TrinculoLives
2017-03-29, 02:50 AM
I recently watched a video by this DM Youtuber, Matthew Colville.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKBAfzQQZNE
I hadn't watched any of his videos for more than a few minutes before because I find his rapid speech overwhelming, and it never seemed as though he really had much concrete advice. But this video is of reasonable length. I finished it... and I'm still kind of thinking that he doesn't really have any concrete advice. And also that he is wrong.
For those who don't want to watch the video, basically he says that sometimes a game session is a slog to get through. He's vague about what that reason is, but the game he makes reference to included a long-ass fight with a monster; so perhaps the reason is: unnecessarily long combat. He says this is inevitable.
Is it? To offer a different perspective from a different DM, here's what the AngryGM wrote in this article: Four Things You’ve Never Heard of That Make Encounters Not Suck (http://theangrygm.com/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/)
He says that at its heart, every encounter is about answering a dramatic question: Will the PCs stop the goblins from stealing their wagon? Will the PCs be able to haggle a better deal with the shop-keep? Will the king decide to spare the life of the party rogue? Etc.
"The dramatic question describes what’s at stake in an encounter and why the players care about the encounter. As long as the answer is uncertain, the encounter is tense, exciting, and engaging. So what do you think happens when the answer becomes certain? Did you say “the opposite of tension, excitement, and engagement?".
When the dramatic question of the encounter has been answered, the DM should end the encounter, he says.
Ending the encounter is as easy as removing any remaining sources of conflict and telling the players the answer to the dramatic question. You can use whatever tricks you like. Assume the next hit on any monster kills the monster, allow the monsters to run away, narrate a wrap up (you easily defeat the remaining orc warriors and then you can continue on your way), tell the players they “realize the king is no longer listening and there is probably nothing further they can say to him right now that will change his mind,”
So, is it really necessary to sit through a slog of a combat encounter? (I think combat is the only example Colville gave of a slog, so let's deal with just that.) Colville makes the argument that unlike the best computer game encounters, which are exhaustively tested for quality before you play them; a D&D encounter can only be loosely planned out due to the nature of the game: and this inevitably leads to slog sometimes.
This feels like a false comparison considering that a D&D adventure can be changed mid-session, while a computer game is generally rigid and fixed. Therefore, if a D&D encounter is dragging on and has lost its excitement, that's probably either because,
1. The dramatic question has already been answered (the goblins are too weak to steal the wagon, but they continue to fight anyway; the king has already made his decision, but the PCs continue to argue, etc.);
2. Or, possibly, the encounter design or the game mechanics are holding the players and DM back from getting to the resolution of the question in a timely manner.
I think the first answer is responsible for the majority of stale D&D encounters.
I think the second answer is a problem with the design of the encounter, and, ultimately, the game. Perhaps the game has too many combat rules to look up, or maybe there are simply too many PCs or NPCs or Monsters on the map.
In either case, there is absolutely a solution to this problem of slog. It is avoidable, contrary to what Colville states. In his example, that of the over-long fight with the monster in an episode of Critical Role, I think the main problem may have been that there were too many PCs with too many abilities (a problem with game mechanics) and that the dramatic question may have already been answered as one side fought a losing battle.
I think a DM in these situation should end the encounter "early" (earlier than the combat rules would suggest is acceptable) in the easiest and most sensible way. An unfun and overlong fight isn't adding much value to the game and is a drag on everyone. "Realism", and the rules-faithful playing-out of combat mechanics be damned!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKBAfzQQZNE
I hadn't watched any of his videos for more than a few minutes before because I find his rapid speech overwhelming, and it never seemed as though he really had much concrete advice. But this video is of reasonable length. I finished it... and I'm still kind of thinking that he doesn't really have any concrete advice. And also that he is wrong.
For those who don't want to watch the video, basically he says that sometimes a game session is a slog to get through. He's vague about what that reason is, but the game he makes reference to included a long-ass fight with a monster; so perhaps the reason is: unnecessarily long combat. He says this is inevitable.
Is it? To offer a different perspective from a different DM, here's what the AngryGM wrote in this article: Four Things You’ve Never Heard of That Make Encounters Not Suck (http://theangrygm.com/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/)
He says that at its heart, every encounter is about answering a dramatic question: Will the PCs stop the goblins from stealing their wagon? Will the PCs be able to haggle a better deal with the shop-keep? Will the king decide to spare the life of the party rogue? Etc.
"The dramatic question describes what’s at stake in an encounter and why the players care about the encounter. As long as the answer is uncertain, the encounter is tense, exciting, and engaging. So what do you think happens when the answer becomes certain? Did you say “the opposite of tension, excitement, and engagement?".
When the dramatic question of the encounter has been answered, the DM should end the encounter, he says.
Ending the encounter is as easy as removing any remaining sources of conflict and telling the players the answer to the dramatic question. You can use whatever tricks you like. Assume the next hit on any monster kills the monster, allow the monsters to run away, narrate a wrap up (you easily defeat the remaining orc warriors and then you can continue on your way), tell the players they “realize the king is no longer listening and there is probably nothing further they can say to him right now that will change his mind,”
So, is it really necessary to sit through a slog of a combat encounter? (I think combat is the only example Colville gave of a slog, so let's deal with just that.) Colville makes the argument that unlike the best computer game encounters, which are exhaustively tested for quality before you play them; a D&D encounter can only be loosely planned out due to the nature of the game: and this inevitably leads to slog sometimes.
This feels like a false comparison considering that a D&D adventure can be changed mid-session, while a computer game is generally rigid and fixed. Therefore, if a D&D encounter is dragging on and has lost its excitement, that's probably either because,
1. The dramatic question has already been answered (the goblins are too weak to steal the wagon, but they continue to fight anyway; the king has already made his decision, but the PCs continue to argue, etc.);
2. Or, possibly, the encounter design or the game mechanics are holding the players and DM back from getting to the resolution of the question in a timely manner.
I think the first answer is responsible for the majority of stale D&D encounters.
I think the second answer is a problem with the design of the encounter, and, ultimately, the game. Perhaps the game has too many combat rules to look up, or maybe there are simply too many PCs or NPCs or Monsters on the map.
In either case, there is absolutely a solution to this problem of slog. It is avoidable, contrary to what Colville states. In his example, that of the over-long fight with the monster in an episode of Critical Role, I think the main problem may have been that there were too many PCs with too many abilities (a problem with game mechanics) and that the dramatic question may have already been answered as one side fought a losing battle.
I think a DM in these situation should end the encounter "early" (earlier than the combat rules would suggest is acceptable) in the easiest and most sensible way. An unfun and overlong fight isn't adding much value to the game and is a drag on everyone. "Realism", and the rules-faithful playing-out of combat mechanics be damned!