Actualy, choice only matters if the players have a reasonable idea of the consequences of the choices involved. If the players have no clue what lies along either path, they might as well throw a dice to determine what path to take and they honestly would not care whether you designed one or two encounters. For them the end result is exactly the same. There is not even an illusion of choice. In other words, the quantum fortress example is a theoretical example that is going to place the pro-illusion-of-choice people in a negative light from the outset; as an example it is skewed. If this ever happens at your table, your DM needs to work on his descriptive skills*, not on the way how he runs his adventures.
* Roads always have forks at some point and you can certainly add them to add depth and life to the setting, but unless you want players to spend some time on picking the right path, you keep those description short and simple so that the players know it is just boxed text.
In reality, the few times I ran across such an "illusion" of choice, the DM gave the PCs clues on what they would find alongside either path and adjust that quantum fortress' description and a few mechanical details based on those clues even going so far as changing environmental hazards and terrain. If the choice was between a path through the mountains or the forest, the forest path would take more time and lead through gnoll territority and the mountain path be more straneous and lead through orc territory. The fortress would look different even though the layout might be the same. Its inhabitants would likely look different as well, but their behavior would be slightly different, especially if the PCs would take the time to talk with them. In the grand of things the choice is an illusion. The encounters are the same, but for appearances it differs and the players are going to remember how they foolishly took the mountain path because they feared gnolls but forgot they sucked at climbing and their wizard suffered mountain sickness.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why does honesty in this regard even matter? I am a fair arbiter of the rules, that is what my players know they can expect of me. I am a writer and a crafter of stories, they know and expect this of me, too. A DM's job is 3fold: 1-To be a fair arbiter of the rules. 2-To voice and control all non-PC actions (be they monsters, NPCs or environmental). 3-Ensure that the people playing the game are having fun.
Nowhere in your 3 rules does it mention writing a story for your players. That strikes me as odd when you say before that it is "expected" of you. Yes, it may be expected of you but it should not be expected of a DM.
That's why it wasnt in my 3 rules. Those 3 rules should be expected of any good DM, even one who exclusively runs pre-published modules. Hell, I've even used them from time to time. My last 3.5 game was running Paizo's Age of Worms Adventure Path. Because it was a great story, and I wanted to actually run it (the magazines have been sitting on my shelf for years) and see how a party played through that stuff.
I also do not agree with your third rule. Why is it the DMs job to ensure people are having fun? I am not their parent. I am not their guardian. I am not their jester. We are all taking part in a game. A DM's job for "fun" is only to ensure that what they are doing is fun for themselves and, in being so, doesn't interfere with 1 and 2, which take precedence over 3. Players should be responsible for their own fun. I find the notion of 3 (that DMs are responsible for peoples fun) to be a ridiculous notion because it is impossible to maintain. No one can ensure someone else is having fun. It is a useless responsibility to force onto DMs and is most likely one of the things holding back the creation of DMs....new DMs that have to worry about making the game fun for everyone when they should be focused on running well. Ruining fun and ensuring fun are two very different things. Players should strive to make the game fun for themselves...and to work towards not ruining anyone elses fun in doing so. Having them rely on the DM for that is not only silly, it's an immature gaming attitude. Everyone at the table is ultimately responsible to themselves but also has a responsibility to their fellow players. It does not rest on the DMs shoulders.
I'm talking about a meta-game consideration here. What I meant by that is making sure other players aren't ruining fun for other players, and taking steps to stop it if they are. Also, letting everyone have some spotlight time, that's something that the DM can affect. A game is not fun for everyone if the rest of the party are just sidekicks to one guy. This is what I meant. That the DM needs to tay aware of what's going on at the table from a meta-game perspective, and keep the atmosphere of the game from deteriorating. This is advice in every editions DMG I've read, because this also includes keeping sideline conversations limited, prohibiting tangents of more than a few minutes. If 2 people strike up a side conversation that slows down the game, the fun of the other 3 (or however many) is affected negatively. While the whole group should keep itself on track, it's the DM's job, officially, if the other players don't say anything.
Reason 3 is the reason I don't-for example-allow evil PCs in a party of Good and Neutral ones. Party conflict leads to player conflict, and that takes away from the fun everyone is having.
And what if that person playing an Evil PC can do so without infringing on anyone elses fun? What if they can create only interesting conflicts or none at all while still being Evil?
Given that this was MY example, from MY table and the way I run things...no. I prefer to run heroic stories. I am willing to run Evil games. But when I do, I have a Session Zero with everyone in which they discuss making characters that will be a fit for what they're doing.
You know what? Evil games are a way I run things that you would like. Since heroes are-ultimately-reactionary, when the PCs are villains, they push the story more than heroes do. Session Zero involves not only character creation, but plot discussion. The players discuss what kind of evil machinations they want to make happen, and make characters that would be a part of that plot. From there, it's just up to me to devise the obstacles and encounters (combat or no) that are a part of moving that plot of theirs forward. Example: Last time I ran an evil game, the party wanted to make a show of conquering a major city-while their real goal was to take over the paladin order motherhouse inside the city, and desecrate the altar (the PC necromancer had everything he needed to become a lich, he was going to perform the ritual on their altar). After making their characters (I gave them 16th level characters, based on the scope of what they wanted to do), they decided that to conquer the city, they'd need an army. So they went dragon hunting to get enough capital to hire out ogres, orcs, and the like, in addition to all the undead troops the cleric and necromancer could field. So I grabbed the draconomicon, and quickly had a dragon lair and dragon encounter (Brass dragon) for them to go against. The negotiations with the tribal leaders was mostly roleplay, and involved some fairly grisly threats. The actual assault on the city went fairly well (involved some infiltration from the inside as well). And the real fun came, when a party of Good adventurers came to fight off the evil that had infected their city. Amusingly, this was when the gae fell apart, as after 2 of the party members died, the rest of them decided to save their own skins and fled. Good lesson for anyone wanting to play a lich: Clerics with the Sun domain are your worst nightmare.
The best DM advice I ever heard given was this: "Remember that is both a game and a story. If the two ever conflict, err on the side of COOL. Your players will thank you for it."
That sounds like awful advice that advises nothing really. What is "cool"? This seems closer to "Remember that this is both a game and your story. If the two ever conflict, err on the side of what you think is COOL. Your players will thank you for it." Even if not phrased that way, it is arrogant and presumptuous...it presumes the DM knows better than the players because the DM is using their authority to, effectively, change and veto what they think is "not cool".
The DM is in a position of authority, like it or not. Call it arrogance if you will. But the DM is invested with a level of authority over the events of the game that players are not. The advice hinges on not being a slave to mechanics and dice rolls. Sometimes, a player will come up with a really creative way to do something, something that even wows the DM, and a poor roll on a skill check that the player should have passed easily (maybe he rolls a 2), makes what should have been a really fun and engaging moment sort of anticlimactic and disappointing for everyone. This helps nothing. The RAW do, in at least some editions, support overriding mechanics in some cases (see "Avoiding Dead Branches", 4e DMG2, page 9).
Of course I'm pulling those numbers from nowhere. I didn't couch that statistics in the terms of absolute fact. I said "I'd wager", which is akin to "it's my guess". Ok, your players want to know the details of how you run the encounters you do, and how you plan for your sessions, even during the game? I find that hard to believe.
They want to know that what I am presenting to them is done so fairly. They want to know that when they do something they actually accomplish or fail it on their own merits and never because I deem something "cool" one way or the other. If they win what could have been a huge epic battle in a single round, then that is what happens because that is what happened...if they lose the battle they so because they actually lost the battle.
They rely on me to be honest. They rely on me to neutral. And I rely on them to make the game fun for themselves...while they rely on me to stay out of the proverbial way while adhering to honesty and neutrality.
And mine rely on me to adjudicate the rules fairly, and neither pamper them nor try my best to kill them. I rely on them to roleplay well, and solve problems creatively for themselves, rather than wait for me to fix it for them.
I'm not advocating being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions. That's a really ugly way to frame what I'm trying to say.
It is an ugly way to say it but you are being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions. Entering into combat and failing IS an action by the players. Fudging the outcome of that decision based on your own assessment of what is better is being prejudiced. There's no two ways about it.
Again, I have emphasized that diice fudging is something I do very rarely. I do have one exception. Far too many times, by sheer luck, a monster will get knocked down to exactly one hp. Especially when it was a big hit or big spell that brought it down so low, I'll just call the monster dropped. It's just anticlimactic for monsters to hang around at one hp all the time.
You make it sounds as if I'm advocating making the entire run of the game one big lie that I am perpetuating to make the player's "choices" serve ends that I have already decided. If that's what you are saying, stop. Stop trying to read into what I write and extrapolate something else. i mean what I said. Taking it any farther is unnecessary and borderline strawman.
You said yourself that there is nothing wrong with invalidating choices as long as the players do not know it. This could easily be extrapolated to mean that the players could NEVER make a meaningful decision and that is okay as long as the DM can artfully and masterfully keep them from ever realizing it. If not, why not? Is the player experience not the same if they are ignorant of what is happening behind the curtain? Where does the difference lie?
The problem is that you extrapolated AT ALL. I let the players make their choices, and I adapt to the choices they make. Having some things prepared a session or so in advance, in expectation of certain decisions, is not demeaning any of their choices. If they go completely off the map from what I had expected, I can work on the fly, but planning for reasonable decisions the players might make is something I do.
If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy. And I try and be subtle about it. For example: DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage. Player: Aww...exactly @ -10! DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12... Another Player: That's only 27. DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28 First Player: *does math* Oh...actually I'm still at -10. I would have been at -11 if it was 28 damage. Did my own math wrong too.
I agree that making it blatant can be terrible. Last time I got to be a player, we were in a FR game. If you don't know already, FR has some deities that are REALLY involved with the setting. But this DM was ridiculous. Any time you died, there was a 50% chance (rolled behind his screen) that your deity just spontaneously kept you from dying and stabilized you @-1 hp. It got really contrived and ridiculous.
So again, if you notice it it is bad. If you don't, it's okay. I can't subscribe to that because it relies on the DM constantly being smarter than the players and the players being, in effect, rubes for the DMs shell-game. It requires dumber players...at least dumber than the DM at any given time because it requires them to not catch on. In this case, you saw through the DMs charade, that he was just smooshing you and then fudging all the rolls to always get the "heads you live" result. You were smarter than he thought. He underestimated you...he patronized you...and failed.
No, that was just his policy, it was something he was trying out. From the negative feedback he got on that, he decided to abandon the policy. You're too quick to assume everyone is as judgemental as you, and makes immediate judgement calls on the intelligence of those involved. I simply said it was a bad policy, the meta-gamey-ness of the policy was jarring.
I won't go that far, and I'll usually only pull punches at all if it's some piddly crap, and not ever after a certain point (usually around level 9). My default rule for non-PHB spells is that they have to go through me. The Spell Compendium is full of crap I just don't allow, but if it previously appeared in a "Complete X" book, I'll at least consider it. One of my players found a spell, Close Wounds, that can be cast as an immediate action (like Feather Fall), and even specifies in the spell that if cast on a hit that dropped a player in the negatves, and the damage+the healing kept him above 0, he does not fall. I allowed it, and haven't had to fudge anything since. We have had some player deaths, they were in a coliseum, and 2 of the party members died in a fight with a gargantuan froghemoth. The party cleric keeps Revify memorized, and they have the money to make it a full-on Raise Dead.
"Piddly crap" in your opinion. Because, as DM, you know better, yes? That is why the article speaks of "arrogance" on the part of the DM. It is the DM asuming they always know what is best.
I decide what material is allowed and what is not at my table. I decide how monsters behave in combat (I use the Tactics section in the monster entry as a guide, yes, as well as taking monster intelligence into account, but it's still my call). When there's a major story arc, some encounters are simply not a part of that story. If the party is on a mission to reach Blackwall Keep before a massive army of lizardfolk invade, and they encounter a wanderin war party of orcs...yes, that is "piddly crap".
Stuff happens. Sometimes characters die. most players can deal with it, especially if a Raise Dead is a possibility. If their death is going to be anticlimactic and stupid, and just the cause of some bad luck (I've got some dice that roll really well, my players would love to see them permanently buried in concrete), I my fudge something. But i don't do it too often, or the players expect it, or worse, it turns into the example I mentioned above, with the FR game. Knowing when it's okay to fudge a die roll is an important part of being a good DM.
Again, all this boils down to "Knowing what is best for your players is the most important part of being a DM" which is, again, arrogant. I let my players know what is best for themselves. That includes taking risks. "The players expect it"...in other words, they catch onto the sham. And you can't allow that. You have to remain smarter than them...you have to remain a step ahead. Again, that sounds like arrogance. In fact, I sensed a tone of superiority in regards to that FR DM you were speaking of...actually I don't need to say "sense" because you called him outright ridiculous. And why do you feel this way? Because in the arms race you're positing, you proved to be smarter than him. You caught him. Ha ha, he sucks and is ridiculous. He doesn't know how to fool players well enough, yes?
I called his policy ridiculous. He's actually a friend of mine. And he's quite intelligent, thank you. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are incapable of making bad calls. And yes, I do try and stay one step ahead of my players. This means adapting to their choices, because such choices matter. But I feel that it is my responsibility to be at least one step ahead of the players. But not too far. Getting too far ahead of them means losing sight of what is going on with them right now. One needs to stay in the moment and in the present, while looking a step or two ahead, and know what's coming next. That's all I was saying.
There was a 4e book, don't remember if it was the DMG2 or the Player's Strategy Guide that discused the concept of "Cooperative Storytelling", where the players help shape the world through meta-game discussion, even as they play in-game. The book even suggests when one player makes it so the area to the north is frequented by tribes of birdmen, that the DM modify his existing goblin encounter to re-fluff them as birds. According to you and tao, that is reprehensible railroading.
Incorrect. That is a misrepresentation. What would be railroading was if you had planned for them to encounter those goblins...and when they decide to go north instead of whatever direction the goblins were you just go "F it! Feathery goblins then!" and throw the same encounter at them...but with feathers attached. It is lazy...however, the ultimate question that has to be asked of yourself as a DM is "No matter what they did, would I have thrown that goblin encounter at them because it is the most fun?" If so...is that true? Or are you sparing yourself the truth of the matter that you are throwing the goblin encounter at them because you worked on it and they are damn well going to experience it regardless of what they do because I know what's fun! Or does it lay somewhere in the middle?
That is not at all what you've been saying. First off, I checked the book, (4e DMG2, page 17), and it does indeed say that the goblin encounter gets reskinned" as feathery goblins, if the players go east. Now, I never advocated "no mtter what I'm throwing the goblin encounter at them", as if the goblins were somehow everywhere. So the remainder of your follow up questions are irrelevant.
That's not what you're doing. At the very least, it is not at all how you're coming across. You posit that anyone who does other than you suggest should "develop their skills" and "improve as a DM", thus implying that any way of DMing other than your way is a defeciency. You go on to accuse anyone who does not do this of laziness.
So now every DM who does things different than you do is both inferior AND lazy. You do not allow for the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, this subject isn't as cut-and-dried as you think. It's your opinion, and not some kind of objective truth. Even in the above statement of ours, you CONTINUE to be guilty of the same talk. "Wrong choice" "wrong thing for the right reasons" "developing those skills". Its not your place to make a value judgement on the way I run things in my game. Feel free to discuss hypotheticals and your opinions about what's better. But don't tell me, or anyone else that I am somehow your lesser because of it.
The biggest difference I see here is that I have run things the way you run them now (from what I understand of how you run games)...I have done so at length. For years...all the while working to get better, to improve. I have embraced and believed what you are stating now. Years ago I would have agreed. I have walked in your shoes. I have worked to get to the point I am at now through a lot of reading and a lot of trial and error with games. I have moved beyond the familiar. I have tried new things. I have failed at them. What you are talking about is a very common style of DMing...it might, realistically, be THE most common in the current game culture. The way I DM is NOT the zeitgeist...I realize that. I accept it. However, have you embraced my style? Have you tried it? Have you tested it? I have done what you have done...I do what I do...have you done what I do?
That's a sidestep. It's completely irrelevant to the part you were responding to. Unless you are somehow using this as a justification for saying "every DM who doesn't do it my way is inferior and lazy". I told you that this is how you are coming acros, an I take isssue with it, and you come back with an anecdote about how your playstyle has evolved.
This isn't medicine, or conning people out of money, it's a game. And the measure of success is the enjoyment of the people playing it. Your analogy fails because you are conflating something as vital and important as someone's health with a game. I can't stress enough how much of a difference that makes.
Games are as important as someone's health. Perhaps more so. Without joy, no man would suffer to live. How we have fun...THAT we have fun through games is one of the defining points of humanity.
I...I can't take this line of thought seriously. I'm sorry, I have a life with too many things in it that are more important than games. I'm in the Navy. The work I do on a plane could potentially affect a pilot's LIFE. My family, maintainin my house...all these things are far more important than gaming. I love D&D, but it's a hobby.
But anyways...what does planning encounters have to do with respecting player choices? If I can work the encounters I've worked on into a scenario that grows from player choices, how is that any different than planning for all eventualities, save that I don't end up with a bunch of stuff that never gets used?
You are positing an either-or. I do not plan every encounter...I do not plan none either.
Note your reluctant to make things that "never gets used". This is classic justification at work. As was stated on the great Hack & Slash blog...the act of being creative does not impede further creativity...it exercises it. A DM worrying about making something and having to discard it is tantamount to an artist worrying about never showcasing pieces of art he's done. If you are worried about that as an artist you are not an artist...you are an egotist that needs to present everything he does for adulation & adoration from your audience. I have made plenty of encounters, NPCs, and even settings that I have NEVER used...and it does not diminish their creation because it helped me continue to learn and flex my imagination. The act of creation was its own reward...not presenting it.
It's not just "reluctance to make things that don't get used", because that can always happen if the players do something you hadn't planned for, which is fine. And you say you plan some encounters...isn't that restricitng player choices, according to you and tao?
I don't know how you get that from what I said, other than being incapable of seeing outside your own bias. really, I thought you were better than that. I have explicitly said that the players' choices shoul have an impact and be able to make them a part of the world. I have never advocated the players just be there rolling dice for a story that the DM writes all the scenes for.
But ultimately the DM can and will overrule those actions or invalidate them through fudging or whatnot...and that is okay so long as the players are not smart enough to catch on?
You sidestepped the point entirely. You strawmanned the scenario in question. He was discusing only having some of the encounters along the route be pre-planned. Obviously, one of those was something that was NPCs actively seeking out the PCs. And you turned that into the kind of "hard railroading", where the DM forces the players back into a plotline that they have no interest in continuing.
I have issues saying something definitively as a DM because it posits that there is nothing that the players can do. Or at least implies it. Dangerous thinking there.
Again, sidestepping. The original point, which MrCustomer was making, was about having some of the encounters along a travel route being pre-planned. You responded by strawmanning it into your littleschpiel about "oh no, get the players back on the choo choo if they try and do anything different". This is a strawman. Plain and simple. This particular point was a strawman, and you are guilty of it. Accept it and move on.
A DM should never have to hide what they are doing from their players out of a fear that it will endanger the trust their players have put in them because it necessarily means the DM is violating that trust.
And that's your opinion. I run most of my game straight, but am not above pulling a string here or there. What "master D&D moral authority" am I culpable to?
You quoted jplay, not me. I coined the term "soft railroading" as an "at worst" way to view it when one creates the illusion of randomness in a planned encounter (like the harpy thing I mentioned above). That was me framing the point from your POV that it's still some form of railroading. By the definition you espouse, any kind of planning of plot, events, or encounters is some form of railroading, or at least 9to use your term) "laying down the rails". It doesn't matter if I "lay down the rails" and the players choose, or their own free will, to follow them. In fact, it's worse if they do, according to you. Because according to you, I am now railroading them.
Incorrect. Planning events is just fine...in fact, I know an event that has already occured in the world that my players are not aware of. However, I do not presume to know how my players will react to it...nor would I invalidate the choices they make in dealing with an event. When a DM does that it is railroading because you have actively decided that what you believe is better than what the PCs did. Arrogance.
I said nothign about "presuming to know how my players will react", or invalidating their choices. I have advocated planing for some choices you forsee the players possibly making, and having some things ready. Bu if players do something completely cross to that, then adapt. Again, you're strawmanning my position.
Of course not. player ingenuity should always be rewarded. If the players want to spend a spell slot to cast Passwall or something to bypass the door, more power to them. I have crafted ONE way of getting through the doors. I have never, and would never done or advocated the insta-wall of force thing, because once again, you are describing "hard railroading". And thus you are creating a strawman. Once again. You seem incapable of responding only to what I am posting and describing and not reading into it, to extraoplate it into something worse. Why is it that you can't just respond to the scenario "as-is"? I don't advocate slamming players with a "No! Do it my way!" kind of thing. In fact, I have said numerous times that I don't. And yet, your only method of responding seems to be to assume that such is exactly what I would do, and that's what you respond to.
STOP IT.
You are repeatedly taking things I ask with ?s at the end as statements. I am asking you questions. if your answer is NO simply say No and I will have a better understanding of what you are talking about. Stop assuming and invoking this "strawman" bullcrap. It is lazy in the extreme and reactionary. I am asking you honest to god questions, Chiba. Relax, take a breath and realize I am not attacking you...I am attacking your position. I like you, man. Calm down. You put forth a situation...I extrapolate and clearly ask questions. Do not read into those questions...you need only answer them.
You don't respond honestly to the situation at all, though. You extrapolate first, and THEN respond. Which is strawman, like it or not. Don't defend your extrapolation, just don't do it.
Fair enough, but I was crafting a hypothetical situation, and asking you to look at it under the pretenses that I prescribed. You failed to do that.
Because I noted something in your wording of the situation that red-flagged me so I asked for understanding. When you say there is one way into something I think it is reasonable, since you are the DM in the situation, to clarify to what extent you will enforce the "only one way" you yourself stated. Fair?
Who said anything about "only" enforcing anything? I crafted a puzzle. I also created one possible solution. I said nothign about being closed to the idea of alternte solutions. In fact, I even said earlier, that I'd allow it. Why even ask this question?
Yes, saying "there's only one way" immediately invalidates any possible alternatives, some of which might even be more fun than the one thought of initially. But I haven't been advocating that in actualy play. If you recall my earlier example a few posts ago, I mentioned how, towards the end of my long-running 3.5 game, I gave my players a destination and let them figure it out. Granted, in that instance, they hired a guide and put it back in my hands, but it was their choice to do so.
Stop accusing me of things I have already expressed as verboten in the way I run things.
When you put forth hypotheticals I cannot be sure you are necessarily discussing an approach you yourself adhere to entirely or if you are simply crafting a hypothetical to make a point. Hence my asking for clarification. Again...fair?
Fair. But I pose hypothetical situations the way I would-hypothetically-run them. My point is that you stop returning to this assumption that any "railroading" (as defined by you and tao) equates immediately to "hard railroading", and forcing the players down one path they don't want to go on.
I'm talking about a meta-game consideration here. What I meant by that is making sure other players aren't ruining fun for other players, and taking steps to stop it if they are. Also, letting everyone have some spotlight time, that's something that the DM can affect. A game is not fun for everyone if the rest of the party are just sidekicks to one guy. This is what I meant. That the DM needs to tay aware of what's going on at the table from a meta-game perspective, and keep the atmosphere of the game from deteriorating. This is advice in every editions DMG I've read, because this also includes keeping sideline conversations limited, prohibiting tangents of more than a few minutes. If 2 people strike up a side conversation that slows down the game, the fun of the other 3 (or however many) is affected negatively. While the whole group should keep itself on track, it's the DM's job, officially, if the other players don't say anything.
I would prefer to leave it out of "rules" then if it requires this much explaination. The flip-side, is that there are situations with less-serious games where tangents or side conversations might be entirely enjoyable by the group. So it's not hard or fast. I do not like using the word "fun" in rules in general...because there is no way to determine it. These pseudo-truisms, even if taken at face value, do not communicate anything of import...and when looked into more critically, they require too much further explaining to fully get across what they mean. They need too much clarification. "Fun" is useless terminology for rules. That's what I mean.
Given that this was MY example, from MY table and the way I run things...no. I prefer to run heroic stories. I am willing to run Evil games. But when I do, I have a Session Zero with everyone in which they discuss making characters that will be a fit for what they're doing.
You know what? Evil games are a way I run things that you would like. Since heroes are-ultimately-reactionary, when the PCs are villains, they push the story more than heroes do. Session Zero involves not only character creation, but plot discussion. The players discuss what kind of evil machinations they want to make happen, and make characters that would be a part of that plot. From there, it's just up to me to devise the obstacles and encounters (combat or no) that are a part of moving that plot of theirs forward. Example: Last time I ran an evil game, the party wanted to make a show of conquering a major city-while their real goal was to take over the paladin order motherhouse inside the city, and desecrate the altar (the PC necromancer had everything he needed to become a lich, he was going to perform the ritual on their altar). After making their characters (I gave them 16th level characters, based on the scope of what they wanted to do), they decided that to conquer the city, they'd need an army. So they went dragon hunting to get enough capital to hire out ogres, orcs, and the like, in addition to all the undead troops the cleric and necromancer could field. So I grabbed the draconomicon, and quickly had a dragon lair and dragon encounter (Brass dragon) for them to go against. The negotiations with the tribal leaders was mostly roleplay, and involved some fairly grisly threats. The actual assault on the city went fairly well (involved some infiltration from the inside as well). And the real fun came, when a party of Good adventurers came to fight off the evil that had infected their city. Amusingly, this was when the gae fell apart, as after 2 of the party members died, the rest of them decided to save their own skins and fled. Good lesson for anyone wanting to play a lich: Clerics with the Sun domain are your worst nightmare.
Sounds pretty cool. And liches never learn...always make sure to subvert the church FIRST so you can undermine their clerics of the Sun. Silly liches.
The DM is in a position of authority, like it or not. Call it arrogance if you will. But the DM is invested with a level of authority over the events of the game that players are not. The advice hinges on not being a slave to mechanics and dice rolls. Sometimes, a player will come up with a really creative way to do something, something that even wows the DM, and a poor roll on a skill check that the player should have passed easily (maybe he rolls a 2), makes what should have been a really fun and engaging moment sort of anticlimactic and disappointing for everyone. This helps nothing. The RAW do, in at least some editions, support overriding mechanics in some cases (see "Avoiding Dead Branches", 4e DMG2, page 9).
If someone has a creative solution to a problem that should work...why roll the dice? That seems like the ultimate kind of slavishness. If a solution would work and you can avoid rolling the dice, I would always suggest doing so.
And mine rely on me to adjudicate the rules fairly, and neither pamper them nor try my best to kill them. I rely on them to roleplay well, and solve problems creatively for themselves, rather than wait for me to fix it for them.
But you have to hide certain things from your players because you are not adjudicating the rules 100% fairly, yes?
Again, I have emphasized that diice fudging is something I do very rarely. I do have one exception. Far too many times, by sheer luck, a monster will get knocked down to exactly one hp. Especially when it was a big hit or big spell that brought it down so low, I'll just call the monster dropped. It's just anticlimactic for monsters to hang around at one hp all the time.
Very rarely is still not zero. I do not fudge dice rolls. Period. That is what I am advocating.
Also why not leave it with 1 HP? It is an awesome time for the creature to drop down, try to escape and or plead for mercy or whatever. It can lead to great moments. I've done it plenty of times. Seriously give it a try. It's what lets players get in those awesome movie-style one-liners before executing an enemy. Seriously, try it! I mean this in all seriousness too and I know that a lot of people fudge that last die roll but that's because they assume the monster should keep acting the same way it has been when it had more HP...but creatures and people are aware of their general well-being (so they're pretty aware of their HP) and it gives you great opportunities to have them react to their impending doom.
The problem is that you extrapolated AT ALL. I let the players make their choices, and I adapt to the choices they make. Having some things prepared a session or so in advance, in expectation of certain decisions, is not demeaning any of their choices. If they go completely off the map from what I had expected, I can work on the fly, but planning for reasonable decisions the players might make is something I do.
I have never spoken against have pre-planned material. I use quite a bit of pre-planned material...I just know what it is pre-planned for and I stick to that. If the game deviates, I do not use the material as I pre-planned it. Nor do I simply reskin it to give my players the same experience regardless of the deviation they made. You are reading into my own statements. Can we agree that this might be inevitable and both work towards understanding one another better? I will start by clarifying...
I am not against pre-planning things. I pre-plan quite a bit in that I prepare materials for the game. However, I do not force those materials into the game. I discard them if they are not relevant...and I save them for later if they are still "true" in the game but not topical. For instance, I prepared a crypt the other day for the players because they were nearing it and were considering investigating. They ended up investigating. If they had not the crypt would have remained there, unused for now...I would not have changed that dungeon to the next dungeon they went into.
*shurg* Guess you're dead, then.
Why? You still have the same exact situation on hand but now you are siding with what you previously thought was a negative outcome? Why keep it intact if you actively believe it is negative? Only to save face to keep from getting caught fudging? :/ ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
No, that was just his policy, it was something he was trying out. From the negative feedback he got on that, he decided to abandon the policy. You're too quick to assume everyone is as judgemental as you, and makes immediate judgement calls on the intelligence of those involved. I simply said it was a bad policy, the meta-gamey-ness of the policy was jarring.
I'll point out that calling me judgemental is, in fact, the act of judging me. Hmm.
I decide what material is allowed and what is not at my table. I decide how monsters behave in combat (I use the Tactics section in the monster entry as a guide, yes, as well as taking monster intelligence into account, but it's still my call). When there's a major story arc, some encounters are simply not a part of that story. If the party is on a mission to reach Blackwall Keep before a massive army of lizardfolk invade, and they encounter a wanderin war party of orcs...yes, that is "piddly crap".
Robbing the players the chance to, perhaps, try and sway the orcs to try and help them rout the mutual lizardfolk enemies. Or any number of interesting things the players might come up with.
I called his policy ridiculous. He's actually a friend of mine. And he's quite intelligent, thank you. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are incapable of making bad calls.
Gonna call you out on this one.
Here is your quote.
"But this DM was ridiculous."
You outright called him ridiculous.
And yes, I do try and stay one step ahead of my players. This means adapting to their choices, because such choices matter. But I feel that it is my responsibility to be at least one step ahead of the players. But not too far. Getting too far ahead of them means losing sight of what is going on with them right now. One needs to stay in the moment and in the present, while looking a step or two ahead, and know what's coming next. That's all I was saying.
Which makes sense. However is part of that "staying ahead" also to include keeping them in the dark regarding things you do that might (in your words) "endanger the trust" they have put in you?
That is not at all what you've been saying. First off, I checked the book, (4e DMG2, page 17), and it does indeed say that the goblin encounter gets reskinned" as feathery goblins, if the players go east. Now, I never advocated "no mtter what I'm throwing the goblin encounter at them", as if the goblins were somehow everywhere. So the remainder of your follow up questions are irrelevant.
My statement was merely that IF you re-skinned the encounter and threw it at them no matter what that is bad. So, basically, thank you for answering the question. It does indeed render the follow-up questions moot. Thank you. Again, you're reading into the statement. I am asking for clarification. In fact, I even outright stated that what I was putting forth in that statement was HOW that would be bad because what you stated was, in and of itself, not bad. Again...please calm down. I think you're getting a bit too fired up and eager to read into things. When I ask a series of questions it is to provide the opportunity for clarification...if one gets answered, it might invalidate the rest of the chain of questioning and that is just fine.
That's a sidestep. It's completely irrelevant to the part you were responding to. Unless you are somehow using this as a justification for saying "every DM who doesn't do it my way is inferior and lazy". I told you that this is how you are coming acros, an I take isssue with it, and you come back with an anecdote about how your playstyle has evolved.
No, I am outright saying what I do is superior. What I do tomorrow will be superior to what I do today. It is what I strive for. Again, I have done what you do...have you done what I do? If so, I believe I have a better basis for saying what may or may not be superior to the other. I think that is a fair line of reasoning.
Again, does that justify you saying your personal opinion is so vital and universal that it makes all other ways inferior and lazy.
Justify it? Not 100% no. It does lend me more weight and credibility, however. One knows by doing...or at least is closer to knowing. I do not put much stock in those that tell me how something they have never eaten tastes. Do you?
I...I can't take this line of thought seriously. I'm sorry, I have a life with too many things in it that are more important than games. I'm in the Navy. The work I do on a plane could potentially affect a pilot's LIFE. My family, maintainin my house...all these things are far more important than gaming. I love D&D, but it's a hobby.
You are conflating "taking seriously" with "important". Several things in my life have to be taken very seriously...that does not make them more important to my life. I am defined by what I choose to do...not by what I have to do. I have to work...I do not let my work define me. I do not have to play D&D...I do so because it is something that defines me as a person. I did not need to get married...I chose to because the person I share my life with helps define me and my life.
Games are my life. I went to school for them. I study them. That you seek to diminish my interests by stating that you cannot take that seriously is...sad. You have nothing to tell me you are sorry for otherwise...that you have things in your life you consider more important than D&D is irrelevant to me. I do as well. However, I still consider it very important to me. Games define humanity...I consider them a defining part of culture, history and the very nature of human beings. It always disappoints me a bit to see people try to dismiss them and diminish them.
It's not just "reluctance to make things that don't get used", because that can always happen if the players do something you hadn't planned for, which is fine. And you say you plan some encounters...isn't that restricitng player choices, according to you and tao?
Not if I am willing to discard those plans at the drop of a hat. Which I am.
Again, sidestepping. The original point, which MrCustomer was making, was about having some of the encounters along a travel route being pre-planned. You responded by strawmanning it into your littleschpiel about "oh no, get the players back on the choo choo if they try and do anything different". This is a strawman. Plain and simple. This particular point was a strawman, and you are guilty of it. Accept it and move on.
Pre-prepared is far different from inevitable. Again, I was extrapolating and asking questions. That it becomes ugly is the point...it is stress-testing the situation and line of thinking.
And that's your opinion. I run most of my game straight, but am not above pulling a string here or there. What "master D&D moral authority" am I culpable to?
Only the "moral authority" that I do not pull strings. I do not do anything behind my screen that endangers the trust my players have put in me. If you are endangering trust that suggests, at least to me, that something unethical is happening behind the screen. Again, "endangering trust" was your wording...not mine.
You make it sound like that's the only way to make travel encounters without violating some kind of sacred bond of trust between DMs and players.
It can be part of it, yes. Not the end all be all however.
I said nothign about "presuming to know how my players will react", or invalidating their choices. I have advocated planing for some choices you forsee the players possibly making, and having some things ready. Bu if players do something completely cross to that, then adapt. Again, you're strawmanning my position.
Again, you are far too quick to run to the teddy-bear that is apparently this invocation of "ZOMG STRAWMAN". Let it go. Please for the sake of everyones sanity.
I am stating WHEN IT WOULD BE BAD. I AM STATING TO WHAT EXTENT IT BECOMES A PROBLEM. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT SOMEONE DOES, I AM SAYING THESE THINGS ARE WHAT WOULD BE BAD.
I do not even disagree with what I just quoted from you...I agree with it. Pre-plan and prepare some things and adapt and improvise if unexpected things occur. Can you please stop crying wolf at me whenever I try to actually explain what WOULD be bad?
You don't respond honestly to the situation at all, though. You extrapolate first, and THEN respond. Which is strawman, like it or not. Don't defend your extrapolation, just don't do it.
Here I will reply to this...
You are strawmaning my position. I do not do that. It is a strawman to say I make strawman arguments when I don't strawman with a strawman. Please do not strawman me by saying I strawman your strawman with a strawman. Straw. Man.
That enough strawmen?
You are reading into what is or is not "honest"...I am GENUINELY ASKING ABOUT or GENUINELY OFFERING hypotheticals or questions to be answered or addressed.
I have never once stated YOU DO something in that manner. You have put forth situations and I have ASKED questions about them. Again, if the first answer is a "No, this is how it would work" it could render the rest of the questions meaningless and that is just fine. I asked you once, quite politely, not to keep reading intent into simple questions...you insist on doing so. Again...can you stop? Seriously, this will be the second time I have asked nicely.
Who said anything about "only" enforcing anything? I crafted a puzzle. I also created one possible solution. I said nothign about being closed to the idea of alternte solutions. In fact, I even said earlier, that I'd allow it. Why even ask this question?
Because I was not sure about the intent of the example and was asking for simple clarification. Something red-flagged me so I asked about it. Something was stated definitively...so I asked about it. Full. STOP. That's all.
Fair. But I pose hypothetical situations the way I would-hypothetically-run them. My point is that you stop returning to this assumption that any "railroading" (as defined by you and tao) equates immediately to "hard railroading", and forcing the players down one path they don't want to go on.
Then we are back to one of the cruxes of the situation...it is railroading when a choice is invalidated. Well, less railroading and more an act that is "unethical" on the part of the DM...one that has violated or threatens to violate player trust. If the only thing seperating the action from that violation is the DM's screen and the DM's ability to keep the players in the dark, that is what I have an issue with. I do not advocate doing things that endanger/violate player trust...whether the players know it or not.
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
Actualy, choice only matters if the players have a reasonable idea of the consequences of the choices involved. If the players have no clue what lies along either path, they might as well throw a dice to determine what path to take and they honestly would not care whether you designed one or two encounters... ...In reality, the few times I ran across such an "illusion" of choice, the DM gave the PCs clues on what they would find alongside either path and adjust that quantum fortress' description and a few mechanical details based on those clues even going so far as changing environmental hazards and terrain. If the choice was between a path through the mountains or the forest, the forest path would take more time and lead through gnoll territority and the mountain path be more straneous and lead through orc territory.
This is what I agree with. The "Quantum Fortress" is ultimately what the players want, so making sure they "stumble" upon it is an important part of the adventure, fate as some would call it. The adventure getting there howevre is the subject of their choice. The PCs are choosing their peril in the journey to wherever it is they are going. The fortress becomes a premade encounter that can be interjected into the game at any point, it doesn't change the destination of where they were ultimately choosing to go.
"Also why not leave it with 1 HP? It is an awesome time for the creature to drop down, try to escape and or plead for mercy or whatever. It can lead to great moments. I've done it plenty of times. Seriously give it a try. It's what lets players get in those awesome movie-style one-liners before executing an enemy. Seriously, try it! I mean this in all seriousness too and I know that a lot of people fudge that last die roll but that's because they assume the monster should keep acting the same way it has been when it had more HP...but creatures and people are aware of their general well-being (so they're pretty aware of their HP) and it gives you great opportunities to have them react to their impending doom."
I just wanted to comment on this statement. I agree with this. Yes, sometimes it may be better to just down that enemy for them, however, I think it is better to let the chips fall where they may. Opportunities like these are indeed EXCELLENT for the party as the enemy may surrender and become captured and a source of information for them. The enemy could even plead for their lives and it could become something where the PCs find out that this particular enemy has been fooled all along into thinking he/she was fighting for the good of all, or that someone they love is being held captive and they have no choice. So this could lead to the enemy becoming a friend and lead down another adventure path.
Also, I roll out in front of my players. Sometimes this can end up bad for the players and sometimes for me. However, since many of my "failure" options are not necessarily PC death then it can really add to the overall game. And it usually works out for the PCs/players in the end.
Your first paragraph makes a proposition - "logical opposite" - that is not self evident.
Your second paragraph has cited a single example, interpreted by you, in a manner that is oversimplified and incomplete. Furthermore, it fails to refute the axiom.
Your third paragraph makes a statement that, again, is not self evident. A thing is not a thing because you say it is a thing.
You have failed to convince me.
tao_alexis, I wouldn't give a damn about convincing you, dimestore philosophy is worthless in my opinion, as are flawed and inacurate historical references that you made. I rebuke your flawed position for the benifit of less foolish minds, not you.
It is impossible for the DM not to predestiny events for the PCs, as even level appropriate content is ultimately meta-gaming and controling the chalenges. As well the offering of any plot requires the DM to introduce the hand of fate in ensuring it lands on the PC's lap.
Are they on a quest? Ok you railroaded them on some level by your definition, because there is no way they started such a quest without the DM making it happen to them.
Ok, as a very simple example, they've created their characters, and just started the game, have somehow managed to get together as a group (probably in a tavern), when a wounded knight stumbles in and collapses, his hand wrapped around a scroll....
Right there, the DM made that happen, you've just railroaded the players. The premise is flawed because it's logical extension defines Anything that happens to the player beyond random chance as being railroading. Lets face it nothing happens unless the DM puts it there.
The only way the Players can stumble on a lost temple is by the DM placing it in their path, so it's existance is a railroad by this definition regardless of where placed.
And Fate is a common fantasy and heroic theme, the hero always happens to be in the right place at the right time for the event to occur, because it was fated to happen. Gollum drops his ring once, just once, and Bilbo just happens to trip and find it, it was fated to happen. It happens to the hero because there wouldn't be a story otherwise. fate is a legitimate tool to use in the game, happening on a lost temple is good oportunity to give them something interesting to explore, it's fate that they stumble upon it, and so doesn't matter where the DM places it.
D&D is a game that we all play. Yes, it's a hobby that can involve many hours of work, but it's also fun. And fore many of us, it's time spent with friends. Do you think your players really care about the mechanics and the strings of what goes on "behind the screen"? No, they're playing a game, too, and they want to have fun. I'd wager that 9/10 players don't care about what strings the DM i pulling behind the screen.
Chiba: Excellent post.
Yaga: I respect your opinion. However, as per the quote above, I think you grossly overestimate how important it is to most players that play D&D that total and utter freedom is paramount. Many, many players will go to a D&D game knowing in advance that they characters are going to be visit Gnarl the giant in his castle keep. They know it. The DM knows it. And they are HAPPY to do so.
If the way you play works for you, great! But you really should be far less certain in your conviction that not doing it the way you like is utterly guaranteeing the players a lesser game. I refute your notion that your method is the superior method for all DMs and all players, even those that are aware that your method exists. Simply put, some (nay, many) players prefer a somewhat guided experience over a total free form one, and the game is none the lesser for it.
Some of my players DEFINITELY prefer a guided experience. I began my current 'Marth' campaign with nothing more than 4 land masses with water between them and this sentence: It is the first day of the year 1200 in the land of Marth.
I then took the compiled backgrounds of the player characters and mashed them together to get them in the same place at the same time but left the rest of the world as wide open as can be imagined. They all were in a coastal trade city 'looking for adventure'.
I had nothing prepared, but had many years of DM experience to draw from... three previous campaigns with years of notes on them, old Dungeon and Dragon magazines, piles of modules, and so on... and pretty good 'winging it' skills. My goal was to be as player-driven as possible, thinking that as a player I would like to have a DM with good improv skills, so my players would probably like that too.
Some did. Others definitely did not.
If I didn't have some NPC 'railroading' them into an interaction, they seemed to instantly convert from heroes into a craftman's guild, plying their trade (Craft Skills, Profession Skills) for profit or hikers wandering through the terrain with no goal in mind in hopes that they accidentally run into a prepared adventure or a chance to grind for experience with a random encounter of varying levels of meaninglessness.
Improvised encounters are fun too and the serendipity of improvisation often leads to great things. Prepared encounters do not diminish the ability to improvise, however... in fact, the preparation can make it easier to improvise because you have more to work with.
At any rate, making stuff up on the spot is nothing more than preparing them on the spot. The difference is... players are getting a rough draft instead of a more polished second or third draft that has the added benefit of there being a 'big picture' in mind because the DM already knows some of what lies at the end of the road and can foreshadow events accordingly.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.
DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.
Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.
DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.
Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.
DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.
Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.
DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.
Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.
When did people become so nancy pantsed, fragile minded, and weak willed?
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Some of the attached post has interesting points, but the charge of ethics violations might seem ridiculous if applied to real people in the real world.
DM to player: Happy Birthday! I know I told you we were playing D&D today; I was actually throwing you a surprise birthday party, my friend! SURPRISE!!! Yo dawg, I heard you like RPGs, so I bought you an RPG so you can shoot your RPG while you play your RPG.
Player to DM: Surprise Birthday Party ?!?!?!? You lying deceitful *******! All my trust is broken! Our friendship is OVER! I'll never trust you again. How can we be friends after this? I'm taking the RPG, because it is unethical to re-gift.
DM to his clergyman: I deceived my friend by promising dice and delivering ice cream, cake and an RPG instead.
Clergyman: Yo dawg, thatz whack! You could say ya sorry, but you so two-face, nobody b'lieve ya.
When did people become so nancy pantsed, fragile minded, and weak willed?
I would say April 6, 1992, with the first episode of Barney & Friends, which features the title character Barney, a purple anthropomorphic Tyrannosaurus rex who conveys educational messages through songs and small dance routines with a friendly, optimistic attitude.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
