Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[S'mon]

That doesn't really follow though. How long does it take to try options? Wandering monsters were once check every 10 minutes (traditionally 1 in 6, sometimes 1 in 10). I'd get a wandering monster every HOUR on average.

I can try an awful lot of things in an hour.

The players see the d6 being rolled every 10 minutes, IME around the second time it rolls, they'll get a move on, whatever the result. No need for wandering monsters to show up - it's the die roll, not the monsters, that get them moving.

Anyway I don't generally see players wasting lots of time on avoidable obstacles. That would be poor play, and IME poor play is fairly rare.

 

[D'karr]

That would be poor play, and IME poor play is fairly rare.

I'm glad that my experience is that poor play is rare. If my only gauge was looking at threads around here, I'd be forced to conclude that poor play is an epidemic of biblical proportions...


EDIT: Look at that roll!!!!!!

 

[Skyscraper]

The players see the d6 being rolled every 10 minutes, IME around the second time it rolls, they'll get a move on, whatever the result. No need for wandering monsters to show up - it's the die roll, not the monsters, that get them moving.

As a player, I would not have my PC react to the DM rolling the die. That's hardcore meta right there. I try to immerse in the game world where my PC doesn't see a gigantic d6 rolling. I voluntarily ignore many things that I know as a player and my PC doesn't know, including information provided to PCs of other players around the table that my PC doesn't hear or map portions glimpsed by accident over the DM screen.

I expect the DM to somehow make my PC understand that an area might be dangerous, for example through knowledge that my PC has or through NPC interaction.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But that's the thing, I shouldn't have to tell the players this and it is best for them in turn if they don't expect such metagame information direct from the DM. It is far better that the players take such action themselves and if they know it could be unsolvable, they will be more inclined to do this. If they are expecting there to always be a solution, that is when you really run into hours of head-bashing.

But, that's the crux of the problem right there. How does the player know that this specific time is the one where the problem is unsolvable? He isn't going to know that until he's tried everything to get through it.

He doesn't know that it is unsolvable. Logically invert this though, he is also doesn't know that it is solvable. If he knew or suspected that there "must" be a solution, this is when the ridiculousness of 2 hours of real time goes by doing effectively nothing. If the player suspects that it might not be solvable, they are going to be more inclined to move on and see it as a possibly long term challenge rather than a short term one.

I'll give you a mathematics test analogy. Let's say you get stuck on a question in a test. Do you keep hammering at it until it is solved and be damned the questions after it? I don't think so, you move on to the next question and come back to it later (usually with fresher thinking). This is what I am talking about in this situation.

I suppose if you have players who MUST complete 100% of a dungeon, then it might be somewhat difficult to encourage them to just "let it go" and thus the direct metagame statement you mention from the DM to the players that this situation is "unsolvable" at the moment.

That doesn't really follow though. How long does it take to try options? Wandering monsters were once check every 10 minutes (traditionally 1 in 6, sometimes 1 in 10). I'd get a wandering monster every HOUR on average.

I can try an awful lot of things in an hour.

I see the problem here more one as an hour of "real" time being taken rather than an hour in game (we search this room from top to bottom with a fine tooth comb). I suppose I'm not a fan of wandering monsters for the purpose of moving players on (although S'mon makes a very valid point with the psychological aspect of rolling dice almost as a time ticking device, impending doom awaits kind of thing).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[S'mon]

I'm glad that my experience is that poor play is rare. If my only gauge was looking at threads around here, I'd be forced to conclude that poor play is an epidemic of biblical proportions...

Yeah, I think GMs tend to bring up examples of poor play, and players bring up examples of poor GMing, more often than they discuss the usual good play - eg I love both my current campaigns and their players, but I don't talk about it that much - I tend to say things like "Turns out 4e + Wilderlands is great for sandboxing!" rather than "Jasper is a great sandboxing player!", say, or go into all the ways James, Al, Catherine, Kimberly Pauley and Damian in my Loudwater game are super-cool.

I think there's only a few posters at ENW who take a 'most players/DMs suck' view - Hussar on DMs and Kzach on players are the two that have made a lasting impression on me. But I can't recall anyone who's made an equal impression with a 'most players/DMs are great!" attitude.

 

[S'mon]

I expect the DM to somehow make my PC understand that an area might be dangerous, for example through knowledge that my PC has or through NPC interaction.

And do you complain when the troll eats your PC?

Edit: Obviously the visible d6 represents info that should be bloody obvious to the adventurer PCs - dungeons are dangerous, there are monsters! It's shorthand for a bunch of exposition, but requires players to use a bit of nouse, just as their PCs should be doing. I think the players who assume they have infinite time to take extended rests or deal with obstacles are playing far more 'meta'.

 

[billd91]

As a player, I would not have my PC react to the DM rolling the die. That's hardcore meta right there. I try to immerse in the game world where my PC doesn't see a gigantic d6 rolling.

It sort of is, but it also serves as a reminder of the passage of in-character time. And that isn't really metagaming to the PCs.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But I can't recall anyone who's made an equal impression with a 'most players/DMs are great!" attitude.

I think it is not uncommon for gamers on forums to think that their own players are pretty darn good, but that there are some sucky ones out there. (It is not all that different from surveys of USA residents opinions on Congress as a whole, versus their congressman--there has been for decades a sizable relative bias in favor of the local guy no matter how much the absolute numbers move up or down.)

Some of this is natural. I know there are some sucky ones out there because I've played with them, but they aren't in my games now. Whereas, a big reason that the current ones are the current ones is that they are great (for the kind of games we like, of course).

I'm also fairly certain that about half the games represented by a person on this board would consider me, were I in their game, at best an average player--simply due to stylistic preferences. (Nevermind those that found me lacking for more substantial reasons.) The guys at a FLGS when I tried to start a second game apparently thought I was a sucky DM--unlike the several other second groups I've run over the years that were fine with the game.

But then that won't happen much, because I've never had any trouble finding players to fill a group for the style I want to run. So I suspect that a lot of the negative impressions of general player/DM ability comes from people having a difficult time filling a group with people that share their preferences.

 

[D'karr]

But then that won't happen much, because I've never had any trouble finding players to fill a group for the style I want to run. So I suspect that a lot of the negative impressions of general player/DM ability comes from people having a difficult time filling a group with people that share their preferences.

For the longest time this has been a very "alien" concept to me. All of the gaming groups I've started or played in over many years have been with friends. Usually that seems to remove a lot of the problems because we care about each other as friends, and the game is really an excuse to get together and "kill" four hours.

We have played games that sucked, but we just drop those, and look for games that we all enjoy on some level, even if it's not our favorite.

Game "night" is just as excuse to get together. We could be playing Chutes and Ladders and nobody would really care.... Well not that much but you get the jest.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For the longest time this has been a very "alien" concept to me. All of the gaming groups I've started or played in over many years have been with friends. Usually that seems to remove a lot of the problems because we care about each other as friends, and the game is really an excuse to get together and "kill" four hours.

Sure. That is merely another style issue, though. We are much the same, with the gaming always having to include time for casual, social fun. Really, if I had to define our gaming style briefly, it would be "social gaming that nevertheless intends to accomplish some heroic action."

Lots of gamers don't want any socializing or other casual stuff mixed into their games. Lots of social gamers don't really get anywhere with the story. Then you have the people that wouldn't fit into either camp, but are having fun as long as all the players can immerse into their characterization--basically, playing a Dickens novel. Nothing wrong with that if you like it, but confronted with this last group, I'd sic three Christmas ghosts on them and turn it into a short story, fast. (Actually, I'd turn it into "The Muppet Christmas Carol", which I'm sure would go over well.)

If I can't shout, "Light the lamp, not the rat! Light the lamp, not the rat!" at a key moment without destroying your enjoyment of the story, we probably aren't going to mesh. Post that in general in the abstract, and I bet you'll get a majority of "bad idea" results.