It's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Do you disagree that a DM can make a good answer boring and a wrong answer fun?
You're putting this into the position of the DM. The original post is from the perspective of the players. Therefore, I fail to see the relevance.
My original quote was from Iserith, who say the players were wrong for telling the other player that the idea to ransack the office was foolish. That is an incorrect statement. A debate among players about the direction they, as a party wish to go is /never/ wrong. Ever.
The DM's job is to facilitate that discussion and make sure it does not drag on for too long. Once their decision is made, then yes, the DM adjusts fire to that and drives on. But the players should never EVER have to agree to the first thing that another player suggests. The players should /always/ have a voice as to what's a good idea and what's not a good idea.
You're putting this into the position of the DM. The original post is from the perspective of the players. Therefore, I fail to see the relevance.
It's highly relevant. The OP made it clear on subsequent posts that the party had made little progress in three game hours. Based on the actions described in the original post, it wouldn't surprise me if that slow pace is because the DM either directly stymies their efforts, or they're afraid he will and try to come up with un-stymiable plans.
But there's no such thing. That flame trap wasn't part of the DM's original concept. It's exactly designed to fit in with one of the objections the players raised to the original idea, so it's more than possible that the DM merely picked up on that idea. The DM would have made the plan fail whether the character had charged in or not.
My original quote was from Iserith, who say the players were wrong for telling the other player that the idea to ransack the office was foolish. That is an incorrect statement. A debate among players about the direction they, as a party wish to go is /never/ wrong. Ever.
I could just as easily say that wasting in-game time over pointless risk-mitigation is never right. Ever.
The DM failed to facilitate the session well. I don't think that's open to debate.
Discussion is never a waste of time. You bring this up constantly in your posts. As I said, it's the DM's job to facilitate. Hopefully, we can at least agree that the DM did not handle this situation well.
There are lots of reasons to not agree. Such as, the party not wanting to deal with the repercussions of actually performing the act.
The and... does not give them that voice. It merely forces them to deal with the mess that another player may have made.
And...sometimes players need to learn to not make poor decisions. If they want to walk into a church full of Lolth's clergy and yell DEATH TO THE SPIDERQUEEN, by all means they can do that. They'll get a round of applause from me for having the cajoles to try something like that. After I give them that little clap, they'd better pray the gods of the dice are merciful, because I will not be.
You're putting this into the position of the DM. The original post is from the perspective of the players. Therefore, I fail to see the relevance.
My original quote was from Iserith, who say the players were wrong for telling the other player that the idea to ransack the office was foolish. That is an incorrect statement. A debate among players about the direction they, as a party wish to go is /never/ wrong. Ever.
The DM's job is to facilitate that discussion and make sure it does not drag on for too long. Once their decision is made, then yes, the DM adjusts fire to that and drives on. But the players should never EVER have to agree to the first thing that another player suggests. The players should /always/ have a voice as to what's a good idea and what's not a good idea.
Yes, and you're right that the party doesn't have to agree to the first thing another player suggests. For the good of the game, they should at least include that person's suggestion ("Yes") and then add onto to it to make it better ("and..."). Centauri makes the case very well here. The premise is that if someone says they want to do something, they're interested in that. Take the thing they're interested in and ADD to it. Don't take away from it. Doing so moves the game forward at a great pace and builds trust among the players.
Usually, when I see players shooting down ideas of others players is when they believe there is only ONE solution to the problem. If they do believe that, it's probably because the DM runs his or her game that way. And, in my opinion, that's a terrible way to run a game because it shuts down players' ideas and makes their choices near meaningless - at least, choices that aren't the right ones, "right" being the ones the DM has predetermined as "acceptable." That's pretty clear what happened in this particular scenario, which would explain in part why they spent 3.5 hours ramming their heads into walls and making no progress. So really, the players' approach to the game is a response to the DM's approach. Though truthfully, the round-n-round planning discussions are certainly ubiquitous in many gaming circles and an unforunate phenomenon on its own.
By the way, I inadvertently "Yes, and'ed" you in this post. It's catchy because it works.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
If the dragonborn player has a history of going and doing things like this (deliberately causing a ruckus when stealthy stuff is going on, antagonizing people in diplomatic encounters, etc...) someone should have a chat with them about the intended tone of the game, the importance of being a good teammate and well 'manners'. This should be an Out Of Game conversation. If you have a good relationship with the player talk to them some time in a fairly neutral, low key, circumstance. Maybe mention how it was really rather frustrating because xyz. If you don't have that kind of a good relationship talk to the DM or a player that does. If this is really coming up a lot it would probably be causing a lot of problems with many people in enjoying the game.
If this is a rare event a OOC 'dude, that was not cool' and then your PC(s) giving them a hard time for *a* session would be understandable.
Isreth:
No. This is a group game and one person haring off and causing havoc with the groups roleplay plans because they are bored is inappropriate. It messes with everyone having a good time, and when part of a pattern results in lots of ticked off people. This is not really an issue with the DM running the game, this is an issue with a player choosing to be a bad team player. You do not get to have your way just because you want it; you do not get to ruin other people's enjoyment of the game just because you want it.
The and... does not give them that voice. It merely forces them to deal with the mess that another player may have made.
The and comes up front. It can be "and I'll try to disarm any traps," or "and I'll be the lookout," or anything else that they think might mitigate frustrating failure. Both of those deal with the only real objection to the original plan in this case: that there might be traps. When has the possibility of traps ever been a useful dissuasion anyway?
And...sometimes players need to learn to not make poor decisions. If they want to walk into a church full of Lolth's clergy and yell DEATH TO THE SPIDERQUEEN, by all means they can do that. They'll get a round of applause from me for having the cajoles to try something like that. After I give them that little clap, they'd better pray the gods of the dice are merciful, because I will not be.
Why not? Why would you do anything other than give them an extremely enjoyable game, no matter what course of action they chose. What do you mean that you won't be merciful? That they should expect their characters to die or suffer some other frustrating fate? How does that not make the game boring for you as well? Their decision was not inherently poor, you are choosing to make it poor and exactly how poor to make it, to teach them a lesson. So, what's the real lesson you're trying to teach?
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
No. This is a group game and one person haring off and causing havoc with the groups roleplay plans because they are bored is inappropriate. It messes with everyone having a good time, and when part of a pattern results in lots of ticked off people. This is not really an issue with the DM running the game, this is an issue with a player choosing to be a bad team player. You do not get to have your way just because you want it; you do not get to ruin other people's enjoyment of the game just because you want it.
You're missing some stuff. Understandable - this thread is a long one already.
To recap, the idea to ransack wasn't the dragonborn's. And nobody's saying he's blameless here, certainly not me. He was blocking ideas by way of his actions just like the players were originally blocking the idea of the player who wanted to ransack in the first place. What I am saying is I know where he's coming from. He was clearly frustrated after spending 3.5 hours discussing plans with no real progress. So he acted out. Again, not cool. But understandable. Everyone did their part to make this session go awry.
However, it is VERY much an issue that stems from how the DM is running the game. You'll note that when the game was moving apace previously (lightning rail scene iirc?) there were no problems. When it became a game of "guess the DM's solution" and 3.5 hours of blocking occurred, then there was a problem. It's not a difficult thing to pinpoint. I've seen it done. I've done it myself. It's a thing that happens very commonly.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
because I believe that decisions and repercussions enhance the game.
Under your approach, it simply does not matter, because you'll make it good. Under my approach, the players will be excited because there is a chance for failure, and there will be real consequences for for making foolish choices.
What I mean by I will not be merciful is if the dice say they die, then they die. In most situations, I'd probably fudge things here and there...I doubt I would let them straight up die due to the dice gods lack of mercy. If they do something there should be little hope for them to survive, then...if the dice say they die, they will die.
let me put it to you this way: I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. If it seems unrealistic, it probably is. For example, if you jump off the golden gate bridge, the chances are good that you will die. If one of my players jumps off the golden gate bridge without some means to avoid the splat...guess what? They're likely going to die and I'm not going to intervene.
In the case of the original poster, there is no "and..." that's going to make the guy they want to help him grateful, for having trashed his office.
because I believe that decisions and repercussions enhance the game
Me too! I let the dice decide the result of the PCs' plans with collaboration to make failure interesting. That "interesting failure" might just be death, if everyone finds it interesting, which they do with surprisingly frequency.
Under your approach, it simply does not matter, because you'll make it good. Under my approach, the players will be excited because there is a chance for failure, and there will be real consequences for for making foolish choices.
I don't decide what is foolish or not. The dice do. Thus, no plan is really foolish. It's just a plan. If the dice turns out that the foolish plan works (a literary staple, no?) then it does. If it fails, it fails. Collaboration will determine what that failure means in context with an eye toward keeping it interesting, not punitive or boring.
What I mean by I will not be merciful is if the dice say they die, then they die. In most situations, I'd probably fudge things here and there...I doubt I would let them straight up die due to the dice gods lack of mercy. If they do something there should be little hope for them to survive, then...if the dice say they die, they will die.
I agree! They should suffer the consequences if the dice don't go their way, provided the consequences are interesting. I got one up on you though... I NEVER, EVER fudge.
let me put it to you this way: I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. If it seems unrealistic, it probably is. For example, if you jump off the golden gate bridge, the chances are good that you will die. If one of my players jumps off the golden gate bridge without some means to avoid the splat...guess what? They're likely going to die and I'm not going to intervene.
Me either. Hmm, maybe our styles have more in common than you think...
In the case of the original poster, there is no "and..." that's going to make the guy they want to help him grateful, for having trashed his office.
The NPC you mean? What if the characters worked together to make the frame-up work instead of argue about how it couldn't or shouldn't? (Again, the DM is really the issue here. Players' actions were just a symptom.)
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
Under your approach, it simply does not matter, because you'll make it good.
I try to choose my words carefully, so I'm sorry I give you the impression that I'd make it "good." I would make it interesting. They would not have to pray to the dice gods, because the players will enjoy the outcome whether they succeed or fail. That doesn't mean the characters necessarily will.
Under my approach, the players will be excited because there is a chance for failure, and there will be real consequences for for making foolish choices.
That, in and of itself, is nothing to get excited about, unless the failure is enjoyable.
There are no "real" consequences, only cool ones or frustrating ones, and no inherently "foolish" choices, just what the DM chooses to facilitate. Adventuring is a "foolish" choice, but it is one most DMs will facilitate.
What I mean by I will not be merciful is if the dice say they die, then they die. In most situations, I'd probably fudge things here and there...I doubt I would let them straight up die due to the dice gods lack of mercy. If they do something there should be little hope for them to survive, then...if the dice say they die, they will die.
Okay, and once you've killed them. Now what? The game is over for you and for them. What lesson have you taught them? That realism is more important than the game itself?
let me put it to you this way: I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. If it seems unrealistic, it probably is. For example, if you jump off the golden gate bridge, the chances are good that you will die. If one of my players jumps off the golden gate bridge without some means to avoid the splat...guess what? They're likely going to die and I'm not going to intervene.
But as you say, the chances are "good." Not everyone who does something like that will die, even in the real world. This is the basis of action movies: stretch the suspension of disbelief a little bit, or carefully leave out some physics to make things fun.
In games, DMs get to make a choice: describe a boring consequence, or describe an interesting consequence. If a DM can't describe an interesting consequence, then it's time to ask the player or players what they think would be an interesting way to proceed. It could be that they think the boring consequence would be interesting. That was not the case with the original group. There was clear frustation at the consequence the DM chose.
In the case of the original poster, there is no "and..." that's going to make the guy they want to help him grateful, for having trashed his office.
Maybe not, but that's only one outcome and not a particularly interesting one. What the PCs were attempting was to stage a break-in to make the NPC decide to give them something. Interesting success is: they succeed. If they fail, interesting failure could be a lot of things; such as the NPC putting the item in a safe spot, which entails futher adventure to try to reach. Or something. Anything.
I'm trying to be clear here: interesting consequences doesn't mean good consequences. Bad things happen to characters in stories all the time, but they're not boring consequences or we wouldn't read about them. Failure, yes; boring failure, no.
Edit: That post got away from player advice. I stand by just supporting the first plan anyone offers. Add to it as best your character can, and try to make it work. It probably stands just as good a chance of working as anything else and at least if it fails you saved some time.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
