You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

What does the city have that is inherently interesting for the players with nothing added by the GM? Until the GM adds in locations and NPC's it has nothing. The GM can proceed with:

Excited Players (EP): We go to an inn!!!
Flat Monotone GM (FMG): You find an inn.
EP: What's the name of the inn??? Look on the sign!!!
FMG: The sign is faded with age and just looks like a board.
EP: Go inside!!!
FMG: You are inside the Inn.
EP: Is there an inkeeper???
FMG: Yes. He will rent you rooms for 3 sliver pieces.
EP: Talk to the Innkeeper - ask him if he can direct us to the Church of the Holy McGuffin.
FMG: The innkeeper grunts, and says "three blocks east".

And so on. Just monotones, dull NPC's and boring locations. Pretty much what you expected of the desert.

Well, if nothing else, I'm in a city. I could hire troops.

It is as relevant or irrelevant as we choose to make it. Just like the desert. Just like the siege. I would hope the GM would make the areas we will spend time in relevant and interesting, and fast forward us past any irrelevant or uninteresting areas. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to comprehend.

It's not. And I've said that I've played this way in the past. I do not prefer to play this way now where everything is dependent on the DM.

The fact that the city is under siege is ALSO relevant to the players , just as much as the simple fact that the player's goals lie within the city which is under siege lies within a desert renders the desert ALSO relevant to the players.

But, there is nothing to proactively interact with in the desert. Not until the DM puts it there to interact with.

In my game, the likelihood you would be automatically killed if you attempt to interact with the siege is equal to the likelihood that I will force you to play out all the bnoring mundane aspects of the trip through the desert. You assume the worst of the desert and the best of the siege and the city. Why? What prevents the assumption that the GM will work to make all encounters interesting and entertaining, rather than the presumption one will be a dull, boring waste of everbody's time?

If you would never do these things, then why is every one of your examples pretty much along this line? If you would never automatically kill the PCs then why bring it up?

Based on WHAT? Again, the character has yet to set foot in the desert, and the player simply dismisses it as dull and uninteresting because, as near as I can tell, it was not what you had in mind. I don't believe you were hoping to engage in the siege, not having known it was there, yet for some reason we assume the same GM who will make the desert a dull, frustrating roadblock will make the siege a dynamic, interesting scene of interaction. Why is that more likely than both being vibrant and entertaining, or both being PITA roadblocks?

You're right in that I wasn't hoping for a siege. But, I was hoping for a city. It's the difference between Yes And and Yes But. The city is Yes, you arrive at the city, and the city is under siege. The desert is, Yes, you try to go to the city, but your way is blocked by the desert because you don't have the in-game plot tickets to skip the desert.

There you go, Pemerton. Hussar is not interested in your VecnaCrawl. Fast forward to Hussar standing over Vecna's re-dead body, holding the heirloom to the sky and howling in triumph!

Wow. That's a bit extreme don't you think? I'm not interested in the VecnaCrawl, so, I auto win against Vecna? Umm, no? I wouldn't want Vecna to make an appearance in my Empire Heirlooms campaign AT ALL. Certainly not at the beginning when we just getting the heirloom in the first place.

So the city and the siege were your design, then? That's the first I have heard of that!

Well, going to the city was our design. We had the goal of going to the city. The siege is just an add on to the city. But the important point here is that we are at the city. We have made progress towards our goal.

I'd say this depends largely on frequency. A player might just as easily not show up because he's ill, tired or what have you. Missing a game hardly seems like the end of the world. Hwever, I'm not sure I get the "give me a call" business. If the tomb is searched after an hour, I would not commit to putting the game on hold while you make your way back, or end the game early because you now want to participate again, or stop play when some creature in the Tomb turns out to have the heirloom. I might very well reschedule a game because I know something very relevant to the player/character is likely to arise, but I'm not going to tell ou the Big Reveal is part of the near-term scenario.

I'm not sure whether that's a positive or negative answer from your perspective.

The goalposts keep shifting here. Is it an hour or a session? Crossing the desert, as written in the module, would take several sessions. The Wizard in your example hijacked the game for several sessions. But, now, any sidebar is just an hour? If that was true, I'd never skip anything. I can live with that. But, in every other example brought up, we're talking several hours, if not weeks of table time.

Same here. Nagol, am I correct that the session continues without the player, or would you be prepared to stop play on reaching the end of whatever the player didn't want to play out so the player can come back and not miss the parts he may have been more interested in?



Same here, I think, an I pose the same question I pose to Nagol above.

Me, I'd be fine with missing a bit of the next stuff. Fair enough. I stepped out, it's my responsibility. I'm not going to get fussed if I miss out on some of the good stuff too. Hopefully there will be more good stuff after this good stuff, so, it's not like I'm really out anything.

 

[N'raac]

A session? Yeah, I'd probably just ignore it as well. But, in the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Thief and the Tower example, it was several sessions.

A few questions:

- How predictable is "how many sessions this will take"?

- How long did you expect the desert crossing to take?

- Is it possible that the actions of the players could alter the expected time requied, or that they could take some actions during the period that would interest you ("say, we could sure use this from back home to help out - let's pop back for that and maybe deal with some other pressing stuff while we're there")?

- Is it possible that player agendas could change the direction, the timeframe, or both, of the sessions? Maybe they form new goals while you are not there - you clearly will not be invested in those goals, so should we leave you out until those are also dealt with? It seems quite possible that the game may move on without you. Or do you expect the rest of the group to maintain a status quo so you can pop back in if/when they are dealing with matters of greater interest to you?

- Would you be OK with a player saying "hey, not feeling this hate-on for the poor old Grell - I'm gonna take off, but call me once you're done torturing it so I can come back to play the "past the choke point" scene?

The more I think about it, the more I have to wonder how happy any GM (or players) can be expected to be when a player says "hey, looks like the next hour/session/month is just going to suck on ice, so call me when you're through all the boring, trivial crap, OK?"

 

[Hussar]

Let's turn it around. We're going to start a new game and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] says "Hey, I'd like to run a Fighter." The GM says "Fighters are boring. No fighter." Just as you prejudge the desert to be of no interest, I have decided fighters are just dull. No fighters. Is it OK to just dismiss your character concept out of hand (or the feat you want to take, or the prestige class you planned on taking, or some other aspect of the character that you think would be really interesting to play)? Fast forward past that character and find one that interests me.

Are you saying that DM's don't have absolute authority over what gets played at the table?

I've been absolutely castigated on this board for saying exactly that. I've stated before that I think that DM's should compromise with their players when the player is honestly trying to meet them in the middle instead of simply stating, NO, you cannot have this character in MY game.

Are you agreeing with me?

 

[Hussar]

Right, true. Most of that city is probably irrelevant to your goals unless you make it relevant, which is admittedly harder to do for the players with the desert than the city. That is, the players can go get supplies, try to find people to hire, etc. rather easily, while in the featureless and not-yet-described desert, it'd be harder to proactively do things.

It's not harder, JC, it's outright impossible. It's a bloody desert. There is literally, by definition, nothing to interact with. That's WHY it's a desert. It's not like I can assume anything exists in the desert. OTOH, in the city, I can assume shops, people to hire, sages to consult, whore's to spend my ill gotten lucre on, that sort of thing.

And, if I teleport to the city, I can STILL interact with the city. The only way I can interact with the desert is if you bring the desert to the city. Which, to be honest, the sandstorm thing probably wouldn't bother me. It's pretty much the same as the siege, although probably a lot less to fiddle with. You cannot really talk to the leaders of a sandstorm. But, the main point is, we're now in the city.

I brought this up with N'raac. It's the difference between Yes And and Yes But.

Yes you arrive in the city and there's a sandstorm blowing in and people are heading for cover. You need to find somewhere to get out of the storm.

Yes you start traveling to the city, but your path is blocked by a sandstorm. Wait out this sandstorm (or try to travel through it) before you continue your journey to the city.

Yes, you arrive at the city and the city is locked down, under siege. You will need to interact with the besiegers and the besieged in order to move closer to your goal, but, there are a plethora of choices to be made here, all of which are entirely in your hands.

Yes, you travel towards the city, but your way is blocked by a caravan of nomads. You have no real reason for interacting with these nomads, since it is not apparent that they are related to the city, but, you will have to interact with them if you want to enter the city.

 

[N'raac]

Well, if nothing else, I'm in a city. I could hire troops.

Seems to me we've discussed that before but I suppose you can try. Now that we've estabished all the NPC's are flat, lifeless cutouts, it may be more successful.

But, there is nothing to proactively interact with in the desert. Not until the DM puts it there to interact with.

Nor is there anyone in the siege or the city unless the GM puts it there. Other than the other PC's, but they're in the desert too.

If you would never do these things, then why is every one of your examples pretty much along this line? If you would never automatically kill the PCs then why bring it up?

Because it seems the type of thing a GM who is simply making up trivial, boring scenes filled with minutia with, as near as I can tell, the sole objective of torturing you to death with boredom would include in his game. If he's bound and determined to play out every fall into the dust, why would the siege leaders accommodate you with interesting interaction? If you want to interact with fleshed out NPC's, maybe you should go hire some troops. That's the last time the GM tried giving soldiers a personality, isn't it?

You're right in that I wasn't hoping for a siege. But, I was hoping for a city. It's the difference between Yes And and Yes But. The city is Yes, you arrive at the city, and the city is under siege. The desert is, Yes, you try to go to the city, but your way is blocked by the desert because you don't have the in-game plot tickets to skip the desert.

"Yes, but the city is surrounded by a siege" is, once again, oh so different than "yes, but the city is surrounded by a desert" is the hurdle I just can't seem to get over.

Wow. That's a bit extreme don't you think? I'm not interested in the VecnaCrawl, so, I auto win against Vecna? Umm, no? I wouldn't want Vecna to make an appearance in my Empire Heirlooms campaign AT ALL. Certainly not at the beginning when we just getting the heirloom in the first place.

We can play out the scenario, walk away from the scenario, assume you win the scenario or assume you lose the scenario. Which one is your preference? "Skip past the scene" has to skip past it to somewhere, does it not?

Well, going to the city was our design. We had the goal of going to the city. The siege is just an add on to the city. But the important point here is that we are at the city. We have made progress towards our goal.

So was the city your idea, or was it dropped in by the GM for you to interact (much like a siege, giant scorpions, desert nomads, etc.)?

The goalposts keep shifting here.

Seems to me I've said that before...

Is it an hour or a session? Crossing the desert, as written in the module, would take several sessions.

And did you know that at the outset? Assume that? Get told so by the GM out of character? Because I don't generally go into a scene as a player knowing precisely what it will entail, or how long it will take. For that matter, how long it will take is often surprising when I run the game as well.

The Wizard in your example hijacked the game for several sessions. But, now, any sidebar is just an hour? If that was true, I'd never skip anything. I can live with that. But, in every other example brought up, we're talking several hours, if not weeks of table time.

You keep telling me it's "just a single scene in hundreds that will occur in the campaign". Now we are discussing campaigns that last what, 1,500 hours (3 hours x 500 scenes)? 10 years? (2 weeks x 250 scenes, with a couple weeks off each year)? As you say, that Animate Goalposts is one powerful enchantment!

 

[Hussar]

A few questions:

- How predictable is "how many sessions this will take"?

How long have you played D&D? It's generally not all that hard to guess.

- How long did you expect the desert crossing to take?

After I summoned the centipede? Ten minutes. Maybe.

- Is it possible that the actions of the players could alter the expected time requied, or that they could take some actions during the period that would interest you ("say, we could sure use this from back home to help out - let's pop back for that and maybe deal with some other pressing stuff while we're there")?

Sure, that's possible. What's your point? Since players, at your table, are obligated to play through every complication that the DM puts forward, then "popping back for that" isn't an option.

- Is it possible that player agendas could change the direction, the timeframe, or both, of the sessions? Maybe they form new goals while you are not there - you clearly will not be invested in those goals, so should we leave you out until those are also dealt with? It seems quite possible that the game may move on without you. Or do you expect the rest of the group to maintain a status quo so you can pop back in if/when they are dealing with matters of greater interest to you?

If the group has a strong group template, then any goal formed should be something I would automatically be invested in, simply because the group has strong reasons for being together. The situation with the wizard hijacking the game will not happen at tables I run.

- Would you be OK with a player saying "hey, not feeling this hate-on for the poor old Grell - I'm gonna take off, but call me once you're done torturing it so I can come back to play the "past the choke point" scene?

Why would I have a problem with that? I've been stating all the way along that this isn't somehow limited to me. Considering how long 3e combat can take to play out, and the level of hate on that some players have for dungeon crawling, I've got no problems with someone skipping a session.

The more I think about it, the more I have to wonder how happy any GM (or players) can be expected to be when a player says "hey, looks like the next hour/session/month is just going to suck on ice, so call me when you're through all the boring, trivial crap, OK?"

Well, let's be honest here, if the player is phrasing it like that, there's likely larger issues. And sure, no one likes it when someone is so disengaged from the game that they want to sit it out. We'd rather play together than apart. So, in my games, it's not going to happen. I skip the boring, trivial crap because I'm not willing to throw one player under the bus just to keep everyone else happy.

But, in groups where one player's wants are never considered more important than the group's, and majority rules, I'd feel this is a pretty decent compromise.
[MENTION=53286]Lwaxy[/MENTION] has the best attitude I've seen so far about this.

 

[N'raac]

Are you saying that DM's don't have absolute authority over what gets played at the table?

I've been absolutely castigated on this board for saying exactly that. I've stated before that I think that DM's should compromise with their players when the player is honestly trying to meet them in the middle instead of simply stating, NO, you cannot have this character in MY game.

Are you agreeing with me?

Yes, and yes. I agree that the GM should be looking for characters that fit in the game. I also think the GM should reasonably try to fit in player desires. Maybe that doesn't mean a Samurai in medieval Europe, but means trying to find a class/archetype that possesses as much of the aspects that draw the player to the Samurai as possible.

It's not harder, JC, it's outright impossible. It's a bloody desert. There is literally, by definition, nothing to interact with. That's WHY it's a desert. It's not like I can assume anything exists in the desert. OTOH, in the city, I can assume shops, people to hire, sages to consult, whore's to spend my ill gotten lucre on, that sort of thing.

With nothing to encounter, how will it take several sessions to cross? Oh, I forgot we will be rolling Ride checks every 15 feet and acting out our rising back out of the sand. Seriously, is that your gaming experience? Then you need a new GM, not the ability to skip scenes.

And, if I teleport to the city, I can STILL interact with the city. The only way I can interact with the desert is if you bring the desert to the city. Which, to be honest, the sandstorm thing probably wouldn't bother me. It's pretty much the same as the siege, although probably a lot less to fiddle with. You cannot really talk to the leaders of a sandstorm. But, the main point is, we're now in the city.

Yup, there you are. Every door closed and locked, every window shuttered. What now?

I brought this up with N'raac. It's the difference between Yes And and Yes But.

The improv guys actually contrast "Yes, but" with "Yes, and"

Yes, but to get to the city you need to cross the desert. Yes, and the city is beyond a vast, deadly desert.

Yes, but you will have to interview the recruits. Yes, and the you will be able to interview your recruits to select your workers.

Yes you start traveling to the city, but your path is blocked by a sandstorm. Wait out this sandstorm (or try to travel through it) before you continue your journey to the city.

Yes, you arrive at the city and the city is locked down, under siege. You will need to interact with the besiegers and the besieged in order to move closer to your goal, but, there are a plethora of choices to be made here, all of which are entirely in your hands.

Yes, you travel towards the city, but your way is blocked by a caravan of nomads. You have no real reason for interacting with these nomads, since it is not apparent that they are related to the city, but, you will have to interact with them if you want to enter the city.

Yes you start traveling to the city, but your path is blocked by a desert. Wait for it to bloom into pasture, or provision up for a journey through the desert?

Yes, you arrive at the city and the city is locked down, under siege. The soldiers tell you to turn back, as they have orders to slay all who seek entry, and they will not warn you again.

Yes, you travel towards the city, but your way is blocked by a caravan of nomads. They hail you, and ask what news from whence you have travelled. The hour grows late - will you make camp, break bread with them and share news of your travels?

Wow, it seems like we can make each and every encounter of possible interest and relevance, or an annoying roadblock. Go figure!

 

[N'raac]

After I summoned the centipede? Ten minutes. Maybe.

When you realized you needed a way to speed it up, so 3.275 seconds before the Centipede Solution sprang to mind.

Sure, that's possible. What's your point? Since players, at your table, are obligated to play through every complication that the DM puts forward, then "popping back for that" isn't an option.

In the Tower example (which was a city with a lighthouse-like structure, but never mind), the agenda was entirely player driven.

If the group has a strong group template, then any goal formed should be something I would automatically be invested in, simply because the group has strong reasons for being together. The situation with the wizard hijacking the game will not happen at tables I run.

Seems like it was not strong enough for you to be invested in the goal that saw you decide you needed to take the session off. Will your character's wishes be better represented while you sit at home?

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's not harder, JC, it's outright impossible.

I disagree.

It's a bloody desert. There is literally, by definition, nothing to interact with.

I disagree with your definition of "desert".

That's WHY it's a desert. It's not like I can assume anything exists in the desert. OTOH, in the city, I can assume shops, people to hire, sages to consult, whore's to spend my ill gotten lucre on, that sort of thing.

Well, unless stuff is established for the desert. That's correct. And yes, you can generally assume those things about a city. Since that's been established. You cannot safely make assumptions about either until they're established.

I honestly don't begrudge your "I'd rather all (or most) play occur in a place where I can make assumptions about stuff I can interact with, and there's stuff for me to interact with." That doesn't bug me at all. I do, however, don't think these things are nearly as "inherent" as you do.

And, if I teleport to the city, I can STILL interact with the city. The only way I can interact with the desert is if you bring the desert to the city.

Right? I agree. The city just isn't the goal. Does this have less to do with your goals, and more to do with things you can interact with? That'd make sense to me. That's normal, from my experience. It's something I'm used to, and if that's the case, that'd make total sense to me.

Which, to be honest, the sandstorm thing probably wouldn't bother me. It's pretty much the same as the siege, although probably a lot less to fiddle with. You cannot really talk to the leaders of a sandstorm. But, the main point is, we're now in the city.

I brought this up with N'raac. It's the difference between Yes And and Yes But.

Okay, a question here. Your "Yes And" is "you arrive at your destination, and there's a siege", while your "Yes But" is "you go to the city, but your way is blocked desert." If that's correct (and it should be, based on your post), then my question is, "at what point is it okay to add a complication?"

Let me expand on that thought a bit. I ask because you, as a player (and PC), want to interact with the goal in the city in the desert. What I want to know is, at what point is it to throw a relevant wrench into the plans of the PC (in a way that's hopefully fun for the player, thus the "relevant" qualifier)?

Interrupting them in the desert isn't okay, but at the gates of the city is. Is that because the players worded things "we go to the city" and not "we cross the desert"? That is, if the players had said "we cross the desert", is it "Yes And" to say "you cross the desert, and along the way you run into nomads / refugees / mercenaries"? And, if that's the case, if the players said "we go to the temple in the city", would it be "Yes But" to say "you get to the city with the temple, but there's a siege"? Are "Yes And" and "Yes But" based more on player wording than on player intent?

Yes you arrive in the city and there's a sandstorm blowing in and people are heading for cover. You need to find somewhere to get out of the storm.

This is "Yes And" to you. Okay.

Yes you start traveling to the city, but your path is blocked by a sandstorm. Wait out this sandstorm (or try to travel through it) before you continue your journey to the city.

So, this is "yes you can cross the desert, but you must weather a sandstorm or wait it out." A "Yes But" to you, I think.

Yes, you arrive at the city and the city is locked down, under siege. You will need to interact with the besiegers and the besieged in order to move closer to your goal, but, there are a plethora of choices to be made here, all of which are entirely in your hands.

This is where I start to question player wording. This is a "Yes And" to you. To me, it's a "Yes But", by my perception of your definition. It sounds like "yes you can cross the desert, but you must interact with or bypass a siege that has the gates closed." This seems like a "Yes But" to me.

Yes, you travel towards the city, but your way is blocked by a caravan of nomads. You have no real reason for interacting with these nomads, since it is not apparent that they are related to the city, but, you will have to interact with them if you want to enter the city.

This isn't even the encounter I framed. Some differences:
(1) The nomads didn't block you.
(2) There are no city folk mentioned.
(3) There are no mercenaries mentioned.
(4) The reason to interact with them is that some city folk are shouting out to you.
(5) You do not have to interact with them if you want to enter the city.

I'll answer my thoughts on a "Yes And" or "Yes But" in relation to that when the scenario is straightened out. It seems counterproductive to build on a scenario that I'm not talking about, and that someone else has mis-framed. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

With nothing to encounter, how will it take several sessions to cross? Oh, I forgot we will be rolling Ride checks every 15 feet and acting out our rising back out of the sand. Seriously, is that your gaming experience? Then you need a new GM, not the ability to skip scenes.

Remember though, the issue isn't that there are encounters in the desert. The issue is that the players CANNOT choose those encounters. There is nothing the players can pro-actively do until the DM allows them to do so. The players cannot go looking for nomads that they have no idea exist. The players cannot go looking for anything. It's a desert. A wasteland where virtually nothing lives. Isn't that generally the definition of a desert or waste?

And, you keep talking about how interesting the desert is. That's besides the point though. The ONLY reason we have to be in the desert is because we lack a plot coupon that allows us to skip the desert. If we have the plot coupon, then we skip the desert and no one minds. The only reason that we have to face DM initiated encounters in the desert is because the DM has enforced a level of simulation that I expressly did not want to engage.

I want the centipede travel to be treated the same as teleport. That's what I want. I want this because I want to get to the city and push towards our goal and I don't want to spend time screwing around in the desert. If we had a teleport scroll, I'd use that right away. We don't have that, but, could we please just pretend that using the centipede effectively works the same?

It has nothing to do with how interesting or boring the desert is. The basic issue here isn't about skipping the DM's interesting stuff, because you don't mind if the group does that. Doesn't bother you in the slightest if the group skips the desert. What bothers you is that the player wants to get the same effect, even though, at this time, he doesn't have the proper plot coupon for doing so. It's a cheat code. This bothers you far more than it does me.

Well, unless stuff is established for the desert. That's correct. And yes, you can generally assume those things about a city. Since that's been established. You cannot safely make assumptions about either until they're established.

I honestly don't begrudge your "I'd rather all (or most) play occur in a place where I can make assumptions about stuff I can interact with, and there's stuff for me to interact with." That doesn't bug me at all. I do, however, don't think these things are nearly as "inherent" as you do.

Really? I cannot assume inhabitants in the city? I cannot assume basic elements that the DMG tells us to presume that are in a city of a given size? Again, presuming that those guidelines are being used. If they are not, then whatever guidelines are being used should probably be known to the players as well. Can I assume a 15th level wizard? Ok, probably not. That's going a bit far. But, I probably can assume the presence of a major temple in a city - even if I cannot presume exactly who the temple is devoted to. Which means that I can presume clerics who can cast spells.

Granted, I'll have to go to that temple, find out a bit about it and then choose an applicable approach to the priests in that temple, but, again, I can pro-actively do that as a player.

Besides sand and rock, what can I pro-actively search out in a desert?

Now, if the siege has absolutely no effect on the inside of the city, I really have to wonder why the DM included it in the first place? What's the point of a siege of a city that has no effect? Why would the DM bother doing all that work for nothing? The siege is there because the players are going to that city. The player's goals are in that city. The siege bloody well better have some effect on those goals, otherwise, what's the point?

Could the DM have a completely irrelevant siege? Sure. But, again, what's the point? That's just bad DMing. But, nothing in the desert can be too terribly relevant because it's perfectly reasonable for the group to skip the desert. My group couldn't because we lacked a specific resource, but, it's not like that's a terribly rare resource that no one would ever have. Teleport is a pretty resource common straight out of the PHB.