PDA

View Full Version : How should I just as planned?



Lothar
2012-06-12, 08:31 PM
How do I (a character) plot against the DM to such a degree that I can with full confidence and not lying go "Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned." I want to have backup plans for my backup plans. I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware. What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

For the most fun I want to do it through powers, items, or grants he gives to me. That would be cool.

Playing a LG knight with this thing is a bit weird but that's what I want to do.

Jeopardizer
2012-06-12, 08:48 PM
You should read your DM's notes, watch him for the perfect moment for the revel and play like you would play poker.

Aidan305
2012-06-12, 08:51 PM
This is a case of playing the player, as much as the game. Know thy GM and be able to arrange things so that he'll set things up as you want them.

It's much easier from the GM's side than the players.

Lothar
2012-06-12, 08:56 PM
You should read your DM's notes, watch him for the perfect moment for the revel

As much as I would probably enjoy doing that, he keeps his notes at home when he is not playing, and I wouldn't want to betray the trust of a friend. What my knight does IC on the other hand is something else entirely.:smallamused:

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 12:18 AM
It's pretty easy. You need to pay attention to the whole situation. (eg. if for example, you're supposed to kidnap the dread lord Bastard McEvilton's wife) you can't zero in on the fact that Bastard McEvilton's wife is in the capitol. You also need to consider that the intrepid and hero Dashing Goodson will also be in town and probably sweep her off her feet before you can kidnap her, doubly so if you are doing morally questionable things (like having a plan smarter than "apply sword to face"). This step often should start with recon, but you should try to make sure no one knows you're looking.

Next, you need to be the prime mover that sets everything into motion. It's easier to predict what will happen in a given scenario when you take a static setting and move it. For example, if I want to convict the son of a wealthy aristocrat of arson, I probably won't if I just sit there. I have to put a torch in his hand and then send the oil slicked rat swarm after him. Having someone else do any of these steps will probably result in more variables (for example, it'd be harder to ensure that he's by himself at the time, if I can't control when it happens, I can't make sure that I catch him "red handed").

Also, always assume there will be spanners in the works at play. Assume that there will be an interruption at each step. This is "knowing when to hold em, when to fold em" and the hardest part of any evil scheme. I mean scheme. I mean plan. Basically, as soon as any individual step becomes irrevocably screwed by some bungling idiot (Ie your own party) retreat, take what you've already gained, and start a new plan accounting for the new idiot that you know will be around (adventure hooks elsewhere and to your benefit with a pile of money in their direction works well.)

Next, have quick reactions. Know how to turn a situation in your favour at a moments notice. Even if you are deviating from the plan as a whole, you can often put the plan back on track when derailed. Know when you can do this, or when you have to resort to retreating.

Lastly, success is not the last step. Securing a victory is the last step. Once you win, someone is going to dislike you. Make sure they either don't know it was you, can't know it was you, can't act against you, or are sufficiently paid off by a secondary that they don't feel inclined to go against you.

A real in game example step by step:

Our objective as a party was to steal a whole ton of obdurium from the dwarves to pad our pockets. I personally wanted to steal a ton of obdurium, steal the secret to refining it, and blackmail the dwarves into paying me, lest I tell all of their political enemies where to find the raw ore, how to refine it and the weak points of their defenses. I also wanted to screw over the party (NPC portion anyway) because they were all jerks, so I also needed to make a clean break from the party with all the money.

There's a quote of mine from a while back that I didn't explain. I'll repeat it here. "I need a block of sugar, a file, a thin foil of lead, a map of tactics and some friendly ants." This was used as my method of scouting. Why? No detection spell can find it (due to the lead) letting me scout a location. What was I looking for? An orbital refinery that was turning raw material into Obdurium. The sugary ant box wrapped in lead was put in a chunk of raw ore at a mine where the dwarves allowed random visitors who were selling them supplies. The lead was breached by the ants that were eating the sugar, letting us divine them as allies with our map of tactics, letting us track that specific ore back to the refinery.

We knew the dwarves had virtually no air defense (as an earlier event saw us destroy 90% of their war capable air ships), but untouched ground forces. We therefore knew an air raid would be highly effective, but as they were a fortified, I had considered a false flag operation timed to coincide with an outbound shipment of heavily fortified cargo ships sending out the finished product where ground forces at their loading docks would force a premature departure, letting our air forces capture their hopefully disorganized cargo ship. Instead, some party members decided to steal the ore ship. :smallannoyed:

OK, so at this point, my overall plan is derailed, as now the dwarves are under alert, they know they are being pirated, and they can sort of guess what we're after. I back off, as I know that A) they aint refining any of that ore that we just stole, B) they know we're around pirating and C) we can't use our ships in the sector without them immediately classifying us as enemies. I decide to fold the hand I'm dealt and start afresh.

Assessing the situation, we came out of this whole mess knowing where to hit, a cargo ship filled with heavy ores and we know the dwarves will be on high alert around their ships and any points of entry. This time, I considered a smash and grab, with the main group of us a distraction while I and one other infiltrate them deeper in to prevent any organization against us, and to steal a master smith.

So using the information learned from the last raid, I organized half the party into the "smash" team, them being the ones that could derail my plans best. They sending an FTL ship (the cargo ship we captured earlier) into the middle of the enemy fortifications, and then draw as much aggro as possible. All the more reliable party members and the NPCs under my direct control were sent to steal as much as possible under the cover of chaos. I on the other hand, was trying to kidnap a master smith.

Now, this had 3 seperate sections, where success or failure in each would have no particular detriment to my goals overall. If the first group succeeded, I would automatically succeed in my other 2 goals, as all the guards would be dead. If they failed, the NPCs and PCs that I didn't like would be dead, which gets rid of the guys I wanted to ditch anyway. Regardless, they'd have given my mooks plenty of time to load up on valuables and run.

The second, the blatant theft was only necessary because it gave group smash motivation to fight. Any money they acquired would be bonus. Also, since we were scattering in various ships (including a stolen one), it gave me an excuse to fully load mine at the expense of carrying any party members, letting me make a clean break from the party even if they survive. If they failed to steal anything valuable, it's no real loss. The only reason that could occur realistically, is if the smash group all died trying to protect them, which means their existence would cease to matter.

The last portion was the only one with any viable failure state. In the event that I couldn't find any master smiths or others who could refine the obdurium, I wouldn't be able to accomplish that particular goal. However, failing to find and capture one wouldn't prevent me from getting the bonus money or get rid of the party members who I didn't like.

Now, this all played out fairly well. Very few party members died during the smash portion, which meant the ships were loaded to the gills with treasure. I managed to find a dead master smith in the wreckage of a forge, which let me use speak with dead on him later. I made it back to my ship with a corpse in a bag of holding, and managed to jump away from the party without them catching me.

Lastly, I managed to convince the dwarves not to come after me via blackmail. If I was ever killed, a safety deposit box in the hands of every enemy nation would be handed over to the respective governments who would learn where the dwarven colonies with the most raw ore were, and how to refine it, ruining their monopoly and also putting all of their mining sites under threat. The party was paid off when I handed the PC members that I liked ships and treasure, so I managed to get away from half on good terms, the remaining half that hated my guts couldn't convince the remainder to risk their lives in trying to kill me.

So in sum, I got a huge revenue source over as long as I lived, I got a huge bonus sum of money, and was able to make a clean break from the people I didn't like without anyone in pursuit. Just as planned.

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-13, 12:23 AM
If you were one of my players are were trying to play me deliberately, then I wouldn't want to run a game for you.

Sorry.

But I've no patience with people who try to play me. I am always willing to work with players and I will plot with you if you want to keep secrets from players.

But I've had players like this who make moves like this in a game, and it was scary as it went against what everyone else at the table wanted to do. I had to stop and ask what was going on.

And I didn't have to stop said player from ruining the game. The players did. In character too.

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 12:48 AM
That's another thing. You need to play against the NPCs, not the DM. Yeah, you have to get into the DM's head a bit, because he's the NPCs, but you're not trying to break the game, you're trying to break the NPCs, which, if your DM isn't too railroady, are completely distinct. If your DM is bothered by you outwitting the NPCs, and takes this as somehow outwitting him, well, I'd probably find a DM that was less invested in his own NPCs well being.

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-13, 12:54 AM
The DM has a much more long-term view of the game than any of the players, so they can see how actions will affect things latter in the game. Talking to the DM may be the best thing you can do when you want to be contrary, it shows the DM you want to be part of the story and make the game better for everyone.

And yes, I have had players plotting with me. It has always gone very well, even with other players as they see I am ok with it provided it's not disruptive or malicious.

newBlazingAngel
2012-06-13, 01:02 AM
Yukitsu is right. I would suggest that whatever these plans of your lead to, that all it ends with is a super creative way to reach the end goal. If you end up screwing half the people for no reason besides "for lols" you're going to get a repuation.

If you must, I would suggest backup people. If part of a plan relys on one person doing something, and that person is gone for one reason or another you need at least one other person who can do their job nearly as well.

newBlazingAngel
2012-06-13, 01:04 AM
Please ignore, system mess up.

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 01:08 AM
The DM has a much more long-term view of the game than any of the players, so they can see how actions will affect things latter in the game. Talking to the DM may be the best thing you can do when you want to be contrary, it shows the DM you want to be part of the story and make the game better for everyone.

And yes, I have had players plotting with me. It has always gone very well, even with other players as they see I am ok with it provided it's not disruptive or malicious.

I believe that roleplaying is for emergent story telling, so in my view, a set, strict story line that requires XY and Z is just not for me. I like completely shaking things up, changing the world and seeing where it takes me. Talking through it with the DM kills the surprise of the consequences of my actions for me. Similarly, when I DM, I want the players to write their version of the story. It's not really sandbox, as there are things going on in the world, but how that all unfolds? That's up to the players. Nothing makes me happier as a DM than a good twist from the players.

Friv
2012-06-13, 01:18 AM
I believe that roleplaying is for emergent story telling, so in my view, a set, strict story line that requires XY and Z is just not for me. I like completely shaking things up, changing the world and seeing where it takes me. Talking through it with the DM kills the surprise of the consequences of my actions for me. Similarly, when I DM, I want the players to write their version of the story. It's not really sandbox, as there are things going on in the world, but how that all unfolds? That's up to the players. Nothing makes me happier as a DM than a good twist from the players.

That's all well and good, but it's also useless in this situation.

As a player, you do not have full knowledge of the setting's current events. You do not have full ability to investigate clues without asking your DM what those clues are. You do not have the ability to learn facts that the DM hasn't realized you are trying to figure out, and if you don't tell the DM that you are trying to figure those facts out he will not reveal them.

If you decide to play a psychological game with the DM, rather than with the facts that he is developing, you are at best metagaming and at worst actively being antagonistic.

This is very different from taking the game in an unexpected direction or making choices that are not simply following the DM's lead. You can have your actions lead to an emergent story, but if you don't give your DM a chance to adapt to or react to that story, you are trying to railroad or defeat him and that is just as bad on your side as on his.

To the OP - assuming that you have trust with your DM, you have to at the very least let him know that you're planning to put together a "just as planned", and find out if certain elements are going to conflict with it. You are going to need to lay groundwork and generally cooperate with him, even if you want to hold the exact results from him until the moment that you reveal your amazing twist.

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-13, 01:29 AM
I believe that roleplaying is for emergent story telling, so in my view, a set, strict story line that requires XY and Z is just not for me. I like completely shaking things up, changing the world and seeing where it takes me. Talking through it with the DM kills the surprise of the consequences of my actions for me. Similarly, when I DM, I want the players to write their version of the story. It's not really sandbox, as there are things going on in the world, but how that all unfolds? That's up to the players. Nothing makes me happier as a DM than a good twist from the players.

My story. has always been fluent to the needs of players, as long as I can keep a firm hand on the tiller so the story has some direction. Doesn't matter how we get there, we just need to get there.

But I do like to know in advance.

TheThan
2012-06-13, 01:51 AM
Meta-gaming plots and trying to screw up whatever adventure you characters are on (which is exactly what you’re doing) is disruptive and ruins the fun for all the other players and the Dm (that’s right, the Dm’s allowed to have fun too).

Now, wanting to do things that have (campaign) world spanning effects is just fine. But you NEED to communicate with your Dm and allow him to figure out what happens when your plans comes to fruition. See the DM is in charge of what happens outside of the PC’s direct influence. Talking with your Dm and letting him know what you’re planning allows for him to develop and plan for the consequences and effects of your actions. By trying to preempt this, you are in effect trying to disrupt the game by derailing whatever events are taking place and forcing the Dm to make sudden and drastic changes so the campaign doesn’t stall.

It’s my opinion that the Dm’s role as world builder is NESSASARY for the game to actually function at all. Otherwise it’s just a series of bland dungeons and random encounters (at which point, go play a video game). The players are the ones that should be surprised by a quirky turn of events, not the Dm (he gets to be surprised by the actions of the players instead.). Now the players do not always need to know the long lasting consequences of their characters actions; that leads to the surprise down the road. The Dm does, because he's the one in charge of the whole show.

Trying to play the game the way the OP envisions it simply leads to an antagonistic and disruptive play style. Instead players should be working with their DMs, and Dms should be working with their players to make their role-playing experiences that much better. By working together players and Dm build trust, and respect; this will lead to a more natural feeling and generally more fun game.When the players and Dm start to work together, players can actually end up investing themselves to the point where they are writing the actual plot for the campaign (without even realizing it). That in my opinion is the mark of great game. One where the players are involved to that great of an extent. It stops being "the Dm's game", and starts becoming "our game".

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 02:50 AM
I don't really understand why so many people are automatically assuming you have to be completely antagonistic against the DM for this kind of thing. Yes, ultimately you're playing this plan against him, but really, when are you actually doing anything against the NPCs? An NPC is just a piece on the board for the DM, it's not something you can second guess, you can only second guess the hand controlling the piece. It's not possible to keep this in character, because everything that's happening, is happening due to something completely out of character.

And honestly, a plan where you collaborate with the DM is boring. He looks it over and depending entirely on the DM's view of things, he'll basically "yes/no" it. That takes the joy out of it, when you know that it will either come together or not based on whether the DM lets it, not based on whether or not you had fully considered all of the angles of the problem. Yeah, to a certain degree if the DM is railroady enough, he can just "rocks fall you fail" no matter what you're doing though honestly the DMs that are railroady enough that they'd do that aren't really worth playing with.

Sure, a DM should probably have an idea what your actual goal is, but how you get to there? Enough of my players seat of the pants it that it's unrealistic that I would ever know what they're up to. Not knowing how my players intend to get something is more natural than me knowing what the players are going to do in advanced, I don't think it makes any sense to begrudge them actually doing things intelligently and better organized than normal.

Jan Mattys
2012-06-13, 04:21 AM
I don't really understand why so many people are automatically assuming you have to be completely antagonistic against the DM for this kind of thing. Yes, ultimately you're playing this plan against him, but really, when are you actually doing anything against the NPCs? An NPC is just a piece on the board for the DM, it's not something you can second guess, you can only second guess the hand controlling the piece. It's not possible to keep this in character, because everything that's happening, is happening due to something completely out of character.

And honestly, a plan where you collaborate with the DM is boring. He looks it over and depending entirely on the DM's view of things, he'll basically "yes/no" it. That takes the joy out of it, when you know that it will either come together or not based on whether the DM lets it, not based on whether or not you had fully considered all of the angles of the problem. Yeah, to a certain degree if the DM is railroady enough, he can just "rocks fall you fail" no matter what you're doing though honestly the DMs that are railroady enough that they'd do that aren't really worth playing with.

Sure, a DM should probably have an idea what your actual goal is, but how you get to there? Enough of my players seat of the pants it that it's unrealistic that I would ever know what they're up to. Not knowing how my players intend to get something is more natural than me knowing what the players are going to do in advanced, I don't think it makes any sense to begrudge them actually doing things intelligently and better organized than normal.

Either you've never DM'd a game in your life or you're seriously a genius who can improvise reliably and with quality on the spot.

When I DM, I need to prepare. I need some days to figure out how to shape my world if event y follws event x. If you try to impress me or play a gambit against me, I'm not upset because "you tricked me and you won and I lost". I am upset because you put me in a situation where I cannot reliably deliver my quality DMing due to unexpected consequences.

I do not DM against you. I DM for the good of the whole group. If you tell me something in secret, it stays a secret, and if it's good enough you will have a powerful ally (or a challenging enemy) by your side in order to create a better story for the group. But if you do your best to hide your intentions from me, you're not doing the gaming experience a service. You're gimping it.
And you're basically telling me that in order to be satisfied and proud of your character you don't want my assistance.

That's both a sad thing and, frankly, a bit insulting.

But that's just the way I see it.

The DM is (or should be) your friend and your best ally in the search for fun and accomplishment, not an obstacle to overcome.

NichG
2012-06-13, 04:52 AM
As a DM, I would love for my players to pull this kind of stuff on me. In practice, I find player plans tend to default towards 'douse with gasonline and light a match' than cunning three-layer manipulations due to the incomplete knowledge problem.

I guess maybe its a style thing? If my players totally derail things thats fine, because every action has consequences, and an entire campaign can derive simply from the consequences of action. It means less prep that I need to do, which is an added bonus.

As a player, I can't really plan out five steps in advance like Yukitsu can. I tried a long game like that once or twice, but they got derailed by unknowns and the plot moved on too quickly for me to have time to eliminate the unknowns.

But I'm decent at reading out what other schemers are about to do and intercepting without much information. So sometimes I can make things go 'just as I planned' by reacting to the move after the next rather than the next move. Pulling off stuff like that is a lot of the fun of the game for me, and I try not to do it in an antagonistic way but rather in a helpful way. I'm not a big fan of plans that involve screwing over the people who are supposed to have your back. That said, I wouldn't want to pre-plan it with the DM. At that point, it just feels kind of hollow, like you really didn't accomplish anything, you were just allowed to look like you did. It'd sort of be like working out with the DM before a combat what your actions are going to be.

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-13, 08:20 AM
No it's not, it's working with the DM to build a better game.

While NPCs are tools, people tend to forget that the "C" stands for "character". Characters have their own motivations, reactions and ambitions even if these are never seen. Knowing my characters is how I can better react to the antics of players, as well as plan with them to make their characters go where they want to go.

And anyway, if all the NPCs were just brainless idiots who kissed the arses of the PCs where would the fun in that be?

I've had players come up to me and plan to be gods, something that had to be worked out very, very carefully in secret between myself and the player. Though I did have to give him a few pointers in terms of character, as I explained to him that certain gods would not think that way.

I wasn't denying his right to become a god, just getting him to find a way to work within the world we had set up as a group.

Blackknife
2012-06-13, 09:04 AM
I must be insane for telling you about this, but The Slayer's Guide to Games Masters is a great resource for this. While technically written and published as a really funny joke, several suggested tactics in their work. Out of fairness though, make sure you give your DM a copy of the book too, so he at least has a chance.

Blackknife
2012-06-13, 09:05 AM
No it's not, it's working with the DM to build a better game.

Rest of the post is spot-on, but I wanted to call special attention to this bit. It is the most important part here for sure. :)

Need_A_Life
2012-06-13, 09:17 AM
How do I (a character) plot against the DM
You ruin the game, frustrating the DM for having spent time preparing for a game with some friends and then being met with that kind of behaviour


"Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned."
Invent a time machine. See events unfold, go back and adjust your plan accordingly.


I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware.
*Laughs*
That can be anywhere from "no redundancy" to "you won't be able to hold a full time job, unless planning for a roleplaying campaign counts."


What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?
Your DMs notes.

---

With that out of my system, I'd suggest something: Plot against NPCs, rather than the DM. Inform your DM of your intentions and work with him to make an awesome story. Most DMs will relish having someone else do some of the heavy lifting and being guaranteed that their preparation won't be wasted.

If you want to play a tactically minded character, regardless of era or setting, reading The Art of War is brilliant reading. Heck, read it anyway, because it is one awesome text. The Prince is also good, though more for the insight it gives into the society for which it was written (it also makes a great DM resource for intrigue campaigns).

And, finally, trying to out-maneuver someone who literally controls the rest of the world can't really be done. I'm a kind of "soft" DM, regardless of system and PC deaths are a rarity in my games (unless the player asks me for it).
Still, my players also know that nothing will go exactly according to their plans. They'll have complications and struggle to succeed, but ultimately I want them to succeed.
Heck, considering the times I've shown up to continue running a campaign with half a post-it of preparation for all-nighter sessions, I'm not even sure anyone could pull off a 'perfect plan' in my campaigns (unless that plan was 'survive' or anything similarly undetailed), because the moves they want to counter may or may not exist at any given time, depending on my train of thought.

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 11:27 AM
Either you've never DM'd a game in your life or you're seriously a genius who can improvise reliably and with quality on the spot.

When I DM, I need to prepare. I need some days to figure out how to shape my world if event y follws event x. If you try to impress me or play a gambit against me, I'm not upset because "you tricked me and you won and I lost". I am upset because you put me in a situation where I cannot reliably deliver my quality DMing due to unexpected consequences.

That happens all the time however, be it from the group accidentally 1 shotting someone who was supposed to be plot important due to dice, the players seeing through a plot bad guy's bluff revealing him to be the big bad early or the players seeing a story line where there wasn't one. A plan is a means to an end, there's nothing about one that requires one to go off the rails any more than improvisation or brute force would. But even if it did, knowing how to improvise when things get away from you is necessary as a DM. The quality of it goes up with practice.

NichG
2012-06-13, 11:50 AM
No it's not, it's working with the DM to build a better game.

While NPCs are tools, people tend to forget that the "C" stands for "character". Characters have their own motivations, reactions and ambitions even if these are never seen. Knowing my characters is how I can better react to the antics of players, as well as plan with them to make their characters go where they want to go.

And anyway, if all the NPCs were just brainless idiots who kissed the arses of the PCs where would the fun in that be?


I think there's a miscommunication here. How is 'player manages to pull of a scheme' equal to 'NPCs are brainless idiots'? The point isn't for it to be easy, in fact its the opposite - to pull off something that looks impossible without it being written in for you to automatically succeed because you worked it out with the DM ahead of time.


I've had players come up to me and plan to be gods, something that had to be worked out very, very carefully in secret between myself and the player. Though I did have to give him a few pointers in terms of character, as I explained to him that certain gods would not think that way.

I wasn't denying his right to become a god, just getting him to find a way to work within the world we had set up as a group.

I guess the difference here is, what's more important: getting what you want at the end of the day, or the path you travel to get there. I'd say when trying to play a 'just as planned' character, its all about the accomplishment of the path, and the end reward isn't really critical. Its not about the character's right to success, or apotheosis or whatever, its about overcoming a different sort of challenge than the traditional combat tactics minigame.

I guess I don't see why this damages the game at all (aside from the tongue-in-cheek read the DM's notes comments). To put it another way, the DM's job is often to trick and manipulate PCs, to attempt to have a just-as-planned moment. If the DM says 'okay guys, go along with this because its needed for the plot' then players who are good sports will do so, but it won't be as quality an experience as if the DM actually manages to trick the players. You lose that moment of revelation of 'so thats what they were after!'.

TheThan
2012-06-13, 12:54 PM
When you “plan against the DM”, you are literally playing against the Dm. that builds a hostile environment. It’s no different the “Player VS Dm”, play style you hear people talk about. It’s like playing poker, when you sit down at the card table, your goal is to try to take the other people’s money, not to make friends. It’s actually a hostile environment.

Now there is nothing wrong with playing a manipulator, as long as the player has a firm grasp on what he’s supposed to be manipulating. For instance, a player decided he wants to usurp the throne of a certain country; in order to do this he has to get in with the nobility and build a power base, maybe even try to manipulate the royal family and the kings trusted viziers and officials.

He does not have to “play” the Dm in order to do this; he just has to start ROLEPLAYING his way into it. He should inform the Dm as to what his ultimate goal is, so the dm can set up appropriate obstacles and give the player in question short term goals something like “become governor of a small county” or “eliminate NPC rival”. But he should not be trying to “play” the Dm. that’s completely outside the confines of the game, and actually feels like it’s some sort of social issue that should be addressed.

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 03:50 PM
I think that you're too hyper focused on one rather trivial part of this, and completely ignoring what the OP actually wants. It doesn't really matter if someone views the game as "against the DM" so long as that's constrained to being against the DM's NPCs. The entire point of a grandiose scheme is that you want it to go off due to your own effort, not because of "collaborative story telling" (the DM telling you if it works or not.) If I wanted to basically free form it, and simply have someone tell me "yes/no" I probably wouldn't come up with anything more intelligent that "I hit it with a sword" because at least with that I have some sense of agency instead of handing it over to a board of directors that'll tell me whether or not my sword swinging is too disruptive. And really, an elaborate scheme is as much a tool to get to a goal as sword swinging is, the idea that I'm ruining the game because I'm doing something more intelligent to get from point A to point B than "I rolled some dice" is ludicrous.

TheThan
2012-06-13, 05:54 PM
As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with “being against the NPCs” (that's partly what NPCs are there for), or being a manipulator style of character. But as I’ve said, in order for the player to actually be a manipulator character, he needs to make sure the Dm understands what his goals are, and how he’s trying to accomplish it.



How do I (a character) plot against the DM to such a degree that I can with full confidence and not lying go "Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned." I want to have backup plans for my backup plans. I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware. What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

For the most fun I want to do it through powers, items, or grants he gives to me. That would be cool.

Playing a LG knight with this thing is a bit weird but that's what I want to do.

(Emphasizes added by me)
Now I have no choice but to assume the OP, mean exactly what he says here. If he pops in and makes a clarification, then I’m happy to withdraw or restate any comments I may have made if they are inappropriate for the conversation. But without knowing more of what the OP wants; I can only go by what he says, which strongly suggests that he wishes to be antagonistic and ruin the game by plotting against the Dm.

NichG
2012-06-13, 06:38 PM
As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with “being against the NPCs” (that's partly what NPCs are there for), or being a manipulator style of character. But as I’ve said, in order for the player to actually be a manipulator character, he needs to make sure the Dm understands what his goals are, and how he’s trying to accomplish it.


I guess my objection to this is along the same line as Yukitsu's. I don't think its necessary to pre-inform the DM what your character's end goals are. I know its possible to play a manipulator without the DM specifically setting up people to be manipulated by you because one of my players did just that in the last campaign I ran, and not only were there no hard feelings but it made for an awesome character. I didn't set up NPCs specifically to be manipulated by him - I made NPCs that had personalities and reacted to things based on those personalities, and he was very good at quickly identifying those traits and figuring out the right things to say and do.

I guess I'd consider that 'manipulating the NPCs' rather than 'manipulating the DM', but the important point was that he didn't need the world to pre-agree to it for it to work and be fun.

Jukebox Hero
2012-06-13, 07:21 PM
That's another thing. You need to play against the NPCs, not the DM. Yeah, you have to get into the DM's head a bit, because he's the NPCs, but you're not trying to break the game, you're trying to break the NPCs, which, if your DM isn't too railroady, are completely distinct. If your DM is bothered by you outwitting the NPCs, and takes this as somehow outwitting him, well, I'd probably find a DM that was less invested in his own NPCs well being.

Making OOC actions for a character's benefit is kinda...overdoing it. I feel like your character should only act on what he/she knows, and nothing else. And like Yukitsu said, you're playing against the NPCs. If you're looking at the NPCs as "pieces" controlled by a "hand," you're not really seeing it right. If your DM is good, the hand that controls the NPCs will be almost invisible. Now, my DMing style is pretty unorthodox (I don't prepare anything at all, and only have vague end-goals), so my plans are pretty much impossible to foil, seeing as how they are virtually nonexistent. A good DM will be able to improvise to mold his campaign to your actions. That is what a campaign's all about, it's a story about the players and their role in the world. You want to have backup plans for your backup plans? Then you just have to think hard enough, consider every option and have enough IC connections and resources to pull them off. Peeking at notes is DEFINITELY uncool.

Yukitsu
2012-06-13, 08:25 PM
As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with “being against the NPCs” (that's partly what NPCs are there for), or being a manipulator style of character. But as I’ve said, in order for the player to actually be a manipulator character, he needs to make sure the Dm understands what his goals are, and how he’s trying to accomplish it.

Going to just ask this flat out, but why?


Now I have no choice but to assume the OP, mean exactly what he says here. If he pops in and makes a clarification, then I’m happy to withdraw or restate any comments I may have made if they are inappropriate for the conversation. But without knowing more of what the OP wants; I can only go by what he says, which strongly suggests that he wishes to be antagonistic and ruin the game by plotting against the Dm.

It's a gameplay style choice. He's not here asking you to debate whether or not it's good or bad, and I don't really see how your opinion on the matter is overly relevant to his question, nor do I think his play style is so terribly bad that you need to try and immediately quash any lingering feeling that the DM and the players are on different sides of the conflict.

TheThan
2012-06-14, 01:24 AM
If the DM doesn’t know the player is looking to play a manipulator character, then how is the DM supposed to introduce NPCs that the player can manipulate. How can DM help to build a situation or environment that the player can gain control over?

Imagine trying to play a manipulator style character in a campaign where all the NPCs are immune to manipulation, coercion, bribery and threats. Or imagine if none of the NPCs the players meet posses any political or social power. Imagine if none of these NPCs have anything to do with anything outside of dropping the PCs a plot hook. These Npcs don’t have aspirations, ambitions or desires outside of the immediate PC related situation. In other words, they have nothing the manipulator character can manipulate. Now imagine if all this happens simply because the Dm didn’t realize the player wanted to play a manipulator character.

Face it, a lot of players treat NPCs as nothing more than an MMO style quest giver. They don’t care what happens to these NPCs after they’re through with them, they’re moving on to bigger and better things anyway. If players can’t get interested in the NPCs the DM puts in the world, then how can the DM get interested in it. Now suddenly the DM treats his NPCs the same way, and doesn’t bother writing out more than a few basic stats (and that’s just in case the pcs get board and start attacking). It’s unfortunate but it can happen.

By informing the Dm as to what you plan or goal is (in the general scheme of things at least), then the Dm can at least create characters that the manipulator can manipulate, as well as plan out social non combat encounters for the pcs to participate in. Without anything for a manipulator to manipulate, he won’t be able to really do anything at all.

Some Dms are magnificent at improvisation, and can create memorable characters on the fly. Others can’t, not all Dms are created equal. Maybe you’re fortunate enough to have one that’s fully capable of playing with a player with an agenda he has hidden from the DM. Maybe the Dm loves the idea and savors the idea of matching wits with his player. Maybe you’re not that fortunate, and your Dm has to create NPCs beforehand.

Now it’s always nice to have players with long term goals. It’s nice to for the players to have a goal outside of the immediate quest objective(s) that they are trying to achieve. That goal could be anything from “become king by my own hand” to “kill the six fingered man”, to any other idea the player has. If the Dm is supposed to bring those goals out (which I assume is the purpose of having them) and let the players pursue them, then he bloody well has to know about them in the first place.

Now why do it feel “playing the DM” is not good? Well I believe that it falls squarely into the “PC vs Dm” style of game play which I don’t feel is a “good” style of play. If the OP and his Dm are fine with that style, then that’s that. It’s not my game anyway. That style is not for me, and I do not advocate it for any person, DM or player.

NichG
2012-06-14, 02:20 AM
I guess its a different table culture than I've experienced. I've generally found that if I get interested in an NPC as a player, it encourages the DM to make that NPC more detailed. Whereas, if the party ignores NPCs, those ones tend to fall to the background. Similarly with enemies, I like to let them talk and to talk back. These are all the initial avenues for manipulation.

I guess the caveat should be, wait to see what the campaign will be able and what the table style is before deciding to play a manipulator. If the campaign is hunting legendary beasts in the wild and the DM is just interested in combat tactics, its a bad idea.

That said, you could still have a 'just as planned' situation there, except it wouldn't be social but tactical. Scout out an area before the hunt, get the lay of the land, set traps that you can lead the monster through. Or just recognize areas where you can create natural traps, bottlenecks, etc and file it away for later.

Jan Mattys
2012-06-14, 06:12 AM
I think that you're too hyper focused on one rather trivial part of this, and completely ignoring what the OP actually wants. It doesn't really matter if someone views the game as "against the DM" so long as that's constrained to being against the DM's NPCs. The entire point of a grandiose scheme is that you want it to go off due to your own effort, not because of "collaborative story telling" (the DM telling you if it works or not.) If I wanted to basically free form it, and simply have someone tell me "yes/no" I probably wouldn't come up with anything more intelligent that "I hit it with a sword" because at least with that I have some sense of agency instead of handing it over to a board of directors that'll tell me whether or not my sword swinging is too disruptive. And really, an elaborate scheme is as much a tool to get to a goal as sword swinging is, the idea that I'm ruining the game because I'm doing something more intelligent to get from point A to point B than "I rolled some dice" is ludicrous.

I see your point, and I think my answer is: it won't work.

It won't work because you, as a character, will never have enough elements to be a good planner without having the DM by your side.
Your knowledge of the world, of the people, of the little details, o the psychology, EVERYTHING comes from the DM telling you. And the DM will not tell you "everything", because that's not possible. The DM will instead choose what's vital, what's importat, and what's secondary, and will necessarily concentrate on giving out details and information on things based on that order.
A campaign is something the DM describes in great or in little detail depending on what he thinks is the important stuff.

If he paints something as background, but you are actively working on it to plot your grand scheme, only two things can happen:
a- You succeed because you managed to outsmart a not-so-fleshed-out-backgroud (i.e. you will fool a vizier because he's just a two-dimensional character the DM didn't give a second look at, because he's secondary)
b- You fail because you are not aware of a myriad little things that the DM knows are there but didn't tell you because they were not important at the time. (i.e. you think you can fool the vizier but he's the grey eminence behind a greater plot and he's got counter-measures and secret intelligence preventing plots against his position at the court)

If you want to focus on something in an adventure, you have to tell the DM so that he can paint the scenario accordingly. Remember that almost everything in a campaign is born from his imagination, his notes, his descriptions and his words. Nothing exists that the DM is unaware of, and whatever the DM deems necessary to exist in order to fix things, prevent plotholes, make things interesting, or simply raise/lower a challenge, the it magically pops into existence.
That's basically the whole point of rule zero.

So it's not "you need to inform your DM because not doing so is bad form"... it's more "you need to inform your DM because not doing so will only lead to futile attempts".

Also, it's better to work with your DM instead of working against him. Even if you manage to "win" in the end, there's always the chance that the DM thinks "it wouldn't have worked if I had thought of this...", and this means even your eventual victory is hollow because you didn't win by being smart, you won against a partial world the DM didn't have the will or the time to prepare for your arrival.

It's basically as if you're a toon and you walk over the edge of a canyon: as long as you don't look down, you keep walking. But as soon as you look closely at what you're doing, or someone else does and points at the flaws, you fall.

In short: never ambush your DM. Nothing good comes of it. Trust him instead. He can be a nice companion in your road to greatness. He will provide challenges, he will set traps and obstacles in front of you, and he will help you achieve the greatness you desire by being a constructive adversary.
Taking him by surprise is both extremely difficult, extremely pointless, and (assuming you finally succeed due to unpreparedness on his part) extremely unsatisfying.

At least that's the way I see it.

Sorry for the wall of text :smallbiggrin:

Yukitsu
2012-06-14, 12:57 PM
I see your point, and I think my answer is: it won't work.

It won't work because you, as a character, will never have enough elements to be a good planner without having the DM by your side.
Your knowledge of the world, of the people, of the little details, o the psychology, EVERYTHING comes from the DM telling you. And the DM will not tell you "everything", because that's not possible. The DM will instead choose what's vital, what's importat, and what's secondary, and will necessarily concentrate on giving out details and information on things based on that order.

When I'm formulating a plan, I always keep in mind that A) I'm not omnicient and B) my character is not omnicient and C) no one who has created a brilliant plan through history has ever been omnicient. I don't care that I don't know everything, that the DM won't have filled me in on all of the information, that some of the information will only be fabricated as is necessary. I have to consider possibilities, make assumptions and then cover myself for when an assumption is wrong. A plan where I know everything in advance is not a brilliant plan. A plan where I can cover for everything that I couldn't have known is a brilliant plan.


A campaign is something the DM describes in great or in little detail depending on what he thinks is the important stuff.

People don't try to formulate a plan to take something from someone irrelevant. People by default, formulate their plan around what is important.


If he paints something as background, but you are actively working on it to plot your grand scheme, only two things can happen:
a- You succeed because you managed to outsmart a not-so-fleshed-out-backgroud (i.e. you will fool a vizier because he's just a two-dimensional character the DM didn't give a second look at, because he's secondary)
b- You fail because you are not aware of a myriad little things that the DM knows are there but didn't tell you because they were not important at the time. (i.e. you think you can fool the vizier but he's the grey eminence behind a greater plot and he's got counter-measures and secret intelligence preventing plots against his position at the court)

This is a tangential issue. If a group of dungeon delving meat heads head off into my campaign background, it's just as hard for me to "on the fly" the place as if they made a plan around it. This has nothing to do with how they are addressing the background, it's a separate problem that has everything to do with them addressing the background.


If you want to focus on something in an adventure, you have to tell the DM so that he can paint the scenario accordingly. Remember that almost everything in a campaign is born from his imagination, his notes, his descriptions and his words. Nothing exists that the DM is unaware of, and whatever the DM deems necessary to exist in order to fix things, prevent plotholes, make things interesting, or simply raise/lower a challenge, the it magically pops into existence.
That's basically the whole point of rule zero.

This should come as no surprise, but I refuse to DM using rule 0, and I refuse to play under a DM that strongly advocates the use of rule 0.


So it's not "you need to inform your DM because not doing so is bad form"... it's more "you need to inform your DM because not doing so will only lead to futile attempts".

I haven't found that to be true so far. Rather to the contrary, if I've done my work correctly, the DM won't be aware that everything that occurred happened because of any elaborate plan on my part at all. You simply play your pieces and watch where the dice land, and if I've done a good job, I win even if the dice are against me.


Also, it's better to work with your DM instead of working against him. Even if you manage to "win" in the end, there's always the chance that the DM thinks "it wouldn't have worked if I had thought of this...", and this means even your eventual victory is hollow because you didn't win by being smart, you won against a partial world the DM didn't have the will or the time to prepare for your arrival.

I'd let him factor in his missing factor and do it again. If I've been doing my job, I should have considered it. And this is still a complete strawman, a plan has nothing to do with intentionally aiming at the background.


In short: never ambush your DM. Nothing good comes of it. Trust him instead. He can be a nice companion in your road to greatness. He will provide challenges, he will set traps and obstacles in front of you, and he will help you achieve the greatness you desire by being a constructive adversary.
Taking him by surprise is both extremely difficult, extremely pointless, and (assuming you finally succeed due to unpreparedness on his part) extremely unsatisfying.

When it comes to planning, having the DM pre-plot out how it happens is boring. Whether or not you succeed is no longer based on what you've done, it's now based on whether or not the DM wants you to succeed. Those traps that magically spawn because you're headed in that direction or those enemies that had no reason to confront you before are so artificial and against the point of planning out something more intelligent than "break down the door and kill everything" that you may as well have no bothered.

ClockShock
2012-06-14, 02:56 PM
The best way to do this is work with the DM.

This is the kind of thing that the DM does for a living (so to speak), plans within plans and a network of information are his most basic tools - you can't reliably beat him on this, and even if you do it won't impress him that much.

Other players however, now they can be impressed.

Work with the DM, pick up some skills that might be handy (social skills), take favours as rewards instead of treasure, spend money establishing reliable contacts.
All this can be done without the other players/characters realising. Contact the DM out of session to organise what your character is doing behind the scenes.

Then you wait, let the information gather, and hold out for the opportune moment. Every now and then you'll be in a tight spot when suddenly you call in a favour, or a piece of key information, and get the party seamlessly out of trouble.

The key is getting the DM on your side (so he rewards you for the wealth and effort spent appropriately), and keeping enough allied elements handy at all times (so rather than planning one get-out specifically, you're always in a position where someone/thing could step in and give you a hand)

Favours are great for this, especially among powerful entities. One King can swing favour with many allies.

nedz
2012-06-14, 04:04 PM
I was once running two NPCs and the players managed to manipulate the situation so that the NPCs had an arguement with each other. Basically I was argueing against myself, hilarious.:smallsmile:


How do I (a character) plot against the DM to such a degree that I can with full confidence and not lying go "Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned." I want to have backup plans for my backup plans. I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware. What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

For the most fun I want to do it through powers, items, or grants he gives to me. That would be cool.

Playing a LG knight with this thing is a bit weird but that's what I want to do.

OK - what you need to be playing is a Wizard who uses a lot of divinations (or possibly some other diviner). Couple this with some mind-reading and you should be able to work out what the NPCs are up to, the DM less so.

Jay R
2012-06-14, 04:17 PM
How do I (a character) plot against the DM...

What does "plot against the DM" mean?

He runs virtually all of the good guys. He runs virtually all of the bad guys. He runs people in every single plot in the world, and he runs people trying to foil every single plot in the world.

If you arrange that the world becomes a complete paradise of bliss and peace and contentment for all, then you are serving the purposes of millions of people the DM is running. If you turn the world into a paranoid, failure of a dystopia, filled with anguished souls, then you are serving the purposes of millions of people the DM is running.

The DM doesn't have a side. He runs virtually everyone on every side, except that triflingly remote few who are PCs.

Now, if he has, momentarily, identified with a certain piece of that world, you can plot against that, but remember, he switches sides as soon as you encounter a different NPC.

Your character can no more "plot against the DM" than you can plot against the entire universe.

Jan Mattys
2012-06-15, 02:40 AM
When it comes to planning, having the DM pre-plot out how it happens is boring. Whether or not you succeed is no longer based on what you've done, it's now based on whether or not the DM wants you to succeed. Those traps that magically spawn because you're headed in that direction or those enemies that had no reason to confront you before are so artificial and against the point of planning out something more intelligent than "break down the door and kill everything" that you may as well have no bothered.

You're missing my point, I fear.
I am not talking about artificially making your life difficult "just cuz". Nor am I talking about letting you get away with an undeserved win.

The DM is not there to pre-plot how it happens, one way or the other. He's there to test you.
You have to earn your victories. But in order to do so, the DM must be prepared for your coming. Otherwise, the test itself loses credibility.

How can a test mean anything if you're actively seeking a way to hide from your tester, I cannot understand.

Project_Mayhem
2012-06-15, 08:01 AM
I'm going to chime in here, 'cause it's something I've thought about in the past.

I'm of the opinion that not telling the GM on what your planning on doing, can be borderline cheating in some circumstances. At the very least there's a huge potential for OOC misunderstandings.

Consider, you are playing one consistent character. All of your mental effort is going into playing that one character. Depending on the game, the DM can be running upwards of 100. Do you honestly think she's completely putting herself into the head of every single npc you encounter? Of course not - even with major npcs, she has to describe stuff, adjudicate mechanics etc. as well as play a character. If you aren't telling the DM loosely what your character's plan is, it's easy for stuff that the npc would catch to fall under the radar because the DM missed it OOC. Simple conservation of detail can mean that stuff gets looked over.

At this point you arent playing the npcs - your playing a distracted DM, who realistically can't run a perfect simulation of everything.

Destro_Yersul
2012-06-15, 08:13 AM
Possibly the best way to demonstrate the above is a hypothetical. Let's say your plan requires you to have a man in place X. There's three ways you can do this, and two of them have the DM somewhat in the dark.

First way, you tell the DM "I need an NPC to be here at this time, so I can do Y." He can then figure out what that means within the framework of the world he's made. You doing Y at Z time in X place results in A obstacles and B occurence if success is achieved. Easier for you and the DM, but it doesn't surprise him.

Second way, you don't tell the DM anything about the NPC. You tell him you're going to X place, and once you're there, you attempt to do Y. The problem here is that first of all, he can't figure out ahead of time what any of this means for the world, and second, he doesn't know you need the NPC there. It's harder for both parties, because the DM runs everything that isn't you. It's his world, so the only way you can 'just as planned' him this way is by doing absolutely everything yourself, getting no help from NPCs, and even then he might guess.

Third way, you tell the DM you need an NPC in X place, but you don't tell him why. When you go to X, and do Y, he knows you're going to do something there, and he knows you need an NPC there to do it, but he doesn't know what you're doing. Requires a bit of improvisation, but it still allows some degree of planning. Possibly the best option, if you mean to surprise him too. Just make sure he's good at improvising stuff before you attempt it.

I myself am currently running a game in which I've told the players I pretty much expect them, as a group or individually, to plot against me. That game, however, is PbP, which eases a lot of the burden on me when they try to 'Just as Planned' my NPCs, because I can sit back for a bit and figure out what it means once they've already done it. I wouldn't try to run that sort of thing in-person, due to the difficulty involved.

Yukitsu
2012-06-15, 01:52 PM
You're missing my point, I fear.
I am not talking about artificially making your life difficult "just cuz". Nor am I talking about letting you get away with an undeserved win.

The DM is not there to pre-plot how it happens, one way or the other. He's there to test you.
You have to earn your victories. But in order to do so, the DM must be prepared for your coming. Otherwise, the test itself loses credibility.

How can a test mean anything if you're actively seeking a way to hide from your tester, I cannot understand.

A DM isn't there to test the players. Players aren't supposed to have learned something and then apply it, players aren't supposed to demonstrate their knowledge to get through things. Players are supposed to have fun, and figure out how they want their characters to interact with the world.

And again, this is the same strawman. A DM should know what the PCs are approximately after. Once you know that, any lack of detail around that narrow scenario should be approximated, you can't be caught off guard because the party didn't march up the palace steps to get at the king, you should have readily considered that there are other ways in. This isn't a "well it's a huge world and I can't plan for everything" sort of situation. For any given objective, there is a narrow scope of the world that applies. It is absolutely a DM's job to have at least some idea of what is going on in and around the area where the planners are thinking.

Edit: I should point out lastly, that when making your knowledge checks, scouting things out, and in general, getting information to all this, should illuminate the area enough that you, as a DM should at least give it some thought. If they explicitly ask you "who do I see get in and out of the padlocked side door of the mansion" and you don't think that's a question that is now worth thinking about, you're not thinking. Even if your answer to that question renders the question completely irrelevant other than to tell the player "There's no use using this area".

NichG
2012-06-15, 02:47 PM
Consider, you are playing one consistent character. All of your mental effort is going into playing that one character. Depending on the game, the DM can be running upwards of 100. Do you honestly think she's completely putting herself into the head of every single npc you encounter? Of course not - even with major npcs, she has to describe stuff, adjudicate mechanics etc. as well as play a character. If you aren't telling the DM loosely what your character's plan is, it's easy for stuff that the npc would catch to fall under the radar because the DM missed it OOC. Simple conservation of detail can mean that stuff gets looked over.

At this point you arent playing the npcs - your playing a distracted DM, who realistically can't run a perfect simulation of everything.

I think though that both 'sides' of this have their own particular 'unfair' advantage due to the practicalities of gaming. Namely, the PC has all his mental focus on his character, knows his character's abilities very well, etc. He likely has a character that is more honed than anything the DM comes up with in a short time, and knows how to use those advantages.

The DM meanwhile may be distracted running 100 NPCs, but he also has the power to abstract knowledge and set up things in the world to be more convenient. For example, a given group of PCs may get along and all coordinate when executing a plan, or they may be fractious and take actions that get in eachothers' ways. The DM doesn't have to have NPCs in a group that are constantly interfering with eachother unless he consciously decides for that to be a feature of that group. In combat, his NPCs can be a perfectly oiled, coordinated machine because they're all sharing one brain at some level, and it actually takes more effort for the DM to keep their knowledge and thoughts separate than to combine them into a 'side'.

A DM who is bad at keeping things separate may even have NPCs that end up acting almost psychic, as they know what the DM knows about player abilities, table chatter, etc - though thats clearly getting into the unfair end of things.

Jack of Spades
2012-06-15, 04:22 PM
How do I (a character) plot against the DM to such a degree that I can with full confidence and not lying go "Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned." I want to have backup plans for my backup plans. I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware. What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

For the most fun I want to do it through powers, items, or grants he gives to me. That would be cool.

Playing a LG knight with this thing is a bit weird but that's what I want to do.

Make the knight a warforged, and write a program that, as comprehensively as you can muster, will determine his actions. Then you can tweak it during play to work out routines for things as you think of them. Then you'll have a plan for just about everything. Takes most of the fun out of Xanatos speed chess, but it's a way of doing it.


Edit: I should point out lastly, that when making your knowledge checks, scouting things out, and in general, getting information to all this, should illuminate the area enough that you, as a DM should at least give it some thought. If they explicitly ask you "who do I see get in and out of the padlocked side door of the mansion" and you don't think that's a question that is now worth thinking about, you're not thinking. Even if your answer to that question renders the question completely irrelevant other than to tell the player "There's no use using this area".
There's a MAJOR difference between taking the third path and burning down the forest. Your example is the former. Playing your cards far too close to your chest in order to spend all of 3 seconds feeling intellectually superior in a cooperative game because the world has no way of reacting to your actions is... frankly just annoying to everyone. No one is arguing that thinking laterally is bad. What's bad is if, in the above example, one had said "my character checks the side door" without the DM ever having mentioned that there was a side door. Alternatively, a player saying that they've been spending all night building a palisade and they wrote it on this piece of paper here and you can ask the other players because he totally showed them... The moment that the DM announces the cavalry charge.

Yukitsu
2012-06-15, 05:39 PM
There's a MAJOR difference between taking the third path and burning down the forest. Your example is the former. Playing your cards far too close to your chest in order to spend all of 3 seconds feeling intellectually superior in a cooperative game because the world has no way of reacting to your actions is... frankly just annoying to everyone. No one is arguing that thinking laterally is bad. What's bad is if, in the above example, one had said "my character checks the side door" without the DM ever having mentioned that there was a side door. Alternatively, a player saying that they've been spending all night building a palisade and they wrote it on this piece of paper here and you can ask the other players because he totally showed them... The moment that the DM announces the cavalry charge.

That's doing without the DM knowing. The difference between that and planning without the DM knowing are tremendous. If you need to build a pallisade, and you didn't tell the DM, you didn't do it. If I build a pallisade out of a special material, and didn't tell my DM why, because the special material comes into the plan later, that's planning without the DM knowing. The DM doesn't need to know why, and he doesn't need to know my plan, but a DM absolutely does have to know what it is I've done, or what actions I'm taking.

Jan Mattys
2012-06-16, 05:02 AM
That's doing without the DM knowing. The difference between that and planning without the DM knowing are tremendous. If you need to build a pallisade, and you didn't tell the DM, you didn't do it. If I build a pallisade out of a special material, and didn't tell my DM why, because the special material comes into the plan later, that's planning without the DM knowing. The DM doesn't need to know why, and he doesn't need to know my plan, but a DM absolutely does have to know what it is I've done, or what actions I'm taking.

Important thing first: I understand what you're saying. I don't happen to agree with it, but it makes sense.

That said, what I really can't understand is "why".
I mean: if you want to build the palisade out of extremely inflammable material, and you feel the need to hide from the DM the fact that you're going to fireball it the moment the cavalry charges, the only reason I can think of is that you don't trust your DM and you think that revealing your plan in advance will make him change his plans to screw your tactical idea.

If you really fear your DM won't play along your good ideas and lateral thinking, you should probably change DM, though.

IF you have a very good and sound tactical idea and you manage to be smart enough to put all pieces in place without alarming the relevant and hostile NPCs, I as a DM would be extremely satisfied and more than happy to play along and give you the much deserved success. And you would be allowed the most awesome "Just as planned" before both the NPCs you screwed over, and the rest of the PCs.

Any good DM would do the same, I suppose, so why such a need to do it all by yourself? You play and plan against the world and (sometimes) the other PCs, but the DM is neither. He is the impartial judge who paints the whole painting for everybody.

Why not play together, and share your smarts and his crayons? The painting will be all the better for it.

Yukitsu
2012-06-16, 01:28 PM
Important thing first: I understand what you're saying. I don't happen to agree with it, but it makes sense.

That said, what I really can't understand is "why".
I mean: if you want to build the palisade out of extremely inflammable material, and you feel the need to hide from the DM the fact that you're going to fireball it the moment the cavalry charges, the only reason I can think of is that you don't trust your DM and you think that revealing your plan in advance will make him change his plans to screw your tactical idea.

If you really fear your DM won't play along your good ideas and lateral thinking, you should probably change DM, though.

IF you have a very good and sound tactical idea and you manage to be smart enough to put all pieces in place without alarming the relevant and hostile NPCs, I as a DM would be extremely satisfied and more than happy to play along and give you the much deserved success. And you would be allowed the most awesome "Just as planned" before both the NPCs you screwed over, and the rest of the PCs.

Any good DM would do the same, I suppose, so why such a need to do it all by yourself? You play and plan against the world and (sometimes) the other PCs, but the DM is neither. He is the impartial judge who paints the whole painting for everybody.

Why not play together, and share your smarts and his crayons? The painting will be all the better for it.

Because DM's aren't perfect. Half of my DM's will be impressed with plans that I make, and I can actually see them facilitating them going off perfectly. Others will panic when they think through and realize I've "killed the suspense" and have already won the encounter before it starts, and pour things in to try and keep the illusion of a challenge. (I can understand the feeling, I sometimes panic when the party is about to be wiped and need to absolutely tank enemy stats sometimes, even though I believe in just letting the dice fall). In a perfect world, a DM can completely distance himself from his knowledge, and a player would be able to completely divorce his metagame knowledge from his in character knowledge. It's not though. DM's for better or worse, always react a little differently, have their NPC's move a little differently, or react differently, either more favourably for your plan or less.

And that's ideal. Most of the time, a DM considers whether they think it's feasible or not, and then tailors the encounter to ensure it fits their bias. As a DM who allows plans etc, and who doesn't like changing encounters, even I find it difficult not to alter encounters when I know exactly what the players are doing. (which is often. (-_-') My players are ridiculously predictable after I figure out if they're feeling contrary or lazy.)

Even a two bit DM however, can just have a place mapped and statted. Knowing where the action is going to happen and what should approximately be there isn't as difficult, and doesn't require any separation of knowledge if you don't have extra metagame knowledge.

NichG
2012-06-16, 03:23 PM
I guess I'll give the counter example, of when my Scorpion clan character was in charge of an estate that was under siege by Lying Shadow corrupted ninja in an L5R game. We'd gotten the idea that these things could take people over with a single attack, were significantly more powerful than us, and used shadows to move.

My idea was, let them come after us in the estate and then burn it down with them inside. When I discussed this openly with the party and DM, the DM objected 'You wouldn't do that! You've been entrusted with caring for the estate'. Whereas if I had just covertly set the fire during the attack without informing anyone (like I should have done as a good Scorpion, but I found out I'm not very good at sneaky bastard types) I could've passed it off as an accidental event during the siege.

Now, let me forestall the 'you need to change DMs!' comments. This wasn't a bad DM - I've had lots of fun in his games - but he had a particular fixation on this particular event because he couldn't quite grasp the mindset of the character I was playing, which was meant to be someone with an explicitly screwed up idea of what Honor meant (or in this case, the analysis that saving the important guests at the estate was more important for the reputation of the clan than saving a simple structure).

Knaight
2012-06-17, 04:24 AM
Important thing first: I understand what you're saying. I don't happen to agree with it, but it makes sense.

That said, what I really can't understand is "why".
I mean: if you want to build the palisade out of extremely inflammable material, and you feel the need to hide from the DM the fact that you're going to fireball it the moment the cavalry charges, the only reason I can think of is that you don't trust your DM and you think that revealing your plan in advance will make him change his plans to screw your tactical idea.

Why not? Actually going into why you take the actions you take as a player eats time, and the GM has other things to do anyways. If the reason you're including straw in your palisade is actually to light it on fire and not to patch up holes, then that might come up, and the GM will know then (although that particular example is pretty much transparent, and easy for NPCs to exploit. If the GM has even the slightest bit of a habit of putting mean streaks on NPCs, the plan is liable to backfire spectacularly).

LrdoftheRngs
2012-06-19, 12:53 AM
That said, what I really can't understand is "why".
I mean: if you want to build the palisade out of extremely inflammable material, and you feel the need to hide from the DM the fact that you're going to fireball it the moment the cavalry charges, the only reason I can think of is that you don't trust your DM and you think that revealing your plan in advance will make him change his plans to screw your tactical idea.

I believe the rationale here is the need for a naive subject. Being a mastermind that plays the campaign like a chess board can be really fun and satisfying, and a degree of that satisfaction goes away when the DM helped you along the way and made your job easier.

Enter the naive subject. If the DM knows, then uses that knowledge to screw with that plan, the satisfaction is gone. On the other hand, if the DM changes his tactics to make it so that fireballing the palisade is more effective than it would have been, you might feel as if the DM just helped you along your victory and that it wasn't because of your brilliant planning. If the DM never knew, it adds a realism in his roleplaying. If the cavalry comes in and you fireball the palisade, then he (and in turn the generals he is NPCing), need to take a moment to think of what this means and what the repercussions are. I've been on both sides of the screen, and having the players baffle the DM feels great on either. As a player, you threw god for a loop with your awesome tactics. As a DM, your players have just come up with something that made you sit back and rethink this battle. That is a great moment for them and you feel a bit proud.

Essentially, it all comes down to separation of player and character knowledge. Even the best and most hardcore roleplayer can't fully stop some of that game information from leaking through. It does come down to a matter of trust to some degree, whether or not you trust your DM to react the same way as he would have, but there is still that element of shock. The purpose of pulling out some tactic like this is to kill more troops, but also to confuse the enemy. And the DM can plan out the repercussions of this and how the enemy forces react ahead of time when you are still building the palisade. Face it, every player wants to be able to tell the story of how they stumped the DM so badly they delayed combat for 3 minutes.

For social plans, yes, please do share information with your DM, at the very least your end goal. For tactics, treat yourself to some shock and awe.