RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, I have this good friend, who I continue to call "Matt". He's done some freelance work for the d20 system, and one of his base classes was even chosen by Monte Cook for his one and only "annual best of d20" compilation. And this week, "Matt" is explaining what he does and does not like in tabletop gaming.
Which, to a great extent, I agree with. Traps, to be a worthwhile addition to the game, need to be present before they go off.Well, let me direct you to Zak S talking about how Old School Roleplaying = DC and New School Roleplaying = Marvel. It's an excellent analysis of both comics and RPGs, looking at the different things they focus on. Here's the thesis statement, for those of you who remember your composition classes:
DC Comics--like Old School D&D--are more about the world being interesting, whereas Marvel Comics--like new D&D--are more about the characters being interesting.
Zak is definitely a DC, while I'm Marvel all the way. As should be obvious from today's subjects...
LIKE: EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT
Give me something to care about, and I won't miss a session.Give me something to hate, so I can hunt it down. Give me something to fear, and I'll fight like hell to escape it. Give me something to love, so it's all worthwhile. Give me something to become.
Or let me create it myself. I'm not picky. I want to invest myself in some aspect of the game - my character, of course, but also in the broader world around them and the narrative they're building. This is an area where I think both the old-school Dungeons Must Kill You and the new-school Narrative Matters More Than Characters have gone off the rails. A big part of the fun, to me, is getting wrapped up in what happens. Not just paying attention to events, but caring about how they turn out - being happy when things work and disappointed when they don't. I'm not here to solve puzzles, or to endure a predetermined storyline. I'm here to get excited about what happens to my character (or to the PCs' characters, depending on which side of the screen I ended up on).
DISLIKE: TRAPS
Mind-bogglingly dumb.I know, I know, mind-bogglingly dumb "to me." But seriously - I'm supposed to get excited because someone rigged up a scythe-blade to swing out of a wall if I stepped on one of the black tiles? That's fun?
Wait, wait, wait. I'm supposed to get excited because I spent 20 minutes of my time - not game time, real time - describing how I prodded things with a wooden pole and tossed rocks at stuff and maybe herded a goat down this hallway, all for the purpose of seeing if a scythe-like blade would swing at anyone stepping on a black tile? That's fun?
Wait, wait, wait. I'm supposed to get excited because after naming my character and designing their stats and thinking of their history, the character died because they stepped wrong? HOW IS THIS FUN?
In the ~20 years I've been running RPG sessions, I can think of two times I've used traps. Once was in 7th Sea, once was in Champions, and the latter was a deathtrap rather than a straight-up trap. The classic dungeon-crawl-style trap is a perfect example of "player vs. environment" RPG thinking. Well, I don't want to wrestle with the environment. And I definitely don't want my character to be killed by it just because I'm not looking at things the way my GM expected me to. Mind-bogglingly dumb.
- Find a couple of dead bodies hanging on a wall of spikes. Then you're in the mindset to check the tomb more carefully.
- Step on the black tile and a faint ticking begins: you have 59 seconds left to grab the loot and skidoot, or else find the bomb and defuse it.
- Step on the white tile, and the floor below you drops, leaving you on the fourth level of the dungeon, rather than the second, with no idea how to get back out.
Random wandering danger is no fun.
I like the ide about the goat, though.
You can comment here if you like, or on Matt's LiveJournal page, 'cause he's looking to connect with people.
...ghost post
You got that right...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, I have this good friend, who I continue to call "Matt". He's done some freelance work for the d20 system, and one of his base classes was even chosen by Monte Cook for his one and only "annual best of d20" compilation. And this week, "Matt" is explaining what he does and does not like in tabletop gaming.
Well, let me direct you to Zak S talking about how Old School Roleplaying = DC and New School Roleplaying = Marvel. It's an excellent analysis of both comics and RPGs, looking at the different things they focus on. Here's the thesis statement, for those of you who remember your composition classes:
DC Comics--like Old School D&D--are more about the world being interesting, whereas Marvel Comics--like new D&D--are more about the characters being interesting.
Zak is definitely a DC, while I'm Marvel all the way. As should be obvious from today's subjects...
LIKE: EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT
Give me something to care about, and I won't miss a session.Give me something to hate, so I can hunt it down. Give me something to fear, and I'll fight like hell to escape it. Give me something to love, so it's all worthwhile. Give me something to become.
Or let me create it myself. I'm not picky. I want to invest myself in some aspect of the game - my character, of course, but also in the broader world around them and the narrative they're building. This is an area where I think both the old-school Dungeons Must Kill You and the new-school Narrative Matters More Than Characters have gone off the rails. A big part of the fun, to me, is getting wrapped up in what happens. Not just paying attention to events, but caring about how they turn out - being happy when things work and disappointed when they don't. I'm not here to solve puzzles, or to endure a predetermined storyline. I'm here to get excited about what happens to my character (or to the PCs' characters, depending on which side of the screen I ended up on).
DISLIKE: TRAPS
Mind-bogglingly dumb.I know, I know, mind-bogglingly dumb "to me." But seriously - I'm supposed to get excited because someone rigged up a scythe-blade to swing out of a wall if I stepped on one of the black tiles? That's fun?
Wait, wait, wait. I'm supposed to get excited because I spent 20 minutes of my time - not game time, real time - describing how I prodded things with a wooden pole and tossed rocks at stuff and maybe herded a goat down this hallway, all for the purpose of seeing if a scythe-like blade would swing at anyone stepping on a black tile? That's fun?
Wait, wait, wait. I'm supposed to get excited because after naming my character and designing their stats and thinking of their history, the character died because they stepped wrong? HOW IS THIS FUN?
In the ~20 years I've been running RPG sessions, I can think of two times I've used traps. Once was in 7th Sea, once was in Champions, and the latter was a deathtrap rather than a straight-up trap. The classic dungeon-crawl-style trap is a perfect example of "player vs. environment" RPG thinking. Well, I don't want to wrestle with the environment. And I definitely don't want my character to be killed by it just because I'm not looking at things the way my GM expected me to. Mind-bogglingly dumb.
Which, to a great extent, I agree with. Traps, to be a worthwhile addition to the game, need to be present before they go off.
- Find a couple of dead bodies hanging on a wall of spikes. Then you're in the mindset to check the tomb more carefully.
- Step on the black tile and a faint ticking begins: you have 59 seconds left to grab the loot and skidoot, or else find the bomb and defuse it.
- Step on the white tile, and the floor below you drops, leaving you on the fifth level of the dungeon, rather than the third, injured, perhaps without light, with no idea how to get back out, and with something in the darkness prowling about, making low sucking noises.
Random wandering danger is no fun.
I like the idea about the goat, though.
You can comment here if you like, or on Matt's LiveJournal page, 'cause he's looking to connect with people.
|
I do traps and such like puzzles -- that is, I describe what the Thief (or whoever) sees and then he and the other Players have to come up with a solution. Actually, pretty much like how the Challenge of Champions gimmick works.
Then, after the Players decide what they want to do I make the Thief roll his Disable Device check. . . . Often, before the Disable Device comes other checks, maybe an Intelligence check to see if it's a good plan, maybe a Dungeoneering check to get a hint, that kind of stuff.
So, the PCs come to a door in the dungeon and the Thief sees that it's trapped. I say that the door frame is coated with some paste-like substance and apparently, if the seal is broken (if door opens) whatever gas(?) is in the pasty stuff becomes exposed to the air and something bad may happen. And, oh yeah, make another Perception check.... apparently the door handle is also attached to a lever and that lever leads down under the door (more questions and checks follow) and the Players have to come up with a plan.
I know, I know, mind-bogglingly dumb "to me."
And that's all that really needs to be said.
Can't really comment on personal preferences. They're personal and individual.
I don't like 3.5/PF traps. But I really like 4E traps and hazards; they can make a fight so much more interesting...
Can't really comment on personal preferences. They're personal and individual.
+1. I, personally, have quite a bit of nostalgia for the "old days". The idea of outwitting the DM (or, as a DM, having my players outwit me) is part of the draw. Dodging traps, surviving overpowering monsters, "threading the needle" in order to survive to the next level is part and parcel of my enjoyment of the game.
I've read a lot of blog entries, magazine articles and posts recently about how it's the DM's job to keep the players alive and how cruel it is to introduce new PCs at lower levels than the surviving party. I guess I can't really relate to that approach. Personally it feels like the DM is serving the players, rather than creating a hostile situation in which they must use their wits and their characters' abilities in concert to emerge victorious (and really "own" the victory), with a penalty for failure. For me, traps are part of that.To each their own.
Zo
I'm with Matt on this one. Nothing is more boring then slowly prodding every cobblestone or brick on the floor walls and cealing to avoid the SoD trap that you'll never find anyways. It's probably the worst aspect of old school gaming. This doesn't even make the game grind to a halt, because it ensures the game never gets going in the first place.
Riddles and puzzles are also bad. I'm a wizard with 22 int, who cares if I, the player, can't figure out this dumb riddle you took from the back of a MENSA puzzle book, my wizard can. Puzzles and riddles all end the same - either the one person in the group, probably the 6 int barbarian, is good with puzzles in real life and solves them all while the rest of the party just sighs and waits for him to finish, or nobody gets it and the game just grinds to a halt.
It's a strange idea that we're ok with a fighter doing feats of strength without forcing the player to arm wrestle the DM, but you can't do the same with puzzles. In other words, it's really dumb that it's ok to let players roleplay out having high physical stats, but not having high mental stats.
It's a strange idea that we're ok with a fighter doing feats of strength without forcing the player to arm wrestle the DM, but you can't do the same with puzzles. In other words, it's really dumb that it's ok to let players roleplay out having high physical stats, but not having high mental stats.
No, it's not a strange idea at all. But then again, most people are able to make a distinction between a physical game and a mental game. A tabletop RPG is a mental game.
But this has been debated to death, so no point in going further. Round and round, and all that. Dumb to you. 'Nuff said.
Traps annoy me because the 'Durable Deathtrap' trope often puts (important word follows) unnecessary suspension of disbelief on me as a player when not already thematic.
Your friend Matt is a genius. Or at least he's two for two with "I don't like splitting the party" and "I don't like traps".
Random dungeon traps are like speed bumps for fun.
EDIT: Ooh! Actually he's three for three -- I notice he doesn't like puzzles or mysteries either (although I lump puzzles in the same category as traps, mostly).
Oh wait. He lost me when he says he doesn't like tactical maps. Never mind -- he's human after all.
For what it's worth, the full Likes/Dislikes list is here:
http://walrusjester.livejournal.com/137122.html
I would say the biggest problem I have with traps is that they can kill everyone and that players can make them. I realize that sounds incredibly stupid, but the stories I have to go along with those opinions are INSUFFERABLY LONG, so I'm going to have to leave it there. Just like I'd amend his "never split up the party" gripe to "don't go rushing off by yourself", I'll amend "traps suck" to "traps can suck the fun out of game when they result in TPK/Autodeath and/or when there is someone at the table who insists on making one."
I'm going to need an explanation of the "describing enviornments" and "Star Trek Model" dislikes.
I'm going to need an explanation of the "describing enviornments" and "Star Trek Model" dislikes.
I assume the "Star Trek model" means a different, self-contained adventure every session, with no particular thread connecting them. (Pathfinder Society play is a bit like that.)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm going to need an explanation of the "describing enviornments" and "Star Trek Model" dislikes.
He notes in a comment:
The characters move around frequently, rarely (if ever) returning to old locations. The adventures come from outside, as consequences of entering these locations. The characters are passive participants in GM-directed stories, rather than actively creating the stories.
To be really technical, this would be the "classic Trek and early TNG" model. The Enterprise crew moves around the galaxy, almost never staying in one place, almost never returning to an old place. The crew is told where to go - they don't decide.
After an unsuccessful attempt at running a 7th Sea campaign, I realized that I hate this model. I want games where the PCs have a home base in a fixed geographical location, and where the players are actively creating plots and adventures. Maybe that's the Babylon 5 model.
I'm going to need an explanation of the "describing enviornments" and "Star Trek Model" dislikes.He notes in a comment:
The characters move around frequently, rarely (if ever) returning to old locations. The adventures come from outside, as consequences of entering these locations. The characters are passive participants in GM-directed stories, rather than actively creating the stories.
To be really technical, this would be the "classic Trek and early TNG" model. The Enterprise crew moves around the galaxy, almost never staying in one place, almost never returning to an old place. The crew is told where to go - they don't decide.
After an unsuccessful attempt at running a 7th Sea campaign, I realized that I hate this model. I want games where the PCs have a home base in a fixed geographical location, and where the players are actively creating plots and adventures. Maybe that's the Babylon 5 model.
That's weird. I've never had that in a game before. I can't even come up with a counter to it because we've always had a "home base", even if it was occasionally hostile to us.
|
|
(My PC has) 22 INT, who cares if I, the player, can't figure out this dumb riddle you took from the back of a MENSA puzzle book? My wizard can.
You're absolutely right. And when I have a Player at my table who doesn't like this aspect I have to be cognizant of that and try to get through these things quickly so his game-time is not minimized. In my experience, though, the large majority of Players Love these Challenge of Champions-like puzzles and traps. . . . I think one of the keys is that the DM creates a puzzle, NOT a solution -- so that whatever the Players come up with, so long as the Disable Device roll doesn't suck, it works. I've found that Players enjoy figuring out how to disable the trap more than just rolling and telling me the DC they beat.
|
|
The idea of outwitting the DM (or... having my players outwit me) is part of the draw. Dodging traps, surviving overpowering monsters, "threading the needle" in order to survive to the next level ( -- that's fun) . . . . I've read a lot of blog entries, magazine articles and posts recently about how it's the DM's job to keep the players alive . . . . Personally it feels like the DM is serving the players, rather than creating a hostile situation in which they must use their wits and their characters' abilities in concert to emerge victorious
I get what you're saying but have to disagree on some level. Sure we have to "(create) a hostile situation in which (PCs) must use their wits and their characters' abilities in concert to emerge victorious." But back in the day there was so much more an emphasis on puzzle rooms and sudden death traps -- and quickly finished dungeons. ToH, "White Plume Mt," "Ghost Tower..." -- they're all PC grinders and they can all be played in one day.
At some point (1983 with "Ravenloft" but also with "Against the Cult..." "Assassin's Knot" etc.) modules became adventures and the overall emphasis was on story background and character development, both PC and NPC.
So Players started designing characters -- with history, personality and goals (both characterazation and game-sheet). Not just quick "tools," created in 10 minutes with no real sentimental value.
With the advent of 3rd Edition that is magnified -- heck, even with the advent of 2nd Edition it was magnified. Now Players spend far more time on their own Characters than they do any other part of the D&D experience.
And to randomly or arbitrarily or haphazardly kill that PC is bad DMing. "Serve the Players" .... Yeah, sure, why not. That's my job as DM. They're all adults who are spending their precious free time entering my campaign. I have fun by creating and running the campaign -- I've gotta make sure they have fun playing in my campaign.
|
|
With the advent of 3rd Edition that is magnified -- heck, even with the advent of 2nd Edition it was magnified. Now Players spend far more time on their own Characters than they do any other part of the D&D experience.
And to randomly or arbitrarily or haphazardly kill that PC is bad DMing. "Serve the Players" .... Yeah, sure, why not. That's my job as DM. They're all adults who are spending their precious free time entering my campaign.
Yeah, but to this Old School DM, a lot of players in my estimation have become akin to preening divas with an unrealistic sense of entitlement...
I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I know it takes me a while to create that perfect investigator in Call of Cthulhu. And guess what happens to most of them?
Maybe so, but I fail to see any real difference. They still spent a lot of time making that "perfect" character, and they still know that characters die...
I could tell you where I think this attitude came from, but that'd be opening a whole new can of worms I'm not willing to get into...
It all boils down to this; it's a game with perils, where character death happens, and I refuse to hold the player's hand in this scary world of make-believe...
I inform my players that I run a no holds barred campaign that is not directly catered to their characters, where if they are first level and decide to burst into the ancient red dragons lair, that dragon will be eating good that day (no matter how long they spent making their precious character)...
So far, the players that sit at my table keep coming back for more...
YMMV...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
I don't like traps that don't make sense or can't be avoided.
Deathtrap Tomb? Awesome.
Pit trap on my front lawn? What idiot did that?
I get impaled by a tree trunk out of nowhere? Why didn't you just tell me I start the game with 22 hp less and save yourself the time?
I see arrowslits in the walls ahead? Alright, we'll try that hall after we check the other branch and find out it's worse.
And to randomly or arbitrarily or haphazardly kill that PC is bad DMing. "Serve the Players" .... Yeah, sure, why not. That's my job as DM. They're all adults who are spending their precious free time entering my campaign. I have fun by creating and running the campaign -- I've gotta make sure they have fun playing in my campaign.
Fair enough. I absolutely agree with your first sentence. The issue I take is with the idea (not necessarily promoted by anyone on this thread) that the DM is meant to pave the way to "victory" for the party. I hate it as a player, and I hate it as a DM. Before I proceed I'll reiterate: to each his own. I've got no interest in telling anyone else how to play.
As a player I enjoy having my roleplaying, teamwork, and tactical/strategic abilities challenged by a difficult scenario. I enjoy the tension created when my well thought out and carefully detailed PC is on the knife-edge of death or victory. It's satisfying, throwing my dwarven defender in the path of the rampaging land-kraken so the wizard can get off that last spell, saving the day for all.
As a DM, I enjoy the prospect of seeing that same look of concern or dismay, followed by elation when someone "threads the needle". I DO have a vested interest in my PCs' victory, but I want the victory to be earned. It feels better that way. Every tried and true trick in the DM's bag contributes to that challenge, and to throw one away because it's not "fun" is certainly one's prerogative, but to me undesirable. Traps are as cliche as a three dollar bill, but they're an aspect of the type of game I enjoy running and playing in.
Zo
My feelings with character death is that its bad when a character dies. It makes the player unhappy, it often wrecks a few good character driven plot points and it creates some kind of suspension of disbelief destroying sequence of events in order to get a complete stranger who happens to also be a mid to high level adventurer out to the boondocks where the adventure is taking place and a scene where said stranger is instantly accepted into the party all in order to get the players new character back into the game...
...and for all that its still worth having because the alternative is even worse. With the exception of a few comparatively rare styles of playing, death or at least the real fear of death is one of the major points of excitement for the players. It gets pretty boring slaughtering monsters if there is no chance that the monsters can kill you. One might as well be slaughtering cows in that case. Without real opposition the thrill of victory is significantly reduced for the players.
Failure to occasionally kill your players often has much more significant consequences as well. The players griefing each other is a common result. Unable to find drama in the DMs creation they start creating some of their own.
Another problem is the players start behaving completely abnormally. They don't believe they can die so there is no danger from telling the King to 'shove it where the sun don't shine'. All of a sudden adventure concepts like 'we need to flee the ______' (insert any of [vampire, evil monarchs troops, assassins, the energizer bunny]) stop working because the players are not really scared of such threats. If they read the DM properly they might play along (you have a really bad case where they won't even do that) but their hearts not in it...the threat is not real.
That's not to say that the DM should kill, kill and kill some more. The threat exists mainly because the players put all this time and effort into the character and genuinely don't want their character to die. If the DM kills to often then the players stop giving their 'toons names and they no longer care when they die which defeats the whole point.
I don't like traps that don't make sense or can't be avoided.
I'm with TOZ on this one.
"Watch out as you are about to enter the opening sequence on Raiders of the Lost Ark can be cool"
"Aha, bet you didn't see that one coming!" out of the blue only leads to frustration.
"Watch out as you are about to enter the opening sequence on Raiders of the Lost Ark" can be cool.
That would be cool, but that's not usually how D&D traps work, in my experience. Generally speaking, if D&D PCs want to avoid a trap they can, either by tedious searching and disarming, or by driving a herd of goats ahead of you (or whatever).
"Watch out as you are about to enter the opening sequence on Raiders of the Lost Ark" can be cool.That would be cool, but that's not usually how D&D traps work, in my experience. Generally speaking, if D&D PCs want to avoid a trap they can, either by tedious searching and disarming, or by driving a herd of goats ahead of you (or whatever).
Fair enough!
I guess I've been playing (and planning) my traps differently, probably because I agree with Matt more than I want to admit it...
'findel
I'm actually designing a dungeon right now, and have been looking at a few traps to put in. In my experience, traps can work well if they are location-appropriate. That is to say, in a naturally occurring cave, I wouldn't have tiles that set off spinning scythes and hidden explosive runes or whatnot. But, in a building designed to house some ancient, expensive/powerful item or artifact, I'm going to have all sorts of traps in place to protect said item.
I use a vague, blanket idea of what a trap is in my games. A trap to me is basically anything that directly threatens the players that isn't a creature or character(and isn't an intangible force, like an oppressing nation, etc).
I use lots of environmental "traps", for example in a cave, a particular downward-sloping area of rock may be covered in slick moss and force a Reflex Save or Balance Check, failure meaning the characters slips and falls down the slope, or at the very least loosing one's footing and landing hard on the behind(subdual damage).
I'm with Matt on this one. Nothing is more boring then slowly prodding every cobblestone or brick on the floor walls and cealing to avoid the SoD trap that you'll never find anyways. It's probably the worst aspect of old school gaming. This doesn't even make the game grind to a halt, because it ensures the game never gets going in the first place.
Riddles and puzzles are also bad. I'm a wizard with 22 int, who cares if I, the player, can't figure out this dumb riddle you took from the back of a MENSA puzzle book, my wizard can. Puzzles and riddles all end the same - either the one person in the group, probably the 6 int barbarian, is good with puzzles in real life and solves them all while the rest of the party just sighs and waits for him to finish, or nobody gets it and the game just grinds to a halt.
It's a strange idea that we're ok with a fighter doing feats of strength without forcing the player to arm wrestle the DM, but you can't do the same with puzzles. In other words, it's really dumb that it's ok to let players roleplay out having high physical stats, but not having high mental stats.
You have some good points, but something I've tried with some success as a DM is that I'll put the players up against a puzzle, and give out little hints based on characters INT, WIS, etc. I'll start out with just letting the players themselves all have a go at it. IF after a few moments they seem stumped, I'll either call for a INT check, or just give out a hint or two based off of each player's respective ability score. This way, the Wizard with the 22 INT gets a better shot at figuring it out before the Barbarian with the 6 INT.
|
I'm a DC man myself...
Anyhoo TOZ has hit the nail on the head here. As with anything traps and puzzles have to make sense. I love a good riddle or trap but randomly throwing them in for no good reason is weird.
Traps should protect things. I rarely (if ever) use traps that are not connected to a door, chest, bank vault etc. there is no reason to trap a random stretch of corridor unless that corridor is important in some way.
For me a dungeon has to make logical sense. Why is X there, Who deals with Y, where do X get Y from etc.
Traps fall into this. I love a good trap but there has to be a reason for it being there.
I also love puzzles and so do my players so I throw a few in here and there. Again not randomly but so they make sense in the context.
Yeah, but to this Old School DM, a lot of players in my estimation have become akin to preening divas with an unrealistic sense of entitlement...
+1.
I think traps and puzzles can be a good addition to a dungeon or adventure but they need to be made with your players in mind. I've often been in games where one or two players love to work out puzzles. It's not my thing but I think it's a good tool for those who love to work them out. But I try to present them in ways that allow for those specific players to work with them without dragging the rest of the group down.
Traps can become mind boggling dull if you end up stopping in every room to search every five feet. So I usually make the trap part of their perception check when entering a room. If they roll well enough they'll get a clue and can work on that. If not, there's a good chance it'll go off, or I'll give them another perception check when they're closer to it. They can still be as careful as they want to be, but anything to avoid the agonizing search rolls for every freaking corner of the room.
Yeah, but to this Old School DM, a lot of players in my estimation have become akin to preening divas with an unrealistic sense of entitlement...
Yes, but to many players the opposite is a draconian and distinctively un-fun game with a preening diva of a DM ;p.
It's something that people still have problems fully grasping, it think - DMs can be overentitled, too.
Also, puzzles have never made sense.
As the link provides, the Hobbit provides perhaps the worst example of this, although Moria was pretty bad about it too.
I'm reminded of Metal Gear Solid, where the path to Otakon was guarded by a room filled with poisonous gas, an electrified floor, automated gun turrets, and, beyond that, several guards.
How did those guards get there, and how would they leave?!
When designing traps, keep in mind, if this is something's lair or home, they need to get in and out.
Okay. Traps are there to dissuade others and ensures thieves don't break in. But puzzles? What kind of idiot wizard builds magical riddles into a dungeon designed to protect his most precious trinkets? "All who dare trespass in my Tower of Insanity are doomed... unless they can answer these riddles I found in the back of a jokebook, then they can take whatever they want."
DMs can be overentitled, too.
The difference being the sense of entitlement that comes from doing X hours of prep before each session is hopefully earned, respected, and justified. No excuse for a killer DM, and I can't comment on DMs solely running pre-written modules/APs, but one of the aspects of DMing involves sacrifice (of time, money, and/or effort) and it is hoped that the authority vested in a DM is honored, at least until it's abused.
Zo
|
|
It's a game with perils, where character death happens, and I refuse to hold the player's hand in this scary world of make-believe.
Okay, and, like you also said, your Players know what to expect.
I think the best style is somewhere in the middle of what we were positing. PC death happens occassionally, sure, and if you prepare for the possibility, the game doesn't get killed. Don't go out of your way to be brutal; don't hold the Player's hand.
For me, I decide whethe or not I designed the trap or encounter too hard -- if I made a design mistake it's not cool to take it out on the PC.
Also, if I have been fudging some rolls or stats, I can't in good conscience let a PC get killed.
Either way, puzzles and traps -- getting back to the OP -- don't have to be lethal to be part of D&D.
DMs can be overentitled, too.The difference being the sense of entitlement that comes from doing X hours of prep before each session is hopefully earned, respected, and justified. No excuse for a killer DM, and I can't comment on DMs solely running pre-written modules/APs, but one of the aspects of DMing involves sacrifice (of time, money, and/or effort) and it is hoped that the authority vested in a DM is honored, at least until it's abused.
Zo
I was in a rather ill concieved game awhile back that fell apart rather quickly. Halfway through the first session, the DM started berrating and getting upset at us because we hadn't fully read though this several page long backstory of the setting to learn everything about it before diving in. As he ranted at us about how much time and effort he had put into making "a living breathing world," one of the other players interrupted him with "Dude, none of us asked you to goo super in depth, we just wanted to kill a dragon and become heroes."
Moral of the story: DMs don't get to be angsty and overentitled when they do work the players didn't want in the first place.
I have DM'd, and it's easy to hit that "doing hours of prep" phrase, but here's the secret - it's not needed. Not everything needs to be overplanned right from the start. If there's anything I would call the mark of a "good DM," it's the ability to not over-prep, leave things vague, play it by ear, and make things up as you go.
Kind of like how you can spend all day cooking or just throw everything in a crockpot and still have an awesome dinner.
I'd rather say; kind of like there's a clientele for burger and a clientele for fine cuisine.
'findel
|
|
I have DM'd, and it's easy to hit that "doing hours of prep" phrase, but here's the secret - it's not needed.
But you see, that's YOUR secret...
I know others agree with that philosophy as well, but the DM is an equal participant of the game. And for my enjoyment, I need to go "super in depth" and create that "living breathing world"...
Though, I've never required my players to read more than a few pages of campaign information at any one time...
I hear all this talk about the player's requirement of fun...
What about the DM's fun?
If all the group sitting at my table wanted was "Just to kill a dragon and become heroes" without any concern of campaign world detail, where they can't even be bothered to notice that they are adventuring in Golarion, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or my personal homebrew, then I might as well be playing a video game because that generic or vanilla of a game would bore me to tears...
I play RPGs to have fun too...
Like I've stated before, I tell those that sit at my table what to expect. And in 25+ years of GMing, no player has ever walked away because he or she wasn't having fun...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Everyone can and should have fun, so long as it is not at the expense of another player's fun.
Here's the REAL secret to understanding DMing: He's a player, too. With all the good and bad that goes with it. DM entitlement is player entitlement and vice versa. He's playing the same game, just on another side of the board.
As he ranted at us about how much time and effort he had put into making "a living breathing world," one of the other players interrupted him with "Dude, none of us asked you to goo super in depth, we just wanted to kill a dragon and become heroes."
Heh. For me and the people I typically game with, we stopped playing that kind of D&D when we were 12.
I put a lot of effort into the characters I bring to the table. It's the least I can do for all the work and effort the DM does to give me a good experience. I can walk into any gaming store and play a game killing dragons and becoming heroes. Hell, I can boot up half a dozen computer games at any given moment to do the same.
That's not why I play RPGs. I'm in the hobby for co-creating engaging stories with compelling characters in a well-fleshed out world. Obviously, people are going to be seeking different things for their own experiences but expect a lot from my DM and he expects a lot from me. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves every bit of respect and appreciation I have to offer.
If he didn't, I wouldn't be playing in his game.
It probably makes me an RPG snob. That's okay. I'm that way about my beer too. :)
Heh.
Heh
It probably makes me an RPG snob. That's okay. I'm that way about my beer too. :)
It doesn't make you a snob, but it does make you unsufferably smug.
Heh, I played D&D like you did...back when I was a child. Heh
...the DM started berrating and getting upset at us because we hadn't fully read though this several page long backstory ...one of the other players interrupted him with "Dude, none of us asked you to goo super in depth, we just wanted to kill a dragon and become heroes."
Moral of the story: DMs don't get to be angsty and overentitled when they do work the players didn't want in the first place.
I'd personally prefer to ascribe the situation you detailed as an incompatibility in vision between players and DM rather than a unilateral claim of "bad DMing". Rhetorically, is there such a thing as "bad playing"? To what extent, if any, should players attempt to conform to the game presented to them? Who exactly is the cart and who is the horse?
Zo
Everyone can and should have fun, so long as it is not at the expense of another player's fun.
Here's the REAL secret to understanding DMing: He's a player, too. With all the good and bad that goes with it. DM entitlement is player entitlement and vice versa. He's playing the same game, just on another side of the board.
Agree with the first sentence, could not possibly disagree more with that which follows. That point of view seems very isolating, excluding and adversarial to me.
Agree with the first sentence, could not possibly disagree more with that which follows. That point of view seems very isolating, excluding and adversarial to me.
I really see it as a means of killing the adversarial style of play. When the DM stops thinking of himself as the GOD OF THE BOARD and the PLAYERS' OVERMIND, and rightfully thinks of himself as "another player," then he stops buying into the crappy DM vs the Players mindset and goes with "hey, how about we all have fun"
Tombs that you don't want robbed, fair enough. But places where people live will not have traps on main passages that are used regularly. And even an entrance trap - to keep unwelcome visitors out - needs a simple bypass for the people who are supposed to be able to get in and out.
Yeah, that's my thinking as well. The only places a trap really belongs is where someone plans to keep anyone from going or as a set-up for a specific ambush type of scenario. Lately I've tended to set up "traps" more along the lines of secured entranceways or roadblocks that require an understanding of how it's set-up to easily get through. Like three deep recesses for unlocking the door. One of them has the lock or latch and the other two have poisoned needles.
The rogue gets to use his trapfinding bonus to perception to determine which is which (and then disable device to open) without forcing the party to spend a lot of time searching for something that doesn't even make any sense.
Agree with the first sentence, could not possibly disagree more with that which follows. That point of view seems very isolating, excluding and adversarial to me.I really see it as a means of killing the adversarial style of play. When the DM stops thinking of himself as the GOD OF THE BOARD and the PLAYERS' OVERMIND, and rightfully thinks of himself as "another player," then he stops buying into the crappy DM vs the Players mindset and goes with "hey, how about we all have fun"
I agree that the DM needs to be mindful of the players. On the other hand I'm definitely the 'in depth world' type DM. One benifit is you can more easily answer a players question regarding how things work with the people they happen to be interacting.
The other factor is there really is a range of players. I have one player that actually reads all the crap on my deeply realized homebrew and enjoys understanding the world he's a player in. I have a couple of players that will read enough to realize their character concept. So they might research if they need a good God who's also fanatical for their character concept of Lawful Good Assassin. The other players ignore this stuff because it does not interest them.
My feelings on making this sort of thing work is to not take it as a personal insult that some of your players don't want to delve into the details. Don't show favoritism and don't tromp around saying 'you can't do that in my world'. Everyone should get to have fun...however the guy that reads everything does have an advantage of being able to fast track through plot dilemma's and such. Everyone can learn the needed information through Gather Information type checks but if the player understands the world and the plots derive from the world then there is a good chance that the player can make intuitive guesses about whats going on.
I noticed in my last campaign that the player that understood the world also generally got to choose where the party was going. He had a big advantage in 'what should we do now'? type debates.
I agree with your friend Matt to a point. There's nothing less exciting than going square by square, searching for traps. I don't care how intricate, or cool your trap is, every single trap essentially boils down to two actions:
1) I try to find the trap.
2) I try to disable the trap.
On the other hand, I think traps don't have to be that boring. I think traps can even be fun. The thing you have to consider is placement. A random pit trap in the middle of a hallway, while realistic, isn't terribly exciting. A trap that summons monsters, or gives the PCs penalties in combat, or makes it more difficult for the PCs to get to a particular monster, can be pretty cool.
To give you an example, take a look at the Face in Darkness trap from the Age of Worms Campaign. I don't think there's anyone who would say that trap is boring. On the contrary, I would say it's one of the most clever and entertaining traps ever designed.