|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 8:42AM
#91
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 8:52AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 8:59AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
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.
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.
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.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 9:07AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
And then we're back at Joshua_Randall's point: to get cool adventures, you need cooperative players too 
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 9:11AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
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.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 9:56AM
#96
|
|
|
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."
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 10:08AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
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.
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.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 10:18AM
#98
|
|
|
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.
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."
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 10:35AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
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.
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.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 11:07AM
#100
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
