance to include this in your PC's travel through a woodland, you can spring it on them. If they choose to investigate it, you can give them some of the info (or all, depending on checks, character background, races/classes, or whatever). Now, suddenly, that "boring and pointless encounter" is interesting and adds to the verisimilitude of the campaign as a whole. The players have been rewarded for investing into the campaign world and lore. This is ALWAYS good, IME. As you said, not all encounters need to be combat. And as I said, not all encounters need to be pointless. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification