Fantastic mysteries vs. DM cheating

[Psion]

There are things in my campaign world that even I don't know.

The first colonists on the island that the PCs are currently on disappeared for unknown reasons. The colony wasn't re-established until 100 years later. Nobody knows why. I haven't decided.

Likewise, there was once a race of altruistic wizardly humans that inhabited the current campaign continent over 1500 years before the current game time. The conflict that devastated their empire is known. But there were survivors of that conflict -- they were eventually victorious. What is not known is what happened to the survivors. Another thing I haven't decided.

The game world will be played by many players over the years. I don't feel uncomfortable not deciding the immediate answer to a mystery, as it is something that I may use in a later group even if I am not interested in exploring it right now.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm talking more about things that are mysterious mechanically. A vast spell that summons hordes of demons, for example. There's no such spell in the books, and you don't make any rules for it; it's just something that is.

 

[DungeonKeeperUK]

Through honesty and talking to them. It's no different then building the trust of co workers, bosses, and friends. I don't find it that hard. It's either something you do in life or not.

Really there should be no need to "gain" trust from the DM or the DM for the players, the DM isn't out to get the players and the players arn't there to win over the DM.... the DM is there to orchestrate the story for the players ... I know I often fudge rolls, fix rolls, add monsters, change all kinds of stuff during the game, but only every to keep the story going and interesting..
... but at the end of the day we're all indivisuals and want something different out of life and out games, I, as a DM, just try and make sure each player gets what they want out of a session whatever it takes....

hmmmm

Mr T

 

[TiQuinn]

Giving your players the sense that you aren't totally pulling something out of your keister is more important than actually providing them with a solution. Mysteries are fine as long as they aren't arbitrary. Enigmas are great as long as they don't become the focus of a campaign. Also, if your players are confronted with a unique character who they must fight, and has strange powers, at least have it clear in your mind why they have these abilities, even if you don't ever tell the players.

 

[MinscFan]

D&D is a flexible game, maybe more so now that we have a fairly well developed d20 edition.

Things that happen DO NOT ALWAYS have to fall within the rules of the game -- with some caveats.

If the characters witness a spell that summons hoards of demons and that event is used to set the plot line or advance them to next portion of the adventure -- so be it. IF they are interested in how it was done, you've now got another hook to use for a later adventure.

If an enemy NPC casts it to get rid of the players during a fight, then you have a potential mutiny on your hands.

While there is always that "rule #1" paragraph in the DMG, throwing things at your PCs that they could not themselves achieve-- through hard work, research, training, or good roleplaying -- is a no-no and then I would disagree with doing it as a DM and as a player.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal
I'm talking more about things that are mysterious mechanically. A vast spell that summons hordes of demons, for example. There's no such spell in the books, and you don't make any rules for it; it's just something that is.

I generally avoid that. Which is one reason that I liked Relics & Rituals. The ritual system provided me with a mechanic handle to an all too common plot device.

It may be a taste sort of things, but those sort of details are all about world consistency to me. Having things pop up in the middle of nowhere with no reason seems like a copout to me, and kills suspension of disbeleif. When everything works by consistent (and consistently exercised rules), it enhances the immersion AFAIAC, as it keeps you from seeing the man behind the curtain.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm talking more about things that are mysterious mechanically. A vast spell that summons hordes of demons, for example. There's no such spell in the books, and you don't make any rules for it; it's just something that is.

It's a unique, mythical, epic spell. A lot of modules have included items, monsters and spells that tread new ground and had to make rules off the cuff. Folks don't typically question the Tomb of Horrors even though it specifically tells the DM to do a 3...2...1 countdown and the players either move or get killed...instantly. The key is communicating that the players are faced with something unique and that they will probably never see something like it again.

 

[Crothian]

Really there should be no need to "gain" trust from the DM or the DM for the players, the DM isn't out to get the players and the players arn't there to win over the DM.... the DM is there to orchestrate the story for the players ... I know I often fudge rolls, fix rolls, add monsters, change all kinds of stuff during the game, but only every to keep the story going and interesting..

But it isn't always that way. PCing in a game where you just meet the DM that day or vice versa is a little odd. It is more of a familiarity issue then trust perhaps, but there still seems to that period of oddness. It does seem, though, that many of the newer players want to know everything the DM is doing. They want to know what that spell was or what class that NPC is. I'm from the school that anything the DM says goes.

 

[Glyfair]

The only issue I have with DMs who make stuff up on the fly (besides those who are out to "screw the players) is one of consistency.

For example, lets say a murder mystery is a long term element of a DM's campaign. He has decided not to decide who actually did it until he has to to allow maximum drama when it actually comes out. I don't have a problem with that in itself. However, if the DM comes to a point where he has to make the decision and that decision is completely contridicted by a previous bit of information, that is bad.

Basically, as a player, I want the information gained to be right. I don't want to be penalized because I made a decision based on a piece of information the DM gave out that he forgot about and then made invalid because a different fact makes a better story.

However, outside of that, I'm all for it. Good DMs use it to heighten tension and sometimes to reward players for a well thought out solution to a problem.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[ForceUser]

I generally avoid that. Which is one reason that I liked Relics & Rituals. The ritual system provided me with a mechanic handle to an all too common plot device.

It may be a taste sort of things, but those sort of details are all about world consistency to me. Having things pop up in the middle of nowhere with no reason seems like a copout to me, and kills suspension of disbeleif. When everything works by consistent (and consistently exercised rules), it enhances the immersion AFAIAC, as it keeps you from seeing the man behind the curtain.

Hey, Mr. Dyal said that, not me!