Real vs. Theoretical problems and Grudging DMs

[Ridley's Cohort]

This whole energy substitution thing got me thinking: what's the point. So most outsiders don't have resistance to sonics. Okay? So? In my game, I delight when players use their noggin' to overcome obstacles. So you mop up my demons by using your brain to find a weakness. In some venues that's sort of the point of the game. In the end, I don't see it as a big problem because I don't think the balance of the game is going to shift becasue of it, and I am not going to have to make huge accomodations to make up for that feat. I see the problem as valid in theory, but not too much concern in the game.

This is sort of changing the subject, but I think the real problem is with the game with respect to resistances. IMHO, resistances/immunities are too common, strong, and predictable. The fact that savvy players jump at the opportunity to use feats that help bypass these resistances is not a problem with the players or the feats at all.

Please forgive my ranting, but I think the real problem is spellcasters are often frustrated with their magic not working against magical creatures. In mythology magical beings are both more powerful AND vulnerable to magic: Rumplestilskin and his name, Grendel and the bane weapon, the Genie and the Lamp, a Contract with a Duke of Hell, etc.

D&D tends to dispense with the puzzle of magical creatures, the fun of a little "Gee, fire didn't work. I bet either lightning or cold will!" No, in D&D the devil is probably immune to all three and has SR to boot. Where is the fun in that?

Instead of exciting magical battles against outsiders, spellcasters hide behind the guy with the biggest +n[/n] weapon and do their best to keep their ally healthy. Oooo! So exCITing!

 

[gfunk]

One of the key things to do as a DM and player is

PLAYTEST things before you 'nerf them.

We went through about 3-4 levels with the spell Polymorph Other for example. After my Sor kept turning everyone into a Troll thereby giving them Large size, 10' reach, +7 natural armor, 23 Str, 23 Con, 90' darkvision, and the ability to keep all of their equipment (since Giants use equipment according to the spell), the campaign became unbalanced. We all sat down with the DM and agreed the spell was completely broken and needed to be rule-zeroed.

Now that I am DM I admit that I am very reluctant to include certain feats and PrC from the splatbooks b/c I think they may mess up my campaign. But you really need to give these things a test run -- the results may surprise you.

 

[Crothian]

It's hard to playtest things ahead of time. Frankly, not everyone who runs the games has time to playtest all th options PCs are gearing towards. So, I allow almost anything as long as the PC realizes if it turns out to be unblancing I will change it. If the PC doesn't like the change he is free to make get rid of the feat (or whatever the ability is) for something similiar.

The important thing for me is the characher concept. As long as we are not interferring with that, these small rule changes are fine. I'll also allow something that borders on unbalancing if it really fits the charater concept. I have players that I trust not to abuse things. I've had PCs come to me between games worrying about an ability they had that they felt was unbalancing.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think we are actually saying the same thing but let me put it another way. The world does have it's own story and it is made up of many, many plots. Some interconnect and others are divergant, never having anything to do with others. This requires no single "metaplot" but simply means that it exists regardless of players until they interact.



I've never met a player who couldn't bring their own likes to the fore if given every opportunity that can be made available. Presenting challenges doesn't require designing encounters tailored to their particular characters (it shouldn't unless the players are new to the game as a whole). If built properly, a world or setting allows players to get more than they put into it and always has a feel that, while they are a part of it, it is much larger than they will ever know or explore.

While I agree with all of this, I think that a DM should always be aware of what the players would like to do. A good indication of this is in choice of class, and what skills and feats they take. If they take rangers and druids, or load up on wilderness-oriented skills, then it would become frustrating for the players, and ultimately frustrating for me, if I ignored that when creating adventures. Matter of fact, I think it's simply a good idea just to ask the players what they want to do in the campaign. I don't think that's hand-holding; it's more like looking in the closet when everyone is over and saying: "Let's play a game; do you want to play Monopoly, Risk, or Scrabble?" If I simply brought out whatever I wanted, without regard to what the players wanted to play, I'm sure that some of them might have no interest in playing what I chose. This would be a good way to induce boredom or even resentment. I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who wants to hang out with friends and have a good time by playing a game.

 

[Mark]

While I agree with all of this, I think that a DM should always be aware of what the players would like to do. (snip)

What I am saying doesn't exclude that, and in fact, requires it during the DM phase of the game. My comments speak to the design phase (be it publisher or homebrew). The object is to maintain plenty of variety so that players can bring their likes (no matter what they are or even if they change) to the table. You seem to be the working from a misconception that a DM should only be prepared for one thing at a time. The DM should have a mix of scrabble, risk and monopoly in every game and allow the players to go where they will. This approach allows fun to be the main thing without spending out of game time looking into the closet. Being prepared to allow for the most fun is an art.

 

[Umbran]

I think we are actually saying the same thing but let me put it another way. The world does have it's own story and it is made up of many, many plots.

Well, yes and no. I don't think this is a requirement. It can help, yes, but one can get by with much less. One doesn't need anything more than plots the PCs are likely to interact with soon. Anything more is icing on the cake, so to speak.

I've never met a player who couldn't bring their own likes to the fore if given every opportunity that can be made available.

Ah, here's the thing! I see it now. Mark, you're being a little too idealistic.

Maybe you've never met a player who couldn't do this. If so, I think you've been lucky. Most DMs have to work with less-than-perfect players. Sometimes you get a player who isn't quite as observant, and may not notice opportunities. Or who isn't quite as creative, and doesn't come up with uses for opportunities. Or one who's a bit less assertive, and is a little shy to grab the spotlight. Or maybe you've got one player who's a little too assertive, and grabs the spotlight a little too frequently.

It doesn't matter much if it's "can't" or "won't", but sometimes just putting things out there and hoping the party will find and use them is insufficient. It's part of a DMs job to make sure that each player gets a good challenge, a fair share of the spotlight. If, for whatever reason, they don't grab these things for themselves, you have to make sure they get them anyway.

Now, from the DMs side - just as most DMs have to work with imperfect players, they may have to work under imperfect conditions, or may be imperfect themselves. Your advice is all well and good for the DM who has oodles of skill (both in crafting and presenting), time and creative juice to spare. If you're lacking in anything, though, it can be a fast road to burnout. The task is made much more tractable by keeping your own party in mind, and playing to your audience.

In a perfect world, perhaps your method is best. In fact, I've run games as you describe and they did work wonderfully. But that's no guarantee. Often enough, the needs of one or more player, or the needs of the DM, call for a different approach.

 

[Gargoyle]

---
It strikes me that some DMs are a little to quick to say "nay nay" to anything the players might do to give them a small advantage.

---.

Well said. DMs sometimes forget that players are supposed to challenge them, and not just vice versa. I'll add that the DM can always take the time to create new monsters that are resistant to sonic damage, or that even feed off of sonic attacks. In a world where sonic ball spells are relatively common, their will be creatures that can survive such attacks.

In fact, here's a fun trick: Use the stats for a shambling mound, but describe it as a pile of living crystals. Instead of a plant, make it an elemental, replace its electrical immunity with sonic immunity, and have it gain Con when hit with sonic attacks. By modifying the description and vulnerabilities of a monster, you can create something unique, memorable, and balanced in no time.

edit: Note that I'm not advocating adapting monsters just to screw with your player characters and deny them fun. Only if they need to be challenged more as a result of their excellent play. In other words, let them nuke a bunch of shambling mounds with their sonic bolt spell for a while, then spring something like this on them.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You seem to be the working from a misconception that a DM should only be prepared for one thing at a time. The DM should have a mix of scrabble, risk and monopoly in every game and allow the players to go where they will. This approach allows fun to be the main thing without spending out of game time looking into the closet. Being prepared to allow for the most fun is an art.

Yeah, I know. I'm not under any misconception about that. There is a huge difference between being able to improvise, and taking into account what the players want to do.

 

[Mark]

Well, yes and no. I don't think this is a requirement. It can help, yes, but one can get by with much less. One doesn't need anything more than plots the PCs are likely to interact with soon. Anything more is icing on the cake, so to speak.

I like icing, and lots of it. Keeps me fat and sassy, so to speak.

Ah, here's the thing! I see it now. Mark, you're being a little too idealistic.

Call me a dreamer but I've been running games since the mid-seventies and it's that big bowl of icing that helps make it so.

Maybe you've never met a player who couldn't do this. If so, I think you've been lucky. Most DMs have to work with less-than-perfect players. Sometimes you get a player who isn't quite as observant, and may not notice opportunities. Or who isn't quite as creative, and doesn't come up with uses for opportunities. Or one who's a bit less assertive, and is a little shy to grab the spotlight. Or maybe you've got one player who's a little too assertive, and grabs the spotlight a little too frequently.

It doesn't matter much if it's "can't" or "won't", but sometimes just putting things out there and hoping the party will find and use them is insufficient. It's part of a DMs job to make sure that each player gets a good challenge, a fair share of the spotlight. If, for whatever reason, they don't grab these things for themselves, you have to make sure they get them anyway.

I've been fortunate enough to share games with hundreds of players, of all kinds, and while nobody's perfect, the preparation isn't just about doing the work, it's also about doing the work that works. When that is done, other things fall into place. In some cases, this means creating enough possibilities that even someone not completely "queued in" can't miss them all. It can also mean presenting them in such a way that a number of good plans naturally spring to mind for players. In other cases, it goes to drawing players out when they are tentative about role-playing even reigning some in so others have a level playing field, opportunity-wise. It's a delicate balance at times, but not one that requires a gift if the prep work is approached with it in mind.

Now, from the DMs side - just as most DMs have to work with imperfect players, they may have to work under imperfect conditions, or may be imperfect themselves. Your advice is all well and good for the DM who has oodles of skill (both in crafting and presenting), time and creative juice to spare. If you're lacking in anything, though, it can be a fast road to burnout. The task is made much more tractable by keeping your own party in mind, and playing to your audience.

Playing to the audience, always, but that's really where my training lies. I spent a couple of years doing stand up comedy before going back to college to major in Speech and Performing Arts, following that with fifteen years on the Chicago scene acting, directing and writing plays, so you're preaching to the chior. For me the presentation, facilitating and writing is easy, and it is the building that requires my main focus. However, I've met DMs who who have engineering backgrounds (to give an example) who find the world building aspects easy. They make sure they do that up front, then put their main energy toward prepping the presentation. There are ways for anyone to use the same techniques used in other fields without having your main strengths lie in those areas. It requires knowing where you need to do the right work.

Burnout can and should be avoided. It's especially difficult if your involvement in RPGing is geared toward the DM side of the screen. The key, as in all things, is focusing your main energies toward the places that are your stumbling blocks and allowing your natural skills to shine in the areas where you have them. This allows you to better manage your prep time.

In a perfect world, perhaps your method is best. In fact, I've run games as you describe and they did work wonderfully. But that's no guarantee. Often enough, the needs of one or more player, or the needs of the DM, call for a different approach.

I'm not convinced that this approach requires a perfect world to implement. Truly, the test of time has bourne out that these methods do work not only for myself but for the great many DMs I've seen who follow similar lines. Certainly I didn't revolutionize the methods I use and but have picked up tips along the way (still do with each and every game). As you say there are no quarantees but I start with what works, and keep adding what I've learned. Ultimately, results vary by fewer and fewer degrees and the curve moves closer toward perfection (a place no one will ever truly reach) with each game I play. This approach helps maintain consistency along the way to that goal. I can't remember the last time a game wasn't a fun time.

 

[Mark]

Yeah, I know. I'm not under any misconception about that. There is a huge difference between being able to improvise, and taking into account what the players want to do.

Being able to improvise requires taking into account what players want to do. The best RPG improvisation comes from listening, during play, to what the players express as goals and (Ideally, in a seamless manner) working them into the game. That's exactly what improvising is.

You're separating the implementation from the input, I advocate integrating them.