Two Dozen Nasty DM Tricks

[OchreJelly]

The trick to introducing these sort of things is to very clearly demarcate from the context where the tricks begin, and where they end.

The trick must believably exist in the campaign world. <snip>

.

Oh you'll get no argument from me here. I agree that trap filled tombs are definitely classic, appealing adventure locales. Likewise I think context is key. I think a key part of treading the line between 'screw job' and challenging encounter is context. The players need to have some way of getting a warning about bad things, even if the DM has to back it with 'you failed 5 search rolls'.

If the player has no reason to believe that there is rust monster essence in the cool new magic scabbard he found, i think that's just mean spirited. But given context, I suppose it could be workable if it was found in the lair of "Ferrous", the evil rust monster keeper. IME I tend to think any item-destroyers or level-drainers are by their nature 'screw job' territory. I know players who prefer their PCs were killed over losing a favorite item.

But my overall point was overuse of 'evil DM tricks' could train the players into slowing down the game by searching everything. If they are in the evil trap-filled tomb that might be ok occasionally. I would just recommend hand-waving searching every square and just saying as a DM "I get it, you're taking 20 on everything and moving thru this place at a snail's pace".

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This depends on whether "trap finding mechanics" are the sole determiner of whether a trap is found. I am of the school of thought that you'd no sooner allow a player to declare "I search for traps in the room" and make a roll than you would allow a player to say "I convince the duke to give us men-at-arms and a charter" and make a roll. Both of these situations require more imput from the players to get an effective output from the DM. Of course, YMMV.

Further proof you just expect your players to be telepathic. "Guess what I'm thinking" stopped being a fun gaming style back in junior high. Do you also require your players to tell you how exactly they summon forth mystical energies from some bat poo to cast fireball?

You may as well just point at your players and assign some damage or equipment loss. You still get to deal your petty damage, but at least it saves game time from trying to guess whether or not someone should turn a door knob a half turn or a full turn, or whether or not looking under a rug will trigger a glyph of warding, or whether or not the lever was smeared with a special ontact poison that immediately travels up ropes.

The Grimtooth books always struck me as designed for DM's who didnt have enough wit to figure out that A) it wasnt particularly hard to make the players "lose" and B) that's not really the point of being the DM.

In my opinion, if a trap isnt sprung, it may as well have never existed. Random squares of dungeon shouldn't have pit traps in them. Chests shouldn't have a permanent "sticks to snakes" so anyone prodding them open ends up holding a cobra. Doors shouldn't have the world's tiniest banshee imprisoned in them, so anyone listening would get an earful of "save or die".

I greatly prefer the rube goldberg style machine traps, encounter traps, etc. Players should want to trigger them for the fun of getting out. Zinger traps are just lame.

I find it amusing that the old guard so often pisses and monas about a loss of wonder, while at the same time guiding a style of play that rewards an anal retentive standard operating procedure for opening doors and where no one would dream of putting on a magic belt in the middle of a dungeon without first slugging down a wine, owl feathers and pearl-tini, lest their junk fall off.

 

[Pbartender]

Or the perception of such.

Absolutely. Perception is the big thing, here.

To be honest, all of my best RBDM moments -- the ones the players still talk about -- were situations in which the PCs were in little more danger than normal, but had the perception that something unusual and dangeerous was going on.

The suggestion you gave for a dragon using alter self is a great example... I've used that one before, except in my situation I had a red dragon who used Disguise Self to make herself look like a white dragon, and let the PCs see her coming from a long way away so that they had time to prepare.

It didn't take long for the players to figure it out (the cone of fire breath weapon gave it away, once the dragon used it), and it didn't cost them more than a couple of useless spells and a bunch of hit points... In the long run, there was no real danger, and they still won in the end. But the looks on their faces when that first fireball didn't deal any damage and the way they scrambled to rethink their tactics for the next few rounds told me the trick worked as intended.

Like KC said, for me much of Rat Bastardry is getting the players to do that horrified double-take when they realize what's going on, and then giving them the chance to succeed (even if it means a lesser or more costly victory) despite the set back. I like my RBDM moments to give players that wonderful sense of doom that always precedes a spectacular come from behind victory in the movies.

 

[Celebrim]

Further proof you just expect your players to be telepathic.

I don't see how.

"Guess what I'm thinking" stopped being a fun gaming style back in junior high. Do you also require your players to tell you how exactly they summon forth mystical energies from some bat poo to cast fireball?

Chip on your shoulder? Clearly, someone burned you pretty bad. I'm guessing though that it wasn't one of the people in this thread, so don't transfer your angst over some bad DM to a bunch of people you don't know.

You may as well just point at your players and assign some damage or equipment loss. You still get to deal your petty damage, but at least it saves game time from trying to guess whether or not someone should turn a door knob a half turn or a full turn, or whether or not looking under a rug will trigger a glyph of warding, or whether or not the lever was smeared with a special ontact poison that immediately travels up ropes.

Ok....

The Grimtooth books always struck me as designed for DM's who didnt have enough wit to figure out that A) it wasnt particularly hard to make the players "lose" and B) that's not really the point of being the DM.

Look, I don't like the Grimtooth books either. I don't like the culture that they represent or create. I don't like how the traps are inexplicable except as out of game constructs. But some players believe it or not dig that stuff. It's not just DM's screwing with people. It's players that derive satisfaction from taking the best the DM can throw at them and work a way out of it.

It is a very long way from saying that the game improves, is more engrossing, and easier to adjudicate if the PC's offer more concrete propositions than, "I take 20 and search the room.", to endorsing one of the Grimtooth dungeons as an ideal example of dungeon design.

If I say, "In the abandoned room, you see alot of moldy straw scattered across the floor, a water damaged tapestry, a large stone urn filled to the brim with some black liquid. Against the north wall, there is a thick layer of tree roots. A broken down roll top desk suffering rot and termites is against the west wall. There is a sour coppery smell in the air, but you can't identify the source."

And the PC responds, "I take 20 to search the room.", he's asking potentially for a world of pain depending on what is in the room. So what am I supposed to do with that proposition? Whether he realizes it or not, he's said to me, "I want to find everything in the room and I'm willing to do anything I can think of do it." The thing is, everything in the room might not be the sort of thing you want to find. If I was a player, my threat detector would go into the red hearing that sort of description. Clearly, there is alot of junk that requires caution in this room. It's not bloody time to take my hands off the wheel and give the DM some entirely abstract propostion. There could be small nasty monsters in any number of locations in that room. There could be slime, mold, vermin, and disease hazards. What could be hiding in or under the straw? What's with the roots? What kind of fluid is in the urn? What's with the smell? What might the tapestry be hiding?

I for one think I'll keep my sense of mystery and wonder even if it means 'slowing things down' to offer a little more concrete propositions.

In my opinion, if a trap isnt sprung, it may as well have never existed.

The same could be said of any other game feature that the players don't see. Does that men strict railroads are the ideal game design?

Random squares of dungeon shouldn't have pit traps in them. Chests shouldn't have a permanent "sticks to snakes" so anyone prodding them open ends up holding a cobra.

I can't say anything about whether or not that is true until I know the context. Context is everything. I can imagine dungeons where random pits should exist, and I can imagine dungeons where snake trapped chests are not only appropriate but there absence would be inappropriate.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And the PC responds, "I take 20 to search the room.", he's asking potentially for a world of pain depending on what is in the room. So what am I supposed to do with that proposition? Whether he realizes it or not, he's said to me, "I want to find everything in the room and I'm willing to do anything I can think of do it." The thing is, everything in the room might not be the sort of thing you want to find. If I was a player, my threat detector would go into the red hearing that sort of description.

Indeed.

Which is why, in 3e, you can search through a pile of junk without, apparently, touching anything.

I for one think I'll keep my sense of mystery and wonder even if it means 'slowing things down' to offer a little more concrete propositions.

Moreover, if one uses a faster combat engine, there is enough time to allow for satisfactory mental workouts as well.

The same could be said of any other game feature that the players don't see. Does that men strict railroads are the ideal game design?

Not only that, but this implies that players will gain no satisfaction from circumventing the trap without setting it off. Not true, IMHO.


RC

 

[Reynard]

Further proof you just expect your players to be telepathic.

Exactly the opposite, in fact. I expect them to ask questions, listen to the answers, digest the information, ask more questions, etc... and then come to a meaningful decision about the course of action they wish to take. Sometimes that asking of questions is "in character" and sometimes it is "metagamey". It's not a distinction I care much about, so long as the players are engaged and having fun.

Of course, to some in this thread, "fun" in this case is infantile, stupid and petty.

 

[Pbartender]

Exactly the opposite, in fact. I expect them to ask questions, listen to the answers, digest the information, ask more questions, etc... and then come to a meaningful decision about the course of action they wish to take. Sometimes that asking of questions is "in character" and sometimes it is "metagamey". It's not a distinction I care much about, so long as the players are engaged and having fun.

I know we're waaaaay off topic now, but there's some intersting topics being discussed, here.

Anyway... I've found a nice middle ground for players who insist on rolling search checks for an entire room: Vague (skill based) searches get vague results. Specific (skill based) searches get specific results.

So when a player says, "I search the room," I can give him a few hints on where to focus his attention for a second, more specific Perception check.

 

[jdrakeh]

I find it amusing that the old guard so often pisses and monas about a loss of wonder, while at the same time guiding a style of play that rewards an anal retentive standard operating procedure for opening doors and where no one would dream of putting on a magic belt in the middle of a dungeon without first slugging down a wine, owl feathers and pearl-tini, lest their junk fall off.

I'm 100% certain that the paranoid insistance of many players to tap every tile in a dungeon floor with a 10' pole or hold every door open with a spike is fostered by previous bad experiences with screw job DMs.

 

[Pbartender]

I'm 100% certain that the paranoid insistance of many players to tap every tile in a dungeon floor with a 10' pole or hold every door open with a spike is fostered by previous bad experiences with screw job DMs.

I remember a time way back in high school, during which we were using unseen servants with 10' poles to tap every tile in a dungeon floor, wall or ceiling... Just in case.

Don't forget, those sort of paranoid actions were suggested and encouraged in some of the earlier editions' rulebooks.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm 100% certain that the paranoid insistance of many players to tap every tile in a dungeon floor with a 10' pole or hold every door open with a spike is fostered by previous bad experiences with screw job DMs.

Again, this is entirely contextual.

If I'm forced to tap every tile in a dungeon floor with a 10' pole and hold every door open with an iron spike while adventuring in the mines and city that a tribe of Gnolls have carved into the side of a volcano, then perhaps I'm going to eventually start wondering at the maturity of the DM's design skills.

If I'm not forced to tap every tile in a dungeon floor with a 10' pole and hold open every door with an iron spike while plundering the infamous tomb of the sinister Yuan-Ti Necromancer King of its reputedly legendary treasure, then I'm going to eventually start wondering at the maturity of the DM's design skills.

To a certain extent, the trope tells the tale. I can know from context whether I'm in a trap filled dungeon designed to test my dungeoneering skills, or whether I'm going to mostly be facing a series of tactical challenges as the party manuevers between a large number of skirmishes against an inferior foe with the advantage of home ground. Neither scenario is necessarily for everyone, and in either scenario I'm going to eventually balk and try to run off the railroad if I'm fed a steady diet of the same thing week after week.

But I would consider both part of a balanced adventuring diet.

Even if you look at something like 'Tomb of Horrors' which is I think we'll agree pretty extreme in one direction, the whole scenario involves only about 2 dozen encounter areas and represents at most 2-3 sessions worth of gaming. It certainly shouldn't represent THE standard of dungeon design, but it is certainly a very well realized example of dungeon design, that can profitably inform a DM's overall style. In particular, one of the important things a novice DM should note about Tome of Horrors is that Acerak 'plays fair'. He gives clues. There is a logic behind the design of the tomb, and Acerak/Gygax sticks to it pretty consistantly.

If every once in a while, the player's can't handle 8-12 rooms filled with well designed puzzles and fiendishly cunning death traps, then I wonder if you've got a party with just as much of a problem as a DM. I don't have alot of sympathy for players that want a consistant diet of 'straight up fight that earns us easily fungible wealth'. I have a little more sympathy for players that don't like dungeons at all and would rather spend their time method acting, improv theater, character building, and so forth, but as a DM, every once in a while I just want to design an old school dungeon regardless of who I'm DMing.