Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[kyoryu]

Sure, and that works in Blackjack.

But in Blackjack the odds of losing are high (over 50%), and there is real money on the line.

In an RPG the odds are really stacked in the player's favor, and generally failure has no mechanical consequences.

The stakes (and the drama and tension that result) are purely narrative in nature.

It can work in RPGs. it does work in RPGs. I do it. All the time.

If I fight a couple of orcs that I think have a ruby, I generally know the orcs won't beat me. I expect that they'll do some damage to me, and if they get lucky they might do a larger amount of damage to me. If I know they'll let me run away (or at least strongly suspect they will, or know that if I drop treasure they'll grab it rather than chase me), then I have reasonable bounds on what "failure" will mean (might lose more hp, or worst case, have to run and drop treasure), and know that if I do well or at least not horribly, I get the ruby.

This gives the players confidence to engage the encounter, while there can still be some risk involved.

I look at it like this: Apparent risk = severity of consequence * likelihood. If severity of consequence is unknown, the players will assume it to be complete, which means the likelihood has to be extremely low. If you lower the severity of consequences, and communicate this to players, then the likelihood can increase a bit while still keeping the apparent risk in a reasonable range.

(And yeah, I know you've changed what TPK means. Unfortunately, TPKs still feel bad, even if they're meaningless).

Narratively, the trick is doing stuff that the players care about and can impact. No, most players don't care about the story they're told. And if they're dragged from encounter to encounter, and they know how things are going to play out, then no, they're not going to get too invested in what they do as it doesn't matter. Take note of what (if anything) they think is interesting, and draw that into the plot. Don't assume they'll care about the stuff you care about.

Also, I think it's worth considering that most people here are experienced, and if they give you advice, it's probably not just random advice but is based on experience (which may be different than your experience). I think it would do you good to consider what people are saying rather than (what appears to be) just looking for ways to dismiss it.

Also, keep in mind that you are assuming the dealer is changing the rules on the spot, which is the same thing my players are accusing me of, when that is very much not how I operate.

Even if it's in the rules in advance, if they dealer can change my bet for me, it's going to impact how I approach the game.

And it actually doesn't matter what you've decided in advance - when you change the apparent nature of what is going on in the middle of it, it feels to the players like you're doing it on the spot, even if you're not.

In my orc example, if suddenly the orcs turn out to be ancient dragons and obliterate the characters, it doesn't actually matter if that was planned or done on the spot. It feels cheap to the players.

OTOH, your example of kobolds that can shoot some kind of ant-venom or whatever? That's not unreasonable, provided that the damage done is relatively in line with what you'd expect from kobolds. Kobolds having a ranged attack is pretty reasonable to expect, even if it doesn't look like a rock or javelin.

[Talakeal]

It can work in RPGs. it does work in RPGs. I do it. All the time.

If I fight a couple of orcs that I think have a ruby, I generally know the orcs won't beat me. I expect that they'll do some damage to me, and if they get lucky they might do a larger amount of damage to me. If I know they'll let me run away (or at least strongly suspect they will, or know that if I drop treasure they'll grab it rather than chase me), then I have reasonable bounds on what "failure" will mean (might lose more hp, or worst case, have to run and drop treasure), and know that if I do well or at least not horribly, I get the ruby.

This gives the players confidence to engage the encounter, while there can still be some risk involved.

I look at it like this: Apparent risk = severity of consequence * likelihood. If severity of consequence is unknown, the players will assume it to be complete, which means the likelihood has to be extremely low. If you lower the severity of consequences, and communicate this to players, then the likelihood can increase a bit while still keeping the apparent risk in a reasonable range.

(And yeah, I know you've changed what TPK means. Unfortunately, TPKs still feel bad, even if they're meaningless).

Narratively, the trick is doing stuff that the players care about and can impact. No, most players don't care about the story they're told. And if they're dragged from encounter to encounter, and they know how things are going to play out, then no, they're not going to get too invested in what they do as it doesn't matter. Take note of what (if anything) they think is interesting, and draw that into the plot. Don't assume they'll care about the stuff you care about.

Also, I think it's worth considering that most people here are experienced, and if they give you advice, it's probably not just random advice but is based on experience (which may be different than your experience). I think it would do you good to consider what people are saying rather than (what appears to be) just looking for ways to dismiss it.

The thing is, this is all stuff I am already doing. I agree with everything you are saying here, but it still isn't working for me.

And it actually doesn't matter what you've decided in advance - when you change the apparent nature of what is going on in the middle of it, it feels to the players like you're doing it on the spot, even if you're not.

In my orc example, if suddenly the orcs turn out to be ancient dragons and obliterate the characters, it doesn't actually matter if that was planned or done on the spot. It feels cheap to the players.

I don't know about that.

Let me give you an example from the other side of the table; many years ago I was playing through the introductory adventure for Eberron. In that module there were a pair of adamant doors to stop us from breaking through them. After we had cleared the dungeon, we decided to take the doors off the hinges and haul them back to town as that much adamant would be worth a small fortune. When we got there, we found that it was actually a regular steel door covered with a thin adamant plating; tough but relatively worthless.

We bitched and moaned at the DM for screwing us out of our loot, to the point where he opened up the module and showed us the description of the doors, and sure enough he was playing it exactly as written.

What is your appraisal of that story? What should the author, the DM, and the players have done differently?

OTOH, your example of kobolds that can shoot some kind of ant-venom or whatever? That's not unreasonable, provided that the damage done is relatively in line with what you'd expect from kobolds. Kobolds having a ranged attack is pretty reasonable to expect, even if it doesn't look like a rock or javelin.

I think the issue is the surprise itself, not the power level. After all, the sneeze attack that started this discussion was actually significantly less powerful than the evil eye possessed by the default fomorian.

[kyoryu]

I don't know about that.

Let me give you an example from the other side of the table; many years ago I was playing through the introductory adventure for Eberron. In that module there were a pair of adamant doors to stop us from breaking through them. After we had cleared the dungeon, we decided to take the doors off the hinges and haul them back to town as that much adamant would be worth a small fortune. When we got there, we found that it was actually a regular steel door covered with a thin adamant plating; tough but relatively worthless.

We bitched and moaned at the DM for screwing us out of our loot, to the point where he opened up the module and showed us the description of the doors, and sure enough he was playing it exactly as written.

What is your appraisal of that story? What should the author, the DM, and the players have done differently?

The GM could have handled it better. While you didn't explicitly check to see if it was adamant, the amount of handling and bumping and everything else that the door went through in the process could have easily bent or broken through in the plating in a way to show the steel underneath. The GM should have looked for an excuse to divulge that info and prevented all the in-game time wasted to get it back to town and the "HAHA" moment.

What the author should have done is to have called out doing this in the text to GMs that might not have thought to do it.

Again, note that you were upset by this, because you were allowed to work with these plans only to have a "gotcha" pulled at the end. It's not fun.

I think the issue is the surprise itself, not the power level. After all, the sneeze attack that started this discussion was actually significantly less powerful than the evil eye possessed by the default fomorian.

Well, yeah.

It's also the fact that they thought they were getting one thing (fight against a bruiser! Yay!) and got another thing (challenge to avoid getting knocked off!). It's like having brown liquid in front of you, thinking it's Coke, but it's iced tea. You're not expecting it, so it tastes bad even if you like both of those drinks.

You don't need to have full disclosure, but players like, in general, having a fairly good idea of what it is they're getting into, and don't like having the rug pulled from under them. When they can't rely on information, they can't make good decisions, and that's what games really are - making decisions. That's why I try to find a way to give my players as much info as possible, to show them the actual decisions they're making and to let that be the game, rather than trying to get the info to avoid "traps."

[Talakeal]

The GM could have handled it better. While you didn't explicitly check to see if it was adamant, the amount of handling and bumping and everything else that the door went through in the process could have easily bent or broken through in the plating in a way to show the steel underneath. The GM should have looked for an excuse to divulge that info and prevented all the in-game time wasted to get it back to town and the "HAHA" moment.

What the author should have done is to have called out doing this in the text to GMs that might not have thought to do it.

Again, note that you were upset by this, because you were allowed to work with these plans only to have a "gotcha" pulled at the end. It's not fun.



Well, yeah.

It's also the fact that they thought they were getting one thing (fight against a bruiser! Yay!) and got another thing (challenge to avoid getting knocked off!). It's like having brown liquid in front of you, thinking it's Coke, but it's iced tea. You're not expecting it, so it tastes bad even if you like both of those drinks.

You don't need to have full disclosure, but players like, in general, having a fairly good idea of what it is they're getting into, and don't like having the rug pulled from under them. When they can't rely on information, they can't make good decisions, and that's what games really are - making decisions. That's why I try to find a way to give my players as much info as possible, to show them the actual decisions they're making and to let that be the game, rather than trying to get the info to avoid "traps."

I think we found the line where I stop agreeing with you.

At this point, it comes across as unfair to the DM; the players basically want to have their cake and eat it to.

They want to play an old school, combat as war, take every advantage you can grab style where they can break WBL by stripping dungeon dressing, but at the same time except the DM to give them plenty of hints to spare their feelings and avoid wasting their time. That just feels greedy to me.

Likewise, you seem to be implying that the monsters should also telegraph their tactics to the players as well as their abilities. This is just plain unfair to the DM. The players have far more versatility than any monster ever, and they would never dream of telling me what tactics they plan to use; indeed they won't even talk to each other for fear that I might overhear them (which leads to a lot of their problems). As a DM I am already struggling to play catchup on a tactical level, this just goes a bit too far.

To use your Blackjack example, its like forcing the dealer to play with their hole-card face up, and at some point its not really even a game anymore.

[Gallowglass]

At this point, it comes across as unfair to the DM; the players basically want to have their cake and eat it to.

They want to play an old school, combat as war, take every advantage you can grab style where they can break WBL by stripping dungeon dressing, but at the same time except the DM to give them plenty of hints to spare their feelings and avoid wasting their time. That just feels greedy to me.

This isn't about wasting their time, its about wasting ALL OF YOUR TIME. You have a limited amount of game time to play.

This is a waste of time:

P1: "Wow the doors are adamant? Do they have hinges?"

DM: "I mean I guess."

p1: "Great, we pop those off and take them back to town because those are worth a damn fortune!"

DM: "Uh well.... the hinges are solid and hard to..."

p1: "There are 5 of us. I have ranks in knowledge engineering. You guys all roll aid other and brian, cast that spell that gives me +whatever to a skill roll..."
*10 minutes of player planning how to get the door off*

DM: "Okay okay, it pops off the hinges. But it weighs way more than you can..."

P1: "Okay, we can go get a wagon and... " *an hour of game time devoted to coming up with elaborate plan to get them back to town.

DM: "OKay so you get it back to town... but there's no one who can deal with that quantity of adamant...."

P1: "Oh yeah?" *another two hours of game time devoted to making contacts, finding powerful wizards, and preparing distribution plans to move the adamant through several neighboring countries to offset the market cost."

DM: "*sigh* okay, so as you are cutting it up you realize its only a thin cover of adamant over an iron door."

P1: *ANGRY RABBLE*

DM: "No, see, its in the module like that. And. also, that's it for our play time this week so...."

*****

Versus This is NOT a waste of time:

P1: "Wow the doors are adamant? Do they have hinges?"

DM: "Yeah I see where this is going.... You guys spend a couple hours getting the doors off, only when the first one falls, part of the adamant plating seperates, revealing its just a thin layer of adamant over a steel door."

P1: "Aw rats. Well, lets take the plating at least."

DM: "yeah yeah, anyway, from deep down the yawning chasm beyond the door you hear strange distant wails...."

****


Again. You are NOT just wasting THEIR Time, but EVERYONE'S time. YOUR time

And note that SOME players would actually LIKE the first scenario because they are logistics nerds. Your group are not logistic nerds.

[kyoryu]

I think we found the line where I stop agreeing with you.

At this point, it comes across as unfair to the DM; the players basically want to have their cake and eat it to.

They want to play an old school, combat as war, take every advantage you can grab style where they can break WBL by stripping dungeon dressing, but at the same time except the DM to give them plenty of hints to spare their feelings and avoid wasting their time. That just feels greedy to me.

Um, okay. I don't think that having players go through the door thing added anything to the game, and it's certainly reasonable that they would have discovered that the door was just plated in the process of moving it.

I think a lot of GMs make the mistake (and, yes, I call it a mistake) of only giving the players information that is explicitly requested, rather than remembering that the PCs will be aware of all sorts of things in the environment.

Likewise, you seem to be implying that the monsters should also telegraph their tactics to the players as well as their abilities. This is just plain unfair to the DM.

I do not mean to imply that. If I said something that came off that way I apologize, as that was not my intent.

I'm also unsure what "unfair to the DM" means. It's not the GM's job to "beat" the players. It's not competitive. It can't be - the GM has all the cards, and can bring any resources they want to an encounter.

The players have far more versatility than any monster ever, and they would never dream of telling me what tactics they plan to use; indeed they won't even talk to each other for fear that I might overhear them (which leads to a lot of their problems). As a DM I am already struggling to play catchup on a tactical level, this just goes a bit too far.

Well, yeah, because they don't trust that you won't change things to counter their tactics.

To use your Blackjack example, its like forcing the dealer to play with their hole-card face up, and at some point its not really even a game anymore.

Not at all. I'm simply espousing that if the game is "Blackjack", that Blackjack is what is played, and that the dealer doesn't spring rules variations on the players randomly, even if they knew these variations in advance.

I think I see where you're coming from on this. And, well, I disagree. In a normal combat, where the objective is "kill the other guys" (and I've talked about that before), clearly the enemies will use the best tactics at their disposal.

But in this case taht wasn't the case. It wasn't a "combat". It was a skill challenge, really, about avoiding the gusts of wind. That's a totally different thing! And giving no hint to this until you sprang it on the players gave you a huge advantage in "winning" it.

It seems like you feel the only way you can win is to withhold "trump cards" and spring them on the players, or that that is the ideal way to have tactics/strategy? It's changing the win/loss conditions in the middle of the encounter - much like having people think they're playing Blackjack but it's really Poker.

And again, feel free to disagree with me all you want. But I suspect that this is what bothered your players about that encounter, even if they weren't good at expressing it. And I think that's worth considering.

Versus This is NOT a waste of time:

P1: "Wow the doors are adamant? Do they have hinges?"

DM: "Yeah I see where this is going.... You guys spend a couple hours getting the doors off, only when the first one falls, part of the adamant plating seperates, revealing its just a thin layer of adamant over a steel door."

P1: "Aw rats. Well, lets take the plating at least."

DM: "yeah yeah, anyway, from deep down the yawning chasm beyond the door you hear strange distant wails...."

****


Again. You are NOT just wasting THEIR Time, but EVERYONE'S time. YOUR time

And note that SOME players would actually LIKE the first scenario because they are logistics nerds. Your group are not logistic nerds.

Exactly.

And while some players might like the first scenario, I'd say that the second one is the one that you should default to, unless you know that your players are into the first.

The first does nothing except waste time on a complete dead end.

[Talakeal]

snip

Honestly I don't remember wasting a lot of time doing it; heck it might have even occurred like you said in example 2. Basically, we felt that we had outsmarted the module and gotten massive rewards, and then we thought the DM was pulling a fast one on us and making excuses to avoid breaking the game by giving us several times our WBL in adamant.

Actually, one of my players is a huge logistics nerd; or rather, he is of a very "get rich quick scheme" mindset; he constantly wants to come up with excuses to squeeze every penny out of the world he can and also reasons why his character should be exempt from any of the costs associated with actually living in a fantasy world, where as I just want to hand out treasure parcels and get back to the adventure.

[zinycor]

I think we found the line where I stop agreeing with you.

At this point, it comes across as unfair to the DM; the players basically want to have their cake and eat it to.

They want to play an old school, combat as war, take every advantage you can grab style where they can break WBL by stripping dungeon dressing, but at the same time except the DM to give them plenty of hints to spare their feelings and avoid wasting their time. That just feels greedy to me.

Likewise, you seem to be implying that the monsters should also telegraph their tactics to the players as well as their abilities. This is just plain unfair to the DM. The players have far more versatility than any monster ever, and they would never dream of telling me what tactics they plan to use; indeed they won't even talk to each other for fear that I might overhear them (which leads to a lot of their problems). As a DM I am already struggling to play catchup on a tactical level, this just goes a bit too far.

To use your Blackjack example, its like forcing the dealer to play with their hole-card face up, and at some point its not really even a game anymore.

Unfair? What sort of game are you playing? As a GM, whenever it is against the players, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE!

I'll tell you what I think is unfair. I believe is unfair to the GM that players insult them, call them names, and disregard their efforts. All things that happen at your table, and you seem to be okay with.

[Talakeal]

I'm also unsure what "unfair to the DM" means. It's not the GM's job to "beat" the players. It's not competitive. It can't be - the GM has all the cards, and can bring any resources they want to an encounter.

The DM's job typically involves letting the players feel like they are heroes in the fictional world, which usually means overcoming dangerous obstacles.

The DM can't just throw a million tarrasques at the players, because that shatters immersion, but likewise they can't have ultimate artifact of epic destiny which is coveted by kings and sorcerers guarded by a pack of scrawny kobolds.

Most players enjoy the tactical aspects of the game, and by not having challenging combat you are robbing them of that aspect. And even the players who just want to win all the time will (usually) get bored of a game that doesn't offer even the illusion of challenge.

In my particular group, most problems arise from Bob not wanting to play combat as sport or even combat as war, but wants to play the fantasy equivalent of hunting wolves from a helicopter, and getting mad and accusing me of cheating when the encounter design doesn't allow for it. But if I design encounters in a way that lets Bob trivialize them, well that is just going to leave the rest of the group out in the cold.

Um, okay. I don't think that having players go through the door thing added anything to the game, and it's certainly reasonable that they would have discovered that the door was just plated in the process of moving it.

As I said to Gallow, moving the door wasn't a bid ordeal, the whole exchange took no more than a few minutes. That was not my point, I was mostly about the PCs trying to outsmart the module and accusing the DM of cheating when their plan didn't work according to the way the module was written.

But in this case that wasn't the case. It wasn't a "combat". It was a skill challenge, really, about avoiding the gusts of wind. That's a totally different thing! And giving no hint to this until you sprang it on the players gave you a huge advantage in "winning" it.

It seems like you feel the only way you can win is to withhold "trump cards" and spring them on the players, or that that is the ideal way to have tactics/strategy? It's changing the win/loss conditions in the middle of the encounter - much like having people think they're playing Blackjack but it's really Poker.

And again, feel free to disagree with me all you want. But I suspect that this is what bothered your players about that encounter, even if they weren't good at expressing it. And I think that's worth considering.

Not quite, he never even used the gust of wind ability against the rest of the party because it was strictly inferior to his melee attacks; which is by design as the idea is to give him a fighting chance against flyers, but not negate flying entirely. He only used it as a last resort against Bob after bob turned himself incorporeal and rendered himself immune to physical damage.

Unfair? What sort of game are you playing? As a GM, whenever it is against the players, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE!

Citation needed. Now, I fully agree that in most campaigns the players should win the vast majority of the fights, but I don't think any rulebook in history has guaranteed the players victory regardless of what or how they chose to fight.

[zinycor]

I don't think any rulebook in history has guaranteed the players victory regardless of what or how they chose to fight.

Did I say that? What are you even arguing about? I am saying that there is not such thing as being unfair to the GM, since that's part of the whole game. You on the other hand... I don't know.. Believe that the GM shouldn't give clear descriptions, otherwise... what?

[Talakeal]

As a GM, whenever it is against the players, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE!

Did I say that? What are you even arguing about? I am saying that there is not such thing as being unfair to the GM, since that's part of the whole game. You on the other hand... I don't know.. Believe that the GM shouldn't give clear descriptions, otherwise... what?

You probably shouldn't write something in all caps if you don't actually mean it / don't want the person you are talking to to respond to it.


Also, there is something deeply ironic in taking me saying "I need to work on clearer communication" over and over again as me saying "the GM shouldn't give clear descriptions".

[zinycor]

You probably shouldn't write something in all caps if you don't actually mean it / don't want the person you are talking to to respond to it.

And I stand by what I wrote in all caps, what I don't stand for

I don't think any rulebook in history has guaranteed the players victory regardless of what or how they chose to fight.

That's something I never said or I implied.

Also, there is something deeply ironic in taking me saying "I need to work on clearer communication" over and over again as me saying "the GM shouldn't give clear descriptions".

You said:

They want to play an old school, combat as war, take every advantage you can grab style where they can break WBL by stripping dungeon dressing, but at the same time except the DM to give them plenty of hints to spare their feelings and avoid wasting their time. That just feels greedy to me.

Likewise, you seem to be implying that the monsters should also telegraph their tactics to the players as well as their abilities. This is just plain unfair to the DM. The players have far more versatility than any monster ever, and they would never dream of telling me what tactics they plan to use; indeed they won't even talk to each other for fear that I might overhear them (which leads to a lot of their problems). As a DM I am already struggling to play catchup on a tactical level, this just goes a bit too far.

To use your Blackjack example, its like forcing the dealer to play with their hole-card face up, and at some point its not really even a game anymore.

Which involves, GMs giving tips and monsters telegraphing their abilities, both being part of good descriptions, that you state are "unfair to the DM"..

[Talakeal]

And I stand by what I wrote in all caps

And I stand by my statement; such a broad and absolute assertion requires a citation to back it up.

Which involves, GMs giving tips and monsters telegraphing their abilities, both being part of good descriptions, that you state are "unfair to the DM"..

I said that being forced to telegraph the monsters tactics is unfair to the DM. That isn't a matter of descriptions, the best description in the world won't tell you somebodies tactics unless, maybe, you are a master of reading body language.

Now, I wasn't talking about abilities, but if I was, I would say a clear description won't tell you that something has an ability. It may or may not give you hints though. For example, a picture perfect crystal clear description of Legolas will imply that he has keen senses, is a good archer, and is light on his feat, but unless you actually catch him in the act you won't know for certain whether he has these abilities.

On the other hand, a picture perfect crystal clear description of Frodo won't even imply that he can turn invisible, all it will tell you in that regard is that he has a plain golden ring about his neck and, again only if you are a master of reading body language, that it is very important to him and he views it a a temptation and a source of both danger and safety.

[OldTrees1]

Also, there is something deeply ironic in taking me saying "I need to work on clearer communication" over and over again as me saying "the GM shouldn't give clear descriptions".

To be fair, throughout this thread you have shown distaste for various ways of having clearer communication. Almost as if you like the idea of clearer communication in theory, but do not like the players having the information that results from clearer communication in practice.

Some of those example, I understand. They were unfortunate short term extreme measures for regaining trust.
Other examples are the clearer communication:

[Talakeal]

To be fair, throughout this thread you have shown distaste for various ways of having clearer communication. Almost as if you like the idea of clearer communication in theory, but do not like the players having the information that results from clearer communication in practice.

Out of curiosity, are we talking about clearer descriptions or telegraphing events?

Both are related forms of communication, but they are very different in execution and I have very different feelings about them.

For example, a DM could use descriptions of charred trees and tendrils of smoke curling from a dragon's nostrils to communicate fire breath, or they could have a group of helpless peasants wander into the dragons lair and get burninated before the PCs eyes to telegraph the fire breath. To me the former is, as a rule, a good thing and draws the PCs into the world, but the latter feels very cheap and artificial and would likely pull PCs out of the world.

[zinycor]

Out of curiosity, are we talking about clearer descriptions or telegraphing events?

Both are related forms of communication, but they are very different in execution and I have very different feelings about them.

For example, a DM could use descriptions of charred trees and tendrils of smoke curling from a dragon's nostrils to communicate fire breath, or they could have a group of helpless peasants wander into the dragons lair and get burninated before the PCs eyes to telegraph the fire breath. To me the former is, as a rule, a good thing and draws the PCs into the world, but the latter feels very cheap and artificial and would likely pull PCs out of the world.

Actually, in your words, it wouldn't just be "cheap and artificial and would likely pull PCs out of the world" but, "plain unfair to the DM"

[OldTrees1]

Out of curiosity, are we talking about clearer descriptions or telegraphing events?

Both are related forms of communication, but they are very different in execution and I have very different feelings about them.

For example, a DM could use descriptions of charred trees and tendrils of smoke curling from a dragon's nostrils to communicate fire breath, or they could have a group of helpless peasants wander into the dragons lair and get burninated before the PCs eyes to telegraph the fire breath. To me the former is, as a rule, a good thing and draws the PCs into the world, but the latter feels very cheap and artificial and would likely pull PCs out of the world.

I was speaking of 2 clearer descriptions in particular. The 3 hints and telegraphing what you will be unable to communicate.

1) The solution to a puzzle is always easier to figure out after you know it. The rule of 3 helps you overcome this cognitive bias. If your human brain is naturally going to thing your puzzles are 3x as easy as they really are, then proving 3x the clues counteracts that innate mental flaw.
2) If you want the characters to encounter a "fairy tale ogre", it helps if the players can understand what the characters are encountering. If the players encounter a gotcha they will perceive that "fairy tale ogre" as merely a brute with a cheated power rather than a "fairy tale ogre". The cost of communicating the unexpected is often by using suspense rather than surprise.

Your former example of smoke from the dragon's nostrils is telegraphing. Of course there are many more examples than just those 2. How many "clearer descriptions" of the sneeze ogre have you rebuffed despite you saying you want to communicate clearer?

Imagine I describe a red dragon, and then during the combat it breathes a cone of spiderwebs. People in this thread would have suggested I telegraph that "surprise" via better descriptions of the dragon, its surroundings, events leading up to the encounter, ... or one of various other methods. In response to those comments, you have been more defensive than expected.

So, to be fair, throughout this thread you have shown distaste for various ways of having clearer communication.

[Talakeal]

I was speaking of 2 clearer descriptions in particular. The 3 hints and telegraphing what you will be unable to communicate.

1) The solution to a puzzle is always easier to figure out after you know it. The rule of 3 helps you overcome this cognitive bias. If your human brain is naturally going to thing your puzzles are 3x as easy as they really are, then proving 3x the clues counteracts that innate mental flaw.

In my opinion, the three clue rule was never meant to apply to every single aspect of the world, only those where the game will stall out if the DM can't be absolutely certain the players will pick up on it.

Further, in my opinion the perfect level of foreshadowing for most monster abilities is something where a smart and/or attentive player would suspect it going into the fight and a less canny player would realize it in hindsight. Accusing the DM of making things up because he is out to get you is, in my opinion, almost never appropriate regardless of the level of foreshadowing.

Your former example of smoke from the dragon's nostrils is telegraphing. How many "clearer descriptions" of the sneeze ogre have you rebuffed despite you saying you want to communicate clearer?

If this is a world where fire breathing dragons exude smoke when they breathe, as many of them do, it is merely a description of the scene.

None? IIRC two people suggested that I add in a scene where the players "catch him in the act" of using his power, but I can't recall anyone explaining how I could have made a clearer description. Although in principle I agree, I absolutely should and would have made it clearer in hindsight.





Ok, so let's workshop something:

I have encounter coming up with a dragon that is infected with ghoul fever and in the process of becoming undead. It is significantly weaker than a standard dragon, and instead of breathing fire it is going to vomit up a deluge of diseased slime.

I am planning on describing the dragon as looking sickly, with discolored scales, unhealed wounds, milky eyes that show no hint of intelligence, and foul sludge dripping from its mouth.

Now, this would seem to be all well and good for a standard party I think, but I just know Bob is going to use his favorite trick of polymoprhing into a fire elemental before the fight, which means that the slimey breath weapon, which is far weaker than the dragon's normal fire, is going to bypass his immunity for flames, and I just know he is going to assume I put it in just to "get him".

Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude? And the deeper question, is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?

[The Glyphstone]

A typical dragon would probably breathe fire in its lair from time to time just because it can, and that would leave scorch marks or soot stains on the walls and floor even if they are stone. Before they even see the dragon itself, describe the absence of the usual marks and burns, including that a typical dragon's lair would feature them. Having puddles of odd slimy goo lying around in their place is optional.

[zinycor]

Ok, so let's workshop something:

I have encounter coming up with a dragon that is infected with ghoul fever and in the process of becoming undead. It is significantly weaker than a standard dragon, and instead of breathing fire it is going to vomit up a deluge of diseased slime.

I am planning on describing the dragon as looking sickly, with discolored scales, unhealed wounds, milky eyes that show no hint of intelligence, and foul sludge dripping from its mouth.

Now, this would seem to be all well and good for a standard party I think, but I just know Bob is going to use his favorite trick of polymoprhing into a fire elemental before the fight, which means that the slimey breath weapon, which is far weaker than the dragon's normal fire, is going to bypass his immunity for flames, and I just know he is going to assume I put it in just to "get him".

Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude? And the deeper question, is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?

I got one:

Kick bob out of your game.

Now, you probably, for some weird reason, still want to play with him, So let's try to answer the questions:

"Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude?" NO, Subtlety is the enemy of clarity.
"is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?" No, Bob's distrust is an outside of game problem, therefore it can't be fixed by in game solutions.

[Tajerio]

Ok, so let's workshop something:

I have encounter coming up with a dragon that is infected with ghoul fever and in the process of becoming undead. It is significantly weaker than a standard dragon, and instead of breathing fire it is going to vomit up a deluge of diseased slime.

I am planning on describing the dragon as looking sickly, with discolored scales, unhealed wounds, milky eyes that show no hint of intelligence, and foul sludge dripping from its mouth.

Now, this would seem to be all well and good for a standard party I think, but I just know Bob is going to use his favorite trick of polymoprhing into a fire elemental before the fight, which means that the slimey breath weapon, which is far weaker than the dragon's normal fire, is going to bypass his immunity for flames, and I just know he is going to assume I put it in just to "get him".

Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude? And the deeper question, is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?

That encounter sounds pretty interesting. But I think the chance of Bob not regarding it as a screwjob is basically nil. I mean, your players have explicitly told you that they don't trust GMs in general, and you in particular, not to screw them over--indeed, they think GMs are actively looking to pull off screwjobs. And you know Bob is the king of the paranoiacs at your table. Even if you tell him beforehand every detail of his enemy, he's still going to think you put that enemy into the campaign as a means to defeat his preferred tactic, and therefore (in his view) ruin his fun because that's what's fun to you.

In other words, running this encounter as you've imagined it is just setting yourself up for more verbal abuse from your players. Probably the most you can do is have the dragon infected with ghoul fever, but remove any mechanical consequences of that fact.

[Great Dragon]

@Talakeal: was my Suggestions not worthy of a response?

(Hopefully) Overlooked?

Or just ignored?

As for the Altered Dragon, I'd try the clues of the Lair being different, perhaps with a few rumors in nearby towns/villages stating that people are avoiding the Area, due to not only the look, but also the smell. (Which can be from the Breath or really bad BO/death smells)

But, I agree that Bob will just complain that it's not just a predictable (type) Dragon and think you are, once again, "screwing him over".

Changing their view that all GMs are "Adversarial" isn't going to be easy, and might be something you state as a Goal at the start of the next time you GM for them.

But, my question is: is this Altered Dragon part of the actual Plot?
If yes, fine. Make sure that "Ties into Campaign Theme" is obvious in hindsight to the Players.

If just an "Interesting Encounter?" you've thought up?

honestly, drop it

They have already shown no appreciation for these kind of Encounters. (Or respect for you)

Plus: You're really not going to get any true enjoyment out of the Players dealing with the majority of your Homebrewed Monsters.

[OldTrees1]

In my opinion, the three clue rule was never meant to apply to every single aspect of the world, only those where the game will stall out if the DM can't be absolutely certain the players will pick up on it.

Further, in my opinion the perfect level of foreshadowing for most monster abilities is something where a smart and/or attentive player would suspect it going into the fight and a less canny player would realize it in hindsight. Accusing the DM of making things up because he is out to get you is, in my opinion, almost never appropriate regardless of the level of foreshadowing.

The rule of 3 is a guideline that when applied achieves your objective in spite of your cognitive bias. Without compensating for your cognitive bias, you will be more unfair towards the players than you mean to be. Recognizing they are not you is part of communicating more clearly.

If this is a world where fire breathing dragons exude smoke when they breathe, as many of them do, it is merely a description of the scene.

It seems like you have negative associations with the word "telegraphing". The smoke from a dragon's nostrils is telegraphing a fiery or smoky breath. If you see nothing wrong with smoke as the dragon breaths, perhaps you can get past your negative associations. That might help you communicate clearer.

None? IIRC two people suggested that I add in a scene where the players "catch him in the act" of using his power, but I can't recall anyone explaining how I could have made a clearer description. Although in principle I agree, I absolutely should and would have made it clearer in hindsight.

You had problems with the subtle descriptions too. The snot covered field of boulders for example.

So you agree in principle but have disagreed in practice.

Ok, so let's workshop something:

I have encounter coming up with a dragon that is infected with ghoul fever and in the process of becoming undead. It is significantly weaker than a standard dragon, and instead of breathing fire it is going to vomit up a deluge of diseased slime.

I am planning on describing the dragon as looking sickly, with discolored scales, unhealed wounds, milky eyes that show no hint of intelligence, and foul sludge dripping from its mouth.

Now, this would seem to be all well and good for a standard party I think, but I just know Bob is going to use his favorite trick of polymoprhing into a fire elemental before the fight, which means that the slimey breath weapon, which is far weaker than the dragon's normal fire, is going to bypass his immunity for flames, and I just know he is going to assume I put it in just to "get him".

Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude? And the deeper question, is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?

I bolded the most relevant parts. Note the discovery in question is the breath being foul ooze. There being a dragon does not need to be a mystery here.

Also, let's ignore Bob for a moment. Bob is even more paranoid of you so we should solve the simpler problem first.

The main change you want to subtly telegraph is the foul diseased slime vomit. (Bonus: probably should be a shorter range, more circular AoE, that also is subject to gravity)
1) The dragon has been too sickly of late for it to terrorize the edge of its territory. Perhaps some villages are having some vague cautious celebrations. They might be ordering an extra round at the bar and talking about how the beast is dead. Parents might be letting their kids play freely outside on the charred remains of a house.
2) As the party approaches they reach the outskirts of where the dragon used to hunt large mammals for food. They will notice some old charred spots. However a careful eye would date these as months old.
3) As the party approaches closer they reach the range the dragon now hunts. There are some rare piles of slime or a slime coated trunk of a tree. Anyone curious enough to examine the ooze might notice it is similar to extremely putrefied meat (Medicine / Nature) or might notice it is rather toxic (touching it / Medicine / Nature).
4) When the party is closing in on the dragon's lair they might notice some more of these piles of ooze. Maybe the ooze is animated? Depends on what you are going for. However the perceptive might also hear a strange sound. Almost as if the cave is wheezing rather than breathing.
5) When the party sees the dragon start at its tail. The tail has some ooze smeared on it. The body has putrefying flesh with some pus slowly seeping out of unhealed wounds. The head has the milky eyes and a trickle of ooze coming out its mouth.
6) During the fight the dragon continues to cough and wheeze. Then it retches and vomits out the foul ooze.

That sounds like enough hints for a player new to D&D. More experienced players will be taking bets on whether the breath will be ooze OR whether the dragon will have a necrotic breath that makes its victims start to decay.

Now what would be required for Bob? All of these are in addition because Bob would need them due to their paranoia.

7) The village has plenty of fire damage. At the village they are clearly celebrating a dragon must have died. The villages even ask Bob if he killed the beast.
8) Double the journey to the dragon. You need more time.
9) Along the way describe the outermost range as a lot of old fire damage. Now new burns in at least a season. (Bonus: Pick another PC and say they noticed this)
10) The innermost range is full of signs of a blighted land. The trees are sickly but not burnt. The wildlife is scarce and has a sickly green tinge. A half eaten deer carcass is rotting in a pool of slime.

At this point it would be lovely if Bob predicts it is a Red Dragon cursed into the form of a Green Dragon.

11) At the cave's entrance, there is a trail of ooze leading down the center of the tunnel. The ooze is 3ft wide and 1ft deep.
12) The turn before the Dragon breathes ooze, have the dragon make retching sounds rather than the wheezing / coughing.

Bob will still be annoyed that you chose to not have a fire dragon because Bob wanted to use their Fire Elemental trick. However even Bob will see they had a fair chance to see it coming. Bob will still explode on you, but that was a given.

However I would personally prefer playing in a group that trusts each other (which requires building trust). Then I might only use 2, 5, & 6.

[Talakeal]

@Talakeal: was my Suggestions not worthy of a response?

(Hopefully) Overlooked?

Or just ignored?

Very sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. Would you mind pointing out what, specifically, you were hoping I would respond to?

But, my question is: is this Altered Dragon part of the actual Plot?
If yes, fine. Make sure that "Ties into Campaign Theme" is obvious in hindsight to the Players.

If just an "Interesting Encounter?" you've thought up?

honestly, drop it

They have already shown no appreciation for these kind of Encounters. (Or respect for you)

Plus: You're really not going to get any true enjoyment out of the Players dealing with the majority of your Homebrewed Monsters.

It is mostly a sandbox campaign, so it has as much relevance to the plot as any of the other set-piece encounters.

I have already given the PCs the hook to go after the dragon though, and the XP and treasure for doing so are factored into the total mechanical progression for the campaign, so it would be pretty tough to remove it right now. Also, it is by no means the only "problematic" encounter, it was just the most similar to the sneeze encounter in my mind.

[NichG]

Now, this would seem to be all well and good for a standard party I think, but I just know Bob is going to use his favorite trick of polymoprhing into a fire elemental before the fight, which means that the slimey breath weapon, which is far weaker than the dragon's normal fire, is going to bypass his immunity for flames, and I just know he is going to assume I put it in just to "get him".

What happened to your decision a page or so ago to not DM for these people?

[Great Dragon]

I have already given the PCs the hook to go after the dragon though, and the XP and treasure for doing so are factored into the total mechanical progression for the campaign, so it would be pretty tough to remove it right now.

Since the Party has accepted a "Dragon Quest", anything of vaguely Draconic nature and equal CR (with treasure) value can be substituted.

This isn't a requirement, since you have the Encounter already figured out; just put in clues (available in more than one way) to foreshadow that there is something different about this particular dragon.

I would also advise avoiding any "Slime turns PCs into Undead" affects, but Poisoning affects (damage and condition, or paralyzed for a minute with a new save each round to stop) with a DC that an Average Roll (plus modifers) cuts poison damage in half and negates poisoned/paralyzed condition should be ok. (I don't remember what level the Party is, but I figured a DC 14-16 range)

(On phone, so can't easily look, the following might have been another thread)
I think I also made the Suggestion to put in more "free consumables": Potions of Healing and useful Scrolls.

In this case: "free" Potions/Scrolls of Protection from Poison, and Lesser Restoration would be nice.

Not sure how to give these to the Party, short of an (obvious) "Random Encounter" with a Humanoid carrying these items.

The Logic of the Situation does not reduce the Feeling of Loss.

<Snip = Comments about self>

Close?

PC Weaknesses:

This is a sore subject with me.
If you choose to have a weakness, it should impact the PC at least 60% of the time.
Otherwise, what was the purpose for having it?

<Snip>

I agree with Quertus that the World should not target a PC's Abilities/weaknesses specifically.

An Adventure can target those, but should make sense, especially in hindsight.

Now, I like to work with my Players in making their Characters, and if they chose to have a weakness, I'll build that in along with their strengths.

Unless the PC starts out with a Villain (1); foes need to Figure Out what the PC's weakness is, usually from actions during the Encounter.

(1) I love making "Classic" Villains.
One where their Power is usually obvious;
Their weaknesses are telegraphed;
and their Monologue is cliched.

But, I have a whole Pyramid of Villains.
<More Comments>
But, as the PC gets Higher Level, the foes get both stronger and smarter.

Being Gaslighted is a possibility, see below.

When (most likely not If) you being recalled to be the DM happens, state that you will only do so if there are some compromises and solid agreements from them. Make sure they know, and agree, to the things you've chosen to do as the DM.

If they just want easy Murder-Hobo-ing games, then I'd seriously recommend just sticking to Modules and doing Dungeon Crawls with Obvious Goals.

> Save your Beloved World for those Players that show interest in it. <

Focus your Encounters around the Boss/BBEG, where Minions are just (mostly) Fodder. Drop Random Encounters, unless the Party stays in one place in the Dungeon for too long. (Taking a Short Rest has a risk, and things will change over a Long Rest - and/or leaving the Dungeon/Encounter Area)

SPOILER=Patience
>Some comments about what I did to find new people to play with.<

Relax, and don't rush. Try another DM's game for a month before judgement.

Perhaps be more involved (with the Player/s) in Character Creation, and show the Players how they fit into the World, and ways they can affect it. (IMX especially useful for New Players)

Was any of these Ramblings useful?
Rejected for some reason? (Which parts?)
Found Acceptable? (In what way?)

**End**

To me: by planning the Encounters (Altered Dragon) into the XP and WBL expectations for the group, it doesn't seem that you're really running Sandbox games. (Especially with Goal Based Leveling)

Now, at least you're not making it that no matter where the PCs go, they are going to meet that Dragon! That's just indirect Railroading.

Ramblings

As a DM that runs a Living Sandbox World, I find that I need to put more clues about what is where in the Area the PCs are in. However, I do tell the Players that they need to have their Characters seek that information out.

"You tell me what you're PC/s are doing, I'll tell you what happened because of that."

But, I also keep in mind both PC Level and Player Experience.

For example: I love running Undermountain (changes based on rantings)

But, if I have Experienced Players with 1st level PCs, I'll run Dragon Heist instead.

But, if I have New-to-the-Game Players, I'll start with something even more simple: I like Lost Mine of Phandelver (now also have Dragon of Icespire Peak for more to find/do) to get them Experienced enough as Players that they feel they can handle a (sorta) Deadly Dungeon.

But, I allow enough leeway that they can decide to go to a completely different area: like the Dalelands (or wherever).

New

As a GM, whenever it is against the players, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE!

I disagree, actually. To me, the majority of RPGs the goal is for everyone to have Fun.

For those that love math, maybe a 55-60% chance for PCs to "win" most of the time. But, I really do believe that Rewards should come with Risks.
Ideally, most everything should be a 50/50 chance (secretly adjusted for Party Level), with the Dice being used to make the outcome more mysterious.

Winning or losing (on either side of the Screen) shouldn't really matter too much.

DMs should love when their Players come up with unexpected methods for dealing with an Encounter.

Player's should expect that the DM will deliberately put in Challenges that target their PC/s, that's why they are the Focus of the Story, and also why their PC is part of a Team.

Sure, maybe George's PC can't overcome the Challenge, but Ralph's PC can - or the entire Team working together makes that Challenge easy.

*****

@Everyone: Anyway, I was mostly just hoping to engage with you in (delayed) conversation.
Starting with Talakeal, since this is your Thread. I would love to see anyone in one of my Threads.

[Pelle]

Yeah, misunderstandings happen. The frustration is that they accuse me of doing it intentionally. But then they also accused me of ignoring the wall later in the session.

Yeah, that sucks, and is an attitude problem of the players. They are not handling the misunderstanding in good faith. Even so, there are extra steps you can take to reduce the chance of it happening in the first place.

At this point, it comes across as unfair to the DM; the players basically want to have their cake and eat it to.

They want to play an old school, combat as war, take every advantage you can grab style where they can break WBL by stripping dungeon dressing, but at the same time except the DM to give them plenty of hints to spare their feelings and avoid wasting their time. That just feels greedy to me.

Likewise, you seem to be implying that the monsters should also telegraph their tactics to the players as well as their abilities. This is just plain unfair to the DM. The players have far more versatility than any monster ever, and they would never dream of telling me what tactics they plan to use; indeed they won't even talk to each other for fear that I might overhear them (which leads to a lot of their problems). As a DM I am already struggling to play catchup on a tactical level, this just goes a bit too far.

Bolded, maybe the players get the sense that you are out to get them from your adversial attitude of DM vs. players? DMs shouldn't be trying to win over the players, so players getting an unfair advantage over the DM is meaningless. Some players like to be challenged yes, but then the DM's goal isn't even then to win over the players, it is only to challenge them according to the difficulty level they prefer. Your players like low difficulty, but that doesn't change the DM goal which is challenging them appropriately.

Of course the players wants to have their cake and eat it too, that's not unfair to the DM. The players simply have playstyle preferences and express those to you. They may be somewhat mutual exclusive which makes it difficult to accomodate though. If the players like having lots of information for them to be able to enjoy the game, give them lots of information if you want them to enjoy the game. If the players like shooting wolves from a helicopter for them to enjoy the game, let them do that if you want them to enjoy the game. It's that simple.

If you mean that it is unfair to the DM because the players expect too much from the DM and requires the DM to do unreasonable much work to make them happy, then fair enough. If running the sort of game that the players will enjoy doesn't sound fun to you, that's up for you to decide on if it's worth it. If the players aren't willing to compromise on their fun to let you run a game closer to your preference, take that into consideration.

Ok, so let's workshop something:
[...]
Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude? And the deeper question, is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?

That description should IMO be enough to make the players expect that the dragon does not have a fire breath. And if Bob starts to polymorphing into a fire elemental, ask him what his intention is with that. If the answer is to get fire immunity from the fire breath, ask him if he really thinks the dragon has that based on the description you gave. If the answer is yes, warn him that it may very likely not have, and let him reconsider his decision.

And no, even if you do telegraph it properly so that Bob knows what to expect from the encounter, you will not be able to convince him that you didn't choose and design the encounter just to spite him and neuter his favorite tactic. Because he can't know your real intention of it (since he's not you), and even if you say otherwise he don't trust you.

[patchyman]

Ok, so let's workshop something:

I have encounter coming up with a dragon that is infected with ghoul fever and in the process of becoming undead. It is significantly weaker than a standard dragon, and instead of breathing fire it is going to vomit up a deluge of diseased slime.

I am planning on describing the dragon as looking sickly, with discolored scales, unhealed wounds, milky eyes that show no hint of intelligence, and foul sludge dripping from its mouth.

Now, this would seem to be all well and good for a standard party I think, but I just know Bob is going to use his favorite trick of polymoprhing into a fire elemental before the fight, which means that the slimey breath weapon, which is far weaker than the dragon's normal fire, is going to bypass his immunity for flames, and I just know he is going to assume I put it in just to "get him".

Any ideas how I can telegraph this subtly and without breaking verisimilitude? And the deeper question, is there any way I can convince Bob that I didn't change the dragon's breath weapon just to screw him immediately before doing whatever I do to telegraph it?

Change the dragon to a black dragon that would normally breathe acid? That way Bob has no expectation that his fire elemental will be immune to it.

[zinycor]

Change the dragon to a black dragon that would normally breathe acid? That way Bob has no expectation that his fire elemental will be immune to it.

Good fix there

[kyoryu]

I mean, historically, when they wanted to have dragons breathe different things they made them different colors.

It’s not like telegraphing these things is a new idea.