Community

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:30PM, Noctaem wrote:

So railroading is ok since the DM wanted a specific event to occur for no other reason than to create a complication for the group.  Iserith earlier in the thread stated that he would prefer to have whatever he had planned simply occur and have the players only be able to react to his decisions rather than allowing things to develop towards his goal naturally.  IE playing out the events organically instead of forcing a specific outcome that the players can then only react to after the fact.  An example of this is this would be when iserith explained the Q&A portion by saying that I could have Snag jump in front of the grab, or have Puff do the same so that the Captain's daughter wouldn't end up being next to the monster.  The problem I have with that is that it doesn't address the issue, which is that the DM is forcing for that whole situation element to occur in the first place.

Could we remove the word "railroading" from the discussion? It's a loaded term and I don't think it applies here. You have total power to adjust the situation in this style just as if we played it out "organically." That there was going to be a fight was already determined at the end of the last session. As I had imagined it, I'm simply starting the session with that fight in progress. What happened exactly between the start of the fight (the tactical portion) and the end of last session would be discussed in Q&A before the first die is cast. The "outcome" is that there's a fight. We already know that is the outcome of events that came before, so I see no real reason to play it out in "real time." Let's start from the premise that the fight has already started, discuss collaboratively what came just before that moment (which could easily have included stashing Hansa), and then when we're all happy with how things are set, off we go with the battle.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:30PM, Noctaem wrote:

This also brings up the question of why forcing this situation upon the players is even needed in the first place.  This didn't mesh with my views of what a LIM was.  So I asked iserith about it.  I had no interest in changing his plans, my questions were not objections so much as trying to understand decisions that he was making that I, as a DM, would not choose.  I also never said it wouldn't be fun for me, I am more open minded than that.

It sounds like an objection to me and from our previous discussions sounded like you found the premise unfun. If that's not true, I chalk that up to in the imprecision of text discussions and will take your word for it. I'm still changing the opening premise, which of course, you can choose to change to something else as I've said. The point is that it's a collaboration and we can all work together to make it cool for everyone.

In fact, I'd call this a pretty good test of the style itself. It's flexible enough to be changed at will, even during play, to accomodate what everyone agrees is cool. 

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Centauri wrote:

That's the whole question of this thread: When is it ok for the DM to create a complication for the group? If what iserith did was railroading, then apparently railroading is acceptable in certain cases, even if it raises questions about playstyle. If railroading is never acceptable, then how can the DM ever hope to introduce complications, without exploiting character weak spots and prompting an arms race, push back (in other situations), or both?

This is why I think the word "railroading" is not the right term to use when describing this issue. What we're talking about is a thing, but I don't think it's that thing. I don't have a word for it if someone wants to identify it or make up a term. "Railroading," I think, as a word actually gets in the way of us understanding this interaction.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 3:14PM, iserith wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Centauri wrote:

That's the whole question of this thread: When is it ok for the DM to create a complication for the group? If what iserith did was railroading, then apparently railroading is acceptable in certain cases, even if it raises questions about playstyle. If railroading is never acceptable, then how can the DM ever hope to introduce complications, without exploiting character weak spots and prompting an arms race, push back (in other situations), or both?

This is why I think the word "railroading" is not the right term to use when describing this issue. What we're talking about is a thing, but I don't think it's that thing. I don't have a word for it if someone wants to identify it or make up a term. "Railroading," I think, as a word actually gets in the way of us understanding this interaction.

Lightningrailing!

well it wasn't an objection.  I was trying to understand why, from one DM to another, you would go with this kind of decision and direction.  I was not trying to change your decision or direction.  I was trying to see if this was how LIM worked or if it was a personal choice that you were making to move things that way.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 3:19PM, Noctaem wrote:

well it wasn't an objection.  I was trying to understand why, from one DM to another, you would go with this kind of decision and direction.  I was not trying to change your decision or direction.  I was trying to see if this was how LIM worked or if it was a personal choice that you were making to move things that way.

This particular case aside, can you see any kind of general need for a DM to create tough situations for a character or party, situations that might be very cool for all concerned but would be very unlikely to arise from a straightforward usage of the rules? If so, what do you think it is a way of bringing about such situations with a minimum of stress on the player-DM relationship? I feel like it's pretty clear that it could only work with upfront discussion.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 3:19PM, Noctaem wrote:

well it wasn't an objection.  I was trying to understand why, from one DM to another, you would go with this kind of decision and direction.  I was not trying to change your decision or direction.  I was trying to see if this was how LIM worked or if it was a personal choice that you were making to move things that way.

Okay, I appreciate you clearing that up.

As for "LIM or not," this is a continuing problem in discussions on these forums. Everyone seems to assume if something comes out of my mouth, that it's "LIM." (I blame myself for this.)

I do have my own playstyle and it does include using location-in-motion design which is a specific, finite thing that governs the interplay between Campaign Fronts, Adventure Fronts, and Dangers that are in play. It's a single tool I have in my toolbox. Where it might get a little fuzzy in this one example right here is that location-in-motion design does work better if you start each session with some kind of tension, something that needs an answer, right now. Once the DM has set that scene and the Q&A is done, the emerging story produced by the LIM design takes over with input from the players and DM along the way.

Now, where that spills over into my personal style as opposed to that one LIM tool, is that I think it's a mistake to play out a scene to which we already know the ending. Our current scene is one in which you guys have negotiated a deal with Burrp. It ends with a fight kicking off. The next scene is the fight itself. So if I'm going to start with the most amount of tension/action (IMO), that would be the start of the next scene where the fight is raging. However, we're "missing" some fiction between that starting point and the end of the last session. That's where we come together and do some shared storytelling as a group to establish the details and what happened before the fight breaks out. We know the fight's going to break out. My preferred playstyle would not be to roleplay toward a known outcome, but rather simply discuss it, ask some interesting questions, and then jump into the action. All that fiction generation we did just before the fight is really useful - it's character development, inspiration for future scenes, and in-character thinking and interaction all rolled into one conversation. (I also think it's a creative warm-up exercise to get everyone's minds to open up and into the "Yes, and..." mindset. Because in this playstyle, it's not just the DM who says "Yes, and...", it's the players, too, both with the DM and with each other.)

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Centauri wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:30PM, Noctaem wrote:

So railroading is ok since the DM wanted a specific event to occur for no other reason than to create a complication for the group.

That's the whole question of this thread: When is it ok for the DM to create a complication for the group? If what iserith did was railroading, then apparently railroading is acceptable in certain cases, even if it raises questions about playstyle. If railroading is never acceptable, then how can the DM ever hope to introduce complications, without exploiting character weak spots and prompting an arms race, push back (in other situations), or both?

If railroading is never acceptable, you have to hope the dice or the players dumb ideas put them there.

i never railroad my players.  I can't think of a single example, i honestly can't.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:42PM, LunarSavage wrote:

If railroading is never acceptable, you have to hope the dice or the players dumb ideas put them there.

True. OR, a good idea to do a dumb thing or a willingness to be put in a dumb situation because it will be interesting to see what happens.

Also, if I haven't already introduced a complication already, then people probably aren't rolling dice anyway. Which leads us back to - when is it okay for the DM to put the characters in a bad spot? It's a weird thing.

(But then, I think the specific issue in question here was really how much the PCs could do about a complication before they had to react to its aftermath.)

I don't always do this, but one of my favorite things to do is set up many places where tough situations can rise up and mess with the players. Then sit back and see if they walk into it. But then again, I favor cautious gameplay as I feel that's what adventurers would have to do.

Sometimes they do find it, sometimes they don't. I think it'll be interesting to see if they find the brown mold in my next session...it'll be extremely funny if they try to put it out with a fire or try to warm up with a torch. xD 

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:42PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Centauri wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:30PM, Noctaem wrote:

So railroading is ok since the DM wanted a specific event to occur for no other reason than to create a complication for the group.

That's the whole question of this thread: When is it ok for the DM to create a complication for the group? If what iserith did was railroading, then apparently railroading is acceptable in certain cases, even if it raises questions about playstyle. If railroading is never acceptable, then how can the DM ever hope to introduce complications, without exploiting character weak spots and prompting an arms race, push back (in other situations), or both?

If railroading is never acceptable, you have to hope the dice or the players dumb ideas put them there.

How would this happen?  In the players' ideas put them in a situation, it's by definition not railroading.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Noctaem wrote:

i never railroad my players.  I can't think of a single example, i honestly can't.

Again, I think the term "railroad" is being misapplied here.

In light of my explaining how "roleplaying out" the events leading to an outcome that is already known (a fight is coming) in my style is replaced with simply discussing it, would you consider that a railroad?

(I don't think there is disagreement that a fight with the Wart Mother and the grippli is coming. In fact, you started that fight yourself with your pelvic cannon and rabid dog.)

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:55PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:42PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Centauri wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 2:30PM, Noctaem wrote:

So railroading is ok since the DM wanted a specific event to occur for no other reason than to create a complication for the group.

That's the whole question of this thread: When is it ok for the DM to create a complication for the group? If what iserith did was railroading, then apparently railroading is acceptable in certain cases, even if it raises questions about playstyle. If railroading is never acceptable, then how can the DM ever hope to introduce complications, without exploiting character weak spots and prompting an arms race, push back (in other situations), or both?

If railroading is never acceptable, you have to hope the dice or the players dumb ideas put them there.

How would this happen?  In the players' ideas put them in a situation, it's by definition not railroading.

That was the point of my statement. You can't put them in a situation by just putting it on them, as some deem that railroading (I can't say I agree with that). So, if the players do it by making bad decisions, then it's their fault and thus, not railroading. Or the dice could completely screw them over, with say a bad roll on a listen check that doesn't let them hear the troll coming...

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:57PM, iserith wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Noctaem wrote:

i never railroad my players.  I can't think of a single example, i honestly can't.

Again, I think the term "railroad" is being misapplied here.

In light of my explaining how "roleplaying out" the events leading to an outcome that is already known (a fight is coming) in my style is replaced with simply discussing it, would you consider that a railroad?

(I don't think there is disagreement that a fight with the Wart Mother and the grippli is coming. In fact, you started that fight yourself with your pelvic cannon and rabid dog.)

Right, we set that up. Railroading would be a straitjacketed plot the DM preplanned.

Sep 25, 2012 -- 12:02PM, iserith wrote:

When is the DM “allowed” to put player characters in a dangerous or complicated situation? Consider the following opening scene, framed by the DM:

DM: “Dangerous and complicated thing X happens.”
P1: “What about my ability that prevents X from happening?”
P2: “What about realism that says X wouldn’t happen?”
P3: “I’m not even there for X to happen to me.”

P4:  "How could they surround us?  I had Mordenkainen's Magical Watchdog cast.

It seems to me like this is a situation where trust is key.  If you have a killer DM and a bunch of munchkins, causing a you're going to wind up with an arms race and an argument, like the Ogre situation in that infamous video.  But if both the DM and players trust each other and are invested in the plot, then a little bit of flexibility and hand-waving both ways can be rewarded with exciting situations and all that jazz.

Of course, there has to be some give and take between the PCs and the DM and some sense of what is fair, and there has to be some trust going both ways.  In this situation, I'm sure a bit of repositioning and moving around on team PC would be fair, but giving team PC three or four rounds where they can gang up on the Oracle, beat him to a pulp, load up their treasure, and get on the boats before the Wart Mother even gets close would be kind of pushing it.  And would make the next session pretty damn boring.

Maybe the DM can throw down some shared storytelling and the players do some "yes, and...-ing"

In this specific situation, perhaps the Grippli hunters know a ritual that allows them to stealthily sneak up on unsuspecting prey?  After all, the only way they would be able to take down large enough prey to support the Wart Mother would be to sneak up en masse.  Or with a slight change to the encounter, perhaps the Wart Mother is doing an amphibious assault, and with everyone's attention focused on the Oracle, no one saw the three-eyed eyestalk making its way towards the shore as the little green hunters stealthily surrounded the site?  Not to mention that the Grippli have the home turf advantage, the little guys are pretty small and sneaky to begin with, and they would no doubt have been tracking the party since their last run-in.

(Incidentally, an amphibious assault would be a cool idea to leave your players in suspense.  "As you level your gun at the Oracle, you spot an eyestalk with three eyes poking out of the water, and sense some leaves ruffling in the forest.  Whatever creature that eyestalk belongs to, it's big.  See ya next week!")

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:59PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Right, we set that up. Railroading would be a straitjacketed plot the DM preplanned.

That's what I understand the term to mean and there's certainly no plot in this adventure and thus no railroading. There are groups doing their own thing and with their own motivations, but otherwise, your plan and how it's all worked out is stuff you guys have established. Hansa herself was created by you guys. This is why I think there is some other term that describes what we're talking about.

One time we accused a DM of railroading, and he found it hard to argue, since we were all riding on a train at the time.

I'm not sure how we set up a fight against the big boss other than the DM deciding that our actions led to that.  But sure ok.

Also, the daughter of the Pirate Burrp being taken has nothing to do with us starting a fight and everything to do with the DM forcefully trying to create an objective for us to complete during the fight, or a complication as iserith puts it.  He also stated there would be other complications.  In this case being for us to try and save her.  Railroading is forcing the characters into the prewritten story that the DM created (automatically having the daughter taken by the villain who suddenly appears on the map, as well as being surrounded by spawned mobs + having a portion of allied NPC's killed).  I would say that in this case, the railroading would be contained to this specific scene or encounter.  Though so far during the sessions it seems to me like the whole statement that "the dm does not have a plot" to be pretty thin, imo.  The DM so far has pushed us towards certain things.  Though iserith disputes that.  An example of this though is the meeting with flycatcher, which when Kittra ended up being cured, we had no reason to continue towards.  It's generally frowned upon, because it disrupts the free-will oriented nature of roleplaying.  The Q&A part might solve this, but chances are it won't because in the example of the beach encounter the monster is still already there, the party is still already surrounded, the NPC allies are still already dead, and the daughter or someone else will most likely have to be taken hostage.  iserith in answer to me asking what kind of answers we could give gave the example that Puff could jump in the way of the attack and be instead taken, or Snag could do the same, if I really didn't want to allow for the daughter to be taken.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

I'm not sure how we set up a fight against the big boss other than the DM deciding that our actions led to that.  But sure ok.

You shot the red grippli in the head.

so that means that the leader of all grippli suddenly shows up ?  No, that means the DM decided this would happen.  We had just come from the woods and yet there were more than a dozen little frog things all around us watching ?  But we didn't see them ?  There was also a large creature in the woods but again we didn't see it, hear it or notice anything ?  The point is, the DM decided this was what happened because I shot the red grippli.  We did not.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

  Though so far during the sessions it seems to me like the whole statement that "the dm does not have a plot" to be pretty thin, imo.  The DM so far has pushed us towards certain things.  Though iserith disputes that.  An example of this though is the meeting with flycatcher, which when Kittra ended up being cured, we had no reason to continue towards. 

I wanted to do that, remember?

At least I don't really recall being a DM sleeper agent. 

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Noctaem wrote:

so that means that the leader of all grippli suddenly shows up ?  No, that means the DM decided this would happen.  We had just come from the woods and yet there were more than a dozen little frog things all around us watching ?  But didn't see them ?  There was also a large creature in the woods but again we didn't see it, hear it or notice anything ?  The point is, the DM decided this was what happened because I shot the red grippli.  We did not.

Yep, you killed the trusted sage of a major power on the island. She's gonna be pissed.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:34PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

I'm not sure how we set up a fight against the big boss other than the DM deciding that our actions led to that.  But sure ok.

You shot the red grippli in the head.

Not to mention massacred a grippli hunting party a little while ago.  And were cavorting with one of their sworn enemies (Flycatcher) earlier.  And they already had a deal going with Burrp to track you down anyways and would have been hunting you.  And they seem very interested in the dragonborn dude.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:39PM, crimsyn wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:34PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

I'm not sure how we set up a fight against the big boss other than the DM deciding that our actions led to that.  But sure ok.

You shot the red grippli in the head.

Not to mention massacred a grippli hunting party a little while ago.  And were cavorting with one of their sworn enemies (Flycatcher) earlier.  And they already had a deal going with Burrp to track you down anyways.

Patently ridiculous for her to send someone after us.

I get you feel you need to defend your friend on the internetz.  but im not attacking him Corran, I'm stating my opinion on how my first experience with LIM is working.  Which was the entire point of participating in the first place.  iserith welcomed constructive criticism about LIM and wanted others to be able to better understand what it is and how it works.  If you're not open to the above, move along.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

Also, the daughter of the Pirate Burrp being taken has nothing to do with us starting a fight and everything to do with the DM forcefully trying to create an objective for us to complete during the fight, or a complication as iserith puts it.  He also stated there would be other complications.  In this case being for us to try and save her. 

Complications are fun.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

Railroading is forcing the characters into the prewritten story that the DM created (automatically having the daughter taken by the villain who suddenly appears on the map, as well as being surrounded by spawned mobs + having a portion of allied NPC's killed).  I would say that in this case, the railroading would be contained to this specific scene or encounter.

I don't think this is really railroading, it's just setting up an encounter.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

Though so far during the sessions it seems to me like the whole statement that "the dm does not have a plot" to be pretty thin, imo.  The DM so far has pushed us towards certain things.  Though iserith disputes that.

If you had seen how last session's adventure went, it's hard to argue that it does have a plot.  For example, where you guys talked to Flycatcher and are trying to leave with your friend Burrp...

Spoiler: Show

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

An example of this though is the meeting with flycatcher, which when Kittra ended up being cured, we had no reason to continue towards.

Okay, were I in Iserith's shoes, I probably wouldn't have let you cure people of the porwigles that easily, because the infestation is a good way to keep the pressure on the players and encourage them to explore the island.  It's good grim portents.  That said, flycatcher beckoned you and someone in the party answered the call.  While Flycatcher couldn't have offered a cure because you were already cured, you at least did get some information about the treasure you seek from him, so it wasn't a total waste of time.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

I'm not sure how we set up a fight against the big boss other than the DM deciding that our actions led to that.  But sure ok.

That's a great question for Q&A: "How is it we totally missed these grippli and the Wart Mother when approaching the bullywug camp?" There must be some kind of explanation. What is it? This seeming contradiction is not something to be questioned as implausible or unreal (in a fantasy world). It's something to be explained by shared storytelling. In doing so, you're creating fiction together as a group. That's the "Yes, and..." fiction generation engine at work. We're building off each other.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

Also, the daughter of the Pirate Burrp being taken has nothing to do with us starting a fight and everything to do with the DM forcefully trying to create an objective for us to complete during the fight, or a complication as iserith puts it.  He also stated there would be other complications.  In this case being for us to try and save her.

How you deal with the complication makes for good drama. If you don't find that particular drama interesting and want to stash her somewhere so you can focus the scene somewhere else, then you just do that during the Q&A. The style allows for that "correction."

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

Railroading is forcing the characters into the prewritten story that the DM created (automatically having the daughter taken by the villain who suddenly appears on the map, as well as being surrounded by spawned mobs + having a portion of allied NPC's killed).  I would say that in this case, the railroading would be contained to this specific scene or encounter.

There is no story, so there is no railroading. I created a complication from established fiction. This is not railroading. It's simply suggesting a fun situation for the scene so we can play to find out what happens. Where established fiction is missing, we fill that in with Q&A. Or change the situation. Whatever you like.

As to the predetermined plot issue, I think anyone who played in the previous game and who has listened to yours would dispute that point fiercely. I do choose what creatures and complications to put in front of you. What story that then becomes is unknown to anyone, even me.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

Though so far during the sessions it seems to me like the whole statement that "the dm does not have a plot" to be pretty thin, imo.  The DM so far has pushed us towards certain things.  Though iserith disputes that.  An example of this though is the meeting with flycatcher, which when Kittra ended up being cured, we had no reason to continue towards.

As I explained in a chat with you, I did not want to continue with the Flycatcher thread. There was no good reason to based on the fiction up to that point. I thought that at the time and I think that now. Dargan insisted, so I split the party (after I repeatedly asked if you guys were okay with that) and let him go rather than say "No, you don't need to go to Flycatcher now." That I didn't ask him more questions to establish exactly why he wanted to go to Flycatcher was a mistake on my part. That has little to do with the style, but rather a bad call on my part. This should have been handled in another way.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Noctaem wrote:

It's generally frowned upon, because it disrupts the free-will oriented nature of roleplaying.  The Q&A part might solve this, but chances are it won't because in the example of the beach encounter the monster is still already there, the party is still already surrounded, the NPC allies are still already dead, and the daughter or someone else will most likely have to be taken hostage.  iserith in answer to me asking what kind of answers we could give gave the example that Puff could jump in the way of the attack and be instead taken, or Snag could do the same, if I really didn't want to allow for the daughter to be taken.

None of that is written in stone.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Noctaem wrote:

so that means that the leader of all grippli suddenly shows up ?  No, that means the DM decided this would happen.  We had just come from the woods and yet there were more than a dozen little frog things all around us watching ?  But we didn't see them ?  There was also a large creature in the woods but again we didn't see it, hear it or notice anything ?  The point is, the DM decided this was what happened because I shot the red grippli.  We did not.

Those are all great questions (the bolded ones above) for Q&A. Would you have preferred the outcome that you shot the Oracle of Ribbit and then hopped on the ship and sailed to Aruba? Or, before you go, would you like to have an epic fight on the beach with your hard-won and untrustworthy bullywug allies while trying to keep Hansa safe?

I'll play it either way. Or another way. It's up to you.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:22PM, crimsyn wrote:

P4:  "How could they surround us?  I had Mordenkainen's Magical Watchdog cast.

It seems to me like this is a situation where trust is key.  If you have a killer DM and a bunch of munchkins, causing a you're going to wind up with an arms race and an argument, like the Ogre situation in that infamous video.  But if both the DM and players trust each other and are invested in the plot, then a little bit of flexibility and hand-waving both ways can be rewarded with exciting situations and all that jazz.

Of course, there has to be some give and take between the PCs and the DM and some sense of what is fair, and there has to be some trust going both ways.  In this situation, I'm sure a bit of repositioning and moving around on team PC would be fair, but giving team PC three or four rounds where they can gang up on the Oracle, beat him to a pulp, load up their treasure, and get on the boats before the Wart Mother even gets close would be kind of pushing it.  And would make the next session pretty damn boring.

Maybe the DM can throw down some shared storytelling and the players do some "yes, and...-ing"

Trust is important. I feel that I don't have that currently, but that's understandable - it's been two whole sessions. Online. And none of the players nor I know each other. And I've only DMed for one of them before. That it's gone as well as it has (and it has gone well, IMO) speaks to the style, the LIM design, and most of all, the players themselves. They've done an amazing job.

Where we might be jammed up on this issue is as you say. This engine relies upon the notion that we're all saying "Yes, and." Not just the DM - everyone. And player-to-player, too. I think we went from DM saying "Yes, you shot the Oracle, and the Wart Mother shows up and starts wrecking shop," and there's a seeming response of "No, wait, huh?" That breaks the engine. Q&A fixes it. Where there is a seeming discrepancy, plot hole, contradiction, odd complication, or whatever... a few questions and shared storytelling sorts it out and what comes out of that discussion becomes fodder for that scene and future scenes. It's how we generate all the nitty gritty details that make a character or scene particularly memorable or useful for later.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:22PM, crimsyn wrote:

In this specific situation, perhaps the Grippli hunters know a ritual that allows them to stealthily sneak up on unsuspecting prey?  After all, the only way they would be able to take down large enough prey to support the Wart Mother would be to sneak up en masse.  Or with a slight change to the encounter, perhaps the Wart Mother is doing an amphibious assault, and with everyone's attention focused on the Oracle, no one saw the three-eyed eyestalk making its way towards the shore as the little green hunters stealthily surrounded the site?  Not to mention that the Grippli have the home turf advantage, the little guys are pretty small and sneaky to begin with, and they would no doubt have been tracking the party since their last run-in.

You got the right idea. Any of those ideas would be really cool and add to the tapestry of the game, which is the purpose of the Q&A and shared storytelling.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:22PM, crimsyn wrote:

(Incidentally, an amphibious assault would be a cool idea to leave your players in suspense.  "As you level your gun at the Oracle, you spot an eyestalk with three eyes poking out of the water, and sense some leaves ruffling in the forest.  Whatever creature that eyestalk belongs to, it's big.  See ya next week!")

Wish I would have thought of that.

well iserith you posted 2 threads about it, talked about it with other members of the group and hinted in your posts about why you were creating the threads.  You'll have to excuse me if I got fed up of reading you saying it's because I didn't trust you that I objected to your plans which is why you changed them.  None of which is actually true.  We didn't talk again since either so I figure why not post how it actually did happen instead of all this speculative nonsense.

And again the questions I asked were more for just the sake of asking them, I don't actually care how you set up your encounter from that perspective.  It's the fact that you were forcing us to start with all this stuff already in motion that had me asking questions.  I didn't think my questions would lead you to do all this stuff instead of just having an open discussion with the group like you keep saying is a good idea to do. 

Sep 26, 2012 -- 7:03PM, Noctaem wrote:

well iserith you posted 2 threads about it, talked about it with other members of the group and hinted in your posts about why you were creating the threads.  You'll have to excuse me if I got fed up of reading you saying it's because I didn't trust you that I objected to your plans which is why you changed them.  None of which is actually true.  We didn't talk again since either so I figure why not post how it actually did happen instead of all this speculative nonsense.

And again the questions I asked were more for just the sake of asking them, I don't actually care how you set up your encounter from that perspective.  It's the fact that you were forcing us to start with all this stuff already in motion that had me asking questions.  I didn't think my questions would lead you to do all this stuff instead of just having an open discussion with the group like you keep saying is a good idea to do. 

I posted two threads about something that is fairly universal in gaming in my opinion - how players perceive situations the DM puts them in. I thought it would be helpful as a community to discuss it. A really great discussion followed. Obviously people are interested in the topic, thinking about it, and sharing their ideas. Even people who don't normally agree on stuff are getting along. I didn't mention anything specific. No names, no nitty gritty details, nothing. In short, it wasn't really about you, even if what we talked about made me think about the topic. Except where I imagined someone's point was apt and applied to our specific situation, I may have made tangential reference to it. I didn't want anyone rising to anyone's "defense," least of all mine.

I changed my plans because I perceived an objection which seemed to be reinforced by our chat. I think the starting premise I have now is better than the one I initially envisioned. I see no reason to get rid of it now - unless you guys want to change it during the Q&A, of course. I expect that to be the case. It's the nature of the style.

Your post above sounds a little hostile. It just doesn't jive with the interactions I've had with you over Skype using voice. Perhaps its best to take our discussions out of the written word. We're just not hearing each other properly in that format.

So, this particular case aside, how could a group set up a troublesome complication like this. I have no faith that it could ever come about without fiat, particularly if it involves some kind of advantage that the rules don't cover well, such as gaining full possession of an object or NPC. Which I guess means that for me the question becomes, how could a group, by their own fiat, arrange something like this. One person thinks it might be a cool complication, others have different opinions and they sort it out, perhaps in a cool way that no one had considered going in.

I don't see any other way to do it.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Centauri wrote:

So, this particular case aside, how could a group set up a troublesome complication like this. I have no faith that it could ever come about without fiat, particularly if it involves some kind of advantage that the rules don't cover well, such as gaining full possession of an object or NPC. Which I guess means that for me the question becomes, how could a group, by their own fiat, arrange something like this. One person thinks it might be a cool complication, others have different opinions and they sort it out, perhaps in a cool way that no one had considered going in.

I don't see any other way to do it.

Reading this thread, I had decided not to interject into this discussion because it seemed to evolve into a discourse between specific players and their DM.  And each game is different, taylored to what that group wants, so my thoughts on style might not be relevant.  (That might be at least part of the problem here... conflicting expectations).

But I just wanted to agree with the above post because I think that this is pretty-much dead-on.  Just my two-cents worth but, there has to be somebody driving the bus.  Collaborative story-telling is fine and dandy, but if one person grabs the steering wheel for a while and then another, and then another, you can spend a lot of time just going in circles.  Again, this might be fine for some groups, but even in the most "loose" of narrative structures, there has to be someone pushing the gas while the party is busy steering.

This statement might cause some to bristle (gonna say it anyway), but, in my opinion, the deal is not about "to railroad or not to railroad"  (using that term only so everyone will know what I'm talking about) but it's more a matter of degree and to what degree the DM and the players feel comfortable with and are having fun with.  It has already been mentioned, and I agree, that it is a matter of trust that has been established between the DM and players.

There is a story to be told.  Drama must ensue.  Conflict must be introduced.  It is the DMs job to introduce the players to cool ways for them to display and use their fantastic abilities and powers. It is the players job to try to find creative solutions... before, during and after said conflicts are introduced.

No conflict, no story... (not a good one anyway).

My opinion (and that's all it is).  There must be some fiat by the DM (aka "railroading") and success is measured by how well he/she can balance making the party feel like they are forming the story and he/she making sure that the story that they are forming is going someplace.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 8:36PM, YoungOnce wrote:

But I just wanted to agree with the above post because I think that this is pretty-much dead-on.  Just my two-cents worth but, there has to be somebody driving the bus.  Collaborative story-telling is fine and dandy, but if one person grabs the steering wheel for a while and then another, and then another, you can spend a lot of time just going in circles.  Again, this might be fine for some groups, but even in the most "loose" of narrative structures, there has to be someone pushing the gas while the party is busy steering.

Thanks. I agree that there has to be some one steering. There are different ways to do that, including having someone who asks questions until a clear situation has been created from the answers.

But even questions, especially the leading kind that work well for this kind of development, might overstep, so the asker should be prepared to step back from a particular question and re-approach it with another question or two.

Adding the specific example though does help focus the discussion a bit though... As a player I don't mind when my character is placed in a bad spot, especially if the DM discussed it openly with me beforehand and we agree together on how things happen (but I am willing to trust my DM without such a discussion). The limit for me though is at doing so in the middle of an active unresolved encounter where PCs actions and dice rolls can definitely influence events. It simply makes too many assumptions for the players on how they act in between sessions worstened by the fact that for a NPC to take a hostage that suggests the opponents can actually be beaten by me and my fellow PCs. Mind you, it is not a black-and-white thing. For example, had I been a player, and the DM would have told me at the start of the session, this is a fight you cannot win so think of alternative situations, I would have accepted it. There is a fine line here and where it actually runs depends a lot on the people involved.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Centauri wrote:

So, this particular case aside, how could a group set up a troublesome complication like this. I have no faith that it could ever come about without fiat, particularly if it involves some kind of advantage that the rules don't cover well, such as gaining full possession of an object or NPC. Which I guess means that for me the question becomes, how could a group, by their own fiat, arrange something like this. One person thinks it might be a cool complication, others have different opinions and they sort it out, perhaps in a cool way that no one had considered going in.

I don't see any other way to do it.

This is it. LIM isn't full-on-everyone-gets-a-say-in-everything. The DM needs to have some power of the game to make calls about  how monsters would react.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:42PM, Noctaem wrote:

I get you feel you need to defend your friend on the internetz.  but im not attacking him Corran, I'm stating my opinion on how my first experience with LIM is working.  Which was the entire point of participating in the first place.  iserith welcomed constructive criticism about LIM and wanted others to be able to better understand what it is and how it works.  If you're not open to the above, move along.

Aside from your opinion of me as some sort of watchdog, I do feel the need to defend a style which I advocate.

I agree with Madfox here. As a DM you need to consider how much the players could've done to prevent a certain situation from happening in the first place. If you (or they!) feel they could've had significant effect on it, you have to give them the chance to at least exert some influence. That doesn't have to mean the situation doesn't happen, but its set-up might be a little different. I'll again refer to the example I gave in my earlier post about ambushing a party.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:57PM, iserith wrote:

(I don't think there is disagreement that a fight with the Wart Mother and the grippli is coming. In fact, you started that fight yourself with your pelvic cannon and rabid dog.)

Discussion aside, out-of-context quotes like these are exactly the reason more people should discuss their sessions in more detail

LIM isn't full-on-everyone-gets-a-say-in-everything. The DM needs to have some power of the game to make calls about  how monsters would react.

The way it often gets presented, it would be easy for someone to think that it was that way. When the suggestion given for every situation, no matter how extreme, is to ask the players what they want and then do that, a natural conclusion is that the only thing the DM does in this style is enact the whims of the players. I realize this isn't the case, but it really is how it often sounds.

I find these kinds of discussions fascinating, and also very familiar -- as I said earlier, these debates have been going on since D&D started.

Basically the DM says, "Big scary monster shows up to fight. Raar!"
Players say, "No, he couldn't have snuck up on us because of X, Y, Z."

DM say, "OK well in that case, the monsters took your ally hostage. You'd better rescue her!"
Players say, "No, that couldn't have happened because of A, B, C."

DM is now running out of ideas, or every idea that he comes up with gets nullified by the PCs. (After all, the PCs *are* highly competent in D&D.)

So again it comes down to cooperation and trust. At some point the players must go along with the set-up or there is no adventure. Especially in a game like D&D where the main part of the game (for most groups) is combat, there's always got to be something that sets up that combat.

If you as a player kibosh every possible set-up, then how does your PC ever do anything heroic and adventurous?

Sep 27, 2012 -- 6:54AM, Joshua_Randall wrote:

If you as a player kibosh every possible set-up, then how does your PC ever do anything heroic and adventurous?

I am getting a feeling that some people are defining railroading way too broadly for its use to stay practical (beyond the your game sucks type of argument). There is a difference between a DM offering various plot hooks (even kidnapping a friendly PC) and a DM enforcing such a plot hook on the PCs. Obviously, if a PC stays in a tavern and does not do anything, you as a player are playing the wrong game. If you as a player complain though about the adventure starting with ambush in the wilderness, while the group ended the previous session in a city, not to mention that your PCs have all kind of tricks that make an ambush incredibly challenging to pull off, they have an IMO valid complaint. Or to stay closer to the current example, there is a difference between being told that the Wart Mother is charging on the field (especially if you had angered the group enough for that thing to take a personal interest in your group) or that that wart mother somehow captured a NPC, bypassing several NPCs and your group without taking a beating at all and than threatens to kill that NPC unless you comply

Sep 27, 2012 -- 6:54AM, Joshua_Randall wrote:

So again it comes down to cooperation and trust. At some point the players must go along with the set-up or there is no adventure. Especially in a game like D&D where the main part of the game (for most groups) is combat, there's always got to be something that sets up that combat.

And the best way to encourage them to go along with anything, not just combat, is to give them some say in the set-up. That doesn't need to mean that nothing cool or tense never happens, or that the players always get exactly what they want, but it should mean that the players never get anything the absolutely don't want.

Being at fault, or appearing to be, can be a major sticking point in D&D. Once during a skill challenge, a player did something to gain a success, and then I used that something in a description of the challenge to show how it was escalating. The player was very displeased, because he read it as his character (and by extension him) having caused the escalation. Why bother to try anything if that can happen, he asked. This amid a huge cataclysm going on around the party. Putting the party in a bad spot wasn't the issue; appearing to put the party in a spot as a result of the actions (could just as easily have been inactions) of one of the players was the issue.

So, a rule of thumb might be, "don't assume any set up that requires the PCs to have failed at something or be at fault." That's sort of like what others have said along the lines of "if there's a chance they could have done something about it, they should have a chance to do something about it," but I don't care for that because it's clear to me that some interesting set up could not ever come about in that way. No, it's not necessary to actually play everything out, but the DM can't assume. If the PCs would be culpable or be failures, it needs to be negotiated with the players. This could just mean using the mechanics, but it should probably mean open discussion.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 2:04AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Adding the specific example though does help focus the discussion a bit though... As a player I don't mind when my character is placed in a bad spot, especially if the DM discussed it openly with me beforehand and we agree together on how things happen (but I am willing to trust my DM without such a discussion). The limit for me though is at doing so in the middle of an active unresolved encounter where PCs actions and dice rolls can definitely influence events. It simply makes too many assumptions for the players on how they act in between sessions worstened by the fact that for a NPC to take a hostage that suggests the opponents can actually be beaten by me and my fellow PCs. Mind you, it is not a black-and-white thing. For example, had I been a player, and the DM would have told me at the start of the session, this is a fight you cannot win so think of alternative situations, I would have accepted it. There is a fine line here and where it actually runs depends a lot on the people involved.

Well, another reason I didn't want to bring up specifics about the situation (aside from it being unnecessary for the purposes of the broader discussion) is that the situation you describe above is not what's really going on. So now I'm forced to take up space to explain it. I hate being the guy who uses every post as an excuse to interject stories about his game. My eyes glaze over when people post "Yes, I agree. For example, this one time in my game..." ARGH!

First, this all stemmed from me putting up a screen shot of the opening scene, which I was still working on. Player contacted me to ask why I had things on the map positioned in a certain way. I explained what I was thinking at the time. That led to the discussion. Nevermind we haven't actually played the session or encounter yet and I wasn't even done working on it. The discussion led me to think about this topic in general - when it is okay for the DM to put the PCs in a bad situation - and so I posted it. As we hadn't even played the encounter and I was still prepping it for this Saturday's game, it wasn't even really an issue. But I thought the topic was a good one for discussion since it's fairly universal. There are a certain number of hoops, it seems, that the DM must jump through in order to not be perceived as "railroading." What are they?

The NPC in question isn't even being "taken hostage." The Wart Mother just wants to eat. I thought it would be interesting to put the NPC next to the gargantuan beast at the start of the encounter in a tactical sense and have the PCs deal with multiple things all at one time - save the girl, defeat the Wart Mother and the grippli, command the juju zombie musketeer firing lines, worry about the untrustworthy bullywug allies, use Captain Burrp to call in coastal bombardment from his ship, etc. There's a lot going on in this scene and rather than just threatening their limbs, I'm threatening their goals. The whole idea is to make it dynamic and interesting. It's a big ol' set piece encounter. The PCs's plans have been building to this very point. It's the culmination of my location-in-motion, the players' narrative control, and the dice outcomes. In my opinion, this is where it needs to be especially grand.

Stylistically, again, all of this can simply be changed as we have discussed. This is me saying, "This is what I'd like to see going on in this encounter. What do you think?" If someone wants to make a rousing case about how they'd have made arrangements to keep Hansa safe, then she's safe. If someone wants to start the combat hiding under an overturned boat, then that's what they're doing. If someone wants to escape into the jungle and leave this whole scene, go for it. If someone's got a power that repels frog people, fire it up and I'll move the monsters back a bit. We'll adjust accordingly before the cameras roll.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 5:07AM, svendj wrote:

I agree with Madfox here. As a DM you need to consider how much the players could've done to prevent a certain situation from happening in the first place. If you (or they!) feel they could've had significant effect on it, you have to give them the chance to at least exert some influence. That doesn't have to mean the situation doesn't happen, but its set-up might be a little different. I'll again refer to the example I gave in my earlier post about ambushing a party.

That's all taken into consideration during the Q&A. The problem here is that where my regular players would know they can change details based on mechanical abilities or just plain old narration, others may not. And so they react in a reasonable manner to question it. And, here I am explaining it.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 5:17AM, JTheta wrote:

The way it often gets presented, it would be easy for someone to think that it was that way. When the suggestion given for every situation, no matter how extreme, is to ask the players what they want and then do that, a natural conclusion is that the only thing the DM does in this style is enact the whims of the players. I realize this isn't the case, but it really is how it often sounds.

I think it can be argued that I brought my knowledge of Dungeon World here and started pushing the ideas originally. Then a bunch of people latched onto it and now many are talking about it in ways that sometimes I don't even support. Where I've tried to make a correction as to what the style or tool really is (because it is a specific thing, coming from a specific source), I've been admonished for telling people how to game. (What?!) So I've given up on that notion and the information out there is muddled as hell. I don't blame you for drawing that conclusion.

I will stand by the notion, however, that the basic idea of letting your players have say in determining what is going to be fun for them, even during the game, is a good way to fix many, many problems in the game. Even extreme problems.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 6:54AM, Joshua_Randall wrote:

So again it comes down to cooperation and trust. At some point the players must go along with the set-up or there is no adventure. Especially in a game like D&D where the main part of the game (for most groups) is combat, there's always got to be something that sets up that combat.

If you as a player kibosh every possible set-up, then how does your PC ever do anything heroic and adventurous?

This is a great question and one that I've been examining by way of everyone's responses. My initial reaction to what I perceived as an objection (I'm told it's not an objection now, but that's how it seemed to me) was that is reeked of failure mitigation for the sake of failure mitigation. I take a particularly dim view of that as both a player and a DM. By way of the discussion, I've taken another view. (If I was the player in this case, I'd be advocating that Hansa is in the Wart Mother's MOUTH, so I can jump in after her and try to get her out of there! But that's just me.) Of course, the style I use already takes into account the fact the scene can be changed to something we all agree is fun before a single die is cast. If the players want to make the scene "easier," then they can. Or harder. It's something I can easily give up if it makes things more fun for everyone. This style is collaborative. They get say, probably a lot more than at most "traditional" tables.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 7:24AM, Madfox11 wrote:

I am getting a feeling that some people are defining railroading way too broadly for its use to stay practical (beyond the your game sucks type of argument). There is a difference between a DM offering various plot hooks (even kidnapping a friendly PC) and a DM enforcing such a plot hook on the PCs. Obviously, if a PC stays in a tavern and does not do anything, you as a player are playing the wrong game. If you as a player complain though about the adventure starting with ambush in the wilderness, while the group ended the previous session in a city, not to mention that your PCs have all kind of tricks that make an ambush incredibly challenging to pull off, they have an IMO valid complaint. Or to stay closer to the current example, there is a difference between being told that the Wart Mother is charging on the field (especially if you had angered the group enough for that thing to take a personal interest in your group) or that that wart mother somehow captured a NPC, bypassing several NPCs and your group without taking a beating at all and than threatens to kill that NPC unless you comply

Yes, "railroading" is a term like "metagaming." It's loaded and overused. A railroad requires a plot. There is no plot here. My approach is to suggest the framing for the scene and the players can collaborate with me to adjust it, explain it, and build it. So even in your analogy above, none of that stuff ("wart mother somehow captured a NPC, bypassing several NPCs and your group without taking a beating at all and than threatens to kill that NPC unless you comply") can even happen if the players don't agree that it can. Even the mere possibility of "railroading" is obviated in this style.

Centauri: asking the players to try and salvage a situation while you're still escalating it whatever the outcome of the player's actions is one of the finest lines you can walk as a DM. You want the player to feel a measure of satisfaction for having done something useful, but you also want to make the situation worse. I'll repeat what I said earlier: you should work with the player to come up with an outcome that works for both of you.

Most situations allow you to, for example, give the player a small advantage in the coming encounter (initiative bonus, surprise round, combat advantage in round 1, better positioning) if they succeed. Another solution could be to put the player in danger instead of the NPC. Maybe they pushed the NPC out of the way of an attack, and they start the encounter grabbed or even bloodied. I just disagree that allowing players to have a say in the setup of an encounter prevents you from unleashing cool encounters on them.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:40AM, svendj wrote:

I just disagree that allowing players to have a say in the setup of an encounter prevents you from unleashing cool encounters on them.

I'm certain that's not Centauri's position. It's probably the exact opposite.

I put it a little black and white, but I was responding to the remark following the rule of thumb (which I agree with by the way), about interesting setups never coming about when you give players say in them.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:40AM, svendj wrote:

Centauri: asking the players to try and salvage a situation while you're still escalating it whatever the outcome of the player's actions is one of the finest lines you can walk as a DM. You want the player to feel a measure of satisfaction for having done something useful, but you also want to make the situation worse.

I'm not thrilled with them mitigating a complication as it's being sorted out, say if I imagined having a PC already in the dragon's mouth and the player said that his sword was primed to pierce the dragon's brain. It'd be time to rethink my premise to try to find cool complications that are actually complications. That might simply teach a player not to suggest the instant solution until after the set-up was finalized, but after it's finalized, there's a little more leeway for a complication to go either way. But if every complication we came up with turned out to be a "blessing in disguise," I'd need to try to understand what kind of game my players wanted.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:40AM, svendj wrote:

Another solution could be to put the player in danger instead of the NPC. Maybe they pushed the NPC out of the way of an attack, and they start the encounter grabbed or even bloodied.

I think a reasonably savvy player who was interested in absolutely avoiding failure would balk even at this, and point out ways that the NPC could be protected without endangering the PC. There's still no clear route to culpability, to the PC "deserving" the downside, especially if the NPC wasn't providing any direct upside. In that case, it might really just seem like the DM is picking on the player.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:40AM, svendj wrote:

I just disagree that allowing players to have a say in the setup of an encounter prevents you from unleashing cool encounters on them.

I agree. When I say "do something about it" I mean the PC doing something about it in play, not the player offering a suggestion outside of play. Collaborating on the set-up of a cool situation and declining to have one's character be at fault is not "doing something about it," it's "doing something else."

What prevents classic "cool" encounters from arising is playing them out and hoping to get to the coolness while staying within the rules, and not using DM rulings. Don't get me wrong, you can have cool encounters while staying inside the rules, but certain fantasy and action tropes are unlikely to arise thereby because a) they rely on players making mistakes or being at fault and b) the rules are not designed to bring them about.

And then we're back at Joshua_Randall's point: to get cool adventures, you need cooperative players too

Sep 27, 2012 -- 9:07AM, svendj wrote:

And then we're back at Joshua_Randall's point: to get cool adventures, you need cooperative players too

Yes, and the DM cooperating with the players.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:52AM, svendj wrote:

I put it a little black and white, but I was responding to the remark following the rule of thumb (which I agree with by the way), about interesting setups never coming about when you give players say in them.

Yes, I misunderstood. You guys and your "nuance."

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:59AM, Centauri wrote:

I'm not thrilled with them mitigating a complication as it's being sorted out, say if I imagined having a PC already in the dragon's mouth and the player said that his sword was primed to pierce the dragon's brain. It'd be time to rethink my premise to try to find cool complications that are actually complications. That might simply teach a player not to suggest the instant solution until after the set-up was finalized, but after it's finalized, there's a little more leeway for a complication to go either way. But if every complication we came up with turned out to be a "blessing in disguise," I'd need to try to understand what kind of game my players wanted.

Hopefully that's been discussed during Session Zero. For this particular group (as it's not going to become a campaign and we have limited time to play), I kept my Session Zero such as it was down to character bonds and the like after some basic starting premises were discussed and signed off on. If I had done a more thorough job of it as I would with an ongoing campaign, some of this might have been discussed before it ever came up.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:59AM, Centauri wrote:

I think a reasonably savvy player who was interested in absolutely avoiding failure would balk even at this, and point out ways that the NPC could be protected without endangering the PC. There's still no clear route to culpability, to the PC "deserving" the downside, especially if the NPC wasn't providing any direct upside. In that case, it might really just seem like the DM is picking on the player.

That did seem to come up in the discussion. I suggested that it could be that you take the place of the NPC or do something that might represent some cost or disadvantage to get what you want (even something as simple as, if you're stashing her somewhere, you might be "way over there" when the fight kicks off). I felt like this was met with more resistance. Now, the player has come here and said none of it was an objection at all, but it sure felt like it at the time. I'm choosing to take his word for it because text chat is pretty imprecise. Hell, even voice chat is imprecise since I can't read any body language.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 8:59AM, Centauri wrote:

I agree. When I say "do something about it" I mean the PC doing something about it in play, not the player offering a suggestion outside of play. Collaborating on the set-up of a cool situation and declining to have one's character be at fault is not "doing something about it," it's "doing something else."

What prevents classic "cool" encounters from arising is playing them out and hoping to get to the coolness while staying within the rules, and not using DM rulings. Don't get me wrong, you can have cool encounters while staying inside the rules, but certain fantasy and action tropes are unlikely to arise thereby because a) they rely on players making mistakes or being at fault and b) the rules are not designed to bring them about.

It's a "Yes, and..." thing. I'm not sure how much the DMG goes into the particulars of that philosophy not having read it in some time, but the way I approach the game is that the players should be saying "Yes, and..." too. It's not a one-way street. If the DM wants to establish something cool - unless it's completely off base, unfun, or offensive in some way - the players should say, "Yes, and..." I think Keripalli pointed out in a post a while back the important and oft overlooked aspect of that exchange... "AND." You accept the premise and you add on to it. Adding on to it might be a form of taking away in some cases, such as when you add a thing that negates another thing. But I think that's acceptable if it makes sense in the context of the fiction and is cool. In this case, the example would be the goblin Snag (or his dog Puff) taking the place of Hansa next to the Wart Mother. "Yes, she hit Hansa with her tongue, and I jumped in at the last second to save her before she got dragged away." Fair enough. I'd then follow that up with a handful of questions to flesh that moment out and establish fiction which would no doubt include some great character development.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 9:56AM, iserith wrote:

It's a "Yes, and..." thing. I'm not sure how much the DMG goes into the particulars of that philosophy not having read it in some time, but the way I approach the game is that the players should be saying "Yes, and..." too. It's not a one-way street. If the DM wants to establish something cool - unless it's completely off base, unfun, or offensive in some way - the players should say, "Yes, and..."

True, but I think we can see that asking someone to say "Yes..." to something that they see only as negative for their character, and maybe for the game as a whole, is a strain on trust.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 9:56AM, iserith wrote:

I think Keripalli pointed out in a post a while back the important and oft overlooked aspect of that exchange... "AND." You accept the premise and you add on to it. Adding on to it might be a form of taking away in some cases, such as when you add a thing that negates another thing.

I think that opens the door to blocks. Added details should not negate earlier details. Better to back off, remove the detail that drew the block and try another approach that will not get blocked.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Centauri wrote:

True, but I think we can see that asking someone to say "Yes..." to something that they see only as negative for their character, and maybe for the game as a whole, is a strain on trust.

I still submit that trust was the missing factor here. I can't imagine any questions or objections arising from the situation if it were applied to my "regular" group. 

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Centauri wrote:

 I think that opens the door to blocks. Added details should not negate earlier details. Better to back off, remove the detail that drew the block and try another approach that will not get blocked.

I'm not sure what I think about that yet. I could see it going two ways in this particular example:

DM: "Wart Mother jumps in and snags Hansa."
PC: "Wait! She did get her tongue on Hansa and when she did so, Puff jumped up and bit that tongue. Maybe he goes with and is in a bad spot or maybe not. But I established in the fiction pretty hardcore that Hansa is critical to our plans. I would take steps."
DM: "Sounds good. I have some questions about that, goblin..."

or

DM: ""Wart Mother jumps in and snags Hansa."
PC: "Well, I did blow up a navy because my dog and I were smoking a pipe near the powder keg. I guess it's reasonable that I'd screw this up too. Time to salvage this situation, just like I've done so far!"
DM: "Sounds good, give me some initiative." 

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:18AM, iserith wrote:

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Centauri wrote:

True, but I think we can see that asking someone to say "Yes..." to something that they see only as negative for their character, and maybe for the game as a whole, is a strain on trust.

I still submit that trust was the missing factor here. I can't imagine any questions or objections arising from the situation if it were applied to my "regular" group.

There was plausible reason to question your intentions based both on what that establishment might have looked like to a typical D&D player, and on how one might imagine the established scene playing out.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Centauri wrote:

 I think that opens the door to blocks. Added details should not negate earlier details. Better to back off, remove the detail that drew the block and try another approach that will not get blocked.

I'm not sure what I think about that yet. I could see it going two ways in this particular example

I don't see it going any way that would make it seem like something got past the character, at least not by DM fiat. I think this example shows a need for players to be in on the downfalls and shortcomings of their characters. I've got a slightly different perspective on that ancient red dragon scenario, now. I'll have to think about it.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Centauri wrote:

There was plausible reason to question your intentions based both on what that establishment might have looked like to a typical D&D player, and on how one might imagine the established scene playing out.

No doubt. I certainly don't fault anyone for questioning it.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Centauri wrote:

I don't see it going any way that would make it seem like something got past the character, at least not by DM fiat. I think this example shows a need for players to be in on the downfalls and shortcomings of their characters. I've got a slightly different perspective on that ancient red dragon scenario, now. I'll have to think about it.

I see your point. This actually happens with a fair amount of regularity in the Dark Sun and Madness at Gardmore Abbey games in which I am a player. We're frequently putting ourselves in spots that are clearly a result of our own shortcomings. It is so much fun.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:07AM, iserith wrote:

I see your point. This actually happens with a fair amount of regularity in the Dark Sun and Madness at Gardmore Abbey games in which I am a player. We're frequently putting ourselves in spots that are clearly a result of our own shortcomings. It is so much fun.

Sure, but how much of it is because the DM simply decides that not only are you in trouble, but its your fault?

Humans have a lot of interesting reactions to bad things happening, even fictional bad things. The "just world fallacy" is the name for that thing almost all of us do when we hear about a bad thing happening: "Well, that's a shame, but the people it happened to were probably doing X, Y, or Z." I think we do this because we instinctively dislike the idea that bad things can happen despite our best efforts. But it puts us in the unfortunate position of wanting to look for excuses when things happen to us, so we can show people (and ourselves) that we didn't deserve it. So, even in D&D, we're okay with bad things happening - it's part of the game - but we prefer that they happen to other people, and that we're just there to set their mistakes right. Firemen typically aren't thought of as dealing with fires they themselves caused, though this must happen. Even if we do our level best in the game, even the most mature of us will find ourselves wondering if there isn't some reason it's not our own fault.

But, we will take risks and do cool things that might turn out badly. That changes things. We at least had control. In D&D terms, we will put ourselves in cool situations (even just being on an adventure is a pretty cool situation) but we balk at someone telling us we let ourselves be put ourselves in a situation, regardless of how cool it is.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Centauri wrote:

In D&D terms, we will put ourselves in cool situations (even just being on an adventure is a pretty cool situation) but we balk at someone telling us we let ourselves be put ourselves in a situation, regardless of how cool it is.

This just keep circling around to the same question: if you balk at someone telling you that you ended up in a cool situation, then what equally cool situation do you propose instead? And it has to be something the group can agree on, including the DM.

Like I've said, D&D is facilitated negotiation. What cool situation can the group agree on that everyone can live with?

(As a side note, if one person is always objecting to a cool situation that the rest of the group could live with, then that one person needs to be talked to. Maybe he shouldn't be a part of this group.) 

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Centauri wrote:

But, we will take risks and do cool things that might turn out badly. That changes things. We at least had control. In D&D terms, we will put ourselves in cool situations (even just being on an adventure is a pretty cool situation) but we balk at someone telling us we let ourselves be put ourselves in a situation, regardless of how cool it is.

Good points all around.

Where does the responsibility lay then? (Lay, lie?) Is it on the DM to never do these things or on the players to say, "Hey, I'm reacting to this potentially cool thing in a way that might be kneejerk. Let me rethink." I think that's really the essence of the question - what are the hoops the DM must jump through to get a pass?

In my view, it's both parties. The DM needs to be able to adjust if there's an objection. The player needs to consider the validity of his objection or, if not the validity, then the source of it and act accordingly. 

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:26AM, Joshua_Randall wrote:

Like I've said, D&D is facilitated negotiation. What cool situation can the group agree on that everyone can live with?

I'm at least satisified then with the performance of the style in question. It really is collaborative and asks that very question before we commit to anything. This being as opposed to the "The DM does this stuff and the players do that stuff" which I find can be a barrier to play more than anything and a source of arguments as people stake out their territories and claim total control over different aspects of the game.

I would really appreciate it if you stopped saying a lack of trust made me ask the questions that spawned all of this.  Because that is all they were.  The reason I even asked you was because the whole purpose of me playing in a LIM was to understand how it worked.  Now I'm sorry if me asking you questions seemed like objections to you but I was trying to understand why you were doing things the way you were doing them.  Part of this was also because the way you were doing it was quite different from the way I would have if our roles were reversed.  Your answers only brought more questions because of how different the methods are. 

For example, metagaming is ok in your LIM as per what you said.  The very nature of the Q&A before the encounter proves this.  The players are fully aware of the encounter which is already in motion and get to effectively change the situation based on their decisions.  And again, this is ok, it's just different.

The reason why I might have seemed annoyed yesterday was that the response I got from a member of the group was:

"Patently ridiculous for her to send someone after us."  Among other comments of the same nature and tone.

I trust, that this is now clear for you and you won't be insinuating again that this was about trust or objections.  My only goal for approaching you was to better understand with questions, which frankly I won't bother doing again considering the reception they've gathered since I asked you.

To be clear my questions were only specific to the set up of the encounter.  Not why we had the encounter.  Not why the big boss of the toads was not spotted in the woods.  They were only about why iserith was setting up the encounter to start the way he was, why hansa was to start the encounter already captured, why the NPC's were already dead and so on.  I never asked for iserith to change his encounter, I never said I was un-happy with the set up, I never said I wouldn't play it out the way he wanted.  My goal was to experience a LIM, better understand how it worked and ask questions when I had them.  iserith welcomed this and I also suggested I could record the sessions so that interested members of the boards could hear them.  When we finished the initial discussion about this he asked me what I thought about it to which I responded that I was wondering how it would turn out saturday.

Apparently this is somehow making me out to be the bad guy, that I don't trust iserith and have objections to how he runs his LIM setting.  Fine, I'm then choosing to remove myself from the group as I feel no longer welcome at the table.  I hope the players who remain will enjoy the session saturday.  For me this headache isn't worth it.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:26AM, Joshua_Randall wrote:

This just keep circling around to the same question: if you balk at someone telling you that you ended up in a cool situation, then what equally cool situation do you propose instead? And it has to be something the group can agree on, including the DM.

Agreed. If the DM is hoping for the characters to get or be put into sticky situations at times, then there should be an upfront discussion of what kinds of situations the group agrees are heroic. Some people don't think heros should really ever fail or do anything wrong. This should be figured out up front.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:26AM, iserith wrote:

Where does the responsibility lay then? (Lay, lie?) Is it on the DM to never do these things or on the players to say, "Hey, I'm reacting to this potentially cool thing in a way that might be kneejerk. Let me rethink." I think that's really the essence of the question - what are the hoops the DM must jump through to get a pass?

They're invisible, razor-sharp hoops, made of plutonium. The DM, at least at first, should tread very carefully through them, with probing questions to the players.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:26AM, iserith wrote:

In my view, it's both parties. The DM needs to be able to adjust if there's an objection. The player needs to consider the validity of his objection or, if not the validity, then the source of it and act accordingly.

I don't think the player needs to consider the validity of the objection, at least not very closely. It's visceral, personal, one's character. They're uncomfortable, but they don't know why, or give reasons that clearly aren't the real ones, but which betray a strong reaction. It might be worth exploring, but for the purposes of a game, it's probably best to back off an try something else. If there's absolutely no situation the DM can propose outside of plodding along in "real time" with the rules as the only arbiters, and this doesn't suit someone, then the group may have to back all the way out to their core assumptions about the game they want to play.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:37AM, Noctaem wrote:

Apparently this is somehow making me out to be the bad guy, that I don't trust iserith and have objections to how he runs his LIM setting.  Fine, I'm then choosing to remove myself from the group as I feel no longer welcome at the table.  I hope the players who remain will enjoy the session saturday.  For me this headache isn't worth it.

Dude, there's no headache required. We're talking about the game in the abstract. We're not attacking you or insinuating anything about you and I wouldn't be using specific examples of things in the game if it hadn't been brought up by you here.

There is a basic concept at the core of the whole thing and that's what we're addressing. As Joshua_Randall said, it's been a topic of discourse since the 70s. As I said earlier it has very little to do with you specifically, except that our conversation sparked the idea in my head that it was something valuable to be discussed. Trust and what that means in the game, how it's earned, and how it's applied is a good topic of conversation. At least in my opinion.

I hope you'll reconsider your decision. You're always welcome at my table because you're a great player. None of this chatter is personal in any way.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:37AM, Noctaem wrote:

"Patently ridiculous for her to send someone after us."  Among other comments of the same nature and tone.
 

Just got done working on a book set in Victorian London, you'll excuse me if my posts get a bit frivolous. A good piece of advice, however, is to not read into tone and present it as fact.

Sep 27, 2012 -- 11:37AM, Noctaem wrote:

I would really appreciate it if you stopped saying a lack of trust made me ask the questions that spawned all of this.  Because that is all they were.  The reason I even asked you was because the whole purpose of me playing in a LIM was to understand how it worked.  Now I'm sorry if me asking you questions seemed like objections to you but I was trying to understand why you were doing things the way you were doing them.  Part of this was also because the way you were doing it was quite different from the way I would have if our roles were reversed.  Your answers only brought more questions because of how different the methods are. 

For example, metagaming is ok in your LIM as per what you said.  The very nature of the Q&A before the encounter proves this.  The players are fully aware of the encounter which is already in motion and get to effectively change the situation based on their decisions.  And again, this is ok, it's just different.

The reason why I might have seemed annoyed yesterday was that the response I got from a member of the group was:

"Patently ridiculous for her to send someone after us."  Among other comments of the same nature and tone.

I trust, that this is now clear for you and you won't be insinuating again that this was about trust or objections.  My only goal for approaching you was to better understand with questions, which frankly I won't bother doing again considering the reception they've gathered since I asked you.

To be clear my questions were only specific to the set up of the encounter.  Not why we had the encounter.  Not why the big boss of the toads was not spotted in the woods.  They were only about why iserith was setting up the encounter to start the way he was, why hansa was to start the encounter already captured, why the NPC's were already dead and so on.  I never asked for iserith to change his encounter, I never said I was un-happy with the set up, I never said I wouldn't play it out the way he wanted.  My goal was to experience a LIM, better understand how it worked and ask questions when I had them.  iserith welcomed this and I also suggested I could record the sessions so that interested members of the boards could hear them.  When we finished the initial discussion about this he asked me what I thought about it to which I responded that I was wondering how it would turn out saturday.

Apparently this is somehow making me out to be the bad guy, that I don't trust iserith and have objections to how he runs his LIM setting.  Fine, I'm then choosing to remove myself from the group as I feel no longer welcome at the table.  I hope the players who remain will enjoy the session saturday.  For me this headache isn't worth it.

No one is saying you're the bad guy. I actually wasn't aware that Hansa was starting out the encounter captured, other stuff, etc. I avoided that post because of spoilers, so I don't really have anything relevant to say anymore.

I know several of the people heavily involved in this thread, and have a lot of respect for even more of them, but the thread itself puzzles me...

... because my answer to the question in the thread title is: The fact that you're playing a role-playing game.

Isn't that what the gamemaster is supposed to do?

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:55AM, warrl wrote:

I know several of the people heavily involved in this thread, and have a lot of respect for even more of them, but the thread itself puzzles me...

... because my answer to the question in the thread title is: The fact that you're playing a role-playing game.

Isn't that what the gamemaster is supposed to do?

Yes it is.

But you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:55AM, warrl wrote:

Isn't that what the gamemaster is supposed to do?

Yes, in part. A scene without complications is a scene that can simply be narrated and moved past. The trick is when a player sees a complication as overreaching or "railroading." (And I use that term in the sense others have used it, not as I understand the concept.)

Sep 30, 2012 -- 8:44AM, LunarSavage wrote:

Yes it is.

But you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

While I'm sure any decent human being will want a game where everyone feels special, there's not a single person arguing in favor of the rest of your strawman.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 9:03AM, iserith wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:55AM, warrl wrote:

Isn't that what the gamemaster is supposed to do?

Yes, in part. A scene without complications is a scene that can simply be narrated and moved past. The trick is when a player sees a complication as overreaching or "railroading." (And I use that term in the sense others have used it, not as I understand the concept.)

Sep 30, 2012 -- 8:44AM, LunarSavage wrote:

Yes it is.

But you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

While I'm sure any decent human being will want a game where everyone feels special, there's not a single person arguing in favor of the rest of your strawman.

In your games, everyone is handed the right to feel special by having the ability to wave their hand at the DM and make whatever they want to happen, happen. In mine you earn the right to feel special by accomplishing goals by making good decisions and having a bit of luck, there's a huge difference. But it's a different topic for another thread at some point in the future. I don't feel like derailing this thread, so feel free to post whatever comment you have about what I'm saying not being true.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 9:10AM, LunarSavage wrote:

In your games, everyone is handed the right to feel special by having the ability to wave their hand at the DM and make whatever they want to happen, happen. In mine you earn the right to feel special by accomplishing goals by making good decisions and having a bit of luck...

In my game, there's both.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:55AM, warrl wrote:

I know several of the people heavily involved in this thread, and have a lot of respect for even more of them, but the thread itself puzzles me...

... because my answer to the question in the thread title is: The fact that you're playing a role-playing game.

Isn't that what the gamemaster is supposed to do?

I think it's much more complicated than that.

It's one thing for the players to have monsters go after them when the PCs get involved in trying to help someone out. The players didn't cause the problem, but they might be victims of it, and they're the ones to solve it. That's heroism, from Beowulf on.

It's another thing for the PCs to actually be at fault, or for the DM to arrange things so that the characters must make or must have made a mistake. This carries a heavy risk of "deprotagonization," changing the PCs from heroes to the cause of the kinds of problems that heroes are supposed to prevent. That's somewhat less traditional, and it's more likely to run counter to someone's idea of their own character.

But situations like that are pretty classic. Aragorn was tortured by how he seemed to keep making mistakes and causing problems for the Fellowship, even leading to it breaking. But he was pretty much the only one who thought that, and events were mostly out of his control. But because this kind of thing can clash with the hero archetype, if we're talking about a "bad spot" that assumes the characters themselves screwed up, or gave up, or caused problems, there needs to be firm buy-in (up-front, if possible) from the players. This is an area where the DM must tread lightly.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 1:55AM, warrl wrote:

I know several of the people heavily involved in this thread, and have a lot of respect for even more of them, but the thread itself puzzles me...

... because my answer to the question in the thread title is: The fact that you're playing a role-playing game.

Isn't that what the gamemaster is supposed to do?

Did you read the first post, or just the title? Because the question involves a hell of a lot more than the title implies.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 8:44AM, LunarSavage wrote:

you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

Those hippies are the 4e writers. The rest of us have cold, black souls that feed on our player's salty tears.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 9:56AM, mvincent wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 8:44AM, LunarSavage wrote:

you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

Those hippies are the 4e writers. The rest of us have cold, black souls that feed on our player's salty tears.

Ah, my people! Where have you been hiding?

Oct 1, 2012 -- 2:24PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Ah, my people! Where have you been hiding?

We're all around you if you're just stop attacking for a moment and really listen to what we're saying.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 2:24PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 9:56AM, mvincent wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 8:44AM, LunarSavage wrote:

you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

Those hippies are the 4e writers. The rest of us have cold, black souls that feed on our player's salty tears.

Ah, my people! Where have you been hiding?

'Adversarial' tends to be most of our natural inclinations. Conversely, the 4e DMG virtually teaches us "the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game". It's not necessarily a bad paradigm (as it will likely make the game more fun and avoid arguments), just different. Maybe they felt that we could manage the adversarial mindset just fine without any tips.

At the very least, it gives us insight that things will simply go over better if you get player buy in before putting them in a spot.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:05PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 2:24PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 9:56AM, mvincent wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 8:44AM, LunarSavage wrote:

you have some hippies in here who think the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game due to their own bad decision making skills, randomness, or lack of understanding consequences. 

Those hippies are the 4e writers. The rest of us have cold, black souls that feed on our player's salty tears.

Ah, my people! Where have you been hiding?

'Adversarial' tends to be most of our natural inclinations. Conversely, the 4e DMG virtually teaches us "the gamemaster's responsibility is to facilitate an environment where everyone feels special and no one can be told "no" or do badly in the game". It's not necessarily a bad paradigm (as it will likely make the game more fun and avoid arguments), just different. Maybe they felt that we could manage the adversarial mindset just fine without any tips.

At the very least, it gives us insight that things will simply go over better if you get player buy in before putting them in a spot.

I get the feeling that if there were no adversarial nature to my games, my players would lose all interest. We're a cut throat lot, ya see, aye?

*prepares to bring down the thousand swords of the thousand armed deity on unsuspecting level 1 PCs by pulling out bucket of dice* 

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:09PM, LunarSavage wrote:

I get the feeling that if there were no adversarial nature to my games, my players would lose all interest.

I agree that you need challenge and risk. You can still do that though while being a 'neutral arbiter' DM rather than an 'adversarial' one. i.e. you could still realistically portray an adversarial BBEG while staying objective in your rulings.

Also, D&D 4e seems to have overcompensated away from risk and consequences... but it's not really hard to add those.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:20PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:09PM, LunarSavage wrote:

I get the feeling that if there were no adversarial nature to my games, my players would lose all interest.

I agree that you need challenge and risk. You can still do that though while being a 'neutral arbiter' DM rather than an 'adversarial' one. i.e. you could still realistically portray an adversarial BBEG while staying objective in your rulings.

Also, D&D 4e seems to have overcompensated away from risk and consequences... but it's not really hard to add those.

You realize of course my posts are mostly joking, right?

I don't play 4e btw.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:20PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:09PM, LunarSavage wrote:

I get the feeling that if there were no adversarial nature to my games, my players would lose all interest.

I agree that you need challenge and risk. You can still do that though while being a 'neutral arbiter' DM rather than an 'adversarial' one. i.e. you could still realistically portray an adversarial BBEG while staying objective in your rulings.

Also, D&D 4e seems to have overcompensated away from risk and consequences... but it's not really hard to add those.

You realize of course my posts are mostly joking, right?

No. Please don't try this. I'm willing to accept that you have legitimate viewpoints, easily. But not if you try to pretend you weren't serious.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:30PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:20PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:09PM, LunarSavage wrote:

I get the feeling that if there were no adversarial nature to my games, my players would lose all interest.

I agree that you need challenge and risk. You can still do that though while being a 'neutral arbiter' DM rather than an 'adversarial' one. i.e. you could still realistically portray an adversarial BBEG while staying objective in your rulings.

Also, D&D 4e seems to have overcompensated away from risk and consequences... but it's not really hard to add those.

You realize of course my posts are mostly joking, right?

No. Please don't try this. I'm willing to accept that you have legitimate viewpoints, easily. But not if you try to pretend you weren't serious.

I only meant the latest posts. The ones where I'm basically saying I'm a real bastard to my players.

Joking is why there are smileys.

See the third set of cartoons down, NSFW.

theoatmeal.com/comics/minor_differences

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:31PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:30PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:20PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:09PM, LunarSavage wrote:

I get the feeling that if there were no adversarial nature to my games, my players would lose all interest.

I agree that you need challenge and risk. You can still do that though while being a 'neutral arbiter' DM rather than an 'adversarial' one. i.e. you could still realistically portray an adversarial BBEG while staying objective in your rulings.

Also, D&D 4e seems to have overcompensated away from risk and consequences... but it's not really hard to add those.

You realize of course my posts are mostly joking, right?

No. Please don't try this. I'm willing to accept that you have legitimate viewpoints, easily. But not if you try to pretend you weren't serious.

I only meant the latest posts. The ones where I'm basically saying I'm a real bastard to my players.

Ah, ok. No worries.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:34PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

Joking is why there are smileys.

See the third set of cartoons down, NSFW.

theoatmeal.com/comics/minor_differences

...honestly, I figured it was obvious those posts were jokes. But let's see...where's the smiley for sarcasm?

 

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:38PM, LunarSavage wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:34PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

Joking is why there are smileys.

See the third set of cartoons down, NSFW.

theoatmeal.com/comics/minor_differences

...honestly, I figured it was obvious those posts were jokes. But let's see...where's the smiley for sarcasm?

 

; ). No space.

Don't rely on smilies. If your tone can be misinterpreted, it's better to consider saying something else, or clarifying it with words.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, LunarSavage wrote:

You realize of course my posts are mostly joking, right?

Yes. I too was not completely serious when I stated that we "have cold, black souls that feed on our player's salty tears".

I don't play 4e btw.

Ah. This explains a lot. It's a kinder, gentler edition which pretty much advocates exactly what you mocked. But as mentioned: that isn't necessarily bad.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Centauri wrote:

Don't rely on smilies. If your tone can be misinterpreted, it's better to consider saying something else, or clarifying it with words.

True. It's certainly better than hoping the other side suddenly has an epiphany or realization that you intended X when you said Y.

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:49PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, LunarSavage wrote:

You realize of course my posts are mostly joking, right?

Yes. I too was not completely serious when I stated that we "have cold, black souls that feed on our player's salty tears".

Damnit, time to go reevaluate my life.

Damnit, time to go reevaluate my life.

 
Because you don't want to sell us death sticks. 

Sep 25, 2012 -- 12:02PM, iserith wrote:

When is the DM “allowed” to put player characters in a dangerous or complicated situation? Consider the following opening scene, framed by the DM:

DM: “Dangerous and complicated thing X happens.”
P1: “What about my ability that prevents X from happening?”
P2: “What about realism that says X wouldn’t happen?”
P3: “I’m not even there for X to happen to me.”

In a game of fantasy adventuring, ostensibly, players want DMs to put them in trouble. After all, they’ve willingly chosen a career and lifestyle that will put them in trouble on a regular basis. This is the game we have chosen to play. Otherwise, we'd be playing some other game, right?

I have noticed on occasion, however, that players will object to being put in that danger and asked to figure a way out of it. Now, we’re not talking about (in this scenario) the DM negating a player declaration purposefully. In other words, the DM is not saying you’ve pulled a lever you never said you pulled (or specifically said you avoided) and caused said dangerous and complicated thing to occur. The dangerous or complicated situation must follow what’s gone before. Where nothing has been declared or established, however, the DM has taken liberties and established elements that create compelling action.

Or is that not cool? What justifies whether or not a DM’s dangerous or complicated situation flies with the players? What hoops does the DM need to jump through to make it “okay” to put the characters in a spot like that? As a DM, would you be okay if the players modified the scene the DM established to bring it in line with something they find more palatable? As a player who would seek to do that, would you make the dangerous or complicated situation easier on yourselves? If so, why?

(Note: If you could put your responses in terms other than “it’s just my preference,” that would be very helpful to the discussion.)

I've encountered this with some of my newer and younger players (13). I think this comes down to building trust between DM and players. The DM will always need cooperation from players to get anything to work. How a DM achieves this is still a mystery to me, but I'm hoping that time will be the cure. This is a very complex question. I'd be interested to see some strategies for helping to create player buy-in.

Sep 26, 2012 -- 5:24PM, iserith wrote:

Sep 26, 2012 -- 4:59PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

Right, we set that up. Railroading would be a straitjacketed plot the DM preplanned.

That's what I understand the term to mean and there's certainly no plot in this adventure and thus no railroading.

To me this seems to be the key issue: the start-scene of the session is (if not in detail then roughly) predetermined by the DM, and this can be interpretated in several ways regarding the 'railroading'-question, including:

As in the above quote (no preplanned plot - everything is open for the PCs from the start-scene onwards (and the players have their say in how the start-scene situation came into being - son not 'railroading').

Or: since the start-scene (except for details) is predetermened the PCs didn't get a chance to avoid the situation, i.e. the DM forced this specific situation in place, and in that understanding of the term it can be perceived as 'railroading' (ie. forcing the players to a predetermined destination, without giving them a chance to change direction or jump off the train so to speak ;-)  )

As was noted in a previous post it is all a matter of expectations, I think. (As a DM I am always very careful and rarely design start-scenes that requires events and situations where the PCs actions could have mattered regarding the outcome (unless the assumed actions of the PCs are rather non-controversial). This doesn't mean that every campaign I run are sandbox-type or are without some (pre-)determined plot or a degree of railroading - the players seem to like some amount of it, and watch a plot or story unfold, but at the same time they want to be in control of their PCs and to have a feeling of being able to influence what happens).

I think that players in general value the control of their character very much, and they often see it as a kind of 'overruling' of their 'rights' when the DM has predetermined the outcome of a situation, that the PCs are involved in, if it seems reasonable that the PCs could have affected the outcome.
This doesn't mean that the players wouldn't necessarily put their PCs in tough situations or deliberately make poor decisions the make things more interesting. But they important factor here is that the players feel that they themselves have made that choice.

Different groups play in different ways (the 'start-scene'-approach sounds interesting - haven't encountered it in such an explicit form before), but as I see it, it is important (in most groups at least), to leave PC control to the players (or have their consent on taking over some of that control, if such an approach is preferred).

But all a matter of taste - and expectations - of course :-)

Oct 1, 2012 -- 5:44PM, JTheta wrote:

Damnit, time to go reevaluate my life.

 
Because you don't want to sell us death sticks. 

You made me laugh

Oct 1, 2012 -- 5:44PM, JTheta wrote:

Damnit, time to go reevaluate my life.

 
Because you don't want to sell us death sticks. 

To answer the OP...whenever they have made a bad decision or a series of choices that would logically lead to a tough situation. It is what it is.

In my first session of my current game a player contracting mummy rot. In my second session, the group bungled into a trap that caused a cave-in and got trapped in a crypt and then accidentally set off another trap that could well have been fatal. When they hit the third clear trap they wisely and efficiently reduced it to a non-threat with intelligent gameplay.

Since then they've been in a few hairy spots (we're only on session 5 or 6) including battling a rather nasty Wyvern and have been continuously having a blast. Heck, they even have an orc minion (they used to have 4...then 3...then 2...) and just made friends with a group of hobgoblin adventurers.

Sep 25, 2012 -- 2:41PM, merb101 wrote:

Yeah, I'm the kind of player who will put his character in a bad situation to see how it works out. I enjoy the drama and having my guy get beat up a little bit.

This took a little training in my younger years, but between trusting in my DM(s) and just generally enjoying a good screw-up, I've come to love the misfortune and adversity.  After all, therein lies the purpose of roleplaying.

At our session this week, I asked my players what they thought would make an interesting combat. I asked them the reasons for it, the ways they could see it concluding, the means the enemies used, who the enemies might be, and the overall significance of the encounter. They helped me arrange an ambush of two of the characters, while the third made saving throws to determine when he would join the encounter.

We ended up with an encounter that I don't think I could have just declared, especially since it happened at an earlier in-game moment than when the previous session ended. The players were firmly invested in the encounter and its significance, had no issues with being surprised, or with the enemies getting away, and were very interested in the long term implications of the fight, namely that word of their capabilities (and misinformation about same) might reach their enemies.

This is substantially different from the OP's situation, but it did involve some less than idea positioning, and what might have been seen as incaution on the part of the characters. But working with them on it seemed to make it palatable.

We also discussed how future encounters might go, reasons why they might be attacked. They offered even more that I suggested.

I also had a player roll percentile dice to see if his character died, because he thought there ought to be a 5% chance of it happening in one particular situation. I'm not sure how we would have handled it if he'd rolled that, but it's what he wanted.

Interesting, centauri. That is a pretty cool situation. The mentality of the players involved at that particular time is neat. Seems like they were really craving a perilous situation to add some immediate and longterm simmer to the game. They went looking for trouble!

Having given it a bit more thought, I think I am also one of those persons who in the heat of the moment is very likely to object to "unfair" situations. In this case I would define "unfair" as something happening that go against the RAW or the DM having a NPC do something that I consider going against character or which I feel my character would have been able to prevent (especially at that time). It is the tactician in me. When I spend time making the "perfect" build* or devising the "best" strategy, I want it to succeed. If the dice or rules object, it somehow feels fairer. The funny thing is that I am also a storyteller at heart, so all too often when things go badly, I realize after 30 minutes that things going wrong are more fun anyway. In short, surprise me with the bad situation and I might get really irritated. Warn me in advance, or give me some time to adjust, and chances are I will love it

* And note that to me the perfect build is not to just create a character that destroys adventures. There is no fun in that for me. It is about making odd concepts work decently and adding flaws that make things more challenging

Oct 9, 2012 -- 1:59AM, Madfox11 wrote:

If the dice or rules object, it somehow feels fairer.

Sure, then it at least seems like it's not another person imposing their preferences on us. It's impersonal.

Except I have to wonder if it really is. We've all been in situations in which the rules conflict or are unclear, and both the DM and the players point to "rules" as a reason why the action should have the result they expect. Often, the rules only tenuously support either side anyway, and there is no clear answer, and so one side or the other has to give in. Or, sometimes, there simply isn't a rule to cover something, and the DM has to cobble something together or make it up out of whole cloth. Tying it together, at some level, is the DM's preference for how things should turn out. At some level it is personal, is based on the DM's preferences, and while it might be fair, we can never be sure. Trust has to enter in at some point, any time the DM has to decide something.

Oct 9, 2012 -- 12:09PM, Centauri wrote:

We've all been in situations in which the rules conflict or are unclear, and both the DM and the players point to "rules" as a reason why the action should have the result they expect. Often, the rules only tenuously support either side anyway, and there is no clear answer, and so one side or the other has to give in.

In such cases, the DM can still roll a die. My own house rule is: "standard rules are followed as best as possible, but rules discussions can be replaced with a quick die roll (low=bad for player, high=good for player) until it can be researched later."

Mind you: I'm a simulationist DM that uses pre-generated adventures and has a firm grasp of the 4e rules (which are pretty solid). My decisions as a DM are usually pretty black and white. When something ambiguous comes up that people have different opinions on... that's what dice are for. If my players didn't trust my rules knowledge, I'd want them to look things up for themselves. And if they didn't trust that was handling something objectively, I'd want them to ask (since I have no desire to be biased).

Oct 9, 2012 -- 4:33PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 9, 2012 -- 12:09PM, Centauri wrote:

We've all been in situations in which the rules conflict or are unclear, and both the DM and the players point to "rules" as a reason why the action should have the result they expect. Often, the rules only tenuously support either side anyway, and there is no clear answer, and so one side or the other has to give in.

In such cases, the DM can still roll a die. My own house rule is: "standard rules are followed as best as possible, but rules discussions can be replaced with a quick die roll (low=bad for player, high=good for player) until it can be researched later."

It still comes down to the DM deciding when something could go either way instead of clearly going for or against the players. The players might have a cool, rock solid plan except for one minor ambiguity, in which case there's a possibility that what they want to do doesn't even make sense inside the game.

Oct 9, 2012 -- 4:44PM, Centauri wrote:

It still comes down to the DM deciding when something could go either way instead of clearly going for or against the players. The players might have a cool, rock solid plan except for one minor ambiguity, in which case there's a possibility that what they want to do doesn't even make sense inside the game.

That's why I say that I'm a simulationist: I try to base the outcomes on what makes sense (i.e. exactly what the players would decide if they had the same information). I'll even try to provide them that information if they ask. It's usually pretty black and white. Otherwise, the dice can decide. Seriously: never tell them no... just let them know if something seems terribly unlikely, then offer to let the dice decide.

I suppose I might sometimes make decisions based on what seems most fun: but in those cases I actually want players to say if the prefer different.