|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:04AM
#1
|
|
|
The question is "What is 'gotcha' DMing defined as to you"? I think this is an interesting topic because I think it is an excellent measuring stick by which to gauge the difference between what is "fair" and what is "not"...especially because I generally believe that to be just about 100% up to presentation.
I don't wish to "taint" the responses or bait anything by immediately vomiting my own answer into the OP, so I'll let the community begin in the interest of discussion.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:19AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
|
To define it as broadly as possible, any DM style that enforces one "correct" outcome to an encounter (and consequently shuts off play if the outcome is incorrect).
This sort of thing was rampant in pre-3e modules (and is still lingering around to some extent). Tomb of Horrors-style play is the most obvious example, where if you didn't take very specific (and often counter-intuitive and non-obvious) actions, your entire party was toast. Randomly-guessed solutions have thankfully gone the way of Sierra games for the most part, but every once in a while you find an atavistic DM who thinks that sort of thing is hilarious.
I do not personally find a linear narrative to automatically lend itself to "gotcha" DMing, though I do feel that wedding yourself to a pre-written plotline does increase the temptation to shoehorn the players into "correct" and "incorrect" actions. The antidote to avoiding this sort of thing is to openly encourage and reward creative initiative from your players and have enough flexibility in your playstyle to broaden the possible range of "winning" scenarios.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:20AM
#3
|
|
|
DMG page 26-27: "Gotcha" Abilities: Pay attention to monster abilities that change the basic rules and tactics of combat, and give players the cues they need to recognize them. Describe the ability as it might appear in the game world, and then describe it in game terms to make it clear. For example, if the characters are fighting a pit fiend, whose aura of fire deals fire damage to creatures within 5 squares, you might tell the players (before their characters come in range), “The heat emanating from the devil is intense even at this distance. You know that getting within five squares of it is going to burn you.” |
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:25AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I see it as generally punishing the players for not reading thr DM's mind and giving the right arbitrary answer to something(even if that answer was Not to Play).
My example was this one DM I played with where during a fight, our level 21 party defeated his encounter of about 15-ish level 21-25 standards and 4 level 26 solos, along with a level 27 solo(it was a veeery close fight though). He responded with Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies and tells us we lost.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:37AM
#5
|
|
|
To define it as broadly as possible, any DM style that enforces one "correct" outcome to an encounter (and consequently shuts off play if the outcome is incorrect).
This sort of thing was rampant in pre-3e modules (and is still lingering around to some extent). Tomb of Horrors-style play is the most obvious example, where if you didn't take very specific (and often counter-intuitive and non-obvious) actions, your entire party was toast. Randomly-guessed solutions have thankfully gone the way of Sierra games for the most part, but every once in a while you find an atavistic DM who thinks that sort of thing is hilarious.
I do not personally find a linear narrative to automatically lend itself to "gotcha" DMing, though I do feel that wedding yourself to a pre-written plotline does increase the temptation to shoehorn the players into "correct" and "incorrect" actions. The antidote to avoiding this sort of thing is to openly encourage and reward creative initiative from your players and have enough flexibility in your playstyle to broaden the possible range of "winning" scenarios.
Interesting.
Would you consider it "fair" if the answer to a solution is maintained as one answer to a given solution but that other solutions may exist if the players can think "around" it?
For instance, if there is a heavy locked door and the players do not have the key for it. Would it be "gotcha" DMing for them to have missed the key that unlocked it? That is to say, there was the key elsewhere to be had (or they have not reached it yet) thus it cannot be conventionally unlocked. At the moment, the PCs lack the physical means to batter the door down or what-have-you (that is not to say it is impossible, just that by the standards of the material or whatever, they literally can't just brute-force through the door) and they lack the magic to by-pass it (such as to teleport or whatever).
How would "gotcha' DMing apply to this door? Would it only apply if the PCs DID think of a thoughtful way around it but the DM over-ruled it? Or is the presentation of the situation as written already "gotcha"?
Thank you for being part of the discussion!
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:40AM
#6
|
|
|
DMG page 26-27:
"Gotcha" Abilities: Pay attention to monster abilities that change the basic rules and tactics of combat, and give players the cues they need to recognize them. Describe the ability as it might appear in the game world, and then describe it in game terms to make it clear. For example, if the characters are fighting a pit fiend, whose aura of fire deals fire damage to creatures within 5 squares, you might tell the players (before their characters come in range), “The heat emanating from the devil is intense even at this distance. You know that getting within five squares of it is going to burn you.”
Ah, now this is very neat. Good stuff. Something should be reasonably presented to the players so that they can make a decision on it. Would you find it acceptable to prevent a "gotcha" situation if the sentence was presented thusly: "The heat emanating from the devil is intense even at this distance. It's sure to get dangerously hot if you approach closer." ?
Personally, I do not necessarily see a need to describe it in game terms...in fact, I try to avoid that if I can.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:41AM
#7
|
|
|
I see it as generally punishing the players for not reading thr DM's mind and giving the right arbitrary answer to something(even if that answer was Not to Play).
My example was this one DM I played with where during a fight, our level 21 party defeated his encounter of about 15-ish level 21-25 standards and 4 level 26 solos, along with a level 27 solo(it was a veeery close fight though). He responded with Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies and tells us we lost.
Haha, that sounds less like a "gotcha" and more like a temper tantrum. Perhaps the game ran wrong and that particular DM was in desperate need of a diaper change, because I can only imagine how infantile he would have to be to act like that. Unfortunate for you folks around the table indeed. A DM with an agenda is definitely likely to throw "gotcha" moments I would think.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:51AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
|
For instance, if there is a heavy locked door and the players do not have the key for it. Would it be "gotcha" DMing for them to have missed the key that unlocked it? That is to say, there was the key elsewhere to be had (or they have not reached it yet) thus it cannot be conventionally unlocked. At the moment, the PCs lack the physical means to batter the door down or what-have-you (that is not to say it is impossible, just that by the standards of the material or whatever, they literally can't just brute-force through the door) and they lack the magic to by-pass it (such as to teleport or whatever).
This is why I tend to dislike choke-points in design. You're already presenting the party with a binary condition (either the door is locked and a barrier or unlocked and insignificant - the moment the door is open it ceases to be relevant) that lends itself to a very limited natural set of solutions. By adding some special lock condition (which automatically prevents a thief character or brute-force character from working their possible solution) you are now pre-supposing that the characters must satisfy this condition before continuing on the adventure.
Now, if opening the door is the adventure goal in itself (and the players are sufficiently interested) then that is a marginally acceptable condition, so long as it is at least telegraphed as such in advance ("You must find the Jewel of the Autarchs in the City of the Damned if you wish to cross the planar gate"). You run the real danger that the players won't care a lick about what is on the other side of the door, but at least you will make the solution (finding the key) predicated on their choice. If however the door is just another obstacle in the dungeon, and the party has to backtrack to find which non-obvious side-room or NPC is holding the magic key, I would consider that an annoying "gotcha" tactic since it would essentially reverse the entire momentum of the established adventure in order to satisfy the condition you designed.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:53AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
I would define it as using your powers as DM to guarantee a "win" against the players in such a way that they could not reasonably have anticipated what wsa going to happen or prevented it. There are situations where this is okay to do, especially if you're doing it through the intermediary of a clever villain. But it's almost certainly not okay if you're doing it because you can't stand to see them succeed, or because you think it's funny to set up a no-win scenario.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:57AM
#10
|
|
|
For instance, if there is a heavy locked door and the players do not have the key for it. Would it be "gotcha" DMing for them to have missed the key that unlocked it? That is to say, there was the key elsewhere to be had (or they have not reached it yet) thus it cannot be conventionally unlocked. At the moment, the PCs lack the physical means to batter the door down or what-have-you (that is not to say it is impossible, just that by the standards of the material or whatever, they literally can't just brute-force through the door) and they lack the magic to by-pass it (such as to teleport or whatever).
This is why I tend to dislike choke-points in design. You're already presenting the party with a binary condition (either the door is locked and a barrier or unlocked and insignificant - the moment the door is open it ceases to be relevant) that lends itself to a very limited natural set of solutions. By adding some special lock condition (which automatically prevents a thief character or brute-force character from working their possible solution) you are now pre-supposing that the characters must satisfy this condition before continuing on the adventure.
Now, if opening the door is the adventure goal in itself (and the players are sufficiently interested) then that is a marginally acceptable condition, so long as it is at least telegraphed as such in advance ("You must find the Jewel of the Autarchs in the City of the Damned if you wish to cross the planar gate"). You run the real danger that the players won't care a lick about what is on the other side of the door, but at least you will make the solution (finding the key) predicated on their choice. If however the door is just another obstacle in the dungeon, and the party has to backtrack to find which non-obvious side-room or NPC is holding the magic key, I would consider that an annoying "gotcha" tactic since it would essentially reverse the entire momentum of the established adventure in order to satisfy the condition you designed.
First of all, seriously thank you for the opportunity at this exchange...I think it will prove very insightful.
If you were being presented with an organic world where you are the driving force behind your own actions, would that "choke-point" become less of an issue for you know that in real life such choke-points not only exist but are logical?
Along with that question though, please presume that there's no over-arching NEED for you to get through the door (indeed to do anything) beyond your characters (and therefore probably your own) desire to see what is on the other side. Your ability to adventure and continue to do as you wish will not be artificially impeded until the door is opened. Also presume that the door does not react arbitrarily to your attempts against it and that there are hard-coded things at work (IE the door is X hard to damage and is Y hard to pick...and those two variables are static).
NOTE: If you need more information about the particulars of this hypothetical, by all means, ask...neither of us can occupy the others mind or (unfortunately) game table, so there is bound to be disconnect, assumptions and everything in between as we discuss. I will not be offended if I am told I have not given enough info or am not being clear.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
