You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

“I stand up and whistle loudly and shrilly. If that fails, to get the attention of all the potential recruits, I yell ‘LISTEN UP IF YOU WANT TO GET PAID!!’ Do I have their attention now? Good. Starting from the left, I point at random to every second guy. ‘You, you, you, you, you and you – pack your gear up – you are hired and we head out in 10 minutes. The rest of you, thanks for coming out but we’ve filled our hiring quota. BYE!”

You now have six hirelings with no idea of who they are, with limited or no time spent in the hiring process. Done. And, if you unfortunately selected a few sub-optimal candidates and dismissed Sir Stephen the Spear Saint, well that’s the price you pay for being in a hurry when you hire.

Oh look, yet another example of the players not jumping through the DM's hoops and getting shafted for it. What a shock. Note, not a chance that I randomly selected Sir Stephen. I'm automatically going to select sub-optimal candidates. But, oh, no, the DM is never out to aha-gotcha the players. I would be far more inclined to believe that N'raac if every single example you give didn't shaft the players for not playing through your scenes.

Is it really that hard to pick up 6 1st level warriors in your game world? Really?

This gets back to a point Celebrim made way, way back about predictability. If I simply bough a scroll of Summon Monster 4, I would get EXACTLY what I asked for without any chance of being shafted. If I simply bought a wand of Mount, again, no chance of the DM shafting us. Why is there no chance? Because the Dm will play by the rules, but will use any vague rules to choose the interpretation that is the least favorable to the players.

The Princess Bride was used as an example some ways back to show how Diplomacy can work. And, totally fair. What I worry about is when the DM makes every NPC Inigo Montoya and interprets the Diplomacy rules in such a way that failure (trying to use diplomacy to not have a fight will auto-fail in that situation) is guaranteed. If the player tries to defuse the fight through diplomacy, rolls fantastically well, but still has to fight, why would the player try again? Instead, the player either gives up trying because he cannot get the results that he wants, or he chooses a different method. Now, they don't bother with diplomacy but go straight to charm spells. Although that's still problematic, but at least somewhat more predictable than diplomacy.

Perhaps the point might better be “either cut the Tom Bombadil scenes or tell me you won’t so I can find another group to game with”.

Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[N'raac]

Oh look, yet another example of the players not jumping through the DM's hoops and getting shafted for it. What a shock.

Ok, I said "if you unfortunately selected a few sub-optimal candidates and dismissed Sir Stephen the Spear Saint, well that’s the price you pay for being in a hurry when you hire", and you interpret that as:

Note, not a chance that I randomly selected Sir Stephen. I'm automatically going to select sub-optimal candidates. But, oh, no, the DM is never out to aha-gotcha the players. I would be far more inclined to believe that N'raac if every single example you give didn't shaft the players for not playing through your scenes.

I said "if". You interpret that as "automatically get worst case result". If you say "I pick 6 guys at random" (and since I very much doubt that I have a map to tell me who every second guy, starting with the leftmost, is, then you are picking at random), then I'd roll randomly to see who you picked. I'd also be inclined to suggest a brief "this is the person you see" description, but if you tell me you don't even want that, then fine.

If you get lucky, you get half a dozen guys all of whom are prepared to work for the price you've offered (maybe Stephen wants more than Hireling X) and they're the most competent of the bunch. Maybe your luck runs the opposite and you get six worthless guys. Or maybe you make the odds and get a mixed bag in between. You don't automatically get "the worst possible choices", but you likely don't get "the best picks" either.

Is it really that hard to pick up 6 1st level warriors in your game world? Really?

Like most issues, it depends. Is there some organized Warriors’ Guild where they are sorted by skills and expertise for ready hire, you can pull up and say “6 rookies and a Sergeant for 2 days; light dungeon crawling; must have own horse and longspear”? Do you have to hire a town crier to locate some candidates? Probably get more of a mixed bag, maybe farm kids with stars in their eyes, old/unemployed dirt farmers, etc., largely depending on the local populace. You had, as I understand it, a big city. You haven’t provided a lot of insights to the recruitment process, other than it sounds like a “send out the crier and hope for the best”.

This gets back to a point Celebrim made way, way back about predictability. If I simply bough a scroll of Summon Monster 4, I would get EXACTLY what I asked for without any chance of being shafted. If I simply bought a wand of Mount, again, no chance of the DM shafting us. Why is there no chance? Because the Dm will play by the rules, but will use any vague rules to choose the interpretation that is the least favorable to the players.

OK, let’s start with what you expect to pay those hirelings. 3 sp a day per the 3.5 SRD, but that’s a minimum. Maybe you’ll pay 5gp a day for a L1 warrior with a Longspear? Pretty hefty price increase, so 30 gp per day.

That Scroll gets you 2 – 5 creatures from the Summon II list, so you need 2 scrolls to average 5, over 2 rounds. You need to decipher the scroll (easy in advance). You need to activate the spell – if you are L3 (same as the CR of a Grell – which begs the question how it handed you your heads the first time), a L7 caster is a DC 8 caster level check – so a decent chance of success, but no guarantees. Full round casting time – will the Grell be able to get a shot in on you on one or both castings? The creatures aren’t there at the outset, so they don’t run interference or take attacks of opportunity as the Grell closes in.

If the Grell flees rather than battling to the death, spearmen stick around and Summon Monster expires.

And I believe those scrolls will cost 700gp each – that’s over 200gp per spearman. Is that a result you like? The wand costs 750 for 50 charges, 2 hours each, and you’re riding horses – they don’t climb escarpments or run all that well in sand. That’s about 2.5 days travel for a party of 5 – how does that work? You need to go about 500 miles at what, 40 miles per day (50’ base move)? You need more than one wand.

Where do you buy wands in a new and unfamiliar plane, by the way?

The Princess Bride was used as an example some ways back to show how Diplomacy can work. And, totally fair. What I worry about is when the DM makes every NPC Inigo Montoya and interprets the Diplomacy rules in such a way that failure (trying to use diplomacy to not have a fight will auto-fail in that situation) is guaranteed. If the player tries to defuse the fight through diplomacy, rolls fantastically well, but still has to fight, why would the player try again? Instead, the player either gives up trying because he cannot get the results that he wants, or he chooses a different method. Now, they don't bother with diplomacy but go straight to charm spells. Although that's still problematic, but at least somewhat more predictable than diplomacy.

Once again, we assume that the GM will be a dick, and that failure once means never having any shot at success.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Not really. Just the clarification that your comments to date paint you as a “my way or the highway” kind of guy.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh look, yet another example of the players not jumping through the DM's hoops and getting shafted for it. What a shock. Note, not a chance that I randomly selected Sir Stephen. I'm automatically going to select sub-optimal candidates.

I'm entirely sure he didn't say that. I don't know where you are getting that sort of thing from.

Is it really that hard to pick up 6 1st level warriors in your game world? Really?

It would be pretty much impossible in mine. For one thing, I can't think of a time when I ever statted out an NPC as a warrior. For another, 2nd level is considered average in my game world. Pretty much everyone over the age of 25 is 2nd level something. It's probably 2nd level commoner; but it's second level.

If you wanted to hire people to fight for you, there would be significant problems.

1) Depending on where you are at, the majority of people might be serfs or slaves. It's illegal for them to hire on with you; you'd be stealing someone's property. The people who are free possibly out rank you, and in any event won't associate with you until you have improved your social status. Even where freemen are in the majority and peers abound, you'd still need a license from the crown to form a mercenary company or else if you were caught armed in the fields or on the roads you'd be treated as bandits. And the town gaurd wouldn't let you in town in all likelihood unless you were citizens of the town. But ok, supposing that is all taken care of, you've been officially recognized as the "Trouble's Omen Company", under Captain Garenthal and you want to hire some people.
2) Well, first you got to convince people to sign up with you. If they are already pro's, chances are they already work for someone else, and that someone else is probably higher rank than you and they've got a comparitively cushy job sitting in some fortress somewhere, drinking up grog, and thinking they are lucky as hell to have a job in peace time and not having to wander around half of Sartha getting footsore looking for work. And if it is wartime, then chances are you can't buy the off because the crown is paying them hazard pay and they are locked into a contract anyway. And in any event, the pro's usually will not sign on to fight anything uncanny. They're more than happy to shed free peoples blood, maybe some trouble with lesser servitors, fight it out on the field, with clerics looking on and a good chance that their surrender will be accepted, etc. But aberations, dragons, undead, and all that unnatural stuff - that's hero work and your money ain't worth their life thank you very much. Mercs don't fight things that just want to eat them. It would take a really stupid or down in their luck professional mercenary to sign on with a low reputation fly by night who is going down in some dark hole, and if you did find one you'd be wise to be asking questions about why he can't get better work. And even if you could find some good ones willing to hear you out, they won't take a 1 day contract anyway. Most will demand at least a month's pay in advance or the buy out of their current contract if they have one. Mercenaries generally aren't stupid, at least the officer types aren't.
3) Ok, so the pros are out even if they are available (it's not like mercenaries hang out in every town). Probably the smartest thing to do would be try to make a public appeal, 'round up a posse' as you put it. Trouble is, unless the monster is actually attacking the town, it's going to take a really high diplomacy check for anyone to see this as anything but your problem. Indeed, there is a good chance of a strong negative reaction if you tell them about the monster, for fear you'll provoke it into attacking the town. It's a -10 penalty to your diplomacy check to convince someone to risk thier life just to start with. You can possibly pull it off if you've got max diplomacy and some positive modifier like noble rank. The good news is that if you do convince people to help, you probably won't have to pay them and the ones most likely to help - Templars, City Guards - are going to be pretty compotent and very reliable.
4) Ok, so you can't hire the pros and you treated charisma like a dump stat, what do you do now? Well, with the promise of good pay, you might find a few willing to hire on with you. It takes some spreading some coin in the bars, hiring criers, and printing broadsheets to get the word out. Candidates will take 2d4 days to make up their mind and show up. Most will turn away as soon as they hear you are only planning to hire them for a day. Most willing to hire on are looking for one of two things and usually both - more money than they could otherwise get their hands on or else you to take them away from this little crap town so they can see the world. Everyone is going to demand a month's pay in advance. Some are going to want a share of the treasure. And these are going to be amateurs. You'll be dealing with a mix of farm kids looking to get away, people in debt looking to get out of it, apprentices who've ran away from their masters, assorted misfits looking for someplace to fit in, criminals looking for a way to go under cover, and possibly (if you have enemies) spies or assassins posing as hirelings. What you won't find is faceless NPC's looking to hire on for a days work and a handful of silver. That's just totally unreasonable. There is nobody like that. You'd have a easier time recruiting bandits to help you rob coaches, or pirates to plunder fat merchant ships. No body wants to hire on for extremely dangerous work against supernatural monsters with only a day's pay staked on the outcome. What's in it for them? How many times on average do you think someone does that before they are dead? And ok, so you do pony up the money, you aren't getting "1st level warriors". It's going to be a mixed bag of Brute d2's, Expert d2's, and a smattering of Rogue d2's and 1st level Fighters with the occasional ringer thrown in - that 3rd level rogue that's fallen for a party member, or that Rogue 1/Hunter 1 who is a spy/assassin working for the Diligent Men or some other local cult who just wants to cut your throats in your sleep an bring your scalps back to his boss in order to get promoted.

In general, this is the way I've handled things since I was a teenager running 1e games. It's a big deal to get to be name level and get followers. If it was just easy to hire up an army, well, who would care? Granted, I don't have 'name level' and automatic followers any more, but the generally idea is still there. So far, the current party has 1 hireling, an ambitious 15 year old apprentice clerk (1st level expert) whose master they killed in a duel. At one point, the party negotiated an agreement with a crime boss to help them with a job that got them some help in the form of 4 of her enforcers, but you don't want to end up oweing too many favors to The Painted Lady. There was some thought about hiring on a trio of dwarf brothers (ftr3's) for a few days, but negotiations broke down over liability insurance for the train of mules that the brothers had with them, so the brothers went on with their coal hauling business. At one point, the party was in position to acquire a heroic sailor as a retainer (4th level explorer), but they wrecked his boat, left him without a livelihood, abandoned him, and never did revenge his friend like he'd ask them to so he left with a bit of ill feelings. The party has their merc license, and the Captain of the company has a Knighthood know, so in normal circumstances they could probably hire a lot of people. But just at the moment a major war has broken out and all the mercs are locked into contracts, and all the able bodied non-mercs have been conscripted by the Despot and the King (depending on which side of the border they live on). Now, once peace breaks out, there are going to be a lot of able bodied men looking for work and at that point, maybe, at least until they mention catacombs, werewolves, undead witches, dragons, and oh yeah that archmage whose apprentice they just killed.

If I simply bough a scroll of Summon Monster 4, I would get EXACTLY what I asked for without any chance of being shafted.

That's a 4th level spell. Where do you think you are going to find a 7th level wizard with a scroll lying around he's willing to sell to strangers? In the whole Principality, population 140,000, there are only 2 arcane spellcasters of that level or higher - Master Adain who works, when he feels like it, for the His Highness the Despot, and Tarkus Duffay that Necromancer you've been looking for and who probably is trying to kill you. Do you think wizards who have pierced the 4th mystery just grow on trees and work as shop keepers? Do you think you can go ask to buy the equivalent of a RPG launcher and no body is going to worry about why you want it?

If I simply bought a wand of Mount

A wand? Where are you going to get a wand from? Wal-mart? A local Hedgemage might be convinced to sell you a wand of light or a wand of mage hand, but of mount? That's going to be special order, even if you can find someone that knows how to do it because while 5th level casters aren't unknown, they are pretty rare. Chances are its a journey of a couple days just to find one. Then you are going to need to wait another day for it to be readied and got the 750 or so silver peices to pay for it (half up front, half on delivery). Maybe you'd get a discount though if you are willing to under go a ritual of sacrifice and pay up the blood needed to power the thing. You might can get another discount if you can find someone who doesn't know the mount spell but wants to and who can craft a wand. In general, if you want wands, you are better off crafting them yourself.

None of this would be seen as unpredictable by my players. We established with the first few sessions that it was a gritty world, filled with evil, and that NPC's had personalities and agendas of their own. The world isn't 'out to get them'. Many NPCs have treated them very well. They've won fame, honors, rank and a measure of riches. But NPCs aren't simply stat blocks to be ordered around either.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Celebrim, I'm very sure your campaign style isn't average or typical of most D&D campaigns. Most DMs would probably say that getting a bunch of 1st level warriors for hire is fairly easy so long as the community is large enough. While they might not favor spears or other long weapons, they're still proficient and could be handed them and work unless they really had oddball feats, but that would be obvious upon making sure they're competent at wielding a polearm. Likewise, getting a wand of Mount is typically about as simple as getting any other 1st level spell via a wand. Some couriers might even favor the wands for their work, so a city or even town might very well have someone who can do that. And the players tend to expect that really since it's certainly not an exotic spell. So yes, players tend to expect the wand can be found at the local Wand-Mart.

And a caster capable of making a Summon Monster 4 scroll in a small city (5,001 to 12,000 people according to the 3.5 DMG page 137) can be fairly decent if one is using the rules/guidelines from page 139. A small city has a +6 modifier, so you're always going to have at least a 7th level something. The wizard you can almost guarantee has Scribe Scroll, although a cleric or sorcerer having it is iffy and the sorc would need to be level 8 to cast the spell in the first place. In a metropolis of 25,000+ the DMG pretty much says there will be at least 4 or 5 characters of 12th or higher level and many more of lower levels. It's guidelines of course, but it might offer a glimpse into how the designers envisioned the typical campaign world.

 

[pemerton]

My litmus test is what would happen if I pulled it or changed it. If we removed it entirely, the dwarf backstory gets pulled. So it's used in that regard. If I change it from Minotaur to Ettins, would anything of substance change?

Yes. Instead of having been tutored by noble worshippers of Erathis and Moradin who are prone to corruption by Baphomet, the dwarves would have been tutored by two-headed, dimwitted buffoons. That's a pretty big difference!

Would you expect that water is cheap and easy to come by, and not an issue to consider if travelling through the area? I would expect that this will not be the case, because this is a desert. In game ramification of the setting is what makes the setting real.

I agree with the last sentence, but (i) most of the ramifications I'm interested in aren't about the price of water (or economic ramifications more generally), and (ii) ramifications don't have to play out directly via the game mechanics to matter.

"I stand up and whistle loudly and shrilly. If that fails, to get the attention of all the potential recruits, I yell ‘LISTEN UP IF YOU WANT TO GET PAID!!’ Do I have their attention now? Good. Starting from the left, I point at random to every second guy. ‘You, you, you, you, you and you – pack your gear up – you are hired and we head out in 10 minutes. The rest of you, thanks for coming out but we’ve filled our hiring quota. BYE!”

You now have six hirelings with no idea of who they are, with limited or no time spent in the hiring process.

Can't we assume that the PCs did a thorough job without making the players play it out thoroughly at the table?

I can write that off as minutia just as easily. 12 extra hobgoblins vs 6 NPC followers can be resolved as easily as “each round, 2 hobgoblins and 1 NPC are laid low. They are not the story focus, so scene cut them and move on”.

You can, but if the players are interested, why would you?

Like “your Plane Shift left you 500 miles out – that complicates matters” or “your hiring is complicated by a large number of applicants, some of whom may be more or less suitable”.

Why would I use complications that my players aren't interested in?

Both of those, I agree, are great complications. But they also delay the players’ access to the city

How so? I've never GMed a group of players who would let their PCs entry into the city they are heading to be thwarted by a shut gate or a siege! They would climb the walls, find a secret tunnel, fly in, disguise as messengers, or find some other more-or-less orthodox mode of entry.

I don't think Hussar is asserting the grell was a major campaign issue. I think he is advocating that the PC's invested importance in vengeance against the Grell. The two are not the same thing.

And that's where we have a major point of disagreement. In my preferred approach to play, the major campaign issues are those tings that the players have invested with importance.

 

[pemerton]

your comments to date paint you as a “my way or the highway” kind of guy.

What's wrong with that. RPGing isn't any sort of moral obligation, either to onself or to others. What's wrong with playing only with GMs who run a game that you like?

 

[Nagol]

What's wrong with that. RPGing isn't any sort of moral obligation, either to onself or to others. What's wrong with playing only with GMs who run a game that you like?

Absolutely nothing. I've left games I wasn't enjoying and I've kicked players from my games that were disruptive or wanted a game style I wasn't prepared to run.

Previously, some posters expressed the position that kicking a player from the group was an over-reaction, but it seems sensible to me.

 

[Manbearcat]

What's wrong with that. RPGing isn't any sort of moral obligation, either to onself or to others. What's wrong with playing only with GMs who run a game that you like?

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would say it organically resolves itself given enough time. The buy-in from the players occurs or it doesn't and those that don't buy-in are perfectly welcome to find a playstyle to their liking. Or. If you're pals and you play multiple genres/creative agendas, then they can get in on the sci-fi, heavy sim game if the high fantasy gamist/narrativist hybrid isn't their thing.

This doesn't strike me as controversial.

Absolutely nothing. I've left games I wasn't enjoying and I've kicked players from my games that were disruptive or wanted a game style I wasn't prepared to run.

Previously, some posters expressed the position that kicking a player from the group was an over-reaction, but it seems sensible to me.

Ditto here. You have to remove players from your game with completely conflicting playstyles/expectations. Nothing is less fun than a table being pulled in 2-3 different directions at once (and the passive aggressive behavior that inevitably ensues because of it).

Again, none of this is controversial I think. Which I suppose is why I'm still surprised by the momentum of this thread. Some folks want to fast forward through some scenes. Typically that is a cultivated, synergistic want/need that accrues over the course of time/experience...oftentimes with a gaming group. If you go into another gaming group and these wants/needs are not made explicit (and the gaming system doesn't support implicit flags), and its not thoroughly canvassed during the interview, then you test it out with the group. If it doesn't work in the group, then you talk to folks. If you find yourself at an impasse, you either (i) host a one-off and try to introduce them to this playstyle and see if there are any bites, or (ii) find a new group, or (iii) endure with a less than ideal playing experience.

However, the process of knowing which scenes to play out, which to skip (a la go straight to the chase scene and skip the infiltration scene as you assume the Thief has successfully secured the idol) will either be explicated in the ruleset, the GMing advice, or it will evolve organically with the group. Skipping the desert and going straight to the city, just like skipping the infiltration and going straight to the chase, is not the Spanish Inquisition of gaming. The inverse is also true.

 

[N'raac]

Yes. Instead of having been tutored by noble worshippers of Erathis and Moradin who are prone to corruption by Baphomet, the dwarves would have been tutored by two-headed, dimwitted buffoons. That's a pretty big difference!

Then.The.Setting.Matters. So if the player lacked the Minotaur option, and it was Ettins or nothing, could the same character still fit into the game world? If not, I'd call that a pretty significant impact the setting has had on the game. If the setting is that desert which leads to the expectation of mounted archers and scimitar wielders, what impact does that have on Fred's Longbow expert Ranger? Presumably, he wasn't raised in the local area, found to have aptitude with a longbow at a fairly young age at a local fair and trained by one of several dozen local members of a society that favoured longbow expertise.

I agree with the last sentence, but (i) most of the ramifications I'm interested in aren't about the price of water (or economic ramifications more generally), and (ii) ramifications don't have to play out directly via the game mechanics to matter.

So make the desert seem real until it inconceniences me, then handwave it away. Got it.

Can't we assume that the PCs did a thorough job without making the players play it out thoroughly at the table?

Sure. We can also assume they had no difficulty defeating the Grell in the first encounter without playing it out thoroughly at the table. But the "game" aspect of RPG suggests we play more difficult challenges out at the table, only dismissing matters of mundane simplicity. Is it a slam dunk that any L2 to 3 PC team who just had their butts handed to them by a supernatural creature in a deep, dark hole can go to MercenaryJobShop.com and pick up a six pack of generic longspearmen to work for a day for pocket change, or is there a material chance of failure with a potential for significant complications arising therefrom, and/oe even the possibility of getting a better result that you had anticipated?

We can play a videogame style where no NPC ever puts two words together and they are all exactly identical, too. The PC`s can be capable of moving in only four directions (no diagonals), with choices of `Fight` or `Flee`should they encounter an enemy, and `Purchase` or ``Leave Store`in town, with each establishment having identical product offerings and price lists for their respective commodity. I don`t think any of us go nearly to that extreme, but we could.

In Celebrim`s game world, the question isn`t even whether it will be easy or take time and effort with a chance of failure, but whether it is even remotely possible. That, again, is the setting coming back to impact on the game. The War isn`t background colour - it means able warriors aren`t readily available for hire.

You can, but if the players are interested, why would you?

Why would I use complications that my players aren't interested in?

OK, we established with Hussar, I believe, that the players are not interested in anything that delays their ability to do whatever that nebulous goal within City B is.

How so? I've never GMed a group of players who would let their PCs entry into the city they are heading to be thwarted by a shut gate or a siege! They would climb the walls, find a secret tunnel, fly in, disguise as messengers, or find some other more-or-less orthodox mode of entry.

And the day after Game Day we see on the internet what a jackass pemerton is for making us play out our means of accessing the city through a shut gate or a seige when we it was so crystal clear that the players are not interested in anything that delays their ability to do whatever that nebulous goal within City B is. How is it that you can assume that they will unquestionably be interested and engaged in finding access to the city, but simultaneously fully understand and support their complete lack of interest in any complication that rests in 500 miles of wasteland that stands between them and the complication to gaining access to the city?

I`ve questioned whether Hussar is the only guy at the table chafing at having to spend time on the desert crossing, but let`s assume the players are 100% unanimous in their desire to get straight to the action within City B. How would they be any less put out at arriving immediately at the city only to find their access impeded (and let`s say with gaining access a process which will occupy the rest of the game session, such that it will end for this week just as they enter the city) than they would be by having to play out crossing the desert to get to the city (with that process occupying the rest of the game session, such that it will end for the week just as they reach the city and walk through the open gates to a cry of `Hail and Welcome, Travelers` from the guard captain on the wall. In both cases, they wanted to get immediately to what waits within City B. In both cases, they got there only after playing out some impediment to same. In both cases, they gained access at exactly the same time. Yet, in one case, you find it completely reasonable they did not want to play out the complication, and in the other you are shocked by any possibility that the complication would cause so much as a raised eyebrow.

What's wrong with that. RPGing isn't any sort of moral obligation, either to onself or to others. What's wrong with playing only with GMs who run a game that you like?

Absolutely nothing. I've left games I wasn't enjoying and I've kicked players from my games that were disruptive or wanted a game style I wasn't prepared to run.

Previously, some posters expressed the position that kicking a player from the group was an over-reaction, but it seems sensible to me.

I have no difficulty with those positions. However, I do have difficulty with the suggestion that `your game`has some moral obligation to bend to `my preferred playstyle`. For Hussar to say Ì didn`t like the group playstyle so I left and didn`t game until I found a group that matched my preferences perfectly`is one thing. To say `that was a bad GM` because he failed to transform his game into Hussar`s perfect playground is quite another.

And the more particular the player is about his preferences - his way or the highway - the less likely I suggest it is that he will find a game that meets with his standards. I expect that is the reason many of us say that we`ll sit through some gameplay that is not our top pick in the interests of everyone having fun. I would also suggest that this willingness may depend a lot on the gaming group. A group of friends outside the game will, I expect, be more tolerant of differing gamestyles than a group of gamers who have no connection outside the game. In the latter case, there is much less stake in making anyone else happy.

Hussar suggests that skipping a scene is a `once in a campaign` kind of thing, but the scenes he describes as so mind-numbingly boring and uninteresting that he simply can`t bear to go on strike me as pretty common occurences in a great many games. I suspect finding the game where a scene he wishes to skip occurs only once in a campaign (and how long is that supposed to be, exactly - assume 48 sessions, typically weekly, of 3-4 hours a year, how long between skips?) will be about as easy as hiring those half dozen generic warriors in Celebrim`s campaign, but maybe you two live in an area where there are dozens or hundreds of game groups all actively seeking new players, so finding the perfect fit is only a matter of interviewing enough groups.

(hmmm...where have I heard of spending time talking with other people to discern whether their goals are compatible with my own to avoid later disappointment recently?)

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, I'm very sure your campaign style isn't average or typical of most D&D campaigns.

That's probably true. It's certainly grounded in a certain era and shaped by my particular tastes and experience.

But a lot of that is almost straight out of the 1e DMG on expert hirelings (which all combatants count as), so I'd like to think that it isn't that unusual.

"Employment must be a matter of offer and acceptance, and each player character must do his own bargaining...The likelihood of encountering any given type of mercenary is strictly up to you as DM...Expert hirelings are generally not available for periods of less than one or more months...They recognize hazardous duty, and the cost per day is the same as per month. The supply of such men-at-arms willing to work day to day is strictly limited, so if the PCs lose them adventuring, more will not be likely to be found."

All I'm doing in the above is interpreting on the basis of what I know about history, society, and people why those things are true.

Likewise, getting a wand of Mount is typically about as simple as getting any other 1st level spell via a wand.

Which is not at all typical. I have never played with a DM that made magic items more available than I do. I'm considered amongst the circles I grew up with extreme in the prevailance of magic as commodity, right really at the edge of what is believable for setting, and generally in every group I have been a player there has been a strong distaste and derision reserved for groups that had 'magic marts' where you could just walk in and buy magic items.

So yes, players tend to expect the wand can be found at the local Wand-Mart.

Maybe in your circles, but I've been in groups where a player would have left the group in disgust at picking up a wand as a commodity item at Olivanders. That would be considered childish, ill thought out, and the general presence of magic like that would imply magic as technology which would transform the world in to something quite unrecognizable to them. I suppose these same groups might have been willing to play a well considered techno-magic steampunk setting where magic as commodity was something being explored, but for the default sort of quasi-medieval setting that was generally preferred the notion was scoffed at. Magic as technology was not something common in the fiction of my youth as it is in many current novels.

And a caster capable of making a Summon Monster 4 scroll in a small city (5,001 to 12,000 people according to the 3.5 DMG page 137) can be fairly decent if one is using the rules/guidelines from page 139.

Don't get me started on class/level demographics.

In a metropolis of 25,000+ the DMG pretty much says there will be at least 4 or 5 characters of 12th or higher level and many more of lower levels. It's guidelines of course, but it might offer a glimpse into how the designers envisioned the typical campaign world.

Yeah, well, there are a couple of problems with that. One of the obvious problems is that if the metropolis has dozens or even hundreds of 6th+ level characters, one of the really big questions is what is so special about the PC's anyway? I've seen demographics which suggest that there should never be a standing army or town watch, because the ratio of high level to low level characters is so high that low level characters just don't stand a chance. Why would anyone ever trust 1st level characters to do anything when there are scores of better alternatives? Why would the characters ever get the oppurtunity to do anything important when so many much more capable people are all around them? Much of the demographics in D&D ends up being built around the DM being able to punish, limit, and squash rogue players. All those high level NPCs are there to be completely passive in the face of any looming threat of any sort, except if that threat is the PC's, in which case they spring into ruthless and efficient action.

The other issue is the enormous amount of power creep in published settings. The characters of Greyhawk and Kyrnn who shook the world, are about half the level of the characters of FR. Over time there has been a huge inflation in the expected power level of NPCs, much of it driven by a combination of DM PC's and DM railroading. There used to be a time when a 14th level character - whether PC or NPC - was one of a settings mightiest citizens. Now they are local captains of the watch, shopkeepers, bartenders, and mayors.

I really don't go that way. For the longest time I stuck with the 0th level NPC's are normal, and 1st level are leaders. Nineth and tenth level characters are of national importance. Then around mid 2nd edition era, without changing the top ends of my demographics I started smoothing out the bottom end a bit to be able to differentiate better between ordinary and ordinary elite. There are a lot more 2nd and 3rds in my game world now, but usually lacking many of the PC's advantages in native ability and equipment (and in my game advantages and destiny). I felt like my demographics ported over really well into 3e, and so I just stuck with them. I'm sure that people who came to the game in its 3e era have different expectations, but I dont' think I'm that unusual.