You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

Umm, N'raac, did you read that link?

Maure Castle was first established by the Maure family in the Urnst area shortly after the escape of the last refugees of the Suel Imperium under Slerotin over a thousand years ago. The Maures built the castle as a massive obsidian stronghold where the family could safely conduct magical research meant to recreate the prowess of the Suel Mages of Power. A number of these mages met one last time on an eight-pointed star at the entrance to one of the castle's dungeon complexes, outside a set of unopenable doorrs, and from there transported themselves and their knowledge to parts unknown.

Umm, isn't that pretty much bog standard, "Crazy wizard did it"?

I mean, read the module. Crazy wizard did it is the entire raison d'etre for the dungeon.

 

[Hussar]

N'raac, you have to realize that I'm coming from a very, very different perspective than you are. I'll give you an example.

Do you know how much money my current Dark Sun PC has? Neither do I. I know he has money and he has a fair bit of it, but, the exact number? Not a clue. I could probably figure it out if I needed to, but, it just doesn't matter.

When we need to spend money, it's, Ok, that's about X amount? Ok, covered. Move on. Totals? Not a clue. Because it doesn't matter in this game. Tracking character wealth is largely unimportant. We don't have anything to buy anyway, so, what does the money matter?

Now, I know that this is very different from other games. I know that. I've certainly played a much more sim style game before. And, sometimes I like it. But, my tastes change from campaign to campaign. I would hate to play the same way all the time. I enjoy a lot of different games. So, by and large, I have to settle things at the outset of a campaign, just what it is that we're playing.

And, yeah, I probably made a mistake in the examples in this thread in that I didn't nail it down specifically enough. There are few games I outright don't enjoy, but, they are there. Wound up that the Grell game was one I left shortly later because the pacing was so glacially slow. It was (again) a Shackled City campaign (the grell is in the first module) and it took that group SIXTEEN 3 hour sessions to complete the module. The other campaign (different DM) also ended shortly later due to real life issues for the DM and the campaign died.

Maybe I'm a bit quick to jump the gun on deciding that I won't like something. Perhaps. But, very, very little in my play experience has shown me that I'm totally in the wrong either. Many, many DM's see all complications as being equal. Many DM's see the "journey" as being the most important thing. And, again IME, there are DM's whose grasp on pacing is not to my taste.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It is also one that most annoys many players. Why are there all these crazy wizards running around creating bizarre dungeons with wierd puzzles? Are there any "not crazy" wizards? Are there any ungeons which possess some rational design that I, as a player, can actually interact with, rather than hop from one bizarre encounter to the next?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this annoys you. I don't think making broader judgements based on personal preferences is going to be terribly helpful here.

And that would be the difference between us.

I am only, solely, claiming personal playstyle and not trying to rely on some vague "well everyone else thinks so too" fallacy to try to prove my point.

It annoys me.

Also, he said "many", not even "most" or "all" players. That's a perfectly acceptable qualifier, if you think your use of "often" is a good enough qualifier.

Now, presuming you play with a fairly like minded group, then, likely your group will also find this annoying, thus reinforcing your perception. But, considering that this is a pretty basic, bog standard trope in D&D, and given that you have no problems with Slaad planting flowers as a siege, I'd say that the annoyance level is more a personal thing than anything.

Well, all play style preferences are personal things.

I mean, the standard dungeon crawl is probably the basic unit of D&D play and always has been.

In modules, and to a certain extent, game design, I agree. In my group, over the past 10 years, there's probably been enough "dungeons" to count on one hand. So definitely not at my table, I assume something close for Ahnehnois' group, and I assume some others around my age (and "some" should be a perfectly acceptable qualifier here).

But, yes, I agree that dungeon crawls have been assumed in D&D game design and in modules (and thus play, to an extent). But I never touch modules (not even to mine for ideas), and I started with 3e, so it's never been prominent in my group. Is the focus on dungeon play going to change? From the looks of 5e, no. But hey, here's hoping it does. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

The difference JC, is that you aren't using your argument to prove how we are having badwrongfun by having dungeons made by crazy wizards in our games. You haven't tried to extrapolate beyond your table.

 

[Jacob Marley]

You are presenting this from an ingame perspective. [snipped for brevity]

I am looking at this from the point-of-view of the player. If the end result is an interesting situation that I can leverage, does it actually matter how the DM arrived at it?

From a DMing standpoint, I can agree that it matters. Certain techniques work better than others for specific DMs.

I am reminded of one of my players who swore up and down that random encounters were the dumbest idea ever in gaming, and how he would never play with a DM who used "those stupid tables!" After one particular session, I showed him my notes for that session: a copy of Mythic:GME and a half-dozen random encounter tables. He never complained again.

In modules, and to a certain extent, game design, I agree. In my group, over the past 10 years, there's probably been enough "dungeons" to count on one hand. So definitely not at my table, I assume something close for Ahnehnois' group, and I assume some others around my age (and "some" should be a perfectly acceptable qualifier here).

If you mean ~35, then, yeah, I am in the same age bracket and have had similar experiences. In the campaign I am currently playing in, we have been in exactly ZERO dungeons (in the traditional D&D) sense over the past 25 or so sessions.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The difference JC, is that you aren't using your argument to prove how we are having badwrongfun by having dungeons made by crazy wizards in our games. You haven't tried to extrapolate beyond your table.

To be fair, I don't think N'raac is trying to say you're having fun wrong. In fact, I think that you and pemerton might be taking the arguments against you as that, when they're not. But, I don't want to speak for N'raac; I might be wrong. As far as I'm concerned, though, you're correct. You're not having badwrongfun. As always, play what you like

I am reminded of one of my players who swore up and down that random encounters were the dumbest idea ever in gaming, and how he would never play with a DM who used "those stupid tables!" After one particular session, I showed him my notes for that session: a copy of Mythic:GME and a half-dozen random encounter tables. He never complained again.

Lots of good stuff in Mythic. Worth the relatively cheap cost, in my opinion.

If you mean ~35, then, yeah, I am in the same age bracket and have had similar experiences. In the campaign I am currently playing in, we have been in exactly ZERO dungeons (in the traditional D&D) sense over the past 25 or so sessions.

I'm 27. But, yes, that's how it goes for me. It's much more fantasy novel/movie-like than it is generic D&D-like. That was true when I played D&D, and it's true now that I don't (though I still run a fantasy game with my RPG). Running into "exactly ZERO dungeons" is what I'm used to. As always, play what you like

 

[Campbell]

It annoys me.

Also, he said "many", not even "most" or "all" players. That's a perfectly acceptable qualifier, if you think your use of "often" is a good enough qualifier.

Well, all play style preferences are personal things.

In modules, and to a certain extent, game design, I agree. In my group, over the past 10 years, there's probably been enough "dungeons" to count on one hand. So definitely not at my table, I assume something close for Ahnehnois' group, and I assume some others around my age (and "some" should be a perfectly acceptable qualifier here).

But, yes, I agree that dungeon crawls have been assumed in D&D game design and in modules (and thus play, to an extent). But I never touch modules (not even to mine for ideas), and I started with 3e, so it's never been prominent in my group. Is the focus on dungeon play going to change? From the looks of 5e, no. But hey, here's hoping it does. As always, play what you like

I'm pretty much in the same boat though our preferences do differ in other areas, although I started with 2e in 1998 (I'm 28). In fact my biggest disappointment with Next thus far is the return to the daily paradigm that works against my desire for a slower paced, more intrigue laden game. Both the L5R game I play in and the RuneQuest game I run have seen less than 3 fights in 3 months of play.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm pretty much in the same boat though our preferences do differ in other areas, although I started with 2e in 1998 (I'm 28). In fact my biggest disappointment with Next thus far is the return to the daily paradigm that works against my desire for a slower paced, more intrigue laden game. Both the L5R game I play in and the RuneQuest game I run have seen less than 3 fights in 3 months of play.

My group uses my RPG now, but we, too, will sometimes go very long stretches without fights. The current campaign just shifted from combat-oriented to a little more stealth-and-intrigue-oriented, so we'll see how often it kicks in, now. I'd very much like the option to build mostly (or even completely) non-combat characters in some edition of D&D. I'd see that as a huge step, personally. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

Do you know how much money my current Dark Sun PC has? Neither do I. I know he has money and he has a fair bit of it, but, the exact number? Not a clue. I could probably figure it out if I needed to, but, it just doesn't matter.

When we need to spend money, it's, Ok, that's about X amount? Ok, covered. Move on. Totals? Not a clue. Because it doesn't matter in this game. Tracking character wealth is largely unimportant. We don't have anything to buy anyway, so, what does the money matter?

Depends largely on the game, and on the character. Nothing to buy? Agreed - why track it. But why have loas of treasure in the first place, then? What use is it if there is nothing to buy - and why does it (or is it assumed to) motivate the PC's? If it does not motivate them, why do they bother hauling it out - why not just leave it there if all it does is weigh you down? I've played hoarders, and I've layed characters where the first thing to do after dividing up treaure is scratch it off as the character just spends it, much like many characters in recuring fantasy fiction who never have more than a few coins, however big that last haul was.

And, yeah, I probably made a mistake in the examples in this thread in that I didn't nail it down specifically enough. There are few games I outright don't enjoy, but, they are there. Wound up that the Grell game was one I left shortly later because the pacing was so glacially slow. It was (again) a Shackled City campaign (the grell is in the first module) and it took that group SIXTEEN 3 hour sessions to complete the module. The other campaign (different DM) also ended shortly later due to real life issues for the DM and the campaign died.

There again, I don't have a problem with a game that moves slowly through the module, provided the game itself is fun. An extended session where we accomplish NOTHING AT ALL related to the module could be great fun based on whatever is distracting us from the module, and a session where we make huge module progress, but it's just a boring slog, is not a good session from where I sit.

Maybe I'm a bit quick to jump the gun on deciding that I won't like something. Perhaps. But, very, very little in my play experience has shown me that I'm totally in the wrong either. Many, many DM's see all complications as being equal. Many DM's see the "journey" as being the most important thing. And, again IME, there are DM's whose grasp on pacing is not to my taste.

I don't think anyone has suggested anyone is "totally in the wrong". And I see it's OK for you to use "many" or even "many, many" as a descriptor. I'd also say there is a difference between "the journey is the most imortant thing", "the journey is an important aspect" or even "the journey is also significant" versus "the journey should just be skipped" or even "there can't possibly be anything relevant in the journey".

I'd also suggest "setting is not important" cuts both ways. If the setting is unimportant, how is it that whether the scene is set in (or just outside) the city, or in the heart of the desert, is determinative of its relevance or interest?

But, yes, I agree that dungeon crawls have been assumed in D&D game design and in modules (and thus play, to an extent). But I never touch modules (not even to mine for ideas), and I started with 3e, so it's never been prominent in my group. Is the focus on dungeon play going to change? From the looks of 5e, no. But hey, here's hoping it does. As always, play what you like

Well, as one of three words in the name (and I don't think & can be counted as an equal partner), I suspect we will always have Dungeons in Dungeons & Dragons. But we can have campaigns without dragons, and campaigns without dungeons. I've also seen a lot of different definitions of "Dungeon" over the years, right down to "indoors with more than one room = Dungeon"

I am looking at this from the point-of-view of the player. If the end result is an interesting situation that I can leverage, does it actually matter how the DM arrived at it?

Agreed.

I am reminded of one of my players who swore up and down that random encounters were the dumbest idea ever in gaming, and how he would never play with a DM who used "those stupid tables!" After one particular session, I showed him my notes for that session: a copy of Mythic:GME and a half-dozen random encounter tables. He never complained again.

I think there is a difference between "wandering monsters" (roll a 3, encounter 2d6 Orcs) and random encounters. The latter are more fleshed out and more relevant to the game in progress. One example might be roaming guard patrols with fixed numbers, or perhaps the Castle Priest who is always on the go unless specifically summoned. But you don't kill, capture or befriend the Castle Priest, then have him randomly show up an hour later as a new Wanderer.

To be fair, I don't think N'raac is trying to say you're having fun wrong. In fact, I think that you and pemerton might be taking the arguments against you as that, when they're not. But, I don't want to speak for N'raac; I might be wrong. As far as I'm concerned, though, you're correct. You're not having badwrongfun. As always, play what you like

Agreed. I do, however, find it interesting when the posts about "those bad GM's" with whom "I tend to get shirty" get juxtaposed with an offended statement that "you aren't using your argument to prove how we are having badwrongfun".

As to Maure Castle, its construction, over many generations, does not strike me as "crazy wizard creates a labyinth which has no apparent purpose other than creating wild challenges for adventurers". I had a player in one game that seemed very "crazy wizard did it" centred wonder where all the crazy wizards who spend their lives making seemingly pointless permanent illusions come from. Looking at the summary of Maure Castle, it seems the various components were constructed with specific purposes in mind, not including "confuse the adventurers and provide a Monster Menagarie habitat". Contrast with the design of, say, White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors. And I say that as a fan of the former - but it's a clear "kill the monsters, take their stuff" old school dungeon crawl - why would anyone build it? What previous use could those rooms have been put to?

 

[Celebrim]

The serfs don't have to try to co-opt the PC's into their rebellion in order to establish the setting. All of the things above are setting elements, just like the desert. It paints the backdrop.

Err... one of my campaigns basicly assumes that the PC's will in fact be coopted in to a peasant rebellion, or at least, have to come down on one side or the other of it. But, even if we aren't in that campaign with its 'Robin Hood' hooks and highlighted oppression, the fact is that any PC is free to choose to become a radical and make the campaign be about that. This current campaign is in an sense about theology, but where the PC's are now there is a stirring undercurrent of rebellion. The PC's are free to focus on that.

Things are only backdrops if you choose not to interact with them. If you can't interact with the backdrop, you discover you are in a Tiny World and on a railroad.

After all, there are no reasons for cities to be somewhere where there is no wood or metal.

Huh? Metal is a relatively recent human invention an there are plenty of places people have settled where there is very little wood. You can build with stone and mud; lots of people did. Plenty of places get by with scraps of brush or tiny amounts of imported would (for tool handles and such).

When you start kicking the scenery, it's going to fall down. But, because Pemerton and I are not simulationists at heart, we simply accept the scenery as is, and get to the stuff which does interest us - character and plot development.

I feel you keep drawing distinctions that just don't hold. Maybe you aren't interested in 'scenery', but that doesn't imply that people who are interested in what you call 'scenery' aren't primarily interested in character and plot development. What you call 'scenery', I call 'setting'. And if you kick it, it doesn't fall down.