I cleaned up some flamebait, some flaming, and so otherwise out-of-context derailing.
Many thanks. It was degenerating.
As much as I have enjoyed the 3 hours required to actually read this thread. I actually had to set up my Forum information to respond. Having started with 3.0 just before 3.5 and continued up into Pathfinder, I find most of the 'it used to work this way' arguments confusing at best.
More to the point of this thread, I have to agree that the arbitrary changes would leave me questioning why I was playing in the campaign in the first place.
If you want to screw with the spell lists of your spell casters, you need to give fair warning. This is not 'in the great desert water spells are at +1 level' either. This is AT CHARACTER CREATION "I will be rewriting your spell lists to suit the setting and my whim at my leisure, so don't get to attached."
Most of this thread seems to be confusing DM fiat with house ruling. If you give me fair warning AT CHARACTER CREATION that the world does not follow the rules in the books. I don't have any excuse to complain later that the world does not follow the rules in the books.
The Giant Slaying example a page back, can be tackled fairly easily. Did the PCs make any knowledge check? If not, then the DM should be asking why they cast 'Slay Giant' on some random monster. There are several issues being mixed in together here, might we separate issues for separate discussion?
That would be your view.
The real contention here is exactly where the line between wise use of rule zero and DM fiat is. You draw it at character creation. I would draw the line at "Give me a reasonable chance of finding out about special rules before I make critical character decisions that depend on those rules"
There are reasons why characters get access to skills such as Knowledge (Geography) (Arcana) or Bards Lore. If they're going to the Desert known as the Deathlands of Yore, they should be making inquiries and checks. Asking around might get them the knowledge that certain spells are impeded. Of course if the character grew up in the Deathland of Yore he would know about this at character creation, but if his entire life was spent on the island of Freeport that would be another story.If you want to screw with the spell lists of your spell casters, you need to give fair warning. This is not 'in the great desert water spells are at +1 level' either. This is AT CHARACTER CREATION "I will be rewriting your spell lists to suit the setting and my whim at my leisure, so don't get to attached."
I have seen Knowledge (Geography) and Knowledge (Arcana) but never a combined skill.
But to address your counterpoint. Would you then feel it was appropriate to force a caster to go to said Deathlands of Yore if, in their approximation, they would rather go to the Frozen Tundra of Yawn and deal with something a little less tragically debilitating?
Was?
I'm an optimist.
I have seen Knowledge (Geography) and Knowledge (Arcana) but never a combined skill.
Pretty sure there was supposed to be a comma between them that just got forgotten.
But to address your counterpoint. Would you then feel it was appropriate to force a caster to go to said Deathlands of Yore if, in their approximation, they would rather go to the Frozen Tundra of Yawn and deal with something a little less tragically debilitating?
That's their option, but if the place they're wanting to get to is across or inside the desert and crossing it would be the swiftest way, most players would take that route... if they decide to go the long way I suppose that's their option but I think that's not really the point here.
I have seen Knowledge (Geography) and Knowledge (Arcana) but never a combined skill.Pretty sure there was supposed to be a comma between them that just got forgotten.
Understood.
But to address your counterpoint. Would you then feel it was appropriate to force a caster to go to said Deathlands of Yore if, in their approximation, they would rather go to the Frozen Tundra of Yawn and deal with something a little less tragically debilitating?That's their option, but if the place they're wanting to get to is across or inside the desert and crossing it would be the swiftest way, most players would take that route... if they decide to go the long way I suppose that's their option but I think that's not really the point here.
To respectfully disagree. I have had a 'cross the desert to get where you want to go' scenario as a DM. The players looked at the information they had and... they took 3 times as long to go around. They had a cleric in the group and no gimping at all on their spells or abilities.
A desert is a pretty hostile place, even with all the advantages you can muster. The initial posting was about DMs modifying the rules to make a challenge harder.
So, to try to stick to the point here. Unless you have nice heavy railroad tracks running through your desert, arbitrary rules changes for the sake of invalidating specific existing solutions to a problem seem to do far my damage then good from my perspective as both and active DM and an active Player.
Agreed, the desert is dangerous enough...
ATTACK, MY FREMEN!
Of course, I'll be collecting your water too since Cantrips don't exist in the Dune-iverse.
I have seen Knowledge (Geography) and Knowledge (Arcana) but never a combined skill.Pretty sure there was supposed to be a comma between them that just got forgotten.
Understood.
But to address your counterpoint. Would you then feel it was appropriate to force a caster to go to said Deathlands of Yore if, in their approximation, they would rather go to the Frozen Tundra of Yawn and deal with something a little less tragically debilitating?That's their option, but if the place they're wanting to get to is across or inside the desert and crossing it would be the swiftest way, most players would take that route... if they decide to go the long way I suppose that's their option but I think that's not really the point here.To respectfully disagree. I have had a 'cross the desert to get where you want to go' scenario as a DM. The players looked at the information they had and... they took 3 times as long to go around. They had a cleric in the group and no gimping at all on their spells or abilities.
A desert is a pretty hostile place, even with all the advantages you can muster. The initial posting was about DMs modifying the rules to make a challenge harder.
So, to try to stick to the point here. Unless you have nice heavy railroad tracks running through your desert, arbitrary rules changes for the sake of invalidating specific existing solutions to a problem seem to do far my damage then good from my perspective as both and active DM and an active Player.
I suppose my players are hardly normal, heh.
I guess it comes down to personal preference. I like the "supernatural, water-magic-neutralizing fire desert" idea and would probably make use of it myself, but I could see how some other DMs would not care for it. And as you say, nothing is forcing the players to not go the long way around.
I guess it comes down to personal preference. I like the "supernatural, water-magic-neutralizing fire desert" idea and would probably make use of it myself, but I could see how some other DMs would not care for it. And as you say, nothing is forcing the players to not go the long way around.
Other than the DM Railroad headed straight into the desert.
Other than the DM Railroad headed straight into the desert.
I have had a 'cross the desert to get where you want to go' scenario as a DM. The players looked at the information they had and... they took 3 times as long to go around.
Learn to read, sir.
Other than the DM Railroad headed straight into the desert.I have had a 'cross the desert to get where you want to go' scenario as a DM. The players looked at the information they had and... they took 3 times as long to go around.Learn to read, sir.
I am referring to an earlier scenario from a different DM, one who was the first, most adamant one about Create Water not working in the desert. The very reason he didn't want Create Water to work infinitely was because it would throw his train off the tracks.
I suppose my players are hardly normal, heh.I guess it comes down to personal preference. I like the "supernatural, water-magic-neutralizing fire desert" idea and would probably make use of it myself, but I could see how some other DMs would not care for it. And as you say, nothing is forcing the players to not go the long way around.
There is no problem with the idea itself. The problems and conflicts arise with how and when you decide to tell your player about it.
Scenario 1 - Before going into the desert, you let the players make various knowledge and survival checks to give them hints that magic may not work normally and they should take mundane precautions.
Scenario 2 - The players get 7 days into the desert, they are running low on water, they try to use create water, and the DM tells them out of the blue that it doesn't work.
Scenario 2 is a lot more likely to end up with a DM getting shivved.
Agreed, the desert is dangerous enough...
ATTACK, MY FREMEN!
Of course, I'll be collecting your water too since Cantrips don't exist in the Dune-iverse.
Are you a ghola or a facedancer?
|
I suppose my players are hardly normal, heh.I guess it comes down to personal preference. I like the "supernatural, water-magic-neutralizing fire desert" idea and would probably make use of it myself, but I could see how some other DMs would not care for it. And as you say, nothing is forcing the players to not go the long way around.
There is no problem with the idea itself. The problems and conflicts arise with how and when you decide to tell your player about it.
Scenario 1 - Before going into the desert, you let the players make various knowledge and survival checks to give them hints that magic may not work normally and they should take mundane precautions.
Scenario 2 - The players get 7 days into the desert, they are running low on water, they try to use create water, and the DM tells them out of the blue that it doesn't work.
Scenario 2 is a lot more likely to end up with a DM getting shivved.
+1
DMs should definately use senario 1. If for nothing at all, it should give the players a cold chill down thioer spine to let them know just what kind of danger they might be facing.
There is no problem with the idea itself. The problems and conflicts arise with how and when you decide to tell your player about it.
Scenario 1 - Before going into the desert, you let the players make various knowledge and survival checks to give them hints that magic may not work normally and they should take mundane precautions.
Scenario 2 - The players get 7 days into the desert, they are running low on water, they try to use create water, and the DM tells them out of the blue that it doesn't work.
Scenario 2 is a lot more likely to end up with a DM getting shivved.
Hell, in the case of clerics and druids, they shouldn't even have to make knowledge checks--whatever messengers of the divine powers they pray to should have the sense to inform them that the regular menu has changed and their deity of choice can't grant them Create Water as a cantrip in the Fiery Desert, only as a 1st level spell. Though of course this is something that they would still have advance knowledge of with a Knowledge Arcana check.
Another possibility is to have such a metaphysical oddness tied to an astrological conjunction: It is summer in the Desert of the Three Flames, the Golden Star is in the Sign of the Phoenix, the Moon is in the Lion's House, and the Dragon's Breath comet has returned. The last three times we had this conjunction, the Plane of Fire got close enough to cause these problems, and everyone with a good Knowledge History, Knowledge Arcana or Profession Astrologer check is going to hang out drinking palm wine at the caravanserai rather than venture into the desert like those idiots over there.
Or some jerkwad could have just activated some wonky artifact, though that scenario is also one that's liable to get the DM shivved.
Or some jerkwad could have just activated some wonky artifact, though that scenario is also one that's liable to get the DM shivved.
That one I would recommend flipping open Elder Evils if you have a copy and stealing one of their Evil Signs. Might intentionally use one of the more obvious ones and/or lower the DC slightly so the characters can still make the appropriate checks.
Otherwise yeah, unhappy borked players will revolt.
There is no problem with the idea itself. The problems and conflicts arise with how and when you decide to tell your player about it.
Scenario 1 - Before going into the desert, you let the players make various knowledge and survival checks to give them hints that magic may not work normally and they should take mundane precautions.
Scenario 2 - The players get 7 days into the desert, they are running low on water, they try to use create water, and the DM tells them out of the blue that it doesn't work.
Scenario 2 is a lot more likely to end up with a DM getting shivved.
Hell, in the case of clerics and druids, they shouldn't even have to make knowledge checks--whatever messengers of the divine powers they pray to should have the sense to inform them that the regular menu has changed and their deity of choice can't grant them Create Water as a cantrip in the Fiery Desert, only as a 1st level spell. Though of course this is something that they would still have advance knowledge of with a Knowledge Arcana check.
Another possibility is to have such a metaphysical oddness tied to an astrological conjunction: It is summer in the Desert of the Three Flames, the Golden Star is in the Sign of the Phoenix, the Moon is in the Lion's House, and the Dragon's Breath comet has returned. The last three times we had this conjunction, the Plane of Fire got close enough to cause these problems, and everyone with a good Knowledge History, Knowledge Arcana or Profession Astrologer check is going to hang out drinking palm wine at the caravanserai rather than venture into the desert like those idiots over there.
Or with a successful Diplomacy check, the locals might give you a friendly warning
Or some jerkwad could have just activated some wonky artifact, though that scenario is also one that's liable to get the DM shivved.
Not necessarily, if the artifact is nearby, and the PCs have a chance to deactivate it before they die of thirst....
There is no problem with the idea itself. The problems and conflicts arise with how and when you decide to tell your player about it.
Scenario 1 - Before going into the desert, you let the players make various knowledge and survival checks to give them hints that magic may not work normally and they should take mundane precautions.
Scenario 2 - The players get 7 days into the desert, they are running low on water, they try to use create water, and the DM tells them out of the blue that it doesn't work.
Scenario 2 is a lot more likely to end up with a DM getting shivved.
Hell, in the case of clerics and druids, they shouldn't even have to make knowledge checks--whatever messengers of the divine powers they pray to should have the sense to inform them that the regular menu has changed and their deity of choice can't grant them Create Water as a cantrip in the Fiery Desert, only as a 1st level spell. Though of course this is something that they would still have advance knowledge of with a Knowledge Arcana check.
Another possibility is to have such a metaphysical oddness tied to an astrological conjunction: It is summer in the Desert of the Three Flames, the Golden Star is in the Sign of the Phoenix, the Moon is in the Lion's House, and the Dragon's Breath comet has returned. The last three times we had this conjunction, the Plane of Fire got close enough to cause these problems, and everyone with a good Knowledge History, Knowledge Arcana or Profession Astrologer check is going to hang out drinking palm wine at the caravanserai rather than venture into the desert like those idiots over there.
I believe it has gotten to the point that I should remind people that I don't have a problem with that scenario in and of itself. Magic not working as expected? Whatever, fine. The problem arose when that scenario generated itself - specifically - from not wanting Create Water to work as intended because creating two-gallons of water a round is crazy powerful.
Or with a successful Diplomacy check, the locals might give you a friendly warning
Or a Gather Information check, or any of several other things.
Not necessarily, if the artifact is nearby, and the PCs have a chance to deactivate it before...Or some jerkwad could have just activated some wonky artifact, though that scenario is also one that's liable to get the DM shivved.
True enough. And a Knowledge Arcana check should point them in the direction of Create Water cantrip wonkiness being one of the known signs and portents of Artifact X being in the vicinity.
Or with a successful Diplomacy check, the locals might give you a friendly warningOr a Gather Information check, or any of several other things.
Pssst, Gather Information is part of the Diplomacy skill now....
Or some jerkwad could have just activated some wonky artifact, though that scenario is also one that's liable to get the DM shivved.That one I would recommend flipping open Elder Evils if you have a copy and stealing one of their Evil Signs. Might intentionally use one of the more obvious ones and/or lower the DC slightly so the characters can still make the appropriate checks.
Otherwise yeah, unhappy borked players will revolt.
I think the tears of their butthurtdom should count as a create water spell.
I cleaned up some flamebait, some flaming, and some otherwise out-of-context derailing.
*pouts*
I always miss the good stuff....
Or with a successful Diplomacy check, the locals might give you a friendly warningOr a Gather Information check, or any of several other things.
Pssst, Gather Information is part of the Diplomacy skill now....
Argh. Part of the trouble when you keep changing gears between an unconverted 3.5 game and a converted Pathfinder game....
But noted.
Agreed, the desert is dangerous enough...
ATTACK, MY FREMEN!
Of course, I'll be collecting your water too since Cantrips don't exist in the Dune-iverse.
::Grinds through the thread, converting posts to Spice::
But to address your counterpoint. Would you then feel it was appropriate to force a caster to go to said Deathlands of Yore if, in their approximation, they would rather go to the Frozen Tundra of Yawn and deal with something a little less tragically debilitating?
If characters are going to cross the Deathlands of Yore, it's probably because they've got good reason to be there.... perhaps to find the Library kept by the Owl Spirit of Knowledge.
If you're going to argue that "making" characters seek the Spirit Library or crossing the Deathlands to get there is a "railroad" then by definition every written adventure IS a railroad.
And I think that is the crux of the problem. If ANY situation in which the DM's response is "you need to go to X place to do that" is a railroad, it makes it very difficult to do just about any sort of campaign, especially the prewritten ones as Lazarx said.
If that's one's definition of "railroad", I'm curious how you play anything but sandbox games where the DM just says "okay guys, here's the map, where do you want to go".
But to address your counterpoint. Would you then feel it was appropriate to force a caster to go to said Deathlands of Yore if, in their approximation, they would rather go to the Frozen Tundra of Yawn and deal with something a little less tragically debilitating?
If characters are going to cross the Deathlands of Yore, it's probably because they've got good reason to be there.... perhaps to find the Library kept by the Owl Spirit of Knowledge.
If you're going to argue that "making" characters seek the Spirit Library or crossing the Deathlands to get there is a "railroad" then by definition every written adventure IS a railroad.
And I think that is the crux of the problem. If ANY situation in which the DM's response is "you need to go to X place to do that" is a railroad, it makes it very difficult to do just about any sort of campaign, especially the prewritten ones as Lazarx said.
If that's one's definition of "railroad", I'm curious how you play anything but sandbox games where the DM just says "okay guys, here's the map, where do you want to go".
Conveniently, open sandbox is the kind of game the group I am in tends towards. I do object on principle to 'you need to go to X place and do Y' combined with 'I am disabling abilities A, B and C because they would make it too easy to get to X'
I think the tears of their butthurtdom should count as a create water spell.
Dey took mah werds Boss! Make em give em back!
Or with a successful Diplomacy check, the locals might give you a friendly warningOr a Gather Information check, or any of several other things.
Pssst, Gather Information is part of the Diplomacy skill now....
Argh. Part of the trouble when you keep changing gears between an unconverted 3.5 game and a converted Pathfinder game....
But noted.
It's an easy thing to do if you're not concentrating very hard.
Conveniently, open sandbox is the kind of game the group I am in tends towards. I do object on principle to 'you need to go to X place and do Y' combined with 'I am disabling abilities A, B and C because they would make it too easy to get to X'
I think the main crux is whether "X and Y" is pedantic or interesting.
The more interesting, the less likely whingeing over A is, all other things equal. There actually exist people who will whinge over A for ulterior motives, and there's nothing to be done with them or for them. I think they actually enjoy their miserable existence, so when you abandon them to seek happiness, don't feel bad. Just spread your wings, you're free.A, B, AND C, I think is an overstatement, it's usually only A, or maybe A AND a little bit of b. These things can be forgiven like Joseph Conrad was forgiven his runon sentences if X and Y are actually interesting for some reason. I think the super module D1-D3, for instance, had teleporting to Erelhei Cinlu totally disabled due to Gygax Wrote It DM fiat, and I don't remember that many complaints, though Reagan was in office, so it was long ago.
The real b@*$% about a sandbox game is the characters actually have to pay attention to the plot and all those odd names that only bthe dungeonmaster might have straight at any given moment. If they're not, then true entropy can be reached, and you just have to have the bad guys kick in the door like a Mickey Spillane novel. It's always good for laughs.
Another potential letdown is when the characters pickup on one minor idea, decide to chase it, and run into the misty parts of the map that the dungeonmaster hasn't thought much about, thereby invoking random monster encounters for the remainder of the session and a week following that of frantic worldbuilding only to be met at the next session with a flighty statement like, "Naah....we don't want to check out the Tunnel of Micturant (that you've pissed away a week precisely developing) after all, instead we need to go on a sidequest to the Vile Fistula; please feel free to expand quickly and concisely on the two paragraphs you have prepared about that locale. Thankyou for respecting our free will; I truly enjoy pummelling myself in the head with a rotten chicken because that's the kind of sideshow git I am...if you would just do the same I'll feel better about my f+~+pumpery."
I had a Cyberpunk group decide they need to get on a plane to Ecuador to escape the angry mobsters that were after them in the Urban American city I was running the game in.
Ecuador. Out of the blue.
Let's go to Ecuador.
Capitol is Quito.
This is before 1996 even, before wikipedia (for me anyway) before "Google search: Ecuador."
This was "I'll see you guys next week. I'm going to the bookstores to look at National Geographics.....huh. They make Panamanian hats in Ecuador.....interesting."
Which, I admit, like "X and Y" can be either pedantic or interesting, the only difference being one can be thoroughly prepared for, the other is rawly extracted from the dungeonmaster's arse and as such is truly a craptoss, and often resembles the plot of a wanky movie from SyFy or episode of Stargate: Lemuria or wtf the dungeonmaster watched two weeks ago. With random monsters.
Spanky the Leprechaun, for the sake of brevity, I am going to reply without including that rather long and precise analysis in quotes.
While I agree that the PCs taking off into unplanned territory in a sandbox does put pressure on the DM, it is not something I see as terribly problematic. My own experiences with DMing have been much more in diceless modern settings then in the fantasy realm.
Yes, I am one of those bastard swords that can and will run a sandbox game with less than 5 pages of prepared notes for 3 months and actually keep the group entertained. It is just the way I learned to do things.
So, as far as open sandbox being a problem, it just makes the DM adapt.
I am starting to feel that the core of this discussion is moving towards a question of the DM 'adapts the world to the RAW' or 'adapts the RAW to the world.'
Would that be correct or am I missing something important here?
~Lewis Carroll and Jacques Derrida got drunk and had sex, even though they're both corpses~
Spanky: Your Cartesian anxiety over X or Y is laughably invalid.
Your attempt to sort through A, B, or C is hegemonic and evinces latent sandboxophobia. Take off your diaper and put on your conductor's cap.Choo-choo! ::Looks at mess:: I hope you're proud of yourself, but I for one am not cleaning that up. It's not the kind of challenge I'm looking for.
Spanky the Leprechaun, for the sake of brevity, I am going to reply without including that rather long and precise analysis in quotes.
Good, because those chop suey motherf+!~ers are the death of conversation.
~Lewis Carroll and Jacques Derrida got drunk and had sex, even though they're both corpses~
Spanky: Your Cartesian anxiety over X or Y is laughably invalid.
Your attempt to sort through A, B, or C is hegemonic and evinces latent sandboxophobia. Take off your diaper and put on your conductor's cap.Choo-choo! ::Looks at mess:: I hope you're proud of yourself, but I for one am not cleaning that up. It's not the kind of challenge I'm looking for.
You don't even know what Cartesian means, white tower boy.
You don't even know what Cartesian means, white tower boy.
I won't bother to demonstrate the fact that I do. No doubt your assertion is the flip side of your own misunderstanding, rooted in a false dichotomatical consciousness which further manifests itself in your failure to produce a valid solution to the problem of game challenges in sandbox play, necessitating the imposition of hegemonic fiat and heavy over-plotting. As to your final nomenclature, you seem to be intending to insult me, implying that the world is made up of those who belong in White Castles and those who belong in white towers. I consider it a beatitude that I am not captive to these false perceptions of mutual exclusivity. Would you like some ketchup?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You don't even know what Cartesian means, white tower boy.~Lewis Carroll and Jacques Derrida got drunk and had sex, even though they're both corpses~
Spanky: Your Cartesian anxiety over X or Y is laughably invalid.
Your attempt to sort through A, B, or C is hegemonic and evinces latent sandboxophobia. Take off your diaper and put on your conductor's cap.Choo-choo! ::Looks at mess:: I hope you're proud of yourself, but I for one am not cleaning that up. It's not the kind of challenge I'm looking for.
It's a fancy word for hooker, right?
It's a fancy word for hooker, right?
I think you mean Cartesienne.
Spanky the Leprechaun, for the sake of brevity, I am going to reply without including that rather long and precise analysis in quotes.
While I agree that the PCs taking off into unplanned territory in a sandbox does put pressure on the DM, it is not something I see as terribly problematic. My own experiences with DMing have been much more in diceless modern settings then in the fantasy realm.
Yes, I am one of those bastard swords that can and will run a sandbox game with less than 5 pages of prepared notes for 3 months and actually keep the group entertained. It is just the way I learned to do things.
So, as far as open sandbox being a problem, it just makes the DM adapt.
I am starting to feel that the core of this discussion is moving towards a question of the DM 'adapts the world to the RAW' or 'adapts the RAW to the world.'
Would that be correct or am I missing something important here?
Baldraka: I wish you'd expand on your salient points, and further exposit Heathansson's post.
Yes, I am one of those bastard swords that can and will run a sandbox game with less than 5 pages of prepared notes for 3 months and actually keep the group entertained. It is just the way I learned to do things.
For that I suppose you have my congratulations. I can't manage that, myself. I need to know at least a little in advance what the players plan to do. (I'm in Chapter Five of Savage Tide, which is very sandbox in design, and the only way I'm coping is by getting my players to decide in the week between sessions what they plan to do the next Saturday and prepping accordingly. Doing an entire campaign this way... not sure if I could handle it, honestly. :P)
You don't even know what Cartesian means, white tower boy.I won't bother to demonstrate the fact that I do. No doubt your assertion is the flip side of your own misunderstanding, rooted in a false dichotomatical consciousness which further manifests itself in your failure to produce a valid solution to the problem of game challenges in sandbox play, necessitating the imposition of hegemonic fiat and heavy over-plotting. As to your final nomenclature, you seem to be intending to insult me, implying that the world is made up of those who belong in White Castles and those who belong in white towers. I consider it a beatitude that I am not captive to these false perceptions of mutual exclusivity. Would you like some ketchup?
*crotchpalm*
you're unmature!
I cleaned up some flamebait, some flaming, and so otherwise out-of-context derailing.Many thanks. It was degenerating.
That's unpossible.
Everything evolves, like the evillutionist atheists say, not going towards entropy, like the Lord and physicists claim.More unmature logic.
I wonder if there's enough water to my constituency to be considered anything but a bottle of vinegar.
I wonder if there's enough water to my constituency to be considered anything but a bottle of vinegar.
I wear my socks when I shower, they smell like vinegar.
I wonder if there's enough water to my constituency to be considered anything but a bottle of vinegar.
Are I your constituency boss?