You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Nagol]

Quintuple post

 

[Nagol]

Quintuple post

 

[Greenfield]

Just poking my head in for a moment...

I'd like to apologize to all who were offended by my sharp tongue and lack of self control. It's just a game, and I need to remember that.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Well that depends. Who set the goal? If the goals lie solely in the hands of the PCs "We must get to the city!" then crossing the desert is a step they need to do accomplish their goal. If the characters then say "Crossing a desert sucks! Let's do this instead." all is well and good.

If the players say "Crossing a desert sucks! Let's hand-wave it." that is what can lead to a conflict. Conflict is more ikely if the players don't say it, but do *something* in the game world that they think telegraphs their preferences. Conflict becomes almost certain is one player does something in game to telegraph his preference to handwave the situation, assumes the other players are on board, thinks and the only potential purpose of the desert crossing is to do things he's not interested in doing or that can have no lasting impact on the campaign.

So really, it's more a failure of communication and managing expectations than game design.

Well, part of the thinking was that a DM might be able to lead the players into thinking that the road is important enough to be worth traveling to the next destination, so to speak. I admit it probably takes quite the DM to set up the session such that that's what the players will want to do instead, but it is still worth thinking about. In terms of "surprising the DM," perhaps the centipede situation could have been avoided by making the desert an explicitly worthwhile place in its own right. Then it wouldn't have been so much "we need to get through the desert" as "Let's see what we can get out of the desert." I have no experience DMing, but perhaps setting the setting like that is feasible.

 

[Hussar]

See, I look at it like this.

If, in the crossing the desert scene, I had simply whipped out a scroll of Teleport and teleported to the other side of the desert, Celebrim and the rest of you would have zero issues. None. No complaints at all. So, I look at the summoning a mount things as pretty much exactly the same thing. There is no functional difference between a scroll of Teleport and redlining travel.

Same thing for the Grell example. We were in a city. If we had simply bought a scroll of Summon Monster IV (3e/3.5e game - take it as given that magic items are available for purchase) we would have had the exact same results as hiring 6 1st level warrior hirelings. No functional difference.

And, I see this as why players stop trying anything that is not expressly permitted on their character sheet. Think of it this way. You have two options. Both will give you identical results. Option A has a 100% success rate and Option B has a less than 100% success rate. Which option will you choose?

---------

Throughout this thread, my position has been taken to ridiculous levels. Skipping 6 years of school to battle Voldemort? Why would I do that? That would spoil my fun.

I have suggested, and ALL that I'm suggesting is that a player can choose to opt out of a SINGLE scene. That's it. One scene that the player is not enjoying. Celebrim talks about me opting out of the game. That's way beyond what I've talked about. I don't know about your campaigns, buy my campaigns consist of dozens, if not hundreds of scenes. Some are blurred together, some are pretty distinct, but, in any case, there are lots and lots and lots of them. A player telling me, "Hey, Hussar, this one? Yeah, not feeling the love, can we move on?" would certainly not cause me to rage quit the campaign and stop being a DM.

Nor should a player ever feel like he owes me anything simply because I'm the DM. If what I'm serving isn't fun, I'd much rather skip it and get on to the next bit with the thought that the next bit will be fun.

Again, I'm not talking about someone who's being a dick. That's a separate problem. But, I absolutely trust my players to know what they find fun and if what I'm serving at the moment isn't fun, for whatever reason, then why force them to "eat their greens" just to somehow justify the work I've put in. Heck, it might not even be that they don't find something fun all the time. It could just be they had a really bad day at work and don't feel like breaking out the minis to play out an hour long battle with random bandits on the road. The next session, they might be perfectly happy. No worries. Those bandits don't have feelings. They can vanish back into my head and my notes just as easily as not.

But the idea that I am somehow beholden to the DM to play through everything he wants to play through, just because he wants to play through it is far, far beyond anything I would ever consider to be good DMing. And it's the reason that players have all their creativity crushed out of them. Because as soon as the player tries being creative, just as Celebrim has shown, if that creativity isn't something the DM likes, he'll simply pile on roadblock after roadblock until the notion of stepping outside the lines is no longer a real option.

I mean, look at all the stuff he's talked about for crossing the desert. If he spent that much time making the desert important, why not spend a fraction of that time making it matter to the players? As I said, we had no interest and no reason to explore the desert. We were simply crossing it to get to the place that we actually care about. Why not spend all that time preparing the place that he knows we are invested in?

 

[Hussar]

Well, part of the thinking was that a DM might be able to lead the players into thinking that the road is important enough to be worth traveling to the next destination, so to speak. I admit it probably takes quite the DM to set up the session such that that's what the players will want to do instead, but it is still worth thinking about. In terms of "surprising the DM," perhaps the centipede situation could have been avoided by making the desert an explicitly worthwhile place in its own right. Then it wouldn't have been so much "we need to get through the desert" as "Let's see what we can get out of the desert." I have no experience DMing, but perhaps setting the setting like that is feasible.

Bingo. Read this after I wrote my reply above.

If you want the players to explore the desert, MAKE THE DESERT MATTER. Don't expect the desert to matter to the players just because it's there. Like I keep harping on, there was a clear goal on the other side of the desert. It could have been a desert or a forest or a grass plain or a giant field of jello, who cares? Well, if it was jello, I'd probably care, but, then, there's always room for jello.

But in any case, the expectation that I'm seeing from Celebrim and others is that I, as the player, should care about everything that the DM brings up, simply because it's there. You want me to care about the desert, then show me why I should care. Otherwise, redline it and let me get to the goal.

Instead of constantly presuming that that "one player is at fault Nagol, why not presume that that one player is acting in good faith and honestly is not enjoying what's being presented enough that he isn't willing to simply go along with it? The two examples I've brought up are YEARS apart in real time. Totally unrelated to each other. Just experiences that I've had in the thirty some years I've been gaming.

I find that trusting your players results in better games than presuming that the players should have absolute trust in the DM and any deviation from that is only because of problem players.

 

[Abraxas]

Just wanted to address a couple points

See, I look at it like this.

- snipped examples for brevity -

And, I see this as why players stop trying anything that is not expressly permitted on their character sheet. Think of it this way. You have two options. Both will give you identical results. Option A has a 100% success rate and Option B has a less than 100% success rate. Which option will you choose?

Option A and Option B in your examples don't give identical results and in fact could have vastly different outcomes.

I have suggested, and ALL that I'm suggesting is that a player can choose to opt out of a SINGLE scene. That's it. One scene that the player is not enjoying.

But how do you reconcile that one player opting out of a scene may force another player to not have his fun also?

But the idea that I am somehow beholden to the DM to play through everything he wants to play through, just because he wants to play through it is far, far beyond anything I would ever consider to be good DMing. And it's the reason that players have all their creativity crushed out of them. Because as soon as the player tries being creative, just as Celebrim has shown, if that creativity isn't something the DM likes, he'll simply pile on roadblock after roadblock until the notion of stepping outside the lines is no longer a real option.

You seem to be doing the same thing you accuse Celebrim of - taking his position to an ridiculous extreme and then casting him in an unfavorable light. You accuse him of piling on roadblocks - but it is apparent that he (and we'll assume his players) like skill selections to be relevant - so they devise a solution and they play that out with the rule set they are using. He's also said that he addresses a player who isn't enjoying a mode of play by not staying in that mode of play too long.

I mean, look at all the stuff he's talked about for crossing the desert. If he spent that much time making the desert important, why not spend a fraction of that time making it matter to the players? As I said, we had no interest and no reason to explore the desert. We were simply crossing it to get to the place that we actually care about. Why not spend all that time preparing the place that he knows we are invested in?

Everything he talked about probably could be played out in 20 minutes (except perhaps any random encounters) if there really wasn't anything important in the desert.

Also -
I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that this is the first time you've said that the group (by your use of "we") wasn't into exploring the desert - previously your position (at least to me and apparently to others) seemed to be you were the only one who wanted to just skip the events you listed.

Plus, how is getting "shirty" (whatever that is) with the DM productive? How is it more productive than talking to him after the game or during the next break in the game?

Finally, if the DM is the type who gets in a snit, why were you gaming with him at all?

 

[Libramarian]

As a general rule I try to spend two hours for each hour of play. That tends to achieve 'desirable' results. More can at times achieve better results, but really that's something adults can't expect to do consistantly. I think you can, if you are experienced enough, most of the time get by doing one hour of prep for each hour of play. However, in my experience this is generally risky and a lot of times I regret being so lazy.

[snip]

I'm passionate about this topic because I see the craft of GMing dying out there because no one wants to put in any work, and as a result the experience of play ends up suffering compared to other mediums - like CRPGs - where someone did put in work. It's the greatest threat to our hobby, and one that in all likelihood is going to all but kill it short term.

I think you're out to lunch if you think RPGs that require that much prep have any growth potential at all. 1 hour of prep per 10 hours of play is a more realistic target for actually expanding our hobby. Most people don't read books.

 

[Hussar]

Just wanted to address a couple points
Option A and Option B in your examples don't give identical results and in fact could have vastly different outcomes.

How so? In both examples, either teleporting or redlining travel have exactly the same results - we arrive at the destination in about 30 seconds of table time. In the Grell example, I get a handful of 1st level warriors (or commoners would work too) vs 2-5 creatures from the Summon Monster II table. Pretty much exactly the same thing.

But how do you reconcile that one player opting out of a scene may force another player to not have his fun also?

Because it's one scene. Only one scene. No one is saying that this should happen all the time or even often. It's something that comes up once in a blue moon. Your potential loss of fun is not real. You haven't had that fun yet. You might have fun with the scene, you might not. Probably you will, but, it's still only in potentia. OTOH, I will definitely NOT have fun playing out this scene. That's guaranteed.

And, in the next scene, we both get to have fun, so, everyone is happy.

You seem to be doing the same thing you accuse Celebrim of - taking his position to an ridiculous extreme and then casting him in an unfavorable light. You accuse him of piling on roadblocks - but it is apparent that he (and we'll assume his players) like skill selections to be relevant - so they devise a solution and they play that out with the rule set they are using. He's also said that he addresses a player who isn't enjoying a mode of play by not staying in that mode of play too long.

Everything he talked about probably could be played out in 20 minutes (except perhaps any random encounters) if there really wasn't anything important in the desert.

Perhaps. But then again, he's also claimed that he would fold up his books and go home if a player ever did what I claim. So, I don't think I'm taking it to extremes. I mean, he's listed what, seven, eight things that are going to be in that desert? That's an awful lot of roadblocks.

Also -
I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that this is the first time you've said that the group (by your use of "we") wasn't into exploring the desert - previously your position (at least to me and apparently to others) seemed to be you were the only one who wanted to just skip the events you listed.

Plus, how is getting "shirty" (whatever that is) with the DM productive? How is it more productive than talking to him after the game or during the next break in the game?

Finally, if the DM is the type who gets in a snit, why were you gaming with him at all?

It should not make a difference whether it's one player being bored or the group. Sorry, if someone isn't having fun at my table, I'm not having fun as the DM. It drains all the fun out for me. So, why should someone be forced to play through something they have clearly stated that they don't want to, just because they are the only one not enjoying it?

Well, perhaps talking to the DM after the game might be a good idea. Thing is, I've just wasted hours of my time waiting for the session to end. Maybe it would be better if I just got up and left and came back when everyone was done? Would that be more productive? BTW, getting shirty means that you get a bit annoyed. Not blowing a gasket or anything like that. Just a bit annoyed.

As to your last point about DM's who get in a snit, you're exactly right. I don't play with DM's like that anymore.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Of course you get to make a save as you look at it and throw the dust, if you close you eyes, 50% misses.

You seem to think we're talking about the basilisk's gaze save, yes? That wasn't what we were going on about. What we were discussing was whether the basilisk got a save against the Dust of Disappearance. I made my biggest contribution to that debate here if you want to look at it. And a few posts after that Justin has a rebuttal. The pages after that are a bit of back and forth which ended with Umbran stepping in and putting his foot down.

Hopefully that helps out a bit?