Community

Jan 18, 2013 -- 12:06PM, Noctaem wrote:

misrepresenting a past event eh ?  The situation you're referencing is nothing like the one the OP presented.  The key differences are that 1) the party was going in the caves as a group, everyone wanted to go kick some goblin butt.  We didn't have a situation where one player wanted to go commit a crime and the rest we're not interested. 2) the issue was how to go about it, after 30 minutes of back and forth I decided to just make something happen because even the DM was getting bored out of his mind and messaging me on skype.  I wish you would actually take the time to know what you're talking about before throwing out this kind of nonsense just to try and undermine someone else.

The problem in our group was not a "yes, and" as again you fail to see, the problem was indecision about how best to approach the situation.  Overplaning and trying to figure out every little problem that could come up.  It wasn't people blocking other peoples ideas, it was people coming up with ideas non stop and everyone being paralyzed by the fear of something going wrong.  It was a group of new players and seasoned veterans.  And of course we all know that baldhermit is a killer DM !

I disagree and I was not undermining you. I'm simply pointing out how common this situation is. I just observed it going on in another group I joined. It was fixed with "Yes, and..." once it was pointed out as being a problem. The group no longer has an issue.

And yes, the situations are very similar. And both situations would have seen improvement with the solution we have offered. These kinds of things simply don't happen with the approach we're suggesting. Thirty minutes of discussion on how to go about it, whether you want to think about it the way I prescribe or not, is a form of blocking. You don't see improv actors doing this. Someone makes an offer, someone else accepts with embellishment. That's how it works. Decisions are made quickly, the game moves forward. Now, that might not be your preference. Some people really like that debate and planning. But others don't - like you and bald hermit (after a certain point) or this dragonborn fellow. The solution I suggest, straight from the 4e DMG and DMG2, is perfectly valid in both cases. It cuts down on the debate, gives everyone at least a bit of what they want, and moves the game forward.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 12:06PM, Noctaem wrote:

I have no interest in blocking you, I will however continue to point out that your methods are not a one stop answer to every problem.  This is what you and centauri just don't seem to understand.  Not everyone uses your game format and not every group is open to it.  Stop trying to force it down everyone elses throats and I won't have to point it out to you everytime you try.  Yes there is a text in the rules about going along with ideas from the players and adding to them to suit your taste as a DM.  That being said it's not a solution that applies to every problem.  

Good, because I have no interest in blocking you either. I like you and have respect for your opinions. I changed a number of my own approaches because of your input. Still, I will point out that while we do offer it as a solution to many problems, that doesn't mean it's the only solution or that we're saying it's the only solution. I leave it to others to present different viewpoints. The posters can then choose what works for them. We're certainly not forcing it on anyone. That's just a problem of perception of individual readers.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 12:06PM, Noctaem wrote:

It doesn't matter who advanced the idea to ransack the office, what matters is the player who acted and did it when the majority did not want to go down that path.  This is the key difference between the situation of the OP and the situation of my group which you're either ignorant about or willfully ignoring.

I'm not saying the dragonborn player is blameless. I'm saying that I understand where he's coming from. You and bald hermit do too, right? My solution is to address this BEFORE it becomes a problem, not how to deal with the aftermath. Because by then, it's probably too late.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 12:28PM, Chainsawhand wrote:

I'm trying to help the OP, not force some agenda

Then get on with it, and don't worry about the advice others give. I'll try to do the same. If anyone would like clarification on why "Yes, and..." is a good idea, and why interesting failure should be advanced as an idea for the DM, I'm happy to dicuss it further.

@Broc6000

After reading your post I'm going to probably ask a few more questions for clarification and I will try to assist you.  I may give some of my own examples as well. Bear with me here.

You stated that you were being deceptive with the NPC already, suggesting to  ransack the office is simply a another form of deception.   

The Dragonborn character who you described as being reckless and headstrong charges into danger.

You already briefly described this character as charging in combat.  Sounds that this character charges headlong into roleplaying actions as well.

Question for you:  If there had been no magical trap, no guards, etc, would you still be upset at the Dragonborn character?  What if you did ransack the office and found the information you needed?  Would the Dragonborn's actions still have been a problem?

I run a game with a reckless character in it.  I also used to player a reckless Rogue/Barbarian Halfling in an old 3.0/3.5 game.  It has been my experience that for the non reckless characters it's not the reckless  acts that they have issue with, it's when that recklessness acts have negative consequences. The glass always seems to look half empty when things aren't going the way you want them too.

I would suggest talking this out in-game.  If the Dragonborn character believes himself to be honorable, then simply ask him if leaving his allies in the midst of danger is honorable to him.

Out of game you need to be clear and understanding.  Most of all don't look at only your own opinions.  Talk, then let the other player talk, then repeat.  Comment on what they say to make it clear you hear and understand what they are saying.

Pick in-game or out-of-game don't do both.

I would approach the other character/player as you would want to be approached yourself. 

Oh and for the record, I interpret the spell on the door to suggest that the Gnome has something to hide.  It could have just as easily been a spell that made the ink vanish from everything in the room that would have been just as effective.  Fire is a very aggressive way to protects an office filled with parchment and scrolls.