Rant: Why must thing always be obvious in D&D?

[Mallus]

This is a very, very excellent point. Why should finding the basic premise of the PC be a major undertaking? What purpose does it serve?

Thanks. It was getting a little lonely on this side of the discussion...

(also... there's a typo --naturally-- in my quote that you sigged. One day I'll learn to proofread)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Absolutely not. Much of a DM's job is extrapolation from a few pieces of information. In other words, making things up on the spot. It's impossible to prepare everything and too much preparation kills the spontaneity of interaction with the players. I've found my best sessions have been those for which I did the least work.

Making things up on the spot about a blank spot on the map or a new npc is cool. Making stuff up on the spot about a PC's faith, not so much. Making up stuff on the spot that invalidates the player's last declared action or makes it look foolish, bad.

It throws roleplaying out the window when the player doesn't know fundamental information about his own character. This can sometimes be the player's fault when they don't bother to read the background on their race choice or nationality, but in this case it's the DM's responsibility, and it was a bad move that disrupted the flow of the game.

 

[Nifft]

No...it's mythologically accurate.

Well, bingo.

IMHO. YMMV. YDMB.

"In my humble opinion.
Your mileage may vary.
Your DM blows."

Right? -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

For the record Cel, I wasn't having a discussion about any of those things. I was talking about the implied social contract between players and DM (ie, if you allow a character, then that character should be as viable as any other)

Actually, I disagree with that premise right there. As a player, I have created PCs that I knew were less viable than other PC concepts, for the fun and challenge of playing those concepts. If you are creating a character in my world, which (based on world information you have available to you ahead of time) you should reasonably know is going to have a hard time, and then you are shocked about not easily being able to discover secret cults, then you may create a new character or play the character you created, hardships and all.

If you create an awakened chimpanzee ranger in a temperate zone, people are going to stare, and some people are going to be frightened, until you make your mark in the area. Then people stand by you, because they know who you are.

If you are in a campaign where, over the last several thousand years, brutal snakemen enslaved the world until finally overthrown, leaving the world in a chaos that it has yet to recover from, and you want to play a character with an obvious reptilian theme ("Hey! I'm a scaly half-dragon!") then you're going to face consequences whether that's what you're "in to" or not.

Admittedly, one of the consequences might be that you seek another game. That's okay. I'm not screwing the rest of my players to make your choices inconsequential. Because if I do, I am saying that any choice can be made without consequence, and therefore all choices are essentially meaningless. You might as well be watching TV.

Having to put forth some effort to locate other followers of your god is a logical, and IMHO obvious, consequence of choosing to play a follower of an evil deity whose worship primarily consists of evil cults.

Your players may be very different than mine, but mine expect me to include complication and would revolt if I let "Mr. Cultist" escape from the consequences of his choices. I include "Mr. Cultist" in this; if he wanted to play a cultist, that's why he chose that character. As far as a newcomer goes, I will not change playstyles (thus damaging the group) to accomodate (though I might in a seperate game). It doesn't matter how much they aren't "in to" finding the cult, or facing the dragon.

IMHO, the conversation should go something like this:

Player: "I want to be a member of a secret cult, but I'm not into locating it."

DM: "Then do something else."

Player: "But if I don't locate it, I can't get the benefits of locating it."

DM: "That's true. What are you going to do?"



RC

 

[Mallus]

Unless the player is a complete moron, they know that Shar is a goddess of secrets shunned in polite society.

I could just as easily say "Unless the DM is complete moron, when presented with a request like that he'd simply take the narrative reins and inform the player they find the hidden temple after a careful and exhaustive search, on the night of the third day". Then at that point something interesting would happen. Can't you accept that as a viable alternative?

At no point was I advocating not challenging the player, or ignoring the consequences of their cult-ish activities. Just that making their own cult hard to find was the stupidest way to go about doing those things that I could imagine.

This is someone wanting kewl powers without wanting to, you know, actually live with everything that goes with it.

What are these 'kelw powerz' you keep going on about? All I see is flavor...

If they want a god that will have a temple on every corner and be easy to find, there are hundreds of bland FR gods that fit the bill

Carefully explain to me the benefit of incentivizing 'bland' character choices.

I do the exact opposite and frankly, its a hoot.

They are not responsible for wiping the nose or any other orifice of the players for them.

There's a wee bit of hostility and condescension in that sentence.

 

[Mallus]

Hi all, and thanks for posting. First of all, SORRY to have caused some troubled discussion here... I want you to know that this was not really a big issue in our game!

No worries. This is what Al Gore create the Internet for. Besides, your post provided a springboard interesting discussion about how and when to challenge players and how that relates to the maintenance of verisimilitude.

So I guess the problem is this... Yes, I may be a lame DM because I make things up on the spot like that. But the player was assuming things that really isn't his responsibility to design...

I can't say that you're a lame DM. Improv is great. However, in this case, I think you made the wrong decision. One that led to a dead-on rather than more interesting play situations. You should have said "Their temples are all secret... but as a follower you know of one nearby. There have been odd rumors about the head priest there...". See the difference?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, I may be a lame DM because I make things up on the spot like that.

Every DM makes up things on the spot. No one, no matter how much prep time they put into it, can prep everything.

I'd have made the same call.

RC

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Some designated DMs underestimate the ability of players to switch to DMing and back to playing, thinking that it's difficult to disregard the DMs information to a reasonable degree. The fact that I've DMed D&D hasn't affected my enjoyability of playing one bit - it's easy to suppress parts of DM knowledge (or alternatively I just never bothered to learn MM like I should've) to play a beginning adventurer.

I have, on more than one occasion, successfully roleplayed a character who was not fully aware of her own abilities, which I not only had access to but had written myself. It's really not that hard in my expereince to roleplay less knowledge of monsters than your expereince with the mechanics gives you.

 

[Mallus]

As a player, I have created PCs that I knew were less viable than other PC concepts, for the fun and challenge of playing those concepts.

I just create characters than I think will be interesting to play, with the hope that the environment variables won't be stacked against me.

If you are creating a character in my world, which (based on world information you have available to you ahead of time) you should reasonably know is going to have a hard time, and then you are shocked about not easily being able to discover secret cults, then you may create a new character or play the character you created, hardships and all.

I firmly believe that challenges should differ in nature based on character premise, but not in degree. A paladin is as difficult to play as an assassin or as a big-hearted peasant fighter or as a unscrupulous rogue and so on. If I find that too illogical, then I damn well should say 'no' to the concept.

If you create an awakened chimpanzee ranger in a temperate zone, people are going to stare, and some people are going to be frightened, until you make your mark in the area. Then people stand by you, because they know who you are.

If I accept Aragorn Link, Ranger Chimp as the DM, then I've entered into an agreement that implicitly states that character can operate in the game environment without having to fear being stuck in a zoo everywhere they go.

If you are in a campaign where, over the last several thousand years, brutal snakemen enslaved the world until finally overthrown, leaving the world in a chaos that it has yet to recover from, and you want to play a character with an obvious reptilian theme ("Hey! I'm a scaly half-dragon!") then you're going to face consequences whether that's what you're "in to" or not.

Given that set-up, I'm not how the consequences wouldn't render that character premise unplayable. And if the DM mitigates those consequences to allow that character, then it should be as fully playable than any other.

Your players may be very different than mine, but mine expect me to include complication and would revolt if I let "Mr. Cultist" escape from the consequences of his choices.

Mine expect me to accept their character's premise after, you know, I've accepted their character premise. And I think some aspects of play that directly relate to character premise shouldn't be made into challenges. A firefighter PC shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to find a fire. That isn't the hard part. Now putting it out...

Player: "But if I don't locate it, I can't get the benefits of locating it."

For that last time... what benefits?!

 

[Raven Crowking]

If I accept Aragorn Link, Ranger Chimp as the DM, then I've entered into an agreement that implicitly states that character can operate in the game environment without having to fear being stuck in a zoo everywhere they go.

Actually (except the name) this is a real occurance in a game that I ran. Two players made chimp characters that were brothers; one was a ranger. I'd like to know how you move from allowing the ranger chimp to the implicit statement that the character can operate in the game environment without fear of being treated as a chimp.

There have been lots of threads about the good old "Warforged Ninja" and where that character is appropriate. Several posters have claimed that the DM should allow the character regardless, several posters have claimed that the DM should not allow the character if he didn't "fit" the game, and several posters have claimed that the DM should allow the character and include the natural consequences said character would face in the game environment.

I think that these are all viable ways to play, but the first option doesn't interest me at all.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but my social contract is explicitly different than yours. Characters in my primary game have an Outcast Rating (cribbed from Ravenloft), so that the stranger the character is within context of the game area, the more that strangeness affects play.

Fun stuff.

RC