PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Play Smart, Get Punished?



Endarire
2011-03-16, 02:59 PM
Inspired this thread about psychic reformation (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11379.0), threads like it, and personal experience.

Creativity
Player Definition: Using my resources in smart, unexpected, and efficient ways.
GM Definition: Nullifying my hard work, spitting on my best efforts, and ignoring my brilliant plans.

Too often I've heard of this or experienced it. Why does this phenomenon occur? Maybe it's my personality, but when as GM my group cleverly used detect magic to go through an obstacle course in near-record time- effectively a Dungeon Bypass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DungeonBypass)- I smiled, accepted it, and never relied on that trick again.

Another incident famous in our group is "Ideal Tentacles (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9961.msg339552#msg339552)." The DM herded a bunch of creatures into a room for a dungeon crawl. The Conjurer, using a core spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm) in the expected manner, would have soloed the fight by the default rules. Instead, the DM just said "no."

Are GMs so focused on "the one right answer" that they can't accept others? Is there something about the player mindset that turns them into "Secret Agent Mode" where they get super smart and creative? Do we assume D&D is just a dungeon crawling game when it's also a large part Minecraft (http://www.minecraft.net) and a turn-based strategy game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy)?

WarKitty
2011-03-16, 03:23 PM
Part of the problem is that most game systems are only systems for the players. The GM is basically playing this kind of freeformish pseudo-guideline system, and if they actually read and internalize some of the "You're better than the players, now punish them for not taking this horrendous duty that you've selflessly thrown yourself upon!" sentiment in the various Dungeon Master Guides, then of course it's going to turn out poorly.

Plenty of games are not this way. In Apocalypse World, the GM actually has a set of abilities they use just like the players do. If a player says "I want to go find a grenade launcher", there're actually rules for the how the GM has to deal with that. They can use "Make Them Pay" (or whatever it's called - I don't have the book next to me), and a trade caravan with some pilfered weapons comes through town, and the player can get their grenade launcher, but they have to pay for it, or barter, or kill the shopkeeper, or whatever. The GM can't just say "No, you can't have a grenade launcher".

For a second example, In a Wicked Age puts the DM on the same narrative ground as the players. The GM has absolutely no more say in how the story develops than the players. You're playing completely as equals (imagine that; mature adults treating each other as equals), the GM is simply playing a larger number of less consequential characters (the NPCs). The Dice are what determines any matter of chance - not the arbitrary rulings of the GM.

Second this. Even without the attitude, DMing in 3.5 is a lot of work and planning with little to no guidance. When you've spent hours poring over books and drawing maps, only to find that your players found some shortcut to get to somewhere you didn't plan for them to be for another three sessions and don't have statted up, it's very tempting to just say "it doesn't work."

The other issue is that, occasionally, one of the players finds one of the things in D&D that really is broken. Not every DM has a complete list of what's capable of breaking the game. Unfortunately, in that case you have to find a way to say "no, because it's broken" without being too arbitrary.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-16, 04:34 PM
As a GM I can tell you that hours of planning can very easily go into each and every session. I hold a session every other week, and I use that 2 weeks to plan alot. I sat down and thought out a setting that has depth and internal consistancy, with cultures and cultural interactions based on thousands of years of cultural history that I have sit down and plotted out. Each dungeon is plotted out with a full history from it's original purpose to it's inhabitants subsequent. I have balanced out a series of encounters that challenge each PC's unique skillset, and I have made a logical progression of why each foe is there, and how strong they are. I know that a session should last a certain amount of time, and then I have to go to bed and go to work in the morning. I have this metered out how many encounters it should take to fill the evening. Now when you smart@$$ pcs take to the dungeon and point out one flaw in a body of work that large, and it invalidates 2 weeks of work in 10 seconds, i get a little grumpy and throw down the ban hammer. I have no problem with alternate means of handling encounters, heck I have had players that try to pull minor shopkeepers to follow them on adventures (and let them do it). I let them talk/bribe their way out of trouble, I let them assassinate their way to the top, but when your devoted to the light paladin all of a sudden does a face/heel blackguard shuffle right before he gains a level, nerdrage. Ther is not rule that means you have to bite a plot hook, but after you do and then purposefully ignore clues that lead to a centerpiece encounter that I spent hours designing, I WILL THROW YOU ON RAILS, AND I WILL ADD 1D10 TROLLS JUST TO SHOW YOU WHO YOU ARE MESSING WITH. When someone is late, or cancels last minute, all of my planning is now ruined. If you let my know 48 hours out I can adjust things, calling me when you are already 20 minutes late, saying you aren't going to be there calls down a nerdrage the likes of which you have never seen before. And I am doing all this planning and agonizing for YOU!!! When a decent GM is nerdraging, maybe you should cut him some slack because he puts in a lot more hours into the campaign than you do. Yeah, too much railroading/neutralizing ingenuity is a bad thing, but sometimes it is neccessary, or the whole session falls apart. Yeah, there is such a thing as improvisation, but I never TPK'd a party with a planned encounter. Add to that, with all of the additional powersources and splatbooks, the standard item table will never drop what the players need to be at an efficient level of WBL. When I have an incarnate, a psion, a binder and a warblade, the DMG does not have most of the Items you need to be effective. So I have to balance your treasure too. I have to go through every book and find items I think you might want, since when i ask you, you have no clue. And then i have to make enounters that give the experienced wizard and the n00b monk (who refused to play an USS because it wasn't a monk) both a challenge. All this and you still don't stat out your summons before play so combat get bogged down for 10d6 minutes WHILE YOU FREAKING CHOOSE STUPID OPTIONS FOR YOUR ASTRAL CONSTRUCT.

[/nerdrage]

Endarire
2011-03-16, 04:43 PM
My biggest beefs are with GMs who don't know the rules and who are unwilling to learn them.

System mastery goes a long way toward making a good GM. While game worlds must be party-centric to some degree, I don't try making encounters that hinge on character X using ability Y in situation Z like some old adventure game.

Then again, I feel partial toward 3.5. Over the past ~10 years, I've studied the rules and have mastery over them. I feel like a Game Master.

valadil
2011-03-17, 09:52 AM
As a GM I've made that mistake before and I'm sure I'll make it again. When I'm not in the middle of a session and have time to think about it, yes the right answer is to let the player be awesome and improvise something around it. PCs understand that you only have so much material prepped and they'll forgive you an improvised session if you let their cool plan work.

But GMing can be stressy. And you don't have time to think about these things. Given a half second to decide between throwing away hours of prep and sticking with what I wrote for the players, I can understand why someone would be inclined to try and finish out the session.

As a player I often feel powerless against a GM who compensates too much for the group. Yes, I want to be challenged. But I've seen a few too many GMs who balance away whatever the players do. This goes for creative solutions and optimization based ones.

Let's say the bard somehow scores a feat that lets his songs add 4 to everyone's AC. There are plenty of GMs who would just take that as an excuse to add 4 to all the enemies attack scores. It's a wash, except that the bard is out a feat.

One of the GMs who did this sort of trick applied it as a PC too. He'd always take constitution as a dump stat on the basis that that would force the GM to low ball damage. He figured HP was relative anyway since the GM would use HP appropriate damage.

Anyway, this is one of the few things I like about prewritten adventures. GMs are less likely to take it personally if their room gets bypassed by a clever trick. And there's enough content written out in advance that you're not at risk of a short session if the players skip 2 hours ahead. Monsters stats are set in stone and are in no way determined by a party. Just because there's no rogue does not mean the GM is obliged to leave out traps. The game becomes more like an obstacle course, where there are certain skills and stats that must be met and if the players don't make it, it's because they were ill prepared and not because the GM was being mean.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 10:11 AM
My biggest beefs are with GMs who don't know the rules and who are unwilling to learn them.

System mastery goes a long way toward making a good GM.

This. All GMs put in work, and want to use at least some of it. That's reasonable.

It's the GM who entirely invalidates his player's builds and/or creativity because he just really, really doesn't know what he's doing that bothers me. I quit my last D20M campaign after one session because of this. Let me give you a brief description.

GM: You're all in a bank.
Players: Why are we in a bank? Would we have our guns with us in a bank?
GM: Nobody has anything. It doesn't matter why you're in the bank. Grenades go off. Roll fort saves.
*all but two players fail*
GM: Everyone who failed gets knocked unconscious from the blast. Those of you who passed, guards come over, and club you on the head. You are now unconscious. You wake up in a metal box.
Players: What's in the box?
GM: A door.
Players: Hell, we're getting out.
*strength checks, over and over, until someone rolls a 20 with multiple assists*
GM: No, that's still a fail. The DC is 35.
Players:...so we stay in the box.
GM: The TV turns on.
Players: There's a tv?
GM: *long plot exposition*...

I'll spare you the tale of his glorious Marty Stu DMPC, the zombie that wasn't a zombie, the wonderful game show we were in, and the ability of NPCs across town to hear us whispering.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-17, 10:15 AM
GM: You're all in a bank.
Players: Why are we in a bank? Would we have our guns with us in a bank?
GM: Nobody has anything. It doesn't matter why you're in the bank. Grenades go off. Roll fort saves.
*all but two players fail*
GM: Everyone who failed gets knocked unconscious from the blast. Those of you who passed, guards come over, and club you on the head. You are now unconscious. You wake up in a metal box.
Players: What's in the box?
GM: A door.
Players: Hell, we're getting out.
*strength checks, over and over, until someone rolls a 20 with multiple assists*
GM: No, that's still a fail. The DC is 35.
Players:...so we stay in the box.
GM: The TV turns on.
Players: There's a tv?
GM: *long plot exposition*...

I'm not sure why this part had to be played and couldn't be put in the game pitch. After all, a Gantz-inspired game often kills you before the game even starts. A similar thing could be done with that.

valadil
2011-03-17, 10:21 AM
I'm not sure why this part had to be played and couldn't be put in the game pitch.

Because few GMs know enough to include a game pitch. I guess they think it's spoilery? I'm a big fan of game pitches because it lets the players know what they're getting into and pick a character who would a) get into that situation and b) be fun to play in that situation.

Saph
2011-03-17, 10:27 AM
Are GMs so focused on "the one right answer" that they can't accept others? Is there something about the player mindset that turns them into "Secret Agent Mode" where they get super smart and creative? Do we assume D&D is just a dungeon crawling game when it's also a large part Minecraft (http://www.minecraft.net) and a turn-based strategy game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy)?

Sometimes the GM just isn't prepared to run something a certain way. In an ideal world, the GM is always prepared to run a great, entertaining game no matter what the PCs do. In practice, there are usually certain avenues the PCs can take that will shortcut, short-circuit, or generally mess up the GM's plans for the session.

As GMs get better and more experienced, they learn to plan their adventures in advance or adapt on the fly to work with whatever course of action the PCs take. But as the GM, you can never plan for everything - as long as the PCs have free will, there's always something they can do to wreck things. The best solution is usually to be up-front about it. These days, whenever I'm giving players character creation guidelines for a new campaign, I'm fairly specific about what I expect in terms of personality/character goals and also power level.

The Big Dice
2011-03-17, 10:30 AM
...the zombie that wasn't a zombie...
I want to put this into a game!

Edit: I don't care how badly the original idea sucked, the name is so cool it needs to be liberated.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-17, 10:54 AM
There's a great way to work around this problem. Let the players plan the session. Then, all you need to do as GM is have some generic obstacles ready to throw in the way as necessary.

Let's say you've got a trap, monster, and bad guy NPC.

Player: I want to find a magic sword!

DM: You hear about a mysterious tomb. When you get there, there's a trap! Then there's a monster! Once you get the sword, a bad guy shows up with a knife at your sister's throat! He says "Thanks for retrieving the sword for me. Now hand it over, nice and slow."

Voila, player is invested, DM doesn't have as much crap to do, everybody wins.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 11:11 AM
I want to put this into a game!

Edit: I don't care how badly the original idea sucked, the name is so cool it needs to be liberated.

Go for it. In his game, it was just a "zombie" that was that way because he was crazy. Therefore gaining all kinds of benefits and none of the weaknesses. Apparently this was a very popular condition. I named it that out of frustration.


Yes, I love player planning. Often, I literally just make the world, and give them a goal. They will come up with other, tangential goals(typically involving money and power. Very predictable), and will plan out the best ways to make off with everything they want. Sometimes, these plans are all kinds of complicated, and make everything much MORE interesting. And no matter what offbeat things they come up with, it's not an issue, since I have a roughly sketched out sandbox.

The Big Dice
2011-03-17, 11:29 AM
I love player planning. Often, I literally just make the world, and give them a goal.
I don't go as far as making worlds, though I am sort of slowly putting one together for a True20 idea I've got. But I tend to write the beginning and end of sessions, campaings and so on. I know what the NPCs are up to so all I need to provide for the players is a hook to bait them in and an ending to aim at.

Of course, sometimes the flight plan gets thrown out of the window, but that's half the fun :smallsmile:

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 11:31 AM
This. All GMs put in work, and want to use at least some of it. That's reasonable.

It's the GM who entirely invalidates his player's builds and/or creativity because he just really, really doesn't know what he's doing that bothers me. I quit my last D20M campaign after one session because of this. Let me give you a brief description.

GM: You're all in a bank.
Players: Why are we in a bank? Would we have our guns with us in a bank?
GM: Nobody has anything. It doesn't matter why you're in the bank. Grenades go off. Roll fort saves.
*all but two players fail*
GM: Everyone who failed gets knocked unconscious from the blast. Those of you who passed, guards come over, and club you on the head. You are now unconscious. You wake up in a metal box.
Players: What's in the box?
GM: A door.
Players: Hell, we're getting out.
*strength checks, over and over, until someone rolls a 20 with multiple assists*
GM: No, that's still a fail. The DC is 35.
Players:...so we stay in the box.
GM: The TV turns on.
Players: There's a tv?
GM: *long plot exposition*...

I'll spare you the tale of his glorious Marty Stu DMPC, the zombie that wasn't a zombie, the wonderful game show we were in, and the ability of NPCs across town to hear us whispering.

I don't know about the rest of your description, but the intro's main failure is that he gave the illusion of control to his player. He made them roll Fort save while it had absolutely no influence over the course of the game. He allowed them to roll Strenght check while it could do nothing at all.

All of these things reeks of player's powerlessness, and it's absolutely horrible to any game mechanic. Rather than make them "roll Fort and haha, you fail", just tell them outright that this is for story purpose, and they fail. No, don't bother saving, you're gonna get your moment of glory later. I need to get the plot going, all right?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 11:34 AM
That pretty much described the entire game. I shot his DMPC in the face twice with a 12ga. One of those was a max damage hit. It bounced off, leaving him unharmed, and he then punched me into the ground.

We...were level one. That will outright kill any CR appropriate character in D20M, and will threaten instant death from massive damage to a fair proportion of ridiculously high CRed enemies.

After that, I just started painting models. It's not like what I did was going to change anything anyhow. And yes, it would have been much better describing the bank scene as an intro. And if he did want us to roll saves from flashbangs, which don't do what he thought they did, they would be reflex saves.

He did say that "I didn't really read the book. Figured it was more or less D&D". And yeah...it's not horribly different, but you shouldn't run D&D that way either.

Another_Poet
2011-03-17, 11:36 AM
Are GMs so focused on "the one right answer" that they can't accept others?

That may be part of it, but they're also human. GMs are expected to simulate an entire universe in their head but in reality no one can do that. All you can do is prepare a couple contingencies and think about their consequences. If the players do something you didn't think about in advance, it's hard to come up with an idea of what happens next "on the fly."

It may be unsporting for a GM to just say no when the players break out of the mold, but it's usually done out of a moment of panic of not knowing how to react. It's not necessarily smallminded or even intentional.


Is there something about the player mindset that turns them into "Secret Agent Mode" where they get super smart and creative?

Sort of, yes. It's sort of automatic because of the numbers. The players outnumber the GM and that means they have more brainpower to throw at each scenario. It's almost inevitable that they will think of options the GM never could. You would need 4 collaborating GMs to really come close.

In a similar vein, the players can generally focus all of their mental efforts on the problem at hand. They also have all their powers/items in front of their face and know them well. The GM has a lot of things to concentrate on, and is often just going on rough memory of what the PCs have in their inventory or how their powers work.

So it's almost inevitable to happen at least some of the time.


Do we assume D&D is just a dungeon crawling game when it's also a large part Minecraft (http://www.minecraft.net) and a turn-based strategy game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy)?

Yes. :)

Thrawn183
2011-03-17, 11:39 AM
I've found the best thing that works for me as a DM is to do less preparation; Use things like reskinning monsters so that I don't spend hours trying to prepare a single encounter.

The moment you do this, you lose that horrible feeling you get when PC's bypass encounters, or defeat them way more easily than you expected. This is very good in terms of preventing a DM vs PC idea when building your encounters.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 11:39 AM
That pretty much described the entire game. I shot his DMPC in the face twice with a 12ga. One of those was a max damage hit. It bounced off, leaving him unharmed, and he then punched me into the ground.

We...were level one. That will outright kill any CR appropriate character in D20M, and will threaten instant death from massive damage to a fair proportion of ridiculously high CRed enemies.

After that, I just started painting models. It's not like what I did was going to change anything anyhow. And yes, it would have been much better describing the bank scene as an intro. And if he did want us to roll saves from flashbangs, which don't do what he thought they did, they would be reflex saves.

He did say that "I didn't really read the book. Figured it was more or less D&D". And yeah...it's not horribly different, but you shouldn't run D&D that way either.

What I highlighted.

There is nothing wrong with narrative elements when your DM. But when you want to have the players involved, they need the feeling that what they are gonna tell you actually matters. If you want to introduce a character that'll beat them, just don't bother with the battle. Or outright tell your players that you expect them to lose the battle, but they shouldn't worry.

Although if you bother with the battle, don't fiat things back into your railroad plot if your players get an incredibly smart idea and manage to put your overpowered NPC into a goo or something. It's like the 2nd Gamers movie: if you risk rolling (or playing), you risk things getting out of control.

Players can accept well-done narrative moments, and will accept moments of powerlessness if they feel it's in synch with the game. If you tell them: "what do you do?", expect them to actually hope to change stuff.

Veyr
2011-03-17, 11:43 AM
I don't know about the rest of your description, but the intro's main failure is that he gave the illusion of control to his player. He made them roll Fort save while it had absolutely no influence over the course of the game. He allowed them to roll Strenght check while it could do nothing at all.

All of these things reeks of player's powerlessness, and it's absolutely horrible to any game mechanic. Rather than make them "roll Fort and haha, you fail", just tell them outright that this is for story purpose, and they fail. No, don't bother saving, you're gonna get your moment of glory later. I need to get the plot going, all right?
It's incredible how much of a difference this makes.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 11:47 AM
Thanks Veyr.

Just to add to what I said earlier: If you have your players face an overpowered NPC that they are supposed to lose against, they will eventually realise that they are on the losing end of the stick. One of them will probably protest, saying: "What's the point of us fighting here?! We are supposed to lose". At this moment, the best reply you can give them is:

"I actually expected you to be crushed 2 rounds ago. You are really good, even in such a one-sided fight."

Yhea, it might be a blatant lie, but who cares? your players are gonna be happy to actually surprise you and do better than you expected. Suddenly, they aren't just getting curbstompted. They are getting curbstompted while keeping their honor.

With competitive players, it makes a world of difference.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 11:57 AM
What I highlighted.

There is nothing wrong with narrative elements when your DM. But when you want to have the players involved, they need the feeling that what they are gonna tell you actually matters. If you want to introduce a character that'll beat them, just don't bother with the battle. Or outright tell your players that you expect them to lose the battle, but they shouldn't worry.

Telling them your expectations is legit. Setting expectations is HUGE in gaming. People will gladly accept all sorts of things if they know what they're getting into in advance.

That said, I still don't like cut-scene mode. It's another video-game thing that doesn't mesh well with pen and paper gaming. So, if you're playing a game with lots of combat rules like D&D or D20M, entirely skipping the rules for a combat is...weird.

It's better than the skewed battle in that it wastes less time, but it's still an area where you basically get to listen to the DM read you a story instead of play a game. Backstory before the game is fine. It sets the tone. But once the game has started, I expect to do things.


Although if you bother with the battle, don't fiat things back into your railroad plot if your players get an incredibly smart idea and manage to put your overpowered NPC into a goo or something. It's like the 2nd Gamers movie: if you risk rolling (or playing), you risk things getting out of control.

That's a good movie for comedy reasons, but I wouldn't recommend it for player or GM advice.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:00 PM
That's a good movie for comedy reasons, but I wouldn't recommend it for player or GM advice.

In that case, I was simply making the analogy:

The Monk player wanted to have his roll rather than insta-lose his save. He rolled a 1, he screwed up.

If a GM wants to let his players fight the hopeless battle, he should accept that his players might come up with a way to escape rather than being beat-down.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 12:02 PM
In that case, I was simply making the analogy:

The Monk player wanted to have his roll rather than insta-lose his save. He rolled a 1, he screwed up.

And then they used critical fumbles...with no confirm...on a save. Because it was "by the rules". Funny? Certainly. But probably not a great example.


If a GM wants to let his players fight the hopeless battle, he should accept that his players might come up with a way to escape rather than being beat-down.

Sure. However, I favor dropping clues that it is hopeless in advance, and letting the players choose if they wish to fight it.

imperialspectre
2011-03-17, 12:03 PM
I suspect that most of the problems with GMs not being prepared for player tactics stem from GMs who don't know how the relevant game system works, or haven't carefully thought through the implications of players' powers. I can tell you from personal experience that building a game session around the player characters being trapped in the Lower Planes with yugoloth patrols chasing them is a waste of time if the PCs are 11th level and have access to plane shift. Being upset that the PCs managed to find a safe spot and then planeshift out would be stupid, because I failed there by not bothering to consider the PCs' capabilities when coming up with a "challenge" for them to overcome.

Sure, there are game design issues here. It takes far more preparation and thought to come up with challenges for Tier 1ish characters (in this case, a cleric and a sorcatrix) than it does to come up with interesting challenges for Tier 4ish characters. We've made a lot of effort in Legend to collapse this difference in capabilities so that there aren't "tiers" of character classes, but in 3.x you pretty much just have to live with it.

At any rate, ragenerfing player characters in the middle of the game, or inflicting non-interactive cutscenes on them, isn't a very nice thing to do. It's particularly stupid if a GM's pain is self-inflicted due to not reading character sheets or understanding the system in question.

valadil
2011-03-17, 12:12 PM
There is nothing wrong with narrative elements when your DM.

I agree with this up until a point. I don't think you should ever tell the players what choices they make. Describing a foregone conclusion instead of playing it out is one thing. Making decisions for the players and then telling them the results of their (your) decisions is too far.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:17 PM
I agree with this up until a point. I don't think you should ever tell the players what choices they make. Describing a foregone conclusion instead of playing it out is one thing. Making decisions for the players and then telling them the results of their (your) decisions is too far.

Oh, agreed. Never make the actual choices for them.

Although, in the description made up-there, I'd probably say something like: "You try to open the doors with all the means at your disposal to no effect". Don't go into details, 'cause players are going to start nagging you.

Sacrieur
2011-03-17, 12:18 PM
It can be difficult for PCs who haven't DM'd to really know what the DM is doing. I mean you may think you're just being clever or smart, but really it foils the DM's plans.

I tend to provide a source of entertainment to DMs. My characters tend to die in laughable ways. A cleric of mine failed three listen checks after someone was trying to break in and kill him while he slept... And had to kick the door in really hard... And I still didn't wake up.

Kill me? Is that the best you can do?

Silus
2011-03-17, 12:20 PM
Oh, agreed. Never make the actual choices for them.

Although, in the description made up-there, I'd probably say something like: "You try to open the doors with all the means at your disposal to no effect". Don't go into details, 'cause players are going to start nagging you.

"The (Genius Loci) house is tired of you poking your metal thieves tools into it. It eats them."

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:21 PM
It can be difficult for PCs who haven't DM'd to really know what the DM is doing. I mean you may think you're just being clever or smart, but really it foils the DM's plans.

I tend to provide a source of entertainment to DMs. My characters tend to die in laughable ways. A cleric of mine failed three listen checks after someone was trying to break in and kill him while he slept... And had to kick the door in really hard... And I still didn't wake up.

Kill me? Is that the best you can do?

I like to apply quid-pro-quo with my players. Sometimes, I gotta tell them: "It's a great idea, but I cannot allow you that, otherwise you're screwing up the whole campaign" (it's so rare, I think in my 3 years of GMing, it happened only once. I am quite the flexible GM, and my plots have often, often, often been derailed).

But then, if I have to pull a fiat like that, they know that I'm gonna let them do something I'd otherwise won't, because I owe them.

mikau013
2011-03-17, 12:22 PM
Thanks Veyr.

Just to add to what I said earlier: If you have your players face an overpowered NPC that they are supposed to lose against, they will eventually realise that they are on the losing end of the stick. One of them will probably protest, saying: "What's the point of us fighting here?! We are supposed to lose". At this moment, the best reply you can give them is:

"I actually expected you to be crushed 2 rounds ago. You are really good, even in such a one-sided fight."

Yhea, it might be a blatant lie, but who cares? your players are gonna be happy to actually surprise you and do better than you expected. Suddenly, they aren't just getting curbstompted. They are getting curbstompted while keeping their honor.

With competitive players, it makes a world of difference.

I like what you're saying here :smallsmile:

I'll share one of the sessions I had as a pc under a dm that is relevant to this situation.
3 other pcs and me (kinda low lvl so yeah) were investigating a town, where all the inhabitants were frozen in solid blocks of ice and put on a cart.
Then a huge (or maybe bigger) undead monstrosity came along to drag the cart away to a giant undead city.
The dm flat out told us at this point that it would be suicide for us to fight the monster, so our goals shifted from perhaps trying to kill it, to just distracting it, and trying to free as much frozen villagers as we could.

It was actually quite a bit of fun fearing what that monster could do and still succeeding in freeing most of the villagers :smallbiggrin:

---
On a different note though, while some dms are well bad dms and since they are human they will make bad calls, I still think the dm isn't really the problem in the thread the op linked ( http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11379.0 ). Sure he made some calls I really disagree with, but after reading the first page.

It seemed to me that the op had a different view over how the game is supposed to be played. There just seemed to be a lot of miscommunication (or no communication) between the dm and the player about the kind of game it would be.

If you have a game where 6 of your pcs are making monks for a city based campaign about investigating crimes or something and then another player joins with a diviniation based wizard who just casts spells to basically invalidate the campaign, it is clear that something has got to give (the player, the plot or something else I guess :smalltongue:)

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-03-17, 12:24 PM
I'm something of the opposite, actually. Half the fun of being a GM is seeing what my players come up with next. Kind of like the 'why do people listen to Howard Stearns' bit.

I actively encourage my characters to think 'outside the box'. I rarely just say 'no, that doesn't work', unless it's obvious that it's not only an ass pull, but a weak one at that. In which case, it's more along the lines of 'come on, you come up with better than that in your sleep'.

With my group of players, I can even set up campaigns which cannot be beaten by your typical 'show up, beat down, loot stuff' paradigm. Bosses cannot be killed by brute force alone. Or at least it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive in terms of resources expended, and be a hell of a lot closer a fight.

However, I'm also pretty good at sending hints along. Now my players actively search for those hints, which makes it a lot of fun.

Now, I might not do that so much with a group of players I haven't gamed with a lot before, because I don't want to throw them too steep a learning curve, but elements will be present to abuse to 'short-cut' things.

Sims
2011-03-17, 12:26 PM
I once decide to fly up the stairs instead of walking. The rest of my team triggered a trap on them and got hurt. Then my DM went on to tell me how selfish and irresponsible I was. (I was playing an Astral Deva monster class. While I was level 8, everyone else was level 10.)

I have had some pretty dumb DMs, but we usually let them slide because we know how hard it is to think up a story when you're on the spot.

What i don't like is blatant damaging. Like just saying stuff like "You get hit with a canon and take 3d10 damage" and not allowing some kind of defense. I don't mind if its a spell of some sort, but its really annoying when DMs do that.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:28 PM
I once decide to fly up the stairs instead of walking. The rest of my team triggered a trap on them and got hurt. Then my DM went on to tell me how selfish and irresponsible I was. (I was playing an Astral Deva monster class. While I was level 8, everyone else was level 10.)


Wait, what?

It was irresponsible of you to go up the stairs? I mean, did YOU trigger the trap on your buddies?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 12:34 PM
Wait, what?

It was irresponsible of you to go up the stairs? I mean, did YOU trigger the trap on your buddies?

Apparently it's irresponsible to not take trap damage?

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:36 PM
Apparently it's irresponsible to not take trap damage?

I am just as at lost as you are.

FelixG
2011-03-17, 12:37 PM
Sure. However, I favor dropping clues that it is hopeless in advance, and letting the players choose if they wish to fight it.

Worse than that is not giving players their proper reward when they beat challenges you lay out.

DM gives us an encounter with ~100 zombies at level 5, tells us this isnt supposed to be an encounter we fight, we need to run, we say we can take it and he laughs and says ok.

We fight, beat the encounter with some clever and valid tactics, he says that sense we were not supposed to fight it we only get 100xp for the clever plan.

We...were...pissed :smallyuk:

Sims
2011-03-17, 12:37 PM
I am just as at lost as you are.

Yeah, exactly. My DM blamed me even though I didn't trigger the trap. thats why I wish there were some kind of "Impeach DM" rule. He simply didn't like me.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:38 PM
Worse than that is not giving players their proper reward when they beat challenges you lay out.

DM gives us an encounter with ~100 zombies at level 5, tells us this isnt supposed to be an encounter we fight, we need to run, we say we can take it and he laughs and says ok.

We fight, beat the encounter with some clever and valid tactics, he says that sense we were not supposed to fight it we only get 100xp for the clever plan.

We...were...pissed :smallyuk:

Silly DM actually said the number?

That's was dumb to do.

Players: "How big is the horde?"
DM: "You cannot count them, they keep moving and many are keep pouring in!!!"

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 12:40 PM
Yeah, exactly. My DM blamed me even though I didn't trigger the trap. thats why I wish there were some kind of "Impeach DM" rule. He simply didn't like me.

There is. It's called "Coup d'E-em"

(like Coup d'Etat, but as a pun)

Nothing forces you to play the game, ya know. ;-)

Or at least, the game of THAT dm

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-03-17, 12:47 PM
Worse than that is not giving players their proper reward when they beat challenges you lay out.

DM gives us an encounter with ~100 zombies at level 5, tells us this isnt supposed to be an encounter we fight, we need to run, we say we can take it and he laughs and says ok.

We fight, beat the encounter with some clever and valid tactics, he says that sense we were not supposed to fight it we only get 100xp for the clever plan.

We...were...pissed :smallyuk:

Actually... he may have been playing that one straight by the rules of the DMG..

There's this little clause that says "If the PC's make it more difficult on themselves than it has to be, they don't get extra xp for being dumber."

Having clearly given an escape route, then not going through with it out of bloodthirsty tendencies, it not going to net you any extra xp.

But as the last guy said, his biggest mistake was to give them a hard and fast number of zombies. Hell, at level 5, I had a cleric who could Destroy about a third that many. 3-5 turns later, lots of ash.

valadil
2011-03-17, 12:58 PM
There's this little clause that says "If the PC's make it more difficult on themselves than it has to be, they don't get extra xp for being dumber."


Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there's a similar clause in 4e? I've put the players in a dungeon with respawns and I'm worried they'll be tempted to camp out with readied actions and wait for the XP to show up.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-03-17, 01:00 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there's a similar clause in 4e? I've put the players in a dungeon with respawns and I'm worried they'll be tempted to camp out with readied actions and wait for the XP to show up.

Spawn roamers in addition to the camp so that when they engage with the targets, they get roamer adds from behind...

Whaaaat... if 4e wants to use MMO mechanics, that goes both ways :smallbiggrin:

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 01:02 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there's a similar clause in 4e? I've put the players in a dungeon with respawns and I'm worried they'll be tempted to camp out with readied actions and wait for the XP to show up.

Eh. This is why I love WFRP rather than D&D, under any form.

No XP for killing monsters, and combat is so frightful, you don't want to do combat for combat's safe.

valadil
2011-03-17, 01:07 PM
Eh. This is why I love WFRP rather than D&D, under any form.

No XP for killing monsters, and combat is so frightful, you don't want to do combat for combat's safe.

I usually don't do combat for its own sake, even in D&D. If the players get in a fight with someone, they know that persons name, and the fight is premeditated by at least one of the sides.

But, I'm trying to break out of my old habits. Not that I think ill of them, I'm just trying to shake things up and see what works from other styles. Dungeons are rare for me and I don't even include them in every campaign. This is the first time I've had a dungeon last longer than a couple sessions.

Anyway, I don't expect the players to actually decide to sit there and wait for respawns. I just think they'll suggest it to see if I have a response.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-17, 02:01 PM
Hmm...I think the problem is as follows.

DM: My campaign idea is so sweet! Everyone who plays my game will love it completely, forever!

Player: I really hate this campaign idea.

DM: *sads*

The best possible way to fix this problem is as follows.

DM: Hey, players, let us collaborate in the spirit of mutual creativity to come up with an awesome campaign idea!

Player: Score! Dinosaur lazors! Drunken surfing ninjas!

DM: Kay. Can they be at war with each other?

Player: Hellz yes!

The players will not leave the rails, because they have invested in them.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 02:12 PM
Yeah, exactly. My DM blamed me even though I didn't trigger the trap. thats why I wish there were some kind of "Impeach DM" rule. He simply didn't like me.

Oh, there is such a rule. It's not actually in the books, but I've used it. I once ended up taking over DMing from a particularly bad DM, and later, kicking him out of the group, since he was also a terrible player.

See, thing is, the players outnumber the DM. And without players, he can't DM. DMs are as replaceable as anyone else if they're problematic.



Hey, the plus thing with combat for combats sake is at least you get loot. Now, zombies might not be the richest of things, but going through 100 corpses pockets should net you something.

I will also agree that involving players in the setting/campaign is fantastic, if they want to do so(some are lazy). The carrot works extremely well for most players.

The-Mage-King
2011-03-17, 02:15 PM
Hmm...I think the problem is as follows.

DM: My campaign idea is so sweet! Everyone who plays my game will love it completely, forever!

Player: I really hate this campaign idea.

DM: *sads*

The best possible way to fix this problem is as follows.

DM: Hey, players, let us collaborate in the spirit of mutual creativity to come up with an awesome campaign idea!

Player: Score! Dinosaur lazors! Drunken surfing ninjas!

DM: Kay. Can they be at war with each other?

Player: Hellz yes!

The players will not leave the rails, because they have invested in them.

...I'd play in that game.

Totally Guy
2011-03-17, 02:23 PM
...I'd play in that game.

That campaign idea is so sweet! Everyone who plays my game will love it completely, forever.

:smallamused:

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 02:26 PM
...I'd play in that game.

Since the Ninjas are Sea-Surfing, I'd make them the Freedom fighters Pirates, trying to overthrow the Lazer-Dinosaure-riding Overlords of the Land.

Hmm.. make that Undead-o-saurs, animated by Warlocks who fire mighty Eldritch blast from their back.

Kylarra
2011-03-17, 02:31 PM
That campaign idea is so sweet! Everyone who plays my game will love it completely, forever.

:smallamused:I really hate this campaign idea. :smallamused:




I think it's a level of familiarity with the system as well as the amount of time you can put in. Sometimes the players will do things that just throw you for a loop and you make kneejerk responses which get blown out of proportion and put onto message boards.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-17, 02:33 PM
Since the Ninjas are Sea-Surfing, I'd make them the Freedom fighters Pirates, trying to overthrow the Lazer-Dinosaure-riding Overlords of the Land.

Hmm.. make that Undead-o-saurs, animated by Warlocks who fire mighty Eldritch blast from their back.

Sure, and one guy wants to play the noble dinosaur overlord, who really tries to be fair to the common people, but keeps being forced to quell the uprisings by eating them. How long can he stand doing what he knows is wrong?

Meanwhile, the other guy wants to play a surf ninja whose parents were eaten by the aforementioned player's dinosaur character, and BAM! Recipe for a great game, in your pocket.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-17, 02:37 PM
Sure, and one guy wants to play the noble dinosaur overlord, who really tries to be fair to the common people, but keeps being forced to quell the uprisings by eating them. How long can he stand doing what he knows is wrong?

Meanwhile, the other guy wants to play a surf ninja whose parents were eaten by the aforementioned player's dinosaur character, and BAM! Recipe for a great game, in your pocket.

Meh. All Surf Ninjas and Dinosaure Riders are going to be high level NPCs to begin. They are factions that the players have to beware of, or join up.

No "good or evil". It's more a matter of "Centralised Inherited Powerful Authocracy" and "Democratic Ruling Elite". I dislike to have clear-cut good guys and bad guys.

Warlocks Overlords can be bad guys or good guys. But the Dinosaure Bodies are excavated by doing great searches, and each and everyone of these Undead Bodies are unique and priceless. They are the only reason the Warlocks hold the balance of power.

Tanuki Tales
2011-03-17, 05:51 PM
Oh, there is such a rule. It's not actually in the books, but I've used it. I once ended up taking over DMing from a particularly bad DM, and later, kicking him out of the group, since he was also a terrible player.

See, thing is, the players outnumber the DM. And without players, he can't DM. DMs are as replaceable as anyone else if they're problematic.





Going to play Devil's Advocate here:

This mindset only really holds true if A) The game is done online or B) the game done offline has a community of gamers to draw upon.

If a group of players are all pretty much rubbish at DMing and they all know that if the person who always DMs for them wasn't there to do it, then the group would pretty much dissolve in their separate ways, they can end up in-between a rock and hard place. Also, if it's just one player (or fewer than half the party) it can end up being the opposite situation; the players become expendable and replaceable because anyone can roll up a character and play but only one of them can run and write the game that is being played.

So while a problematic DM shouldn't be tolerated, if they refuse to try to change so that everyone (Players AND the DM) is having fun then the group must also be able to have someone capable of stepping up to take up the throne. Otherwise they might be the ones who have to redefine what they're looking for in the game (or just flat out leave).



Now, shooting back to what Sims had said earlier; from an in-character stand point his Deva's actions were irresponsible if taken in context. Astral Devas are good creatures and unless played from the strictest of good and law sensibilities (when you start getting into Good isn't necessarily good territory) would thus view themselves as responsible for the pain and misfortune of their party mates. I'm not familiar with what the 8 levels of the Monster class gives but it probably gives at least some DR, Resistances and partial immunities by that point. Now, I'm not saying the rest of the party is blameless for setting off the traps, but at least from what Sims said it sounds like his Deva just flew up the stairs as point for the group and didnt bother to check if the stairs were safe to traverse. So in that sense, yes, the Deva was being irresponsible.

WarKitty
2011-03-17, 05:58 PM
I would also point out that all experienced DM's started out as inexperienced DM's at one point. Sometimes, you have to say "no" just so you have a session to run. I've found this works best if you're up front with the group - telling players that you're sorry, you didn't plan for this and can they pick something else to do works a lot better than just saying no.

absolmorph
2011-03-17, 07:11 PM
What I highlighted.

There is nothing wrong with narrative elements when your DM. But when you want to have the players involved, they need the feeling that what they are gonna tell you actually matters. If you want to introduce a character that'll beat them, just don't bother with the battle. Or outright tell your players that you expect them to lose the battle, but they shouldn't worry.

Although if you bother with the battle, don't fiat things back into your railroad plot if your players get an incredibly smart idea and manage to put your overpowered NPC into a goo or something. It's like the 2nd Gamers movie: if you risk rolling (or playing), you risk things getting out of control.

Players can accept well-done narrative moments, and will accept moments of powerlessness if they feel it's in synch with the game. If you tell them: "what do you do?", expect them to actually hope to change stuff.
I don't say that I expect them to lose when it can be a non-lethal fight, but I will advise against it. Then, after the fight, I'll explain that the guy who just kicked their butt was 6+ levels above them (and, if they're handy, I might show them the stats).

Of the (almost irritatingly numerous) occasions that the party fighter decided that he wanted to duel an NPC, only twice have they been fights he could win. The first time, it was something I arranged and he enjoyed.
After each duel, I explained just why he lost so thoroughly, and when he wanted to go toe-to-toe with a bluespawn godslayer in this last session (which I advised against), and it nearly destroyed him and the cleric, I was willing to show him its stats so he understood why it was so damn tough.
I think the loot of the session (a shield and an artifact ring and belt that the players don't yet know are artifacts) made up for the terrifying combat, though.

So far, I haven't really needed to worry about the players derailing my plans. Before I got them hooked into the plot, they were willing to go along with what I suggested. Now, they're getting paid (as mercenaries) to do the bidding of a king. And the sessions that they were getting broken out of a fortress really only had one good option.
One part manipulation, one part good planning and two parts having plenty of resources for improvisation.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 07:28 AM
Of the (almost irritatingly numerous) occasions that the party fighter decided that he wanted to duel an NPC, only twice have they been fights he could win. The first time, it was something I arranged and he enjoyed.
After each duel, I explained just why he lost so thoroughly, and when he wanted to go toe-to-toe with a bluespawn godslayer in this last session (which I advised against), and it nearly destroyed him and the cleric, I was willing to show him its stats so he understood why it was so damn tough.
I think the loot of the session (a shield and an artifact ring and belt that the players don't yet know are artifacts) made up for the terrifying combat, though.


Win or lose doesn't matter. Having fun is what's important.

Did he enjoyed himself during those duels, even if he got crushed?

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-18, 07:40 AM
Win or lose doesn't matter. Having fun is what's important.

Did he enjoyed himself during those duels, even if he got crushed?

I think this here is one of the annoying parts of defining things in terms of fun value. Some people only have fun if they win. It tells them they are doing things right. Losing, even if it advances a story, is a mark against them. So, being crushed would remove any semblance of fun from the game for them.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 07:56 AM
I think this here is one of the annoying parts of defining things in terms of fun value. Some people only have fun if they win. It tells them they are doing things right. Losing, even if it advances a story, is a mark against them. So, being crushed would remove any semblance of fun from the game for them.

I know it might sound a tad callous of my part to say that, but if your players only have fun when they win, it's because the story/game isn't good ennough to engage them for its own sake, and them winning is the only enjoyment they draw out of it.

If the players have fun playing the game, it doesn't matter if they win or lose it. What they want is the game to keep on.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-18, 08:00 AM
I know it might sound a tad callous of my part to say that, but if your players only have fun when they win, it's because the story/game isn't good ennough to engage them for its own sake, and them winning is the only enjoyment they draw out of it.

If the players have fun playing the game, it doesn't matter if they win or lose it. What they want is the game to keep on.

It's not about the GM. It's about the players. Some players are just like that. To them, a victory that stalls the story is more important than a loss that advances it.

Most* of my players are not like that, thankfully. It's just something I've observed across my experiences as a player.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 08:07 AM
It's not about the GM. It's about the players. Some players are just like that. To them, a victory that stalls the story is more important than a loss that advances it.

Most* of my players are not like that, thankfully. It's just something I've observed across my experiences as a player.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not play at all than playing with a bunch of competitive jerk players :smallbiggrin:

It's like having the choice of drinking a bar's house wine or no wine at all. I'd rather be thirsty.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-18, 08:09 AM
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not play at all than playing with a bunch of competitive jerk players :smallbiggrin:

It's like having the choice of drinking a bar's house wine or no wine at all. I'd rather be thirsty.

I often hear people say "no gaming is preferably to bad gaming". I have to ask how often they get to play or find new players, because I have to take what I can get.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 08:22 AM
I often hear people say "no gaming is preferably to bad gaming". I have to ask how often they get to play or find new players, because I have to take what I can get.

The game I am playing at the moment is the only game I've had in 2 months.

Before, I gamed for about 3 months, and I had been on a 1y 1/2 drough... :smallfrown:

Kajhera
2011-03-18, 08:35 AM
Winning happens to be important to me as a player; I prefer my encounters to end in 'won', 'chose to depart', or 'forced to flee'. Losing ... too often ... makes me feel I've done something badly, that I am not competent enough to deal with appropriate adventures, that I am, in some way, a failure.

Whether this advances the story or not, too much of it sours the game like an overdose of lemon juice. A little bit I suppose gives it a nice citrusy tang and makes the stakes more real. There's a reason the DMG only has 5% of encounters as 'overwhelming, forced to flee (or perform exceptionally)'.

I'm not trying to compete with the other players, or the GM, at all. I want to tell a story about being a hero (and not always a tragic hero). I don't want to suffer 'Worf Syndrome'. Winning is not a more questionable goal for my character than any other. Of course it should take effort and sacrifice. But it is not wrong to want to win.

Winning in an overall context may be 'surviving the campaign', 'saving the world', 'getting married and having kids', or 'transcending into an immortal existence'. I can save the world, die, and still have won. Winning is meeting my goals. It's not unfair to want that.

As a GM - well - the story's about my players. It's not my story. I'm aiding them in becoming the legends bards tell about. I'm crafting a world for them to love and hate, preserve, destroy, protect, change, abandon, reclaim. The game is not mine. The game is theirs.

In that context, punishing their creativity and intelligence would be entirely counterproductive. If they move beyond the material I have prepared, I can simply inform them of this and end the session, or improvise. If they are overcoming challenges much more skillfully than I expected, it's time to step up my game - reexamining my tactics and increasing the variety of encounters tends to aid in keeping it an interesting challenge for them.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 08:52 AM
Thing is, the players should be aware that things CAN fail.

Just because you are the protagonist doesn't mean the story will end up okay. The game must go on, obviously, but if you can't fail, what's the point of win?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 08:55 AM
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not play at all than playing with a bunch of competitive jerk players :smallbiggrin:

It's like having the choice of drinking a bar's house wine or no wine at all. I'd rather be thirsty.

Sometimes house wine is pretty decent. Sometimes you can have a pretty decent game with less than perfect players. Sure, there's a limit...but a bit of competitiveness and desire to win is hardly the worst of player traits.

Personally, I don't expect to win every time...and while I initially feel disappointment when I lose, it makes for a better game in the long run than if I *always* win. Challenge is important. But if I ended up losing all the time, I suspect the game would pretty much cease to be fun.

Bend, DMing isn't magical...anyone can learn how to do it, if they want to. And, if you really, really want to play, and your GM is terrible enough, it can make you want to. I've known many a person who started GMing just because there was a lack of good GMs around.

Totally Guy
2011-03-18, 08:56 AM
But if it's just as "fun" to win or lose, what's the point in trying?

Kajhera
2011-03-18, 08:56 AM
Thing is, the players should be aware that things CAN fail.

Just because you are the protagonist doesn't mean the story will end up okay. The game must go on, obviously, but if you can't fail, what's the point of win?

Of course.

But if you play skillfully, creatively, rationally, with good storytelling, and the dice are on your side...then you should certainly be able to win.


But if it's just as "fun" to win or lose, what's the point in trying?

If you're looking for a silly game or horror game, your fun values may vary. :smallsmile: Like it may be more amusing to slip on a banana peel than to notice and avoid it, and if you wanted to be scared out of your pants then heroically and decisively defeating every encounter may be somewhat less than satisfying.

It really depends on what your players want out of the game. The job of the GM is, really, to give the players what they want. Figure out their favored amounts of victory, horror, and such.

Bobikus
2011-03-18, 09:06 AM
the zombie that wasn't a zombie

This describes a few characters in my AFMBE campaign I'm running actually :P. There's an aspect that lets Zombies look indistinguishable from a living human, and quite a few zombies have that and/or aspects to give them human level intelligence.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 09:06 AM
But if it's just as "fun" to win or lose, what's the point in trying?

Because the fun comes from trying in itself.

The fun of a RPG game is to come up with convoluted plans and try to execute them. It's trying to keep it afloat when everything else is collapsing.

It's coming with the right thing to say when you only had 2 seconds to think about it, and everybody smiling 'cause you had your moment of genius.

I look at RPG like I look at sport: I want my game to be entertaining. Sure, I want the Habs to win the games I watch, but what is important is an entertaining game. Maybe an entertaining game where we are on the defensive all the time, or an entertaining game where we dominate the adversary.

As long as I am amused by what I see, I'll like hockey. In the same vein, even if the PC party failed to steal the King's Crown, they must have had fun coming with the plan and trying to pull it off. They just smile, and tell: "Next time, we'll succeed".

If the outcome is the only thing that is important, then I don't think RPG games are exactly the game you want. The fun is to walk the walk, not getting where you want.

Kajhera
2011-03-18, 09:11 AM
Because the fun comes from trying in itself.

The fun of a RPG game is to come up with convoluted plans and try to execute them. It's trying to keep it afloat when everything else is collapsing.

It's coming with the right thing to say when you only had 2 seconds to think about it, and everybody smiling 'cause you had your moment of genius.

I look at RPG like I look at sport: I want my game to be entertaining. Sure, I want the Habs to win the games I watch, but what is important is an entertaining game. Maybe an entertaining game where we are on the defensive all the time, or an entertaining game where we dominate the adversary.

As long as I am amused by what I see, I'll like hockey. In the same vein, even if the PC party failed to steal the King's Crown, they must have had fun coming with the plan and trying to pull it off. They just smile, and tell: "Next time, we'll succeed".

If the outcome is the only thing that is important, then I don't think RPG games are exactly the game you want. The fun is to walk the walk, not getting where you want.

I sincerely agree the outcome should not be the only thing that is important. (Like sports.)

It is, however, likely important to the players. (Like sports.) :smallwink:

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 09:13 AM
I sincerely agree the outcome should not be the only thing that is important. (Like sports.)

It is, however, likely important to the players. (Like sports.) :smallwink:

They have to STRIVE toward a win.

But they must be happy with the performance they gave.

AND the GM should reward them according to the performance they gave, not wether or not they achieved their objectives. (that should represent less than 20% of the game's XP)

Totally Guy
2011-03-18, 09:13 AM
Because the fun comes from trying in itself.

Trying to do what?

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 09:15 AM
Trying to do what?

To win, obviously.

But if they try magnificiently, yet they fail, and they end up not liking the game solely based on the fact that they failed, maybe they should recheck their priority.

Because what's important is "they tried magnificiently". That's the story you want to tell to your friends later. The fact that you came out with or without the objective is secondary :smallbiggrin:

About a healthy third of my best gaming memories came from superb failed attempts.

Totally Guy
2011-03-18, 09:29 AM
That's cool.

It just seemed like you were condemning trying to win.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 09:33 AM
That's cool.

It just seemed like you were condemning trying to win.

Trying to win is the most important part of the game.

Winning is kinda secondary.

I don't know if I make sense. On the same vein, if you meet Buddah on the road, kill him for 5,000 xp.

Kajhera
2011-03-18, 09:35 AM
... Gaius Marius, I think we agree more than disagree, in sum. :smallamused: Perhaps not on the XP thing, but I don't have much of a position on what experience should be given for - I estimate a CR onto everything my players accomplish and then just give them that. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2011-03-18, 10:39 AM
Actually... he may have been playing that one straight by the rules of the DMG..

There's this little clause that says "If the PC's make it more difficult on themselves than it has to be, they don't get extra xp for being dumber."

Having clearly given an escape route, then not going through with it out of bloodthirsty tendencies, it not going to net you any extra xp.

But as the last guy said, his biggest mistake was to give them a hard and fast number of zombies. Hell, at level 5, I had a cleric who could Destroy about a third that many. 3-5 turns later, lots of ash.
On the other hand, been told "You're not supposed to fight this" is out of character knowledge. To the characters, the problem was survival, they could either fight or flee. Frankly, they solved the problem better then if they fled, because then they might have to face them later. The characters were not dumb, they just didn't do what the DM intended, yet still solved the problem, their survival. Full XP I say.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-18, 11:01 AM
What are we talking about? Oh right, player and DM regard for player ingenuity. And winning.

Far as I can tell, people have two basic motives for playing RPG's (aside from socialization). To play a game and to create. Winning is understandably more important to the former, and many games (like DnD) encourage such goals in the framework of their systems.

If you fail in these systems, often times the condition of failure is your character's death. Or else the action stops. For instance, fail a diplomacy check? The guard won't let you pass. Fail a climb check? You can't get over the wall to the next place. Fail a pick locks? Can't get through the door to the next location. In other words, failing sucks in these games, RAW.

As GM's, though, we can make failure more interesting, use it as opportunity to introduce complications and spur the characters onward to future greatness.

Fail a diplomacy check? The guard lets you pass for a sizeable donation to the city guard Christmas party. Fail a climb check? You make such a ruckus that a monster/guard comes to investigate. Fail a pick locks? You enter the room only to find a rival guild thief has beaten you to the goods and alerted the guards on his way out!

In other words, it's the GM's responsibility to make failing be awesome, and then everyone will want to do it.

The Big Dice
2011-03-18, 12:42 PM
I often hear people say "no gaming is preferably to bad gaming". I have to ask how often they get to play or find new players, because I have to take what I can get.

Amen to that.

I'm seeing a lot of talk about winning and losing. But I'm not seeing a definition of what either of those words mean in the context of an RPG.

Do you win by defeating all obstacles put before you, crushing your enemies and hearing the lamentation of the women? Or do you win by taking part? Since both of these definitions are once I've seen used in RPGs.

In fact, 4th ed L5R goes as far as to say that if you're in a competitive and adversarial game, you're doing it wrong.

Which I think is ridiculous. [url=http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/]Angry DM[/quote] has some interesting ideas on winning and losing in RPGs. He applies them to 4th ed D&D, but I think the concepts he's using are universal.

Pisha
2011-03-18, 01:53 PM
Basically, there's two kinds of losing. One is where the GM intends/expects/wants you to lose, because it advances the plot or helps tell a cool story. Honestly, I'm pretty ok with that, as long as the GM is up-front about it. I've been on the receiving end of a game that begins with "City guards recognize your thief from her wanted posters and take you by surprise. You try to escape, but they get in a few lucky hits and you're knocked unconscious. You wake up in a jail cell. Go." Do I believe for a second that some city guards could take out my character? Heck no. But the "break out of jail" plot is always a fun one to run through, so I take a block and tackle and suspend that disbelief. :smallbiggrin:

The other kind is where you lose because you actually messed up. Maybe you failed to plan, maybe you made poor choices, maybe the dice just had it out for you. I've also been on the receiving end of "If you roll anything other than a nat 20 on this Will save, your head asplode." And, y'know... it's fair. After 23 levels and more money than I can count, if I haven't done anything about my abysmal Will save, that's my own lookout. This kind of losing is less fun, but depending on how it's handled it can be ok. Asploding heads are fun to hear described, and the other character's reactions are fun to watch. If it happens too often, it can get irritating, but usually it's just a good gauge to see what you need to improve on.

The problems come in the grey area between the two. If the player feels that they're fighting a battle they literally can't win, no matter what they do, it feels like a waste of time - like the GM is just jerking them around to show off his own superiority. Similarly, if you feel your character died (or otherwise failed) because the GM dismissed your clever idea out of hand, it stings, and feels unfair. I suspect that most (not all, but most) of the people who "don't have fun unless they're winning" may be less concerned about losing than about losing in ways they don't feel were justified.

Tanuki Tales
2011-03-18, 02:10 PM
Bend, DMing isn't magical...anyone can learn how to do it, if they want to. And, if you really, really want to play, and your GM is terrible enough, it can make you want to. I've known many a person who started GMing just because there was a lack of good GMs around.

You're right, it's a Divine effect that is classified as neither Su, Ex or Sp. :smalltongue:

And as I said, players need to be ready to step up to the plate or the game can just easily be "Players are replaceable and a dime a dozen and the DM isn't."

Foot note: Though I think the whole "The DM can just be kicked and someone else can take their place if we feel like it" mentality is more likely to create intragame conflict and a DM vs. Party situation than the DM creating one, but that's just my opinion and the topic of another thread.

BRC
2011-03-18, 02:17 PM
As I see it, there are two type of "Intelligent" solutions, I will call them Cheap and Genius.

A Cheap solution is one that, as the DM, I hate. That is one where the PC's simply bypass the challenge. The PC's never actually engage the challenge, they just work around it somehow, perhaps by exploiting a hole the DM left in their logic. This is stuff like, rather than fighting the orc, using Shape Stone to dig a deep pit underneath them.
My response to a Cheap solution is to let a given trick work exactly Once, and inform the PC's of this. Or to change the adventure so they run into the Challenge anyway.

The type of solution I like to encourage is what I call a "Genius" solution, one which does not negate the challenge, merely gives the PC's an advantage, for example, using ghost sounds to lure the enemy into position for an ambush.
The only problem with this type of solution is that it can make a difficult encounter trivial. The proper response, in my opinion anyway, is to ramp up the difficulty of encounters, while leaving room for creative solutions on the part of the PC's.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 02:32 PM
What, using stone shape to end encounters is brilliant! Using spells to kill your enemies IS engaging the encounter.

Player: *I cast Stone Shape to create a hole into the dragon's horde*
GM: The dragon pokes it's head out through the hole, and looks at you. He doesn't look happy. He's also very, very big. What do you do?
Player: *I cast Stone Shape*

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 03:16 PM
What, using stone shape to end encounters is brilliant! Using spells to kill your enemies IS engaging the encounter.

Player: *I cast Stone Shape to create a hole into the dragon's horde*
GM: The dragon pokes it's head out through the hole, and looks at you. He doesn't look happy. He's also very, very big. What do you do?
Player: *I cast Stone Shape*

hahaha. Stuck dragon :-)

Would probably have the strenght to get itself out, but still impressive idea, and stupid action on the dragon's part. Although he can still breath, no? :smallbiggrin:

The Big Dice
2011-03-18, 03:29 PM
hahaha. Stuck dragon :-)

Would probably have the strenght to get itself out, but still impressive idea, and stupid action on the dragon's part. Although he can still breath, no? :smallbiggrin:

There used to be a concept that got mentioned in gaming magazines in the 80s. Particularly in articles on how to be a better GM. The idea was, "If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander."

What that means is, if a player opens the door to an exploit, strategy or trick that is excessively successful and/or powerful, then that player has no grounds to complain if the same thing is used against him.

I'm sure that not everyone agrees with this idea, but it is the very definition of sporting behaviour.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-18, 03:30 PM
There used to be a concept that got mentioned in gaming magazines in the 80s. Particularly in articles on how to be a better GM. The idea was, "If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander."

What that means is, if a player opens the door to an exploit, strategy or trick that is excessively successful and/or powerful, then that player has no grounds to complain if the same thing is used against him.

I'm sure that not everyone agrees with this idea, but it is the very definition of sporting behaviour.

the MAD argument. I think I mentionned it in an earlier thread. I don't mind my players coming up with crazy intelligent stuff, but I'd rather they don't use the same tricks all the time, or I'll use it on them.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-18, 03:41 PM
Coming up with a creative solution to a problem is something I applaud.

Trying to solve *every* problem with the same trick is something I dislike. Yup, the first time you beat the fight by dropping objects from ridiculous heights is probably hilarious. It's reasonable to use this whenever appropriate.

But I don't really want to see the game become nothing but a bunch of guys dropping bombs. And I'll certainly pick encounters diverse enough that it won't be.

navar100
2011-03-18, 06:34 PM
Some DMs have an ego trip or as I like to call them, Il Duce. Unlike other types of games, roleplaying games put someone "in charge". The game establishes one person to be the Boss Over Everything. Il Duces forget it's just a game, and they aren't the players' Overlord Master. They are insulted by a player outsmarting them with a clever idea and "winning". Such a player must be flogged to remind everyone who's the boss.

Jarawara
2011-03-18, 09:46 PM
I suspect that most of the problems with GMs not being prepared for player tactics stem from GMs who don't know how the relevant game system works, or haven't carefully thought through the implications of players' powers. I can tell you from personal experience that building a game session around the player characters being trapped in the Lower Planes with yugoloth patrols chasing them is a waste of time if the PCs are 11th level and have access to plane shift. Being upset that the PCs managed to find a safe spot and then planeshift out would be stupid, because I failed there by not bothering to consider the PCs' capabilities when coming up with a "challenge" for them to overcome.

I agree that the DM needs to know what the players are capable of doing, but I also think there has to be an agreement between all participants of what the game will be about. The DM should tell the players what is expected of them, and the players should tell the DM if they really want to do that or not.

I got wordy with this next part, so I'm experimenting with the whole "spoiler" thingie. Let's see if it works... Hey, it did!

I have been known to "railroad" the players, but it's been a willing, fully defined railroad. I offered to run an old-style tournament adventure on them. In the strictest definitions of the adventure, they are given a task and must attempt to perform it in a limited play-time, regardless of the costs (and lives) they lose. There is no option to take on the task in their own fashion -- they literally are given their characters and placed at the back of the fortress with a secret entrance in front of them. They can't go around, they can't go explore the town, they can't try to bluff their way in... they have a door in front of them, they must go in, or else they don't play.

Heck, it also has pre-made characters, with pre-selected spell lists. No crafting their own characters to the task, they have what they have, no options and no arguing!

Of course that is blatant railroading, of the worst kind for sure, enough to incite spontanous nerdrage in even the most level-headed of players...

But when I first offered to run the game, I told the players "This is a set adventure, no really option but to go forward, no exploring the side paths, very railroady set-up, it's just a straightforward test of your player skill, not something to roleplay or to take seriously. Are you interested?" They said yes. Had they said no, we wouldn't have done it. Had they asked it to be modified... I doubt we would have done it (not worth the effort, IMO). If they offered alternatives, sure thing, let's try that instead. But if they say yes, it's presumed that they then will play the adventure. We set it up to play through it, not to undo it with a unexpected use of a spell.

Anyway, the point of that spoiler-ed section is that it's the responsibility of the DM *and* the players to coordinate their efforts towards making the game work. If the GM just dumps the players into the lower planes and tells them "Find a way out", then yes, the GM screwed up for not taking 'Plane Shift' into account. But if the GM tells the players "I have a campaign idea of the party running around in the lower planes, are you interested?", and the players say yes, then I expect them not to use 'Plane Shift'... or at the very least, I expect them to use it again to return, once they got whatever they were running off to get. ("I cast Plane Shift To Walmart, buy all the holy water they have in stock, and then I Plane Shift back." :smallamused:)

If the players simply use the easy-button to avoid the whole point of the campaign... they shouldn't have been playing in the first place, and they should have told the GM that.

I had a friend who was going to be running her first game. I jumped at the chance to play in her game, because I wanted to encourage her to DM. Another DM, who shall ever remain nameless (Vincent!), also wanted to play.

My friend describes the set-up of the campaign, and how we were all thrown into an underground world that the above-ground Emperor used as a prison-world. (Anyone who's ever played Avernum will recognize this set-up.) The point of the campaign would be to learn to adapt and survive in this underground world, and maybe one day find a way back up to the surface, to freedom.

I look at the set-up, shrugg, and say ok. I want to play, I want her to learn to DM, and so I'm willing to go along with that concept and see where she was intending to take it.

Vincent, however, responds with, and I quote: "I wait 20 years until I learn the Teleport spell, and then I leave."

Gah.... what the 'ell did he even come for? If he's not there to play, if he's not going to even accept the basic premise of the game... I mean, he actually *asked* to be invited. What the 'ell was he even there for??


The GM has to consider what the players are capable of doing. But the players have to consider what the GM is *trying* to do. And if they want to play, sometimes it's best to pass at what you *can* do, and simply go with the the GM had intended for you to do. Teleporting, when available, can be good for hopping around the campaign area. But if you use Teleport to leave the campaign... that's the same as simply getting up and walking out of the house. Which is what Vincent should have done, if he didn't want to play.

And using Teleport as a threat to undo a campaign, when it would be years before you learn it... is still so mindbogglingly dumb as.... ok, I'm done ranting about that. For now.

Human Paragon 3
2011-03-18, 11:13 PM
Somewhat relevant is this thread from my DMing series (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8515781#post8515781). There's also some related bits in "week 1" of the series (see the TOC thread).

lord_khaine
2011-03-19, 09:55 AM
On the other hand, been told "You're not supposed to fight this" is out of character knowledge. To the characters, the problem was survival, they could either fight or flee. Frankly, they solved the problem better then if they fled, because then they might have to face them later. The characters were not dumb, they just didn't do what the DM intended, yet still solved the problem, their survival. Full XP I say.

I agree with is, and even more importantly, its also something a good pc would do if possible, allmost no good people like to see hordes of zombies shambling around eating random people.

only1doug
2011-03-19, 10:34 AM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there's a similar clause in 4e? I've put the players in a dungeon with respawns and I'm worried they'll be tempted to camp out with readied actions and wait for the XP to show up.

Use space hulk rules: spawns have to loiter (out of Play) for at least one turn if a PC is in range of them. They can enter play the next turn if they want to or continue loitering until the PCs leave the area.

result: if the PCs hang around they won't get insta-kill on the respawns, they are just setting themselves up for the respawns to surround them and outnumber them.

Include an option for sealing the respawn points and you can play dungeon hulk.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-19, 11:09 AM
I agree with is, and even more importantly, its also something a good pc would do if possible, allmost no good people like to see hordes of zombies shambling around eating random people.True dat, all the more reason to give the full XP such an encounter would qualify for.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-19, 09:45 PM
True dat, all the more reason to give the full XP such an encounter would qualify for.

I certainly would. I do agree that giving the exact number of opponents for very large groups is best avoided. I mean, sure...the encounter DOES have an exact number that I've planned out, calculated the CR for, etc, but giving that to the players is both a touch unrealistic(most people can't count a mob accurately, especially not in a round or less of time), and it also gets them thinking about the number of opponents instead of as an faceless horde.

Getting players to run is often a lot about including lots of subtle hints that they SHOULD run. Even so, it can't be guaranteed.

absolmorph
2011-03-20, 11:49 PM
Win or lose doesn't matter. Having fun is what's important.

Did he enjoyed himself during those duels, even if he got crushed?
Yep. I made sure his opponent was interesting, at the least, and (with judicious application of Rule 0) ensured that he can always have a non-lethal duel. The fact that the duels also tend to show at least some of the abilities of some significant NPCs likely helps. They're not very long, either, since the player is also the most capable player at the table, in terms of just understanding what he's doing, what numbers to add and so on.
Admittedly, I've still got him beat on that, but I've had more work on it.

I've been working to make the other players more relevant (one sorcerer and fighter had to work together for a puzzle, the other sorcerer had a staff hand-delivered by a powerful NPC with a demon buddy, etc.).

In my opinion, the only way to fail is to not have fun. I've screwed up a few times (one particularly notable botch took a lot of work to fix, and I blew up the offending structure in-game). When the players set up a nice combo and hit the big monster for a ton of damage, and it just grunts and then knocks 3/4s of the fighter's health to cause a collective "Oh Crap" moment, and the party scrambles to make sure it doesn't survive long enough to finish him off, creating a tense, fast fight on a platform floating in a massive pit (which is actually lit by the glow of the magma at the world's core), then discover a strange book, and then the mage and fighter chase a chicken out of the depths of the buried temple (... don't ask) and the session ends with everyone happy, the DM succeeded, even though the players actually failed to prevent the BBEG from getting the information necessary to create a horde of Tiamat's Spawn.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-20, 11:52 PM
I certainly would. I do agree that giving the exact number of opponents for very large groups is best avoided. I mean, sure...the encounter DOES have an exact number that I've planned out, calculated the CR for, etc, but giving that to the players is both a touch unrealistic(most people can't count a mob accurately, especially not in a round or less of time), and it also gets them thinking about the number of opponents instead of as an faceless horde.

Getting players to run is often a lot about including lots of subtle hints that they SHOULD run. Even so, it can't be guaranteed.
And sometimes they won't, and get mauled, losing all or some characters. You should probably do this pretty rarely, but freedom to choose includes the freedom to choose badly.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 08:37 AM
Yup. I've not had a full TPK as a result of that yet, but I have seen characters die horribly because they made a series of poor decisions.

Malevolence
2011-03-21, 09:16 AM
Say your character's goal is to save their sister:

Winning: You do something that results in saving your sister.

Losing: Whatever you do doesn't work, and your sister dies. Maybe you do too.

This example is deliberately oversimplified, but it should get the point across.

Now I'm quite fine with losing because the plan wasn't good enough for whatever reason. If the loss comes about because I was railroaded into it I am liable to react in a far less positive manner. Either way, the failure is nothing positive, but if it's my own fault it is at least acceptable.

After all, the party is a bunch of capable heroes, or anti heroes, or villains. Not the Three Stooges and Midboss. Buffoons are mocked, not respected. And while buffoons are quite fun to mock, they are not so fun to be, because the joke is on you.

For this reason, I always make sure my characters can do their job, whatever that job might be, and also make sure the rest of the party is competent as well.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-21, 09:41 AM
My actual GM dislike to kill players. He prefers to cripple their character, like make them lose limbs of social perks.

He'd rather a player lives with the consequence of his actions rather than just do a roll-over.

FelixG
2011-03-21, 11:23 AM
My actual GM dislike to kill players. He prefers to cripple their character, like make them lose limbs of social perks.

He'd rather a player lives with the consequence of his actions rather than just do a roll-over.

Hmmm I rather like this idea...

Roll say a d10 1 and 2 are main arm 3 and 4 are off arm 5 and 6 are right leg 7 and 8 are left leg and 9 or 10 are a head

roll it when you reach -10 :smallbiggrin:

Gaius Marius
2011-03-21, 12:23 PM
Nothing that harsh. But more like losing your prized weapon. Or some abilities. Or some stats.

Or, in the case of WoD rules, some Backgrounds. He really loved to hurt our backgrounds.

Provengreil
2011-03-25, 04:33 AM
Sometimes the GM just isn't prepared to run something a certain way. In an ideal world, the GM is always prepared to run a great, entertaining game no matter what the PCs do. In practice, there are usually certain avenues the PCs can take that will shortcut, short-circuit, or generally mess up the GM's plans for the session.

As GMs get better and more experienced, they learn to plan their adventures in advance or adapt on the fly to work with whatever course of action the PCs take. But as the GM, you can never plan for everything - as long as the PCs have free will, there's always something they can do to wreck things. The best solution is usually to be up-front about it. These days, whenever I'm giving players character creation guidelines for a new campaign, I'm fairly specific about what I expect in terms of personality/character goals and also power level.

As a DM, i tend to see this as a bit of a competition. Will my session hold together? will my players do something unexpected and derail everything to the point that i close the binder and do an entire session improv? when i sit down to plan my session, I try to outplan them. the watchword is "see if you can break THIS!" that said, I of course don't try to kill them*; i just try to....trap them in the world itself, as it were. don't leave untextured ground lying around. It may seem adversarial, but the only time it really failed was when i DMed for a guy that gave actions like "I sit on the ground and do nothing at all", or "I cast create water on the dragon", or (in the same dragon fight)" I get out my fishing pole."

*well, i do, but that's because the NPCs really do wanna kill them, etc.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-03-25, 04:02 PM
Thanks Veyr.

Just to add to what I said earlier: If you have your players face an overpowered NPC that they are supposed to lose against, they will eventually realise that they are on the losing end of the stick. One of them will probably protest, saying: "What's the point of us fighting here?! We are supposed to lose". At this moment, the best reply you can give them is:

"I actually expected you to be crushed 2 rounds ago. You are really good, even in such a one-sided fight."

Yhea, it might be a blatant lie, but who cares? your players are gonna be happy to actually surprise you and do better than you expected. Suddenly, they aren't just getting curbstompted. They are getting curbstompted while keeping their honor.

With competitive players, it makes a world of difference.

Last session, my party got into a fight with 2 treants (I forgot about their massive damage reduction, that was part of this, it turns out.) They are so new they have no idea what monsters are capable of, but I displayed to them pretty clearly that they were way stronger than the party, (which consisted of 2 level 5s and 3 level 4s). I constantly sort of hinted that sometimes it's ok to run away from battles, because that's what I wanted them to do.. But I wasn't going to force them to do anything. To my surprise, they still refused to run away, and using entangling exhalation, a reach weapon on a half-ogre with expansion, some flaming spheres, and whatever else they could think of to slow them down, they actually won.

I guess what that really proves is that I'm incapable of railroading anything ever. But either way, by providing my expectations, the party no longer sees my railroading as railroading. Now that they feel, rightly so, that they can at least in theory defeat my railroading, things should go fine.

Provengreil
2011-03-25, 04:19 PM
Last session, my party got into a fight with 2 treants (I forgot about their massive damage reduction, that was part of this, it turns out.) They are so new they have no idea what monsters are capable of, but I displayed to them pretty clearly that they were way stronger than the party, (which consisted of 2 level 5s and 3 level 4s). I constantly sort of hinted that sometimes it's ok to run away from battles, because that's what I wanted them to do.. But I wasn't going to force them to do anything. To my surprise, they still refused to run away, and using entangling exhalation, a reach weapon on a half-ogre with expansion, some flaming spheres, and whatever else they could think of to slow them down, they actually won.

I guess what that really proves is that I'm incapable of railroading anything ever. But either way, by providing my expectations, the party no longer sees my railroading as railroading. Now that they feel, rightly so, that they can at least in theory defeat my railroading, things should go fine.

As a general rule, the thought is usually, "It's a game, we should be able to beat this." if you really want them to run, it has to look unwinnable, not like a boss fight. Last time i managed to get my PCs to retreat was by throwing hundreds of goblins at them at level 2.

Knaight
2011-03-27, 02:53 AM
As a general rule, the thought is usually, "It's a game, we should be able to beat this." if you really want them to run, it has to look unwinnable, not like a boss fight. Last time i managed to get my PCs to retreat was by throwing hundreds of goblins at them at level 2.

The thought should probably vary with the game, and what it should be should be outlined for the game.

Pisha
2011-03-29, 03:26 PM
BTW, I just want to thank the forum in general, and this thread in particular, for helping my first foray into GM-ing be decent!

Last session, the game started with my characters in an underground, closed-environment prison. We were introducing a new player (and new character), and the idea was for her to engineer the break-out, and lead them to the hidden rebel NPCs who were going to drive the next part of the plot. This was all supposed to happen in the first 5 minutes of game.

Well, sure enough, nothing goes as planned. Due to some miscommunication, the new player's PC has to be almost completely re-written, which takes longer than expected. Meanwhile, the PC's are getting antsy in their jail cell. So when the NPC ally whispers through a crack in the wall that the cleric should be ready for a distraction, instead of thinking "Ah! Someone's staging a rescue," instead the cleric starts pondering the structural integrity of that wall with the crack in it...

Fast forward 10 minutes. Despite some heavy-handed cues from me about the thickness and strength of the wall, the durability of the iron bars and doors, and the quick response time of the guards, suddenly I've got one player engaging the guards in a screaming insult-contest and another repeatedly punching the hinges of his door with monk-strength, all to distract the guards and mask the noise caused by the cleric slowly, methodically trying to enlarge the crack in the wall...

Now, as a newbie GM who hasn't planned for this, my immediate panicked reaction is to shut them down, stop them from doing this, flat out deny their ability to affect their surroundings this way ("No, punching the wall/door/etc. doesn't seem to damage it), etc. But I'd just finished reading and posting in this thread earlier in the day. So I took a moment and thought about: A) what are my players trying to tell me? (They're bored, they want some action, they want to solve this through their own initiative rather than waiting for plot or NPCs to get them out), and B) what's the worst that could happen if I let them do this? (The other stuff that was supposed to happen in that session gets pushed back to the next session, and I have to improvise how they meet the new PC and the NPCs.)

So I asked them to give me 5 minutes and started looking up hardness, strength checks, etc., and rolling Listen and Sense Motive for the guards.

In the end they pulled it off, and had a hilariously chaotic fun time doing so. Maybe not as good a story, but a much more entertaining game, than my original plan. So - yeah. Thanks, GiTP forum, for helping a new GM relax and let the players be clever!

Paseo H
2011-03-29, 04:00 PM
Without taking sides, I think the DM side has a bit to do with feeling like if the players consistently outsmart him, he ends up feeling incompetent.

Like, his Magnificent Bastard is no better than Cobra Commander, or something.

TheCountAlucard
2011-03-29, 04:11 PM
Like, his Magnificent Bastard is no better than Cobra Commander, or something.See, that's the difference between you and me; I would've said Rita Repulsa. :smallamused:

ScionoftheVoid
2011-03-29, 04:15 PM
I tend not to plan ahead far enough that I rely on the players to do any particular thing (which is really just asking for trouble). If anything, I prepare for things that they may actually do even though it's incredibly stupid (for instance, I know what will happen to a PC going through a wall, using Blink for example, in one dungeon I have planned). I'll rarely flat out deny a plan.

There is one player (even more green than the rest of the players) who continues asking incessantly if they can do certain things, and I'm going to have to introduce him to the idea that he can tell me what he'd like to do and I'll try and let him do it, rather than having to answer a question every half-minute or so and getting closer to "the rules don't say you can" as it becomes ever more irritating.

Paseo H
2011-03-29, 04:29 PM
See, that's the difference between you and me; I would've said Rita Repulsa. :smallamused:

Or to put it another way...making Alucard look like Dan from Street Fighter.

Pisha
2011-03-29, 07:07 PM
I tend not to plan ahead far enough that I rely on the players to do any particular thing (which is really just asking for trouble). If anything, I prepare for things that they may actually do even though it's incredibly stupid (for instance, I know what will happen to a PC going through a wall, using Blink for example, in one dungeon I have planned). I'll rarely flat out deny a plan.


Yes, I do know that's the ideal! (One of the players in my game GM's our other game, so he does advise me of that occasionally.) The problem is that if I think of 5 ways my players might handle a problem, sure as anything, they WILL think of a 6th! But, y'know, that's why I'm pushing myself out of my comfort zone and learning to GM in the first place, so I get better at stuff like that.