DM problem - low level PC killing people they shouldn't be able to ...

269 posts / 0 new
Last post
OMG THEY KILLED BORK! His older brother Gork will have his revenge!



So dat's wut 'appened to Bork! 'e wasn't proppa and orky enuff to be one uv da godz like Gork 'n' Mork!

WAAAGH!

Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />If I could not tell the difference at all, why should it make a difference to me as a diner (or a player)? That's why I eat meat, not quorn. When they make a meat-replacement substance that actually tastes like meat I will happily switch and wouldn't care which was served to me.



What difference? You paid for it.

Unless you like paying lobster-prices for chicken dinners.



But if (to my taste buds) that was a lobster, what does it matter that it wasn't?

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The precise opposite, if a thing looks like a thing and smells like a thing and taste like a thing, it doesn't matter that it isn't actual that thing.

So dat's wut 'appened to Bork! 'e wasn't proppa and orky enuff to be one uv da godz like Gork 'n' Mork!

WAAAGH!




Glad someone got the referrence, I couldn't think of other suitably orky names.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />But if (to my taste buds) that was a lobster, what does it matter that it wasn't?

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The precise opposite, if a thing looks like a thing and smells like a thing and taste like a thing, it doesn't matter that it isn't actual that thing.



Yes. Yes it does. Why would the PRECISE OPPOSITE of a true statement (like your rose statement) be true? That makes no sense.

So dat's wut 'appened to Bork! 'e wasn't proppa and orky enuff to be one uv da godz like Gork 'n' Mork!

WAAAGH!




Glad someone got the referrence, I couldn't think of other suitably orky names.


DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

My argument was poorly formatted there, but you didn't rebut it.

If you what you are served tastes like lobster and smells like lobster and cost the same amount a lobster, how are you any worse off than being served a lobster dinner? 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
My english is hard enough normally but when you make examples that have nothing to do about D&D (?lobsters?)  it is even harder. It also makes you look foolish and take away from discussion. If you have example, can it be about D&D?

Also, to Condor:  No, the DM does not have all the control. The players have all the control. The DM is also a player. He get a little more say but only by the consent of the players. Equals.
When you are talking about broad concepts (in this case, the illusion of choice) that effect DnD, sometimes there are easier examples to use than actual DnD ones. It's not my fault that English is not your first language, for most people who frequent these forum it is, and they would understand the discussion at hand. 

If you want to discredit my argument go ahead, but don't attack me as a person. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
My argument was poorly formatted there, but you didn't rebut it.

If you what you are served tastes like lobster and smells like lobster and cost the same amount a lobster, how are you any worse off than being served a lobster dinner? 



I'm allergic to non-lobster. You've killed me.

In reality, however, consider from the other side how much of a d-bag that chef must be to offer someone lobster, CHARGE them for lobster, then serve them lobster-flavored chicken.

Then realize in this situation, the d-bag chef is the DM.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

When you are talking about broad concepts (in this case, the illusion of choice) that effect DnD, sometimes there are easier examples to use than actual DnD ones. It's not my fault that English is not your first language, for most people who frequent these forum it is, and they would understand the discussion at hand. 

If you want to discredit my argument go ahead, but don't attack me as a person. 



Agreed.

I am following the example just fine.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Yes, sorry, the word I mean was Silly, not Foolish. Is the same word for me. I think it is still possible that examples of D&D are better in D&D discussions, no? Becuase if you use other examples, the discussion becomes about those examples and not really about D&D for pages and pages...

Anyway, the thing about illusion of choice is this: DMs are not as smart as they believe they are. You can not succeed at it forever and if players see my choices are not real, you can lose respect. It is not worth it when you can just play the game honestly. More easy that way anyway.
Condor, a DM is still playing a game when he is DM. A game with equals. Other people. They share power or should anyway.
I would rather control when the players meet an encounter. If they keep picking the right routes they will never run into that goblin patrol and you will have wasted your time designing the encounter (which especially online, takes quite some time).

But sure, if you really wanted to give them a choice, you could have the fight take place on a different map for each pass. Seems kinda pointless, as the players wouldn't recognise the different, they only see what is put in front of them, not what is in your head.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
I would rather control when the players meet an encounter. If they keep picking the right routes they will never run into that goblin patrol and you will have wasted your time designing the encounter (which especially online, takes quite some time).

But sure, if you really wanted to give them a choice, you could have the fight take place on a different map for each pass. Seems kinda pointless, as the players wouldn't recognise the different, they only see what is put in front of them, not what is in your head.



If your world only contains goblin patrols, it probably wasn't much of a world to begin with so they weren't missing much no?

And the players WILL notice the difference when the world invariably starts to fold in on itself because of all the magician-switches going on.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

The real illusion in D&D is the lie a DM tells himself that he is in complete control. Those people sitting across from the DM are people. They will make choices. You can lie to them or be honest. You can try to control them and hope for a good game or ask them for their help in making a good game. What is easier? Have some trust that they want to make the game fun too.
I would rather control when the players meet an encounter. If they keep picking the right routes they will never run into that goblin patrol and you will have wasted your time designing the encounter (which especially online, takes quite some time).

I hear you. But a DM is not well served by assuming that anything they create will ever see action in their game, even if they tightly control the effects of the PCs' choices. This is why I now go the collaborative route as much as possible, trying to set up encounters more or less on the fly, based on direct or indirect player input. Yes, that's very hard to do online, unless you can get away without using a map, but it's rewarding when one knows that the players are in an encounter they really want to be in.

But sure, if you really wanted to give them a choice, you could have the fight take place on a different map for each pass. Seems kinda pointless, as the players wouldn't recognise the different, they only see what is put in front of them, not what is in your head.

And the goblins turn out to be kobolds, or skeletons, or whatever else. I heard of a DM whose players in 3.5 had encountered nothing but orcs for several levels, but thought they'd been facing humans, ghouls, demons or whatever else the DM needed those orcs to be.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I hear you. But a DM is not well served by assuming that anything they create will ever see action in their game, even if they tightly control the effects of the PCs' choices. This is why I now go the collaborative route as much as possible, trying to set up encounters more or less on the fly, based on direct or indirect player input. Yes, that's very hard to do online, unless you can get away without using a map, but it's rewarding when one knows that the players are in an encounter they really want to be in.



I only play 4e, which is pretty much impossible to play without a map (and I have never seen anyone try).

If your world only contains goblin patrols, it probably wasn't much of a world to begin with so they weren't missing much no?

And the players WILL notice the difference when the world invariably starts to fold in on itself because of all the magician-switches going on.



It doesn't just contain goblin controls, it just happens to be the next thing they will encounter, whichever they turn. It is much easier to plan an adventure as a timeline rather than as a world map. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
I only play 4e, which is pretty much impossible to play without a map (and I have never seen anyone try).

It's impossible to do and convey everything precisely, but it's not always necessary to be precise. I'm happy to discuss this, but probably not in this thread.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I only play 4e, which is pretty much impossible to play without a map (and I have never seen anyone try).

It's impossible to do and convey everything precisely, but it's not always necessary to be precise. I'm happy to discuss this, but probably not in this thread.



Centauri, I'd be interested in that discussion. It's something I've wanted to try with 4E, and would love to share ideas and see how others have handled the situation.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />It doesn't just contain goblin controls, it just happens to be the next thing they will encounter, whichever they turn. It is much easier to plan an adventure as a timeline rather than as a world map. 



So why not sit down at teh table and tell the players "Okay this is what you do now. Roll to fight. Okay then this happens"

Why all the pomp and circumstance and obfuscation? Stop lying to the players and let them know they're in a combat simulator and a novel?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Yes, Yagamifire, exactly!
DnD is a combat game at heart? At least for me (and the people I play with) - the combats are the event and you need some sort of reason for getting between them.

Combat simulator + novel is a pretty good sum up of what DnD is (yes I know you were trying to be derogatory).
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
DMs have full control even if that makes players mad... Boohoo, Boohoo...."






It's obvious you and I have very different views of what a DM is and how they should behave at the table. I'm okay with that, so long as you aren't attempting to tell people that there is only ONE way to DM a game.

Basically I gave a suggestion that you considered hard to do for most DMs but also a DM being lazy. I don't appreciate you placing a value judgement on my DM style just because yours is different.

I also do not have full control over the game, nor do I want it. It's not my job to tell my players what to do and where to go. It's my job to offer them a world that is rich in history and is loaded with cool things to do, but if they choose to raise a flock of sheep and go into the wool industry then I'm going to respect that and the game will adjust accordingly.

The idea that the game 'belongs' to the DM is, in my opinion, extremely outdated and is not a game I would ever want to play in. At my table we are collective story tellers with each player and DM bringing an equal weight to the story. It just so happens I've read farther in advance so I have a sense of some overarching themems and ideas that could exist should the players choose to engage in them.


what would be a good way to discourage these player from attacking people and things they has no business in doing so

You may not be able to, but I've found one of the best ways is by wanting them to attack things they have no business attacking.

"Yes, you certainly may attack the paragon level villian. I see no problem with your plan."
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />If I could not tell the difference at all, why should it make a difference to me as a diner (or a player)? That's why I eat meat, not quorn. When they make a meat-replacement substance that actually tastes like meat I will happily switch and wouldn't care which was served to me.



What difference? You paid for it.

Unless you like paying lobster-prices for chicken dinners.



But if (to my taste buds) that was a lobster, what does it matter that it wasn't?

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The precise opposite, if a thing looks like a thing and smells like a thing and taste like a thing, it doesn't matter that it isn't actual that thing.



Go watch The Matrix. Or go play Dragon Age, and pay specific attention to what the desire demon did to the Templar's mind, about how she "gave him a family." The cruellist, most vile, disgusting lies, are the prettiest ones.

In the words of Nietzsche, "We can forgive any crime save for the destruction of our illusions."

Saying a rose by any other name smells as sweet means however people decide to codify or categorize an experience, the experience itself exists apart and above from that. Similarly, it doesn't matter what people call me, how they see me, that doesn't change my nature. This idea actually makes for some of the best love stories out there.

Lost love re-united after having been separated by time, worlds, dimensions, and identities. The Eternal Champion and the Eternal Companion will always find each other because of who they are. The quote that you're using is the anti-thesis of the idea that you're trying to defend. if the steak isn't real, the steak isn't real. The lie might be more comfortable, but it is nevertheless a lie.

DMs have full control even if that makes players mad... Boohoo, Boohoo...."



One thing the DM doesn't control is the PCs.

I would say the one with the most control over a game, is which player is hosting it at their home.
Zaramon, I have your new avatar:

IMAGE(http://i47.tinypic.com/6ss16p.jpg)

Tongue Out 
Hehe, good choice.

I actually got yelled at by one of my classmates yesterday for quoting him, because I would quote him at least once per class period. It's true, Nietzsche is one of my favorites, but I'm also a fan of Jung and Campbell. Big fan of Campbell.

My Reply: 90+% of DMs cannot improv that easily, your asking a new DM to do this which is simply a bad idea. Your lack of understanding the DM role shows here, I get your just giving advice with good intent behind it but it is bad advice(the guy that followed your post with the "+1" also shows his lack of understanding).



Honestly the best DMs I've come across can improv well.  I would go so far as to say that it is one of the invaluable tools in a Dm's toolbox.  The problem is, it isn't easy.  It is hard to learn to be good at improv.  To take up the story from where you had planned it and forge ahead almost-blindly using your wits to keep things going.  Some people will have a talent for it, some won't, but I think it is an important skill for a DM to have.  It is also not something I would put behind a barrier of "you must play for 2 years before trying" for new DMs.

Part of the big one here is communication.  Ask your players after each session how they think the game went, where they think stories are going and what they did/didn't like.  Keeping the lines open can help you steer things the way that might be fun for them.  Your players probably know you don't DM much or haven't done it much before.  If you flub something up just go "yeah... sorry about that I was trying to improv a little there and that did not go the way I was hoping it would."  Its a skill that has to be experienced, so don't feel worried about messing up. Hell, some of the most fun things I've experienced in running longer campaigns was trying to justify some of the earlier improv.

 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
First, Sorry for the double post I didn't noticed this thread had grown an extra head (page).


..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />It doesn't just contain goblin controls, it just happens to be the next thing they will encounter, whichever they turn. It is much easier to plan an adventure as a timeline rather than as a world map. 



So why not sit down at teh table and tell the players "Okay this is what you do now. Roll to fight. Okay then this happens"

Why all the pomp and circumstance and obfuscation? Stop lying to the players and let them know they're in a combat simulator and a novel?


Yes, Yagamifire, exactly!



The issue here is about there being no noticeable difference.  The reason you don't sit down and tell them what they do is that there is a noticeable difference.

The whole argument behind ichoice is to make some things easier on the DM.  Should all things in the game be Ichoice?  No.  That would make a tree of decisions completely unmanagable to plan, and would also be boring for the DM.  Should certain things be Ichoice?  I think so personally.  How much depends on the individual group and the individual DM.  Even moments where you go "ah, this would be an excellent time for them to encounter THIS enemy" has certain elements in common with Ichoice.  Did you make that enemy/encounter completely custom based on only character choices?  Probably not, as that is a very large strain on the players to provide everything and the DM to mix it up and give it back.  What we end up doing is something in the middle of the two extremes.  

It isn't all Ichoice, but every game I've ever played, if I pressed the DM hard enough has had elements of Ichoice.  Modules, while not always the best example, are an ok example to use here.  If you take a look at a lot of the LFR modules (especially the newer ones) you can find good examples of Ichoice.  Instances where they set it up "If the players go route A, put in this description and go to Encounter 2.  If players go route B, put in this other description and go to Encounter 2."

The idea behind all of those different descriptive things is that the player who doesn't read the module, or doesn't play through the encounter twice, does not know the difference.  Their choice still feels meaningful to them.  For the DM it also drastically reduces the amount of material they have to make (or in the cases of the module print out and read).

So to recap, smart use of Ichoice can give your players an identical experience to use of choice and can cut down your prep-time for your game if you are into prep-heavy games.

what would be a good way to discourage these player from attacking people and things they has no business in doing so

You may not be able to, but I've found one of the best ways is by wanting them to attack things they have no business attacking.

"Yes, you certainly may attack the paragon level villian. I see no problem with your plan."



This works, but at some point you may actually have to let them see what happens when the mouse continues to annoy the lion.  The lion stomps the mouse.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here


"Yes, you certainly may attack the paragon level villian. I see no problem with your plan."

This works, but at some point you may actually have to let them see what happens when the mouse continues to annoy the lion.  The lion stomps the mouse.




I might encourage throwing some sort of deus ex into the system before this occurs so if you need to wave the magic DM wand, you have a wand to wave. Maybe the players have an insta-teleport handy, or they have a powerful scion who comes to their rescue and allows them to escape.


"Yes, you certainly may attack the paragon level villian. I see no problem with your plan."

This works, but at some point you may actually have to let them see what happens when the mouse continues to annoy the lion.  The lion stomps the mouse.




I might encourage throwing some sort of deus ex into the system before this occurs so if you need to wave the magic DM wand, you have a wand to wave. Maybe the players have an insta-teleport handy, or they have a powerful scion who comes to their rescue and allows them to escape.



Depends on how well your players will deal with challenges / dying.  I've had a player crumple up his page and stomp out of the room in anger when he died, and I've had a whole group go "wow, that was awesome" at a TPK.

Now, this is me taking a leap here, I assume most DMs are running games for people that want to play more than just 1 part of 1 campaign.  When I know my players will likely be around for the long haul I know that I can make good on any threats my NPCs make.  My players, sometimes, have to learn or be reminded of this.  As much of the story centers around them they are often riding high on a bubble of self-importance that I sometimes have to ground.

I've TPKed groups before for doing something they knew was a terrrible plan but thought I would hand-wave their way past it.  I don't want to bend the story to them purposefully acting dumb.  I've used a Dues-ex-Machina to save a party from almost certain TPK when the party has fallen into a trap / had bad rolls / not intentionally stepped on a land-mine.

I had a game, a year or so back, end for many reasons but one of them was that one of the PCs didn't feel empowered enough in my world for his liking.  He gave me the following scenario:

In one of the other DnD games he played they started at level 1 and they were on the outskirts of a village that got attacked by an adult red wyrm who was quite blatantly out of their league.  They charged into the village and confronted the wyrm, against the DM's urging that it might not be the best plan for their continued existance.  The player then challenged the dragon and charged him, sword held high.  The Dragon knocked him on his rump and said something along the lines of "I value your courage insect, here is a scar to remember you were outmatched" and flies off.

The player's view was that, if I was the DM in that game, rather than make up that part of the story I would have just killed him.  And he was... exactly correct.  If you intentionally bite off more than you can chew in my games, you become the chewed.  Now I'm not saying my approach is what everyone or even most people should take, but it is a perfectly valid problem.  I understand where he was coming from (he wants this to be an epic tale about him), but that wasn't how I wanted to run my game.  If you are going to put the threat of death in there, even tongue-in-cheek like saying "have fun with that paragon level villian" you need to be able to let yourself kill your PCs.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
I am never straight up against death in a game. If you want to PM me I'll explain the current campaign I am playing in and how devastatingly we run things. My suggestion was simply for the "we don't want these awesome characters we are really attatched to bite the big one."

You may also have that one player who is willing to bite it, so that the rest of his group can escape in which case it's nice to give the group the ability to actually get away.
If you have a DM who makes story it is hard to do improvisation. So don't have a story. Have situations or locations. That is all. Throw the story out. Story is artifact of play. It is the thing you create together by playing situations and locations. No more story!
If you have a DM who makes story it is hard to do improvisation. So don't have a story. Have situations or locations. That is all. Throw the story out. Story is artifact of play. It is the thing you create together by playing situations and locations. No more story!



Well having encounters to use in that story and not have to take a ton of time setting them up and balancing them can be nice as well.  Especially for new DMs who might not be able to make up an encounter completely on the fly.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
No. DM does not make the story. He makes location or situation and this can include having encounters ready for this location or situation. When you play the adventure in the location or the situation, the story is created together during play. Story is the thing that comes from playing. It is not prepare ahead of time. When you are finished with playing adventure, you look behind you and see the story the group made. You are not playing a story that the DM create in advance!

If DM is making the story, he is making a mistake and then has to do stupidity like illusion of choice. If DM only prepare the location or situation, there is no illusion of choice because it is not needed! This is good thing. It is easier on DM and players. DM doesnt prep as much and doesn't have to lie to his players. Players make real choices.
No. DM does not make the story. He makes location or situation and this can include having encounters ready for this location or situation. When you play the adventure in the location or the situation, the story is created together during play. Story is the thing that comes from playing. It is not prepare ahead of time. When you are finished with playing adventure, you look behind you and see the story the group made. You are not playing a story that the DM create in advance!

If DM is making the story, he is making a mistake and then has to do stupidity like illusion of choice. If DM only prepare the location or situation, there is no illusion of choice because it is not needed! This is good thing. It is easier on DM and players. DM doesnt prep as much and doesn't have to lie to his players. Players make real choices.



Ichoice is the method to get them to the situations and encounters the DM created.  Somehow you are saying Ichoice is lying to the players, it isn't.  Its just a method of storytelling.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
There is left door and right door. Expectation of players is the doors lead to different things. DM make them lead to same place. This is lying. DM makes their choice not real. D&D is game about real choices or go play video game. There is no reason to have two doors in this exemple. It is illusion, a lie. This is simple exemple of illusion of choice but there are many others like the orcs in this thread somebody suggested. It is stupid and unnecessary. It is about a DM who want to controle verything. Probably because he makes his precious story and don't want to waste all his prep. This is not a problem for DM who don't make up stories for players to follow.

DM don't need to lie to his players to make them go to the situations and encounter he create. He just asks honestly. THe players are there to have adventure. The DM don't need to trick them into doing it.
There is left door and right door. Expectation of players is the doors lead to different things. DM make them lead to same place. This is lying. DM makes their choice not real. D&D is game about real choices or go play video game. There is no reason to have two doors in this exemple. It is illusion, a lie. This is simple exemple of illusion of choice but there are many others like the orcs in this thread somebody suggested. It is stupid and unnecessary. It is about a DM who want to controle verything. Probably because he makes his precious story and don't want to waste all his prep. This is not a problem for DM who don't make up stories for players to follow.

DM don't need to lie to his players to make them go to the situations and encounter he create. He just asks honestly. THe players are there to have adventure. The DM don't need to trick them into doing it.



Can't say I disagree.

If there is a door that goes left and a door that goes right...why not just have ONE door that goes to that thing? The reason? The DM wants to make the illusion of choice.

If a DM can't be bothered to come up with something to put behind both doors...only make one door. Don't try to make it look like you're putting in more effort than you are.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

There is left door and right door. Expectation of players is the doors lead to different things. DM make them lead to same place. This is lying. DM makes their choice not real. D&D is game about real choices or go play video game. There is no reason to have two doors in this exemple. It is illusion, a lie. This is simple exemple of illusion of choice but there are many others like the orcs in this thread somebody suggested. It is stupid and unnecessary. It is about a DM who want to controle verything. Probably because he makes his precious story and don't want to waste all his prep. This is not a problem for DM who don't make up stories for players to follow.

DM don't need to lie to his players to make them go to the situations and encounter he create. He just asks honestly. THe players are there to have adventure. The DM don't need to trick them into doing it.



Nonsense, the dungeon fire code requires at least two exits per room.
Yes, is true! But the DM makes a story and so both exits go back into the fire. Because the fire is the story he prepared and so you have no choice. Sorry!
Ok then let me ask you this Yokel ... with your suggestion how do you move PC from point A to point B without some under lying story behind it all?

I have my game starting in about a hour ... so I will update this afterwards. But I do have a lot of input which I thank you all for. And some ideas on what to do.
They move themselves. It is their choice. The DM makes situations and locations. The story comes from playing together. Not from the DM creating it.