|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:29PM
#11
|
|
|
Yes. I would consider as many tactics/options as I could.
Why? Or rather, what would be your ultimate goal with this approach? Again, provided the proposed challenge was interesting. (We're also setting the goal post here to be "before action kicks off" meaning you're probably making the situation easier on yourself before it really gets going.)
For the record (and because I get more than a few accusations thrown my way), I'm definitely not judging. It's just my approach as a player, generally speaking, to like getting put in tough spots. Given the option, I'll always choose the worst situation to be in because in theory getting out is going to be harder and potentially more interesting. To me, anyway.
If some of them seemed against what the DM intended, I would then try to provide him with possible reasons it wouldn't work.
I respect that. I do it myself.
Yes. I expect them to use whatever resources they have available (indeed: hopefully I encourage it). If their suggestions seem implausable (or does not fit the scenario), I will say as much... but it doesn't hurt for them to ask.
We're on the same page here.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 2:41PM
#12
|
|
|
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. As the DM, I do have a player who goes out of her way to protect her character, but with 4E roles and her being a Striker and the leader of the group (as in she leads, not her role) it kinda makes sense. She is zipping around the grip sniping anyone who attacks or is threatening the others, and they are keeping the badguys away from their glass-jawed damage-dealer.
During our last session her character was hit by a trap. Basically a water blast from one trap moved her into a whirlpool trap in the center of a sewer area. She probably spent 5 minutes trying to think of every possible way of countering the trap so it wouldnt effect her. I finally said "How about you just see what the trap does ... this would be the first hit you've actually taken this session." She grudgingly agreed.
The whirlpool sucked her Warlock under, doing about 8 damage and spitting her out a pipe at the far end of the room, which actually put her in better range of an escaping enemy, and gave her the "dazed" effect which she successfully saved against on her next turn. She was like "Oh. That wasn't so bad" and everyone else was saying "Aww, that's cool! Stay away from THAT thing!" I think it enhanced the fun instead of taking away, but it was a hard sell at that moment. Most players, unless they specifically go for something like a Defender class (I have a player who loves watching his guy take damage and still stand), will go to great lengths to protect their characters from harm.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 2:58PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
During our last session her character was hit by a trap. Basically a water blast from one trap moved her into a whirlpool trap in the center of a sewer area. She probably spent 5 minutes trying to think of every possible way of countering the trap so it wouldnt effect her. I finally said "How about you just see what the trap does ... this would be the first hit you've actually taken this session." She grudgingly agreed.
An excellent anecdote. I see this a lot. I assume it's fear of the unknown. There's literally no limit to how bad a DM can make things, and if a trap could plausibly be a death trap, you're going to want to avoid it. Then this gets extended to avoiding every hit because you never know what riders it might have, or when you're going to need those hit points later.
Of course, this makes me think that an "interesting failure" approach overall might get people to start relishing traps, instead of trying to nullify them.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:02PM
#14
|
|
|
Centauri, my hope was for one of the players to see a benefit in the trap. Other than a 1d10 damage, it basically was a teleport (albiet with a dazed effect), moving you from one end of the map to the other. It actually took her away from a rather big monster that ended up spending a round chomping her sidhe minion (one of the Sidhe Lord powers) instead of attacking her or following her, or even going after a player character at all.
I also expected the PCs to start pushing bad guys into the whirlpool and just plant someone near the pipe to wail on them while they were dazed, but they never really got the chance to do it.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:35PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I would consider as many tactics/options as I could.
Why? Or rather, what would be your ultimate goal with this approach?
It's part of problem solving. The goal is to think your way past an obstacle. That can include considering certain proactive measures that you would've (or actually had) made ahead of time.
It's also part of establishing verisimilitude. For this reason I'll also inform the DM if he forgot to consider certain details that would make the scenario harder for me.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:52PM
#16
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Bad:
DM: Your parents are kidnapped
P1: Dude, I'm an orphan!
Well, sometimes it is a useful thing to be an orphan boy
(one of my last characters was a lazy Warlord|Bard named Major-General Stanley, who happened to be a victim of a pirate attack)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:25PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
DM: Your parents are kidnapped
P1: Dude, I'm an orphan!
Well, sometimes it is a useful thing to be an orphan boy
Anecdote: in a previous campaign I made the mistake of mentioning in my rogue PC's background that he only claimed be an orphan (even though he was raised in a perfectly normal family).
So of course the DM immediately took my family hostage. And I felt obligated to 'care' about them (even though that was implicitly not part of my character concept) so as not to ruin his plot. He then continued the "rogue cares about his family" plot-line for several months until I left.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:29PM
#18
|
|
|
DM: Your parents are kidnapped
P1: Dude, I'm an orphan!
Well, sometimes it is a useful thing to be an orphan boy
Anecdote: in a previous campaign I made the mistake of mentioning in my rogue PC's background that he only claimed be an orphan (even though he was raised in a perfectly normal family).
So of course the DM immediately took my family hostage. And I felt obligated to 'care' about them (even though that was expressly not part of my character concept) so as not to ruin his plot. He then continued the "rogue cares about his family" plot-line for several months until I left.
Sounds like your DM's way of seeking a penalty fifty-fold
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:35PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
If the situation presented by the DM is at least interesting and (hopefully) challenging, would you as a player try to "get out of it" before it even kicks off, or make it "easier" on yourself? If so, why would you?
Of course I would, because if the DM is overlooking something that's going to ruin the scenario, it's better to notice this and fix it beforehand than to have it come up later on. If the game starts and then I realize I have Ability X that will solve the problem instantly, then either I use it and the problem is solved, or I pretend not to remember it to make things work better for the DM, which is just frustrating as a player, or the DM retcons something so that my solution doesn't work. The retcon option is sometimes viable, sometimes not...but much more likely to be viable if the need for it is noticed
If you're in the position of the DM, would you be okay if the players did this?
Sure. Telling them not to is like telling them not to try to solve the problem. I might as well just make it a dictated cut scene. If I were describing something before the action started, and someone pointed out a big hole in my logic, I might alter things to make it work. More likely though, I'd pass it off as a big hole in the villain's logic, let them take whatever exploit, and improvise from there. I've seen some very fun plot twists emerge from this approach.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:01PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2011
|
Regarding the original post, I fullly expect players to do everything they can to solve problems. Particularly if they have abilities that are applicable.
As far as objecting as a player, the only reason I would object is that a prior problem is being dragged out. I wouldn't want to take away prior accomplishments of my players nor would I want that done to me as a player. If I thought I had dealt with thing X already and the DM says no you didn't, I'd be a little frustrated. If it's a new problem, well, as others have pointed out, that's why we play this game.
Now, the player responses to this abstract situation certainly make sense for P1. For P2, hard to evaluate with so little detail, but things should always make sense within the context of the fiction and whatever has been established about the world. However, when there is a contradiction, part of the adventure can become finding out why this unlikely thing happened. P3 is hard to evaluate. Was this a DM oversight and the character actually wasn't there? Or is P3 coming up with something on the spot in a attempt to avoid the complication?
|
|
|
