Just going along with the DM

[Mouseferatu]

I believe that, to an extent, it's incumbent on players to cooperate with the DM on getting their characters involved in the story.

But...

It's incumbent on the DM to keep PC abilities and personalities in mind when creating that story.

Using the travel example, it's fine to create adventures that are meant to take place during the journey from point A to point B at early levels. Once the party has teleport, however, the DM's job is to either create adventures where the party is planning to go, or to give the party a reason for going where the adventure is. (There are plenty of ways to encourage more mundane travel, or at least shorter teleport jumps--ignorance of destination, tasks to be completed along the way, magical interference, escorting a sufficient number of people or weight of cargo that it's over the caster's limit, etc.) Simply ignoring the ability to teleport, however, and expecting the players to do the same, is really not very good DMing. If it's really going to be a problem, better to house rule out the spell entirely (and tell the players ahead of time, of course) then to simply expect PCs not to use it when it's inconvenient.

(Back to the first obligation--the PCs must tell the DM when they gain spells like teleport that can change the tenor of an entire campaign.)

 

[shilsen]

What the vampire mouse said above.

As a DM, I love it when players get creative and use their abilities and I take them into account when planning the game. If I didn't want players to be able to use a particular spell, I wouldn't have it in the campaign. And I always tell my players that they shouldn't do anything based on "this is what the DM wants us to do", because (a) they don't know what I am, and (b) I don't plan things that way.

Similarly, as a player I'd feel a little stupid if I didn't use my abilities as effectively as I could (unless I am playing a stupid character). I'll let the DM know beforehand if I'm planning something drastic (like teleporting to a completely different area), but I wouldn't think much of the DM if he couldn't deal with the possibility.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

In that case, I might well consider myself a problem player (when I get the chance, though I am more often than not the DM).

I like to consider all options around a problem. The open-ended situations present in DnD are one of the best things about the game - formulating plans that will wrongfoot the villains.

For example -

The DM tells the heroes we need to go kill an ogre who is hid on a boat in the dockside. I can see lovely battle maps of the inside of the boat behind the screens, but when thinking about it doesn't the option of setting the boat alight then cutting it away from the dock save a lot of time?

Yes, it does. But then again, the DM should be ready and able to react to this kind of situation - Have the ogre smash out as the heroes try to light the boat. Have a hostage inside. Have the boat rammed with explosives. I don't know.

Gaming isn't about the DM letting the players run the course of an adventure, it's about both of them creating a story together.

Spider

 

[Psion]

I sort of expect players to do what they are capable of. I'm not a plot nazi or a frustrated author; AFAIAC, the game takes on its own life when you treat it like a living world in which its inhabitants (PCs included) use abilities at their disposal. AFAIAC, part of being a good GM is being able to keep up with unexpected curve balls your players throw you.

The minimum I do expect is that the PCs have a motivation I can work with to get them involved in the adventure, and refuse to twist the players' arms every adventure to get them to go towards the goal.

 

[Mouseferatu]

For example -

The DM tells the heroes we need to go kill an ogre who is hid on a boat in the dockside. I can see lovely battle maps of the inside of the boat behind the screens, but when thinking about it doesn't the option of setting the boat alight then cutting it away from the dock save a lot of time?

Yes, it does. But then again, the DM should be ready and able to react to this kind of situation - Have the ogre smash out as the heroes try to light the boat. Have a hostage inside. Have the boat rammed with explosives. I don't know.

Exactly. That's what I meant about the DM being ready to deal with PC capabilities. (Heck, my wife's character are almost all pyros anyway, so I'd better be used to the "Hey, let's burn it down!" mentality by now. )

I don't consider creative solutions like that to be representative of a "problem player" at all. In fact, I've had parties leapfrog over entire subplots in my campaigns by coming up with creative solutions I'd never considered.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

In fact, I've had parties leapfrog over entire subplots in my campaigns by coming up with creative solutions I'd never considered.

But isn't that the beauty of it all? So what if you're local-village-girl-was-a-wererat plot didn't get a look in - the most important thing for me as a DM is to show the players that they are inhabiting a living, breathing, thinking world. Throw creative solutions right back at them. Non stop.

The best battles that I have fought in are were the enemies are intelligent - trying to hack up 10 bugbears is easy. hacking up 10 bugbears who have formed a shield wall is a little more problematic (save a spare fireball, thats all).

And coming back to the hypothetical lycanthropic village girl. Keep her actions in mind. If the heroes are aware of her then think what she would do. Never let a subplot die, till it's properly dead. This is what I mean by a thinking world. There are other people in it. My players faces lit up more when I told them about the current rumours regarding a loved NPC, than when they reduced that dang red dragon to 0hps.

Creative solutions is one of the backbones of the game, railroad your players and they will hate it.

Right. Rant over.

 

[RobJN]

Its not necessarily a matter of knowing your players, but rather, knowing their characters -- know what they're capable of, what spells, feats, skills they have on hand, and tailor encounters towards those ends. If the mage can cast fireball (the "Lina Inverse solution") or burning hands, or if the PCs carry flint and steel, expect them to try to set things on fire. Surely, you've heard the old adage that when you give someone a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

Plot, however, is completely separate from the "mechanical" end of the game. Again, know the characters, know why they are out there in the wide world, adventuring, and either work your plots towards those ends, or have the PCs be swept up in a metaplot that dovetails nicely into their personal character goals.

In my early days DMing, I was a big railroader, shoveling the adventure onto the players. Nowadays, having learned from my mistakes, I have the adventure find the heroes (or at least make it seem that way.)

If your plot point is down the road to the south, and the PCs head north, then move the plot point to the north. Keeping with that river analogy, let the plot flow around the characters, rather than forcing them down a road in a certain direction.

Sometimes, the players' speculation about where things are going in the game are a lot better ideas than what I'd originally planned... so I "borrow" those expectations and run with 'em.. and they never know the difference.

 

[The Grackle]

It's fine to go along w/the DMs obviously preplanned material IF you're interested. Your wizard could certainly take a boat to see the sites, that's not so crazy is it? But going along on something you could care less about isn't doing anybody any favors. Your job as a player isn't to follow a story from point A to B; it's to have fun and do what you want.

A good DM is willing to drop plotlines that don't interest his players, and work on those subplots that they are unexpectedly following with the greatest zeal. As a rule, players never do what you expect.

 

[Chimera]

As a player, I love finding creative ways to solve problems and hate it when the GM gets upset because I've upset his carefully planned out apple cart.

As a GM, I love it when the players find a creative way around a problem that I hadn't thought of. Such as when I forgot that the party cleric had access to Waterwalk. They came to a ford, only to find that it had been "removed". Instead of going 100 miles out of their way to a bridge, they simply camped overnight and walked across the river the next day. In the process, they avoided the potential ambush that had been laid out on the way to the bridge. Good for them!

Of course, that meant that they never discovered who had removed the ford or got their goodies, but it was never mandatory that they do so.

As for the "Ogre on a boat" scenario, I can see two issues I'd have with simply setting it alight and cutting it adrift. As a GM, I'd first have the boat owner going ballistic that they would even consider such an option. Demanding compensation if they do so. (Always remember that someone owns that boat and boats ain't cheap!). Secondly, the harbor master and town leaders would be aghast at the idea of setting a ship alight and cutting it loose in their harbor. What if it drifts into the other ships? What if it burns the entire town to the ground? "Are you mad???"

 

[Xaov]

For me as a PLayer. I have found that I tend to want to see what the story is all about. but that doesn't mean we don't become creative, For instance: In our campaign we came to a clearing and we saw our arch nemesis she had an adamantine Warforge Titan with her, now normally after defeating such a big monstrosity the players would attempt to use it to their advantage, ours on the other hand sold the adamantine and got nicely rich.

As a DM. I do my stories on the fly. I have basic events I want to happen and I try to work them in somehow. It may not be the best way since there is some "uhhh you come to a place and uhh" time but my players seem to enjoy it enough.