The best laid plans of mice and DMs

[barsoomcore]

Your entire assumption base is off.

Well, what you told me was that your players are too smart for techniques other DMs use with their players. (My players would always see that coming. Two of my players are too smart for this stuff.) That is exactly equal to saying that your players are smarter than theirs, which is exactly equal to saying their players are stupider than yours. There's no assumption involved. I'm not making an assumption, I'm just listening to you. The idea you're missing, however, is that you're taking one comparative assessment (your players' intelligence vs. your own) and applying it a completely separate context (your players' intelligence vs. that of other players).

The fact that your players are smart enough to see through YOUR machinations is no evidence that they are any smarter than my players. Or indeed of any particular level of intelligence at all.

Fun is not equal to fairness. Fairness is a core prerequisite for everyone to have fun, most of the time for most people.

No. Fairness is a prerequisite for YOU to have fun. You keep stating that your opinion is the majority -- as though you had some special ability to conduct market surveys in your head, AND as though having your opinion align with the majority makes it more valid. I could care less what the majority opinion is -- I'm interested in YOUR opinion.

Now, there are plenty of fun activities (reading, dancing, drinking, cooking dinner) that don't even involve any sort of fairness issues. There are ways to play D&D that are similar to some degree to these activities. YOU may not play the game that way, but that doesn't mean that other people are playing the game incorrectly.

Regardless of how many other people play the game one way or the other.

There is no doubt about it. DMs occasionally have to make adjustments, because they miscalculated or they did not scope out all of the necessary detail or whatever. However, some DMs go overboard (which I think "fudging" is).

You'll need to define more precisely the difference between "making adjustments", and "fudging". Because I think both terms refer to identical behaviour -- and maybe this whole blow-up is nothing more than different definitions for the same word.

The internet is prone to such things.

And, the DMs (and I have seen quite a few of them) who think it is ok to fudge the dice will then start fudging the power of opponents and then will start fudging the entire scenario because one cool idea came to them. It can (and does) easily spiral out of control and they do not even see it because that is how they always play.

What's wrong with a scenario spiralling out of control IF EVERYONE IS HAVING FUN? Maybe "that is how they always play" because they think it's fun.

You almost never plan events? You almost never on an off gaming day say to yourself "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if NPC 1 did the following?" You almost never have your NPCs do things because you suddenly thought of it out of the gaming session?

Ah, here we have a great example of differing definitions. The word "event", in this case.

Of course I decide on ideas for what my NPCs might do. What I don't do (or at least try not to do because I know it's a waste of time but I can't resist try as I might I ALWAYS fail that Will Save) is plan things like "After the bad guy has secretly cast his detection spell, he'll notice that the hoohah is watchamadoodle and then he'll dipsy-doodle" -- THAT sort of stuff I stay away from because inevitably some PC will spot the spellcasting and smoke the guy with some crazy tactic and poof goes my storyline.

Instead I think up stuff like, "So-so really hates that guy over there. So he's going to try and get the party to kill him. He'll try offering them some money. Or maybe midgets." And then as the session begins, the NPC does whatever seems right at the time.

I was operating under the notion that the former were events and the latter were NPC desires. If you want to call the latter events, I have no complaint, and yes, I do plan events. But I hope it's clear that the nature of the events I plan do not depend on any particular action by the PCs. THAT'S what I want to stress I don't do much planning of -- and so I avoid needing to guide the PCs in any particular direction.

It's kind of funny but right now on my campaign website I have a list of "Things We THOUGHT The Campaign Might Be About" -- a list of story ideas I had that never came to fruition because the players went a completely different direction.

I guess you thought I meant I never plan anything -- apparently an impression you've formed of everyone in this thread who claims not to plan events. Nothing could be further from the truth, I assure you. I was drawing a distinction between planning events and other sorts of planning, not claiming to do no planning at all. Sorry if I was unclear.

Hmmmm. Worse than playing with a chaotic player might be playing for a chaotic DM who throws a lot of stuff into the game on the spur of the moment without thinking out ahead of time the campaign repercussions.

Is there some reason you keep throwing out veiled insults like this? What are you hoping to communicate? I am still hoping we could have a pleasant conversation about differing playing styles, but you seem bound and determined to tell other people that they don't know what they're doing.

 

[Steverooo]

What if the villian has the feat Extra Half?

Stormy, I can only HOPE that's a joke!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I honestly wish WotC would make it an "Official RULE" that you can't mix more than two halves!

Well, the official rule for most of them is that "This is a template that can be added to any corporeal creature."

An ogre is a corporeal creature. A Half-Fiend ogre is a corporeal creature. A Half-Dragon, Half-Fiend ogre is a corporeal creature. A Half-Golem, Half-Dragon, Half-Fiend ogre is a corporeal creature.

Also, there are ways to acquire even some inherited templates. So even if you were born as a Half-Fiend ogre, it's possible to end up as a Half-Golem, Half-Dragon, Half-Fiend ogre.

-Hyp.

 

[Steverooo]

Thread closed for rudeness



Well, this-here'll be my last post to this thread. I suppose that you can reply to it, if y'want, but I won't be reading it...

KarinsDad, I'm with you... I've seen GMs try to run NPCs with no stats. It started to annoy me, so I took very good notes. After a few sessions, I showed the GM where his NPC had the equivalent of more skill points than a Rogue with a 20 INT (equivalent because this was another game, not D&D). He admitted his NPC was wrong, but it was too late to do anything about it.

Anyhow, it is my considered opinion that a couple of you have been VERY rude to KarinsDad (and no, Barsoom, I don't think he was rude to you, nor implying what you claim he was - take a chill pill, willya?) I'm surprised Dinkledog (or somebody) hasn't been along to close the thread, already...

KarinsDad, hang in there, man! I guess the ice-water in your veins has gone up a few degrees, but I don't know how you do it. I woulda lost it, by now! I'm considering adding a few new names to my "Ignore" list!

Keep it up, though... I'm sure you'll get it closed, eventually! Anyway, I'M outta here...

 

[Desdichado]

Well, this-here'll be my last post to this thread. I suppose that you can reply to it, if y'want, but I won't be reading it...

KarinsDad, I'm with you... I've seen GMs try to run NPCs with no stats. It started to annoy me, so I took very good notes. After a few sessions, I showed the GM where his NPC had the equivalent of more skill points than a Rogue with a 20 INT (equivalent because this was another game, not D&D). He admitted his NPC was wrong, but it was too late to do anything about it.

Anyhow, it is my considered opinion that a couple of you have been VERY rude to KarinsDad (and no, Barsoom, I don't think he was rude to you, nor implying what you claim he was - take a chill pill, willya?) I'm surprised Dinkledog (or somebody) hasn't been along to close the thread, already...

KarinsDad, hang in there, man! I guess the ice-water in your veins has gone up a few degrees, but I don't know how you do it. I woulda lost it, by now! I'm considering adding a few new names to my "Ignore" list!

Keep it up, though... I'm sure you'll get it closed, eventually! Anyway, I'M outta here...

Ummm, what are you talking about? I just skimmed through the whole thread again, and didn't see any rude responses. Where they border on rude is where some posts come across as telling people that their way of playing the game is inferior, or touting spurious "data" about what "the majority" of players prefer (from situations completely unrelated to RPGs, I might add.)

The correct response to all of this is that some people religiously follow dice rolls, and that's part of what makes the game fun for them. At the other spectrum are people who play diceless RPGs, and they have just as much fun. Most people are somewhere in between.

To state (or imply) that any one position on that spectrum is the "correct" one is the only borderline rude comment made on this thread, IMO.

 

[barsoomcore]

Just for the record, I sincerely hope I haven't said anything that came off as insulting to anyone, but Steveroo, if you want the thread closed, just report it to the mods and they'll decide for ya.

I find it strange that you would post your thoughts and then insist that you won't read our responses. I'm willing to listen to just anything, and if you think I've been rude, then all I can say is that I honestly didn't mean to be, and would appreciate having my rudeness pointed out to me so that I don't do it again.

I like ENWorld because it's a fun, polite place to have real conversations and talk about our interests. If I'm contributing to making it less so, then I want to know about it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, what you told me was that your players are too smart for techniques other DMs use with their players. (My players would always see that coming. Two of my players are too smart for this stuff.) That is exactly equal to saying that your players are smarter than theirs, which is exactly equal to saying their players are stupider than yours. There's no assumption involved. I'm not making an assumption, I'm just listening to you. The idea you're missing, however, is that you're taking one comparative assessment (your players' intelligence vs. your own) and applying it a completely separate context (your players' intelligence vs. that of other players).

The fact that your players are smart enough to see through YOUR machinations is no evidence that they are any smarter than my players. Or indeed of any particular level of intelligence at all.

We were discussing one particular machination there. The DM sending in the Calvary.

I would expect that almost every campaign would have players who would see through that.

So (and again I am telling you), I was not trying to imply that my players are smarter than yours. I was trying to say that fudging can often be easily noticed by players and that some players dislike the DM protecting them or stopping their critical from killing the bad guy or whatever, just to continue the storyline. A machination like sending in the Calvary is one which is so obvious that players who dislike fudging will often consider it to be so, even if it is not.

No. Fairness is a prerequisite for YOU to have fun. You keep stating that your opinion is the majority -- as though you had some special ability to conduct market surveys in your head, AND as though having your opinion align with the majority makes it more valid. I could care less what the majority opinion is -- I'm interested in YOUR opinion.

Now, there are plenty of fun activities (reading, dancing, drinking, cooking dinner) that don't even involve any sort of fairness issues. There are ways to play D&D that are similar to some degree to these activities. YOU may not play the game that way, but that doesn't mean that other people are playing the game incorrectly.

However, those activities do not have rules. When people create an activity with rules, the majority of the time the rules are their to ensure some level of fairness and consistency, even in semi-unfair activities like subjective sports (e.g. Figure Skating). Even in subjective activities where there are rules, the participants expect that everyone will play by the rules.

If as DM you suddenly instituted the house rule that PCs have to reroll any critical roll a second time to succeed but NPCs do not have to do that, I doubt very much that your players would like it. They might consider it unfair.

Some players (including myself) consider it unfair for the DM to roll dice behind a screen because it allows him to "cheat". YMMV.

You'll need to define more precisely the difference between "making adjustments", and "fudging". Because I think both terms refer to identical behaviour -- and maybe this whole blow-up is nothing more than different definitions for the same word.

I meant by fudging that you totally change the outcome of an event in order to get some other event to occur. For example, saving the life of the NPC villain to keep the storyline going.

By making adjustments, I mean that you have the NPC Villains bedroom sketched out, but you did not put in any real details because you thought the PCs would never get there (or not get there for a long time). So, they arrive at the bedroom and you start adding in detail that you did not have before (like having a bed, a bookcase, a nightstand, etc.).


I think it is a matter of personal honesty and integrity. I feel uncomfortable as a DM having set up an NPC without a given skill (e.g. Climbing) and I suddenly give him that skill, just because he suddenly needs it to escape from the PCs. If the NPC was originally designed to not be a good climber, the reality of the campaign world should not change to suddenly allow him to do that. IMO. As a DM, I feel like I am cheating if I do that.

Other DMs have no such qualms. That feel that anything goes. Save the NPC Villain. Do more damage to the PCs because the encounter does not appear challenging enough and then turn around in the same encounter and throttle it back down because PCs are starting to fall. Prevent the PCs from totally sidestepping the storyline when they think of a quick solution to the current problem as opposed to the lengthy ones I as DM thought of.

Not only does it feel dishonest to do that, it also feels like a total copout. Opps, as DM I was not smart enough to realize ahead of time that the Juvenile Black Dragon would have a good chance of kicking the PCs butt, so I will now correct my mistake. Opps, as DM I was not smart enough to realize that my PCs would come up with a quick solution to a storyline I had set up, so I will now change the storyline enough so that their solution only resolves a portion of the storyline.

I prefer in game solutions as opposed to on the fly DM meddling. For example, if I make low charge semi-potent items available to my players, then they have combat options to fall back on when they get in trouble. Then, it never seems like the DM is saving their hides, it seems like they are saving their own hides.

Personally, I think people can have fun with both styles, I just think players have more fun if they are solving their own problems as opposed to the DM solving them for them. I'm sure there are players who enjoy being spoon fed and protected, just in order to continue the fun.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The DM sending in the Calvary.

A machination like sending in the Calvary is one...

This is nothing personal - it's primarily unfortunate timing, given that I recently listened to the Cast Commentary for The Two Towers, and Brad Dourif does the same thing repeatedly.

But it's BLOODY 'CAVALRY'!

Ahem.

Thank you for your time

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is nothing personal - it's primarily unfortunate timing, given that I recently listened to the Cast Commentary for The Two Towers, and Brad Dourif does the same thing repeatedly.

But it's BLOODY 'CAVALRY'!

Ahem.

Thank you for your time

By gosh, there are about 5 words in the English language that I have problems with and I am NOT going to fix it.

 

[barsoomcore]

A machination like sending in the Calvary is one which is so obvious that players who dislike fudging will often consider it to be so, even if it is not.

Absolutely. I don't consider the problem here to be fudging -- the problem is simply poor DMing. Not equivalent ideas.

When people create an activity with rules, the majority of the time the rules are their to ensure some level of fairness and consistency

Well, we disagree on the nature of D&D rules. I believe the rules are there simply to provide a random element to the story-telling -- otherwise the heroes succeed at everything they try. Introducing a random element is what makes the story-telling interesting, because nobody can predict what will happen next.

Some players (including myself) consider it unfair for the DM to roll dice behind a screen because it allows him to "cheat".

Well, in this you are changing the rules, as many skill descriptions explicitly state that the DM should roll the dice in secret so that the player doesn't know what the outcome was.

I meant by fudging that you totally change the outcome of an event in order to get some other event to occur.

I still find this an extremely vague definition. "The outcome of an event"? "Some other event"? I mean are we talking about fudging a die roll so that the player's cool tactic works well enough that you get to describe something really cool?

It SEEMS like your real beef is with DMs who give their NPCs advantages the players don't, just so their pre-determined storylines don't get messed up.

And by and large I agree with you on the tediousness of such campaigns. I have encountered very few DMs who do that, but I definitely don't enjoy their campaigns very much. But the problem isn't a lack of honesty or anything like that in the DM -- it's that the DM isn't interested in working WITH me to tell a fun story. They just really want me to act out the part they've already decided on.

Which I find dull.

As a DM, I feel like I am cheating if I do that.

Then you shouldn't do it.

Other DMs have no such qualms.

"Qualms" is a pretty loaded word (a feeling of uneasiness about a point especially of conscience or propriety -- Merriam/Webster). You're implying that your style of play is morally superior with a word like that. What you're really saying here is that some DMs have a different style than you do, and you don't like that style -- apparently because you have trouble trusting such DMs, and without that trust you don't have much fun.

Which is totally cool. I have no problem with that -- my problem has always been and remains with your continued statements -- just like this one -- that other ways of playing the game are bad. Morally inferior. Stupid.

The ONLY thing that matters is that everybody has fun. If everybody has fun, you're doing it right.

Not only does it feel dishonest to do that, it also feels like a total copout. Opps, as DM I was not smart enough to realize ahead of time that the Juvenile Black Dragon would have a good chance of kicking the PCs butt, so I will now correct my mistake. Opps, as DM I was not smart enough to realize that my PCs would come up with a quick solution to a storyline I had set up, so I will now change the storyline enough so that their solution only resolves a portion of the storyline.

Oops, as a DM I was not smart enough to realise that my PCs can't handle a threat of this magnitude.

Now what? You just hand out a TPK because you messed up on the math? Or do you change things on the fly so that your friends actually have fun?

Again, here you are calling people who don't play your way stupid. If you could just describe why you prefer your style and stop insulting people who play a different style, this could be a much more fruitful and pleasant discussion.

And what's Smart, anyway? Is it having enough time to prep a session thoroughly? Or is it being able to, off the cuff, spin out a fun and entertaining game session that leaves your players wanting more?

I just think players have more fun if they are solving their own problems as opposed to the DM solving them for them.

You are conflating two ideas -- making up material on the fly, and railroading players into pre-determined storylines. It may be that in your experience the two are commonly associated, but that doesn't make them equal.

I don't enjoy being railroaded, either, and as DM I strive mightily to let my PCs guide the story (and believe I am successful in this), but I am more than willing to fudge a die roll, employ "coincidence" or just plain make something up out of whole cloth to make things more fun for everyone. I expect the DMs I play with to do whatever they can to make my gaming experience as fun as it can be. I don't much care how "honest" they are -- except as far as that impacts my fun.

I'm sure there are players who enjoy being spoon fed and protected, just in order to continue the fun.

Once more, I ask you to refrain from making these sorts of comments -- they only get in the way of what is actually an interesting discussion.