How do you Control/Set the Pace of a Game?

[Lanefan]

I agree, these are some pretty glaringly big errors. But I didn't write the module. I can only assume the designers didn't believe those elements were relevant to anyone roleplaying in that situation.

I think it's one of two things: either a) the designers just didn't think about "what comes next" after Kalarel goes down, or b) they did, and it got cut for space. Given the layout of the last encounter, I strongly suspect b.

Looking back on your posts, I'm starting to wonder if you're (erroneously) interchanging the following two concepts:

1. Changing basic game rules on the fly
2. Changing elements in a canned module on the fly.

If I change basic rules on the fly with no warning or discussion (oh, by the way, longsword only does d6 damage now) that's bad. If I do it only to give my monsters an advantage, that's best defined as cheating.

But if I change something in a module on the fly (let's say in KotS that if you defeat the Thing, the portal changes destination and can now get you to an alternate prime material instead of the Shadowfell; I as DM have decided it was the Thing's presence that was keeping the Shadowfell connection open) then from the players' perspective what's the difference? They don't, or most certainly shouldn't, know how it worked in the first place; and I just cannot understand why you think it should matter (or why or how it is "cheating") if I've decided at the last minute - improvising in response to their decision to try and go through - to tweak it into something more than the written module gives me.

Lan-"some things baffle me more than others"-efan

 

[ExploderWizard]

For example, think of roleplaying a horse jockey. It doesn't matter if the race is on a track or began impromptu across a field. The playing field must be predetermined ahead of time. If the referee simply chooses what comes next during play then there is no game, the winner is and will always be whomever the referee wants to have win.

The heart of the issue comes down to "winning" and "losing" which are meaningless in a game without a defined end. Even if the player's characters all get killed due to bad luck or poor decision making, if the players roll up new characters and continue the campaign continues.
Likewise when the dungeon is cleaned out and the characters return to town victoriously, the campaign doesn't have to end.

Winning and losing only have meaning if there is competition. As a DM I am not competing against the players. Some of the most fun I had as a player were sessions in which my character died. I don't look back on the good time that was had as a loss. YMMV.

 

[OchreJelly]

slightly sidetracking, but correct me if I'm wrong: Doesn't KotS have a means to close the portal via an arcana skill challenge? I could swear I read that but I don't have the adventure handy. Likewise if Kalarel is defeated doesn't the portal close? It's true that there is nothing really detailed on what would happen if the PCs enter the portal, but I'm not sure there needs to be.

If you had level 1 PCs crossing a deadly chasm I think they would know the choice of jumping in would be a lethal one. Likewise you can play-up the fact that a portal to the Shadowfel with a hideous beast on the other side would likewise be pretty deadly to a level one party who decides to enter it.

 

[Obryn]

Before a game can begin the answers to be guessed must be predetermined. Otherwise it's just Alex Trebek saying "you're right" whenever he feels like it.

For example, think of roleplaying a horse jockey. It doesn't matter if the race is on a track or began impromptu across a field. The playing field must be predetermined ahead of time. If the referee simply chooses what comes next during play then there is no game, the winner is and will always be whomever the referee wants to have win.

Don't you think this is kind of a mischaracterization?

Improvisation does not mean the PCs are guaranteed of success or failure. Yes, the DM could intentionally choose to throw too-easy or too-hard stuff at the PCs, but they could do that before the adventure was ever written, too.

-O

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

slightly sidetracking, but correct me if I'm wrong: Doesn't KotS have a means to close the portal via an arcana skill challenge? I could swear I read that but I don't have the adventure handy. Likewise if Kalarel is defeated doesn't the portal close? It's true that there is nothing really detailed on what would happen if the PCs enter the portal, but I'm not sure there needs to be.

If you had level 1 PCs crossing a deadly chasm I think they would know the choice of jumping in would be a lethal one. Likewise you can play-up the fact that a portal to the Shadowfel with a hideous beast on the other side would likewise be pretty deadly to a level one party who decides to enter it.

1) Entering the portal is stated as deadly as far as I remember.
2) It is possible that the version available online contains a little more details. I remember there is a skill challenge in there.
My take on the challenge, of course, was far better.

 

[maddman75]

howandwhy - So, if I follow your argument, lets say there's a door inside the dungeon. If I decide an hour before the game what the PCs will encounter when they open the door, that is a Fair Game and Not Cheating. However, if I decide just before they open the door, then I am a terrible GM who is Cheating and not even playing a game.

How long before the encounter do I need to make stuff up to keep it fair? Is that why old school modules are the best, they've been made up for over 30 years, and are thus clearly superior to stuff that was made up just now. Is a couple of hours sufficent before playing a game to be fair, or do I need to make stuff up several days beforehand?

Please, I don't want to be cheating at my fantasy game.

 

[Obryn]

Please, I don't want to be cheating at my fantasy game.

FUN FACT: If your players decide, on the spur of the moment, to teleport to a far-away city and go to the bazaar, you are cheating if you did not have the merchants' and beggars' names, products, motivations, skill at haggling, and cash on hand ahead of time. Because then it would not be a fair challenge.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

FUN FACT: If your players decide, on the spur of the moment, to teleport to a far-away city and go to the bazaar, you are cheating if you did not have the merchants' and beggars' names, products, motivations, skill at haggling, and cash on hand ahead of time. Because then it would not be a fair challenge.

-O

All that stuff would be in the module if it had any importance to the adventure in the first place. Get with the program

 

[Herzog]

No, If your players decide, on the spur of the moment, to teleport to a far-away city and go to the bazaar, the appropriate response would be 'they can't, because it is not in the module'.

Note that I have played as a player with a DM who would play his games like that for years, and we were very, very happy when last time we played he looked in the module, looked back at us, and said:
'Yes, what you plan to do to solve this mysterie is very logical, is a brilliant way to fix it, but its not in the module. It works. Let's move on.'

Now, I'm not saying the way of playing described by howandwhy99 is wrong. It is, in fact, probably the way modules have to be run for conventions, when there is an element of competition, and referees need to be able to compare different adventure groups.

However, as other people have already hinted, a (big) part of DMing is, IMO, improvisation. To be able to respond to your players with an answer to their question or action, without blinking an eye, when the module you are using doesn't provide the answer. (like, how did the gargantuan blue dragon end up in the lowest level of the kobold caves....)

Required for this is, of course, the lack of competitive playing. (DM vs players). If the players and/or DM see it as a competition to see who 'wins', restricting the DM in his allowed actions might be necessary to keep things fair.

 

[The Ghost]

howandwhy - So, if I follow your argument, lets say there's a door inside the dungeon. If I decide an hour before the game what the PCs will encounter when they open the door, that is a Fair Game and Not Cheating. However, if I decide just before they open the door, then I am a terrible GM who is Cheating and not even playing a game.

I am curious to see an answer to this myself. Is there a definitive point at which the game goes from fair to cheating? What factors determine this? What if my players opt to go beyond the scope of the module? How do I adjudicate their actions if improvisation is cheating? Or am I not following your argument?