Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5520361" data-attributes="member: 2011">You are the DM. You are the only person at the table who knows if there is something in the well or not. The players don't have a clue.So as DM, you have a few options to allow the player to find out what's there:1) Before the PC does anything, you can cut to the chase and can flat out tell the player "there is nothing there".2) You can allow the PC to search and then tell him "there is nothing there".3) You can allow the PC to search and you can add something interesting to your game (or have already added it).But the one thing you shouldn't do is:4) "Will you stop pissing me off? There's nothing there. If there had been something there, I as DM would have told you."You keep mentioning how you would get annoyed pretty quick.Again, I'm asking, why?Why are you so opposed to certain player play styles that you react so negatively to them?Do your players only search at the locations with big X's marked on them? And then, only if the entire team walks over and does it???You need to understand generalities about my character's motivations in order to create plots and subplots. You do not need to know every tiny detail as to why I make the decisions I make as a player. As a player, I can make one decision one day for my PC and a different decision in the exact same scenario on another day.You do NOT need to know on a given day why my PC wants to explore a well that he just fell into. As DM, you just accept that my PC wants to do that and you allow him to. And you ESPECIALLY do not get annoyed at me because you do not understand why my PC is doing a fairly common activity. It's sufficient that I understand why my PC is doing what he is doing. You don't need to understand why I am doing a trivial action like that.Again, there is a difference between understanding the overall motivations and goals of the PC and understanding one specific tiny instance of the PC saying or doing or trying something.My PC might want to become a Sorcerer King: Overlord of the Entire World. That's a overall goal. It doesn't mean that he doesn't want to explore the well at x point in his career. The two are probably mutually exclusive and you as DM do not need to understand how they relate or even if they relate.Quite frankly, and not to be insulting here, you seem to need to be in control. Needing to understand why players make the decisions they do, especially if it's not a decision that you as a player would make. I can only say, take a deep breath, let the player play how he wants to, you don't need to understand why he's doing what he wants to do, you just have to be an impartial adjudicator of it.Not a cop. Not a director. Not a judge. A referee.You might have missed what I wrote. I stated that I cooperate the vast majority of the time. But, it is totally in character for all of my PCs to want to go do what they want to do without permission from the DM or the rest of the group on occasion.Cooperation and teamwork is a part of the game. But, it is not the only thing when it comes to PC behavior.Yeah, you are obviously misunderstanding what I am saying. I never do a lone wolf thing as a general rule.I just maintain the right (not privilege, right) to do it once in a blue moon when I feel like doing it. As one person in six at the table, I'm entitled to have fun my way once in a while and not be straight jacketed into playing "within certain parameters", just like the other five people at the table are entitled to have fun their way once in a while.I'm not talking about going nut-so here, I'm talking about my PC going off and doing something that I want him to do for a short period of time while the other players do not interact. Not often, but once in a while. It's my turn in the spotlight.If the DM gets annoyed at me for searching the well, then he does. But, he shouldn't be surprised if I tell him to calm down, don't be so serious, and have some fun.It's not about soloing. It's about personal choice. The vast majority of the time, cooperation is used. But sometimes, a PC should just be allowed to be himself without the DM getting annoyed at him for doing his own thing without any other PCs tagging along. That's ok in a game. Honest.Well, I'm not talking about going way out of bounds here. I'm talking about having the spotlight for 10 minutes once in a while. If that impinges upon the other player's good times OR your interpretation as DM of the other player's good times, then I would ask the group to seriously take a step back and chill out. Have some fun. Take a bathroom break. But, don't be so serious.Is it that important to keep "the party on track" and "everyone involved" every second of every session?To me, players will police themselves. If a PC does something too egregious, the other PCs will lay the smack down on him. You as DM don't have to worry about this stuff.Let each player play how he wants. If it goes out of bounds, the group will take care of it. You don't have to be the PC behavior police here. It's not your job and making it your job is one way to alienate some players.No. The point is that when I decide my PC needs to go exploring underwater, I can do so if I prepared ahead of time.You're seriously missing the entire point.WotC has designed the game system to make it difficult for the "boy scout" player who wants to "be prepared".WotC Customer Service: "Sorry, you cannot play that way. Have a nice day."In fact, Pazio is making a TON of money because of some of the metagame artificial and limiting design decisions by WotC. I have a guy who played in my group for 8 years get up and stop gaming with us because he didn't like the way 4E was so restrictive. He gave it a fair shake run for a year, but in the end, he left.Personally, that annoys the heck out of me that I want to play one game system and he doesn't to the point that we don't game together anymore.Why? Because the 4E rules are so inflexible when it comes to some pretty standard D&D stuff.Like scrolls. Decent one charge items are NOT going to break anyone's game and I hope that WotC gets smart enough to put them back into 5E.They're only awesome in combat, and only so because every problem is a target and powers are designed to kill targets.Heaven forbid that someone wants to cast something simple like a Darkness spell, in or out of combat.WotC: "Nope, nope. Section 12, subsection 3, paragraph 4, PCs cannot cast spells outside of the ones we give them and charged items are a thing of the past. It is illegal to cast both Shield and Feather Fall on the same day without a boatload of feats or without giving up the option of a higher level spell."Seriously? I cannot have both Shield and Feather Fall memorized unless I go through a bunch of hoops???WT?I cannot tell you how restrictive that is for some of us. And some players might not even see how that would be restrictive because 4E is all they know (or what they are so used to now).A whole set of spell options (and preparedness) for a given day thrown out the window because of the current rule set. This is easily something that WotC could fix for 5E without unbalancing the game.The game is designed to make it difficult to prepare. Yes, I can do it in some minor ways if the DM bends over backwards to help, but then again, even the Online Character Builder will make it difficult to get such things on my character sheet.Debates are cool.</blockquote>

Verification