|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:02PM
#1
|
|
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:16PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
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.”
... players will object to being put in that danger and asked to figure a way out of it.
Maybe think of it as:
These questions are their way of proactively figuring a way out of it.
Their questions seem reasonable. They are doing their job as players. Be tough, but fair. If they've taken steps (or have abilities) to say, avoid ambushes, then they should benefit from avoiding an ambush... especially if you hadn't planned on that ability. Let them occasionally get an easy win. They've 'outwitted' the DM. Good on them.
Next time you can come up with a tougher situation for them. Or if you want the tough situation to start en medias res, maybe ask them how it might come to be. Example:
DM: "I wanted to start this session with the party being in jail. Will that work?"
P1: "Sure. We're pretty tough, but I suppose the town guard could muster up some high level sorts to get us to comply. But P2 can teleport, so I don't think he could be locked up."
P2: "The town guard can probably do something about that. Maybe anti-teleport manacles or something. A blindfold might even work."
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?
Players will resist a DM taking liberties when it puts them in a spot. What makes it ok is to get their buy-in first (as indicated above). Another example:
Bad:
DM: Your parents are kidnapped
P1: Dude, I'm an orphan!
Good:
DM: I was planning to have your parents kidnapped in this session. Is that ok?
P1: Hmm. Well, I had intended to be an orphan, but I'm sure there's someone in my life that I'd be attached to. Or maybe this is how I learn about my real parents?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:29PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
|
Good drama involves dilemmas ("impaling the protagonists on the horns of a dilemma" is a tried and true writing technique), so in general this is fair game. However, in regards to specific player complaints:
Players 1 and 3 have a legitimate gripe, at least if the DM does not have a sufficiently plausible reason within the context of the narrative to override their issues. Note that it only has to be plausible within the context of the narrative, and not necessarily "realistic". For P1, this involves having a sufficient excuse to override a power (and in 4th edition this isn't terribly hard given the general limitation of utlity powers). For P3 this is a problem of motivation, so tossing the ball back in the player's court ("What is your reason for boarding the Blue Dolphin / staying at the Green Rogue Inn / attending the court of Duke Darkbad?") is a reasonably LIM-based response.
Player 2 is just being contrarian. One of the basic buy-ins of LIM is that a setting only has to be as "realistic" as the collective narrative requires. Dragons, pixies, sorcerors, etc, are all inherently unrealistic. P2's problem is really a less-articulated version of P3's argument (one of motivation) so if you want to be egalitarian ask the player how it might have come to pass.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:31PM
#4
|
|
|
Or if you want the tough situation to start en medias res, maybe ask them how it might come to be. Example:
DM: "I wanted to start this session with the party being in jail. Will that work?"
P1: "Sure. We're pretty tough, but I suppose the town guard could muster up some high level sorts to get us to comply. But P2 can teleport, so I don't think he could be locked up."
P2: "The town guard can probably do something about that. Maybe anti-teleport manacles or something. A blindfold might even work."
That's my general approach in a nutshell, for the record.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:45PM
#5
|
|
|
Players will resist a DM taking liberties when it puts them in a spot. What makes it ok is to get their buy-in first (as indicated above). Another example:
Bad:
DM: Your parents are kidnapped
P1: Dude, I'm an orphan!
Good:
DM: I was planning to have your parents kidnapped in this session. Is that ok?
P1: Hmm. Well, I had intended to be an orphan, but I'm sure there's someone in my life that I'd be attached to. Or maybe this is how I learn about my real parents?
I posted about this situation generally as I think it's fairly universal, but for my own purposes, I'm thinking of a specific situation that I won't really need to get into here. I think buy-in is important, definitely. Where I may have made a mistake in this specific transaction was assuming I had buy-in where I did not.
However, to touch on one of the other questions I asked above, it's okay to modify the in media res problem with player contribution and collaboration before the action "starts" (at least in my book). 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? If you're in the position of the DM, would you be okay if the players did this?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:51PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Next time you can come up with a tougher situation for them. Or if you want the tough situation to start en medias res, maybe ask them how it might come to be. Example:
DM: "I wanted to start this session with the party being in jail. Will that work?"
P1: "Sure. We're pretty tough, but I suppose the town guard could muster up some high level sorts to get us to comply. But P2 can teleport, so I don't think he could be locked up."
P2: "The town guard can probably do something about that. Maybe anti-teleport manacles or something. A blindfold might even work."
Every group I've played in would have P2 telelport out of jail when no one is looking, then teleport back later.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:17PM
#7
|
|
|
Either the players buy into the DM's proposed story, or they make up their own story, or there is no game.
Those are the three immutable choices of RPGs. Since, like, forever.
(I can specifically remember having this same conversation on Usenet back in the early '90s, and I'm sure it was going on the Forum pages of Dragon magazine during the '70s and '80s.)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:21PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
would you as a player try to "get out of it" before it even kicks off, or make it "easier" on yourself?
Yes. I would consider as many tactics/options as I could. If some of them seemed against what the DM intended, I would then try to provide him with possible reasons it wouldn't work.
If you're in the position of the DM, would you be okay if the players did this?
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:22PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Either the players buy into the DM's proposed story, or they make up their own story, or there is no game.
Those are the three immutable choices of RPGs. Since, like, forever.
Well put. But I think there's another option that is a mix of the first and second: "or they collaborate."
I don't remember Dragon, or any official product taking a particularly enlightened view of things, hence we have the idea that it's the players' job to go along with the DM, and the DM's job to entertain the players, which I think has issues.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:28PM
#10
|
|
|
I think there's another option that is a mix of the first and second: "or they collaborate."
Good point, and you're right that modern games do a much better job of encouraging collaboration than most old school games.
|
|
|
