You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Jackinthegreen]

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.



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.



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

Keep in mind the generational gap here. Most of the young adult crowd (18-25) I game with (doing 3.X though. I know nothing about 4.0's stuff) would wonder why there isn't a wand-mart. Heck, a couple of the illustrations in the Magic Item Compendium literally have between them almost a dozen types of magic boots and the characters are simply trying them on to see how the feel. Pages 76 and 77 if you're interested.

One of the key points with this is, yes, the economics of 3.X are all over the place and most who have done any research into it agree that they're totally broken. But most people aren't too worried about it so long as people don't start using cheesy tricks like turning cows to salt (Flesh to Salt spell in Sandstorm) and selling the salt for a profit. Admittedly that could make for an interesting scenario though where the party has to track down a murderer who disposes of bodies that way, but I digress.

Like I said, it's a bit of a generational gap. D&D before 3.X was more RP, but once the board came into play then it was more like a tactical war game and that's how many players tend to treat it. So far this has been true for at least 3 gaming stores I've been to where at least one D&D group was going, and it was always with a board and mini-figs. The campaign stories I hear a lot from other players on the MinMaxBoards are quite similar. They may not always have magic-marts, but the players seem to want them a bit (and even the DM at times) because the characters don't have the resources to face bigger challenges. In ones of those groups the party had even passed on at least 6 masterwork full plate because they at least wanted something magical to drop, and a substitute DM got a bit flustered because of their low AC. He remarked about that to the actual DM and that DM said "Yeah, I do have a bit of a hard time throwing brutes at them."

I do think your style is unusual when compared to people who have never seen anything before 3.X. It's a very different demographic though, so it's almost expected really.

Something even the designers have noted is that, using 3.X rules, Olympic athletes are about the equivalent of 4th or 5th level characters in terms of skill, possibly even 6th level for the super elite. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2 has a blurb about that where he goes over jump checks in D&D compared to real life.

 

[Celebrim]

But most people aren't too worried about it so long as people don't start using cheesy tricks like turning cows to salt (Flesh to Salt spell in Sandstorm) and selling the salt for a profit. Admittedly that could make for an interesting scenario though where the party has to track down a murderer who disposes of bodies that way, but I digress.

I've got too many years playing with economics and poly-sci majors I guess.

So far this has been true for at least 3 gaming stores I've been to where at least one D&D group was going, and it was always with a board and mini-figs. The campaign stories I hear a lot from other players on the MinMaxBoards are quite similar.

I spent a year or so running open dungeon crawls for players at the local gaming store, and there I allowed magic mart more or less on the grounds that I wasn't running a campaign and didn't have time or interest in anything outside of the dungeon. I sincerely hope that isn't what people are playing these days and calling a campaign.

However, the tactical wargaming aspect of D&D isn't new. It's always been a mini-game that some tables chose to engage in. It makes a fairly dull game to turn that minigame into the entire experience IMO though.

They may not always have magic-marts, but the players seem to want them a bit (and even the DM at times) because the characters don't have the resources to face bigger challenges.

It's the DMs job to ensure that the PC's have sufficient resources to face challenges. It's not the systems job.

I do think your style is unusual when compared to people who have never seen anything before 3.X. It's a very different demographic though, so it's almost expected really.

That's probably true. And its likely one of the reasons that PnP is dying. If you run games that don't have any more interest to them than a cRPG, then its inevitable people will decide that the effort compared to a cRPG isn't worth it.

 

[pemerton]

Then.The.Setting.Matters.

But not as an object of exploration. Not as a focus of play. It's colour.

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

That's not what I said. I said that I'm not interested in economic ramifications.

But also, the test is not inconvenience. It's tedium. Which is related to economics - I personally find ingame economics pretty tedious. It's also related to geographic exploration - I tend to find that tedious too.

A desert can make for perfectly fine colour - Sultans, oases, scimitars, minarets, etc (just to pick up on some of the well-worn tropes) - without playing a game of desert exploration.

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.

First, why are we positing that gaining access will take the rest of the session?

But even if it does, there's a huge difference, if the goal of play is City B, between spending a session engaged with City B (finding ingress through a siege, or closed gates) and spending a session not engaged with City B (because crossing a desert).

We can also assume they had no difficulty defeating the Grell in the first encounter without playing it out thoroughly at the table.

But why would we do that? Why would we skip over interesting stuff?

But the "game" aspect of RPG suggests we play more difficult challenges out at the table, only dismissing matters of mundane simplicity.

Sure, that's one way to play. It's not my preferred way. I haven't seen any evidence that it's Hussar's either.

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?

I feel there's some sort of disconnect here. By explaining how, for you, the mercenary recruitment episode might in itself be interesting, you're not persuading me that I would enjoy it as a player, nor that I would want to run it as a GM.

The availability of mercenaries can be resolved by a simple roll, CHA check, GM fiat or something similar that takes a lot less than 90 minutes to resolve.

We can play a videogame style where no NPC ever puts two words together and they are all exactly identical, too.

What's this got to do with anything? It's suddenly "videogamey" to skip boring stuff?

You haven't commented on any of the posts I linked to (twice now) upthread. If you look at them, you'll see that the NPCs in my game are more interesting, and more central to the action, than random spearcarriers.

I'm still surprised by the momentum of this thread. Some folks want to fast forward through some scenes.

<snip>

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.

Quite.

 

[pemerton]

If you run games that don't have any more interest to them than a cRPG, then its inevitable people will decide that the effort compared to a cRPG isn't worth it.

This may be true, but seems apropos of nothing in this thread. If anything, I regad rd it as videogamey to force the players to resolve the desert challenge, or the hiring of the mercenaries, regardless of their interests or the existing story momentum. It's a distinctive feature of a tabletop game that it can deliver story now.

 

[Celebrim]

This may be true, but seems apropos of nothing in this thread. If anything, I regad rd it as videogamey to force the players to resolve the desert challenge, or the hiring of the mercenaries, regardless of their interests or the existing story momentum. It's a distinctive feature of a tabletop game that it can deliver story now.

*just shakes head*

 

[N'raac]

But not as an object of exploration. Not as a focus of play. It's colour.

You were so engaged by that colour that, when it was removed, you quit the campaign. If it was not an object of exploration, nor a focus of play, then what about it was so important that its removal for a new setting destroyed the campaign?

First, why are we positing that gaining access will take the rest of the session?

To provide a basis for discussion.

But even if it does, there's a huge difference, if the goal of play is City B, between spending a session engaged with City B (finding ingress through a siege, or closed gates) and spending a session not engaged with City B (because crossing a desert).

Hussar has been quite clear that he wanted to be in City B, involved in whatever it was that drew him to City B in the first place, RIGHT NOW. I suspect that, had the GM said "You cross the desert Fremen style on your magnificent centipede steed(s), only to find the city is under siege. What do you do next?", he would most likely view that seige as being pulled out of the GM's hat (or someplace less comfortable) to frustrate the players for having the gall to reject his "explore the desert" structure.

But why would we do that? Why would we skip over interesting stuff?

Why indeed. Hussar has, however, been quite clear that he acknowledges the desert may well hold very interesting stuff. He has also acknowledged that, in another game or at another time in that game, interaction with NPC's is something he could find very engaging. But his priority was on the city and the grell, respectively, and he did not wish to play out anything - no matter how interesting or entertaining it may have been - before playing out that one scene he was focused on.

Why would a GM write in a bunch of dull, uninteresting play? Why is it assumed that the players are being made to sit by, bored, as the GM squanders their leisure time with activities he has carefully selected to be as dull, boring, tedious and monotonous as possible?

The availability of mercenaries can be resolved by a simple roll, CHA check, GM fiat or something similar that takes a lot less than 90 minutes to resolve.

Emphasis added Have you even been reading the thread? If that GM Fiat is anything but "you can immediately recruit the six longspearmen you desire and return to battle the grell, with their full support, following which they cheerfully accept the payment that no one has even specified and depart never to be seen again", then this is evidence of a bad GM out to spoil the players' fun, and completely unwilling to allow them any approach other than that which he has scripted for them.

You haven't commented on any of the posts I linked to (twice now) upthread.

No, I haven't. I haven't even clicked the links. I am skipping those scenes.

f you look at them, you'll see that the NPCs in my game are more interesting, and more central to the action, than random spearcarriers.

Which is relevant how, exactly, to the discusson at hand? Any NPC interaction beyond those random spearcarriers is unacceptable to Hussar when he goes to recruit them. Are you saying that, in your campaign, the spearmen might, in fact, have minds of their own, rather than arriving on demand, doing the bidding of the players with no thought or comment, then leaving never to be seen again when the PC's tire of them? But that's so BORING to engage with NPC's.

 

[Umbran]

I spent a year or so running open dungeon crawls for players at the local gaming store, and there I allowed magic mart more or less on the grounds that I wasn't running a campaign and didn't have time or interest in anything outside of the dungeon. I sincerely hope that isn't what people are playing these days and calling a campaign.

Dude, folks have been calling that a campaign since AD&D times, at least - simply running through the published modules without much worry for stuff outside that was a pretty common practice. If they're having fun with it, that's an entirely valid "campaign".

 

[N'raac]

Dude, folks have been calling that a campaign since AD&D times, at least - simply running through the published modules without much worry for stuff outside that was a pretty common practice. If they're having fun with it, that's an entirely valid "campaign".

On a similar note, in my view 3e+ assumes that the PC's can purchase pretty much any magic item their little hearts desire, and this assumption is built into the CR system, so I'm approaching the "buy a scroll/wand" choices from that perspective. Even within that structure, I don't find these perfectly comparable to "hire some spearcarriers" or "summon a centipede that crosses the desert with no issues". In particular, they seem considerably more expensive.

 

[Celebrim]

Dude, folks have been calling that a campaign since AD&D times, at least - simply running through the published modules without much worry for stuff outside that was a pretty common practice. If they're having fun with it, that's an entirely valid "campaign".

I guess my agreement or disagreement on that depends on what you mean. "Simply running through the published modules without much worry for stuff outside that..." covers a lot of ground. I presume you mean something like GDQ, ToEE, or DL. Or perhaps you mean something like Gygax's early table with its exploration bounded by real time constraints and every session ending with a return to the haven on the surface. My open dungeon crawl was not as structured as either of those things. It was more like a series of one offs. As I said, it wasn't a campaign.

 

[pemerton]

You were so engaged by that colour that, when it was removed, you quit the campaign. If it was not an object of exploration, nor a focus of play, then what about it was so important that its removal for a new setting destroyed the campaign?

As I said upthread, because it was the anchor of a whole lot of intraparty roleplay and player-driven stuff (histories, backstories, relationships, prophecy interpretation).

Which is quite unlike the desert in Hussar's game, which was not the anchor of, or the goal of, anything player-driven.

Hussar has been quite clear that he wanted to be in City B, involved in whatever it was that drew him to City B in the first place, RIGHT NOW.

He also said that Jacob Marley-style complications would be cool.

You seem to think that this involves contradiction. What I think it does is highlight nicely the contrast between a complication that draws the players in ("What we want is in City B. City B is under siege. How are we going to get in?" and compications that fail to draw the players in ("What we want is in City B. In order to get there, we're going to have to spend a session or more faffing around in this unrelated desert.")

Hussar has, however, been quite clear that he acknowledges the desert may well hold very interesting stuff. He has also acknowledged that, in another game or at another time in that game, interaction with NPC's is something he could find very engaging. But his priority was on the city and the grell, respectively, and he did not wish to play out anything - no matter how interesting or entertaining it may have been - before playing out that one scene he was focused on.

To me, the difference between a siege of the city - a complication directly engaging the focus of the players' interest - and a desert crossing, is night and day. I wouldn't want to play under a GM who couldn't appreciate that difference.

It's not really to the point that, under other circumstances, the desert could be interesting. Because, under these circumstances, it is not.

Why would a GM write in a bunch of dull, uninteresting play?

That's a good question! Yet we know that there are GMs who have done that - Hussar's GM(s), with their desert and hiring, and my GM, with is temporal teleport.

I think one important thing is that dullness and interest are audience-relative. So the issue is not GMs setting out to do dull, interesting stuff. Rather, it's GMs proceeding with predetermined content that the players aren't interested in.

If that GM Fiat is anything but "you can immediately recruit the six longspearmen you desire and return to battle the grell, with their full support, following which they cheerfully accept the payment that no one has even specified and depart never to be seen again", then this is evidence of a bad GM out to spoil the players' fun.

That was roughly the fiat I had in mind, although there has been no indication that it is mandatory that the NPCs accept payment (I'm sure Hussar would have been happy for them to work for free!), nor that they introduce no downstream complications (I don't think Hussar has expressed a view on that one way or the other).

I haven't even clicked the links. I am skipping those scenes.

In that case, on what basis are you suggesting that my game is CRPG-style with non-talking and/or cardboard cut-out NPCs?

Any NPC interaction beyond those random spearcarriers is unacceptable to Hussar when he goes to recruit them. Are you saying that, in your campaign, the spearmen might, in fact, have minds of their own, rather than arriving on demand, doing the bidding of the players with no thought or comment, then leaving never to be seen again when the PC's tire of them?

No. I'm saying that my game has interactions with NPCs that are more compelling than the hiring of mercenaries: interactions that drive the game forward in ways that are engaging to the players.

To my mind, any GM who thinks it is worth spending 90 minutes of game time interacting with NPCs whose opinions and life stories have no connection to anything of signficance to the players and their concerns in the game is not a GM under whom I want to play. To me, it implies one of two things: either the GM has no better material; or the GM is completely incapable of making judgements about what is interesting and engaging and what is not.