The Gaming Den

I’ve been avoiding this because something has really been bugging me about a lot of the things being discussed. Perhaps it is the DM in me that thinks, “that’s not the way it is supposed to work.” Then again, I’ve had to deal with the player who wanted to have a bison as her mount.

So if player A wants to go on a side quest for the Katana and player’s B, C, D & E don’t, you have to look at the DM strangely. This really should be Side Quest Design 102. First we need to look at the party, the collective of players involved. For a moment I’m going to shift into music, because music, like role playing, involves the interaction of several people who all need to be happy with what they are doing.

In Jazz, everyone gets to be the soloist and the rest wait for their turn each providing a minimal role.

Jazz sort of sucks for role playing.

In pre-Baroque Polyphony, everyone has their own unique melody line to play at the same time.

That’s a real bitch for the DM to make everyone working on their quests actively at the same time.

So you need a blend of the two. You need to place hooks in every side quest that sparks the interest of all the other players. Player A may get his high priority, but the other players manage to get a lower priority that is interesting enough to hook them into it. This in turn can be rotated among the players.

The point is that the DM knows the world; he also knows the players. Like the old example from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, this little world is sort of designed FOR THE PLAYER’S CHARACTERS. Some adjusting, tweaking and dare I say kit bashing may be required. Doing that, while flying by the seat of your pants, is what makes a DM a fantastic DM.

tussock wrote:

Not a single member of the Fellowship of the Ring has a magic weapon that is named and possessed of some incredible setting importance.

Shwa? Only Anduril, Narsil reforged, the very weapon which cut the Ring from Morgoth's finger in the first place, carried to signal the Return of the King. Glamdring and Sting barely rate by comparison. The barrow blades had no names because of how they were found, but they could strike and kill the invulnerable Witch-King of Angmar on account of their setting history, which was a key point in the key battle which would change the future of the entire world.

The Fellowship had artifact rings, magic weapons, magic armour, magic cloaks, magic boots, magic clasps, a phial of pure light, magic food and drink, magic boats, magic horses, permanent magic potions, magic staves, ... and they picked most of it up along the way in just a few encounters. And hell, they're only 3rd and 4th level characters.

Err... *adjusts nerd glasses*

In The Hobbit Glamdring was known on sight by the Orcs. Orcrist too. That's pretty hardcore considering that the trolls probably had sat on those blades for years and most of the orcs probably had never seen the swords. Imagine being in kindergarten and being shown pictures of swords and told how much these are hated and their names just so that if you see someone shake it at you some day you know to kill them extra good.

And the barrow blades weren't magical, they just were forged by the ancestral enemies of the witch-king blah blah blah. It's like silver & werewolves. Silver isn't inherently magical, but werewolves are vulnerable to it.

tzor wrote:That’s a real bitch for the DM to make everyone working on their quests actively at the same time.

So you need a blend of the two. You need to place hooks in every side quest that sparks the interest of all the other players.

Frank has explicitly stated that if you do that he walks away in disgust.

No chocolate with your peanut butter, and no dire flails with your quests anyone else gives a damn about.

But really people are rambling in wild, random and generally pointless directions at the moment.

To put things back on track we have at no point been told how the dire flails and I walk scenario is even supposed to work. I highlight Ice9's comment as the last interesting thing said on the matter...

Ice9 wrote:And for that matter, how the hell does "everything should be random" sync up with "areas should have appropriate enemies that use appropriate equipment" anyway? Those are damn opposites.

PhoneLobster wrote:Frank has explicitly stated that if you do that he walks away in disgust.

That's true, Frank's world is sort of like a Soviet Russia joke, players are expected to make characters that fit in his world; end discussion. He expects the same from other DM's too.

Standard disclamer: Not everyone plays D&D like Gygax or even Trollman for that matter. (And thank God not everyone plays D&D like Tzor.)

tzor wrote:The point is that the DM knows the world; he also knows the players. Like the old example from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, this little world is sort of designed FOR THE PLAYER’S CHARACTERS. Some adjusting, tweaking and dare I say kit bashing may be required. Doing that, while flying by the seat of your pants, is what makes a DM a fantastic DM.

i disagree. because you always are changing the world/story for the specific characters and that would then add "destiny" into the mix and i dont want any predestined fates for the characters as either a player or a DM.

at the point you do this, you are effectively railroading players BCDE/etc for player A.

i think a world should work no matter what characters, and the characters should adjust to it.

if i am wrong, then published adventures dont exist, nor do people buy them.

shadzar wrote:if i am wrong, then published adventures dont exist, nor do people buy them.

Yes but I'm a self admitted "kit-basher" ... that's a model railroad term for someone who takes a kit and uses it to make something else. I take published adventures and kit bash them as necessary.

I'm not really railroading and the process still exists even when the players have characters completely in harmony with my setting. Why is the wizard going with the fighter, or the barbarian with the cleric? Because they have goals in common. It doesn't just happen you have to make it happen. In the real world it doesn't happen all the time, in the game world there is only one party so it has to work, by hook or by crook. Hook is always better than crook.

PhoneLobster wrote:

tzor wrote:That’s a real bitch for the DM to make everyone working on their quests actively at the same time.

So you need a blend of the two. You need to place hooks in every side quest that sparks the interest of all the other players.

Frank has explicitly stated that if you do that he walks away in disgust.

Frank walks away because he wants his choices as a PC to matter. If you had an option of going on a quest for a magic item, and you get the item regardless of if you accept the quest or not, then what you choose is irrelevant.

I wouldn't want to play in a game like that either.

PhoneLobster wrote:To put things back on track we have at no point been told how the dire flails and I walk scenario is even supposed to work.

It works better than a centaur going up a spiral staircase

I always saw it as a feature of roleplaying games, where the adventures you partake influence how your character turns out. While you can focus on which part of the adventure influences you, not doing so is telling everyone that no matter what your character did, nor where they went, nor whom they encountered, they will end up looking exactly the same. All roads lead to Bladereach, as it were.

I can see where some would enjoy that aspect. Superhero and pulp style games fit this trope. But I do like the idea of a character being shaped by his adventure, and can see the argument that D&D is one of those styles of games. Yes, having absolutely no control over your character's progression is bad, but I only see that advocated through hyperbole.

TheFlatline wrote: In The Hobbit Glamdring was known on sight by the Orcs. Orcrist too. That's pretty hardcore considering that the trolls probably had sat on those blades for years and most of the orcs probably had never seen the swords. Imagine being in kindergarten and being shown pictures of swords and told how much these are hated and their names just so that if you see someone shake it at you some day you know to kill them extra good.

Glamdring was, in fact, not just known on sight by the Orcs, but was actually the sword of Turgon, King of Gondolin in the First Age. Arguably, its setting significance is every bit as great as Anduril's is.

talozin wrote:

TheFlatline wrote: In The Hobbit Glamdring was known on sight by the Orcs. Orcrist too. That's pretty hardcore considering that the trolls probably had sat on those blades for years and most of the orcs probably had never seen the swords. Imagine being in kindergarten and being shown pictures of swords and told how much these are hated and their names just so that if you see someone shake it at you some day you know to kill them extra good.

Glamdring was, in fact, not just known on sight by the Orcs, but was actually the sword of Turgon, King of Gondolin in the First Age. Arguably, its setting significance is every bit as great as Anduril's is.

Geek point.

I had to look that up before I remembered it.

tussock wrote:

Not a single member of the Fellowship of the Ring has a magic weapon that is named and possessed of some incredible setting importance.

Shwa? Only Anduril, Narsil reforged, the very weapon which cut the Ring from Morgoth's finger in the first place, carried to signal the Return of the King.

This was a critical typo. That should've been "isn't," not "is." If the Fellowship carries any magic item, it's an artifact.

virgil wrote:It works better than a centaur going up a spiral staircase

Don't think for a second that horses inside isn't still highly relevant to this discussion.

The big deal about horses inside, aside from the fact that Frank spiralled into hysterical insanity with an ever shrinking sub set of terrain horses should be allowed inside of because he didn't even actually know how horses work was to do with a very similar assumption as the "Dire Flails Drop Anyway" line.

Adventures happen if you play the game the game gets played. If a Centaur player puts the "lets not do that" on the rabbit warren adventure that is actually almost exactly the same as NOT going on the "Dire Flail" adventure. (which is odd, because Frank says that one is allowed and the other isn't or he spazzes the fuck out with his knickers in a knot AGAIN).

And in both cases what then happens is you go do some other adventure. Experience points are still gained, the centaur still has adventures with his friends. And dire flails still end up dropping. It's not just the GM "being nice" or "playing softball" and handing you those things ANYWAY, those things turn up anyway as a by product of having adventures which can't be avoided short of NOT PLAYING.

tzor wrote:

shadzar wrote:if i am wrong, then published adventures dont exist, nor do people buy them.

Yes but I'm a self admitted "kit-basher" ... that's a model railroad term for someone who takes a kit and uses it to make something else. I take published adventures and kit bash them as necessary.

I'm not really railroading and the process still exists even when the players have characters completely in harmony with my setting. Why is the wizard going with the fighter, or the barbarian with the cleric? Because they have goals in common. It doesn't just happen you have to make it happen. In the real world it doesn't happen all the time, in the game world there is only one party so it has to work, by hook or by crook. Hook is always better than crook.

well i will split the party if they want to...but they better be damn sure they want to...

FrankTrollman wrote:

Seerow wrote:I for one think it would be hilarious to see those who want players to have no say in loot also having no say in other character advancement stuff. Imagine if the DM based on how the players role played decided what their never levelup would be in, or what feats/spells they got.

Wait... you have to imagine what it would be like to play a wizard who gains spells in his spell book based on what happens to be in the spell books of wizards he fights? That's how Wizarding has always worked.

-Username17

Every 2e and 3e game I've ever played has had spells gained from a mixture of found scrolls and spellbooks, and independant research. In 3.x, wizards get two free spells each level, so if nothing else, you are promised to get at least four spells you specifically want.

PhoneLobster wrote:Adventures happen if you play the game the game gets played. If a Centaur player puts the "lets not do that" on the rabbit warren adventure that is actually almost exactly the same as NOT going on the "Dire Flail" adventure. (which is odd, because Frank says that one is allowed and the other isn't or he spazzes the fuck out with his knickers in a knot AGAIN).

And in both cases what then happens is you go do some other adventure. Experience points are still gained, the centaur still has adventures with his friends. And dire flails still end up dropping. It's not just the GM "being nice" or "playing softball" and handing you those things ANYWAY, those things turn up anyway as a by product of having adventures which can't be avoided short of NOT PLAYING.

Um, no, these are not (necessarily) the same. What (I believe) has Frank so annoyed is the implication that even though the party decided not to go on the rabbit warren adventure, the adventure from the rabbit warren followed them anyway, removing the very option of not completing it, thus qualifying it as completely railroaded.

This is because the following was said:

Fuchs wrote:If there are no katana shops there as the GM I'll either create a side story for the character that centers around tracking down 5 katanas stolen from Shufang and brought to Greyhawk, which he is sworn to recover, or give him an ancestral katana that levels with him.

FrankTrollman wrote:And if the other players choose to not go on those side quests?

Fuchs wrote:If the group doesn't want to go on side quests then I can easily make the katanas stolen part of the main quests by making the thieves involved with the BBEG.

Which implies the following sequence of events:
Mister Cavern: "Some katanas were stolen."
Katana Guy: "We should totally track them down and return them!"
Rest of party: "We don't really want to do that, let's do X."
Mister Cavern: "While you are doing X, you find the thieves with the katanas are part of it."

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Mister Cavern: "While you are doing X, you find the thieves with the katanas are part of it."

No.

That is not franks claim.

Frank is directly stating he is opposed to the scenario...

Player: I wanna cool sword!
GM: There is some kinda cool sword on this side quest...
Other Players: Lets not do that.
GM: Later on in the thing you do any way you find some sort of cool sword that may or may not be the same cool sword.

THAT is what he is directly attacking. He DOES use hyperbole to the point of outright dishonesty in that he presents the terribly desperate story of the dire flail, and that one goes...

Player: I wanna Dire Flail of Specificness!
GM: It's over there!
Other Players: We aren't going over there.
GM: Oh look there is one, right here, right now, exactly the same in all respects.

Which is... frankly a stupid ass strawman, but since he is USING that strawman to attack the earlier more realistic scenario I can only assume he is opposed to BOTH those things.

Which is really interesting because it means...

A) His preferred random treasure business is BAD according to his own claims because it CAN generate BOTH the realistic scenario AND the strawman scenario, and can do so MORE reliably than non-random methods which can actually be used as tools to AVOID both those scenarios.

B) The entire premise of his criticism, that for "fairness" there must be side adventure costs AND randomized items (how that even combines to make sense is anyones fucking guess) and NO alternatives... Immediately makes giving ANYONE their preferred item EVER in a main quest a BAD THING.

Because think about THIS scenario.

Player A: I wanna Sword of Burnyness
Player B: I wanna Hammer of Coldness
GM: There is a Sword of Burnyness on this side quest here.
Other Players: Lets not do that.
GM: Hey look you just found a Hammer Of Coldness on the main quest!

It doesn't matter in that scenario if the hammer of coldness appeared as random or non-random. It doesn't matter if it was offered as a side quest or not. It doesn't even matter if player A or B openly expressed their desired weapon preferences. That scenario violates Frank's "Dire Flails and I Walk" demands, hell that scenario if it never actually gives Player A something he wants will offend even REASONABLE people.

And yet in order to BOTH adhere to Frank and Lago's demands AND avoid that scenario you will have to never ever give out desirable items on a main quest! Yes. That's right. NEVER. Edit: AND in order to meet their random item demands you ALSO have to do that using a god damn random item generator which isn't precisely a controlled and reliable way to avoid an unknown set of "unfair" items.

PhoneLobster wrote:But really people are rambling in wild, random and generally pointless directions at the moment.

Dammnit, I think he might be on to us.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Seerow wrote:I for one think it would be hilarious to see those who want players to have no say in loot also having no say in other character advancement stuff. Imagine if the DM based on how the players role played decided what their never levelup would be in, or what feats/spells they got.

Wait... you have to imagine what it would be like to play a wizard who gains spells in his spell book based on what happens to be in the spell books of wizards he fights? That's how Wizarding has always worked.

-Username17

First, as someone else already pointed out, the Wizard gets 2 spells he explicitly chooses every level, with a few extras at level 1. Over his career he gets around 45 spells that he explicitly chooses, not counting cantrips. This is more spells than the Sorcerer gets in total (Sorcerer gets 34 spells plus 5 cantrips as opposed to all), more spells than the number of maneuvers any martial adept ever gets, more spells than the Warlock ever gets invocations, etc. The only people who can even think of competing are the divine casters who get their full spell list for free.

The fact that the Wizard gets more spells randomly as a part of loot that only he can use is besides the point, and a stupid strawman at best.

Imagine if that Wizard who spent a few too many rounds crossbowing stuff at level 1 wound up taking a level of rogue at first level because the DM felt that's where the character was heading. Or if the DM got to pick or randomly roll what spells the Wizard got when he leveled up. Imagine if the same applied to feats, including bonus feats.

FrankTrollman wrote: AD&D's treasure system had huge problems. But the fix would be to have more interactive tables and specific fudge factor points on those tables to adapt the treasure to make more sense with the world.
-Username17

More interactive? Specific fudge factors? Do elaborate.

PhoneLobster wrote:That scenario violates Frank's "Dire Flails and I Walk" demands, hell that scenario if it never actually gives Player A something he wants will offend even REASONABLE people.

It's not actually hard to deal with threats like Frank's: players discuss desired equipment with the DM - and only the DM.

Seerow wrote:

Winnah wrote:There appears to be a disconnect between those people wanting to follow some kind of advancement formula and those that want a more 'organic' path of development for their characters.

I for one think it would be hilarious to see those who want players to have no say in loot also having no say in other character advancement stuff. Imagine if the DM based on how the players role played decided what their never levelup would be in, or what feats/spells they got.

Where did I say this? Right, I didn't. Do me a favour and leave the hyperbole to politicians and media commentators.

Most of the people I play with don't plan out 20 levels of advancement. Those that do are aspie freaks that miss the point of the game. There is a big difference between a player that shapes their character according to events in the game and those few people that plan every aspect of advancement before the game even starts.

I swear, it's like they are trying to force a square peg in a round hole. They're the type of players that crack the shits if their wizard memorises Charm Person and they don't encounter any humanoids in an adventure. Their selfish self entitlement is a fucking pain to deal with as a DM. Half of these assholes don't even think about other players fun at the table. It's "me, me, me!" all the fucking time.

Then we could call every player who complained about wanting to determine how their character progresses a basket weaver who cares more about his character than the verisimilitude of the world, because he'd rather stick to the stringent path he decided on rather than go where the DM believes the character is going. After all, if you spend the last level beating people in the face with a stick, you're going to get better at beating people in the face with a stick, not picking up a level in Wizard. It hurts the game to retroactively assume the player's been studying Wizardry in his downtime so that he can pick up the new class.

And the strawman takes shape. Well done.

Oh and prestige classes all have their fluff strictly enforced. If you want to be an assassin, you need to go on the side quest to kill someone in cold blood and join the assassin's guild. If your party doesn't want to help you with that side quest, well sorry, no assassin levels for you. Same goes for most other prestige classes. And many of those prestige classes will only exist in some far away place, no we can't just make it somewhere closer if the party doesn't want to go to the other side of the world, because I already told you the organization behind that prestige class is over there! Guess you'll just have to wait until you get teleport AND until the party is willing to take the time to do the sidequest to get in with you.

You mean you don't enforce prestige class requirements in your game? Good for you. Even something with a 'fluff' requirement like assassin does not require any significant deviation in a game. I've had a player start their own assassin guild speciically to pick up the prestige class. The fact that murdering creatures for money is something adventurers do anyway is not exactly something that requires a special side quest. Fuck, most groups can meet the requirements before they get the skills to qualify, without the DM spoonfeeding them.

Isn't organic character advancement just great?

Try playing an actual campaign with real people. Then play another campaign with another group of people. Do that a few times. Once you have some experience dealing with a range of players, you might have a better understanding what you are talking about.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Which implies the following sequence of events:
Mister Cavern: "Some katanas were stolen."
Katana Guy: "We should totally track them down and return them!"
Rest of party: "We don't really want to do that, let's do X."
Mister Cavern: "While you are doing X, you find the thieves with the katanas are part of it."

What is missing here is the reason people would not want to do this adventure. Is it because the GM offered a multitude of hooks and they'd rather go on the "become kings of the realm" quest than "track down the katana"? Is it because they are on a race against time to save the world?

Or is it because they don't like katana guy?

As a GM I can and usually will introduce the katana adventure at an appropriate time (and I assume any halfway competent DM will not offer quests when the player characters and the players have more reasons to skip them than go on them). There's also a general tendency to do the adventure the GM offers and has prepared, at least among players who trust their GM. So, when the GM states that while the group waits for Archmage Eldric to finish completing the passkey to the gate of time they need, which will take a few eeks, they hear rumors of the thieves Bob the samurai is hunting, why wouldn't the group help Bob the Samurai?

In character he's their companion, trusted ally, and likely has fought at their side for a long time.

Out of character, this is their friend's "background quest", he likes katanas, and he will be happy to get a new one. Just as they will be happy when they get to do their own background quests.

And the GM, their friend too, has prepared that adventure, and they know he did his best to make it fun for all while an improv session might be less fun.

So, why would the group say "fuck off, Bob's player, we're not gonna track down those thieves"?

You don't treat your friends like that. Seems to me all the drivel about "democracy" and "railroad" only boils down to "I hate it when I cannot mob Bob!"

Winnah wrote:Try playing an actual campaign with real people. Then play another campaign with another group of people. Do that a few times. Once you have some experience dealing with a range of players, you might have a better understanding what you are talking about.

I did. I played such campaigns with weekly sessions since 1991. And you know what? It was and is generally expected that you'd get stuff appropriate for your character. 2E or 3E, doesn't matter. No one actually did the "random dice roll says... another long sword no one wants!" shit.

When you asked if you found a mage to teach you the spell you wanted, or a smith to forge you the armor you wanted, you found them. If you wanted a magic sword you asked for rumors of one, then did the quest.

That's how it worked and works - the GM tailors the adventures to the taste of his players, or finds new players who like what he does. It's not some "me against katana guy until he finally realizes that he is an idiot and comes around to my way of thinking" contest.

Seerow wrote:The fact that the Wizard gets more spells randomly as a part of loot that only he can use is besides the point the entire god damn point

Wizard's class features promise him, specifically, 2 spells per level. And then on top of that, he gets more than the things he was promised through the game world. Like if they hunt down and kill a fire wizard, he learns a bunch of fire spells from the spellbooks that he was never promised.

Now, nowhere in any fighter's class features does it promise him a flaming sword. But he can get things he wasn't promised, like say by picking up the flaming sword from the fire wizard's bodyguard. But choosing fighter and saying "flaming magic sword plz" did not automatically entitle him to it, no more than a wizard could demand "scroll of charm person to go with my two picks this level plz." He makes the two picks he gets, and then he gets whatever the game world drops for him.

Characters are explicitly allowed to pick their allotted levels, wizards spells, and feats. But all of that's actually pretty irrelevant, because that entire part of your post was just a bunch of fucking bullshit "if PC's can't decide everything, they can't decide anything! FUCK YOU IT MAKES SENSE! SLIPPERY SLOPE OR SOMETHING STUPID!"

There are things that happen to your character that you get to decide, like what class they are. And there are things that happen to your character that you don't always get to decide, like who they're going to fight, what items they have on them, or whether or not the orc hits them. Because it's cooperative storytelling, and other people have input too, and if you're demanding a magic bow and the other three party members want to do an underwater adventure, you're in trouble because they probably aren't using bows down there.

Fuchs wrote:You don't treat your friends like that. Seems to me all the drivel about "democracy" and "railroad" only boils down to "I hate it when I cannot mob Bob!"

This is bullshit: "a democratic system allows people to gang up and punish group members they don't like. Therefore, the democratic system is bad." But the problem: if your group members are actively looking to stick it to other people at the table, there is an interpersonal conflict there that you need to work out anyway. No amount of rules can make playing with people who don't like you fun. So if you have to assume, "what if the players hate eachother?" to lead to a problem, the response is: "why are you even playing together? Sort your shit out, not the system's problem."

DSMatticus wrote:

Fuchs wrote:You don't treat your friends like that. Seems to me all the drivel about "democracy" and "railroad" only boils down to "I hate it when I cannot mob Bob!"

This is bullshit: "a democratic system allows people to gang up and punish group members they don't like. Therefore, the democratic system is bad." But the problem: if your group members are actively looking to stick it to other people at the table, there is an interpersonal conflict there that you need to work out anyway. No amount of rules can make playing with people who don't like you fun. So if you have to assume, "what if the players hate eachother?" to lead to a problem, the response is: "why are you even playing together? Sort your shit out, not the system's problem."

Exactly. So, why are people still stuck on "you cannot do side quests to get the desired sword for your characters since your group won't let you"? That's not how normal, functional groups work. The system works nicely for getting your fighter the flaming sword he wants.