The Gaming Den

Ghostwheel wrote:Which is why the DM is going to give the players tools as they need them.

No they fucking aren't. Your very own example involves the players being asked to go on planar adventures and not being given any tools so that they can be railroaded even harder. That shit just is not acceptable.

All that crap you are talking about with save or dies or how glitterdust turns a fair fight into a 3 round mop up operation is completely beside the point. The point is that whatever tools the players need for the story are tools they need to have. Not that they need to have assurances that the DM will throw contrivances to make sure they don't really need those tools at the last minute because some NPC will drop down and solve all the problems they can't even address, but in fact they actually need to have the actual tools to actually address the actual problems. Anything less and you are not engaging in cooperative storytelling, you are masturbating on the players in between allowing them to run through tactical combat minigames.

I don't give a flying fuck whether you want to balance combats to be decided after 1 round or 45. I don't trust you when you say that the math has been tested and works, because you said that about that fuck awful Grim And Gritty system too. But that's not even the point. The point here is that the fundamental basis of cooperative storytelling requires that the player characters be capable of directly interacting with the turning points of the story rather than relying upon the DM to handwave them through them all.

If you refuse to surrender the power to teleport, you can't have adventures that turn on teleporting. Period. No shitty excuses.

-Username17

Ghostwheel wrote: After all, why journey to the temple of the flame which holds the most sacred fire of Dislun which is a direct copy of the most primal of flames when you can get it simply by planeshifting to the elemental plane of fire and scooping some of that up?

That really does sound like you need a better story/quest.

Why would you make it a copy? The macguffin is not supposed to be some common or replaceable item, that defeats the whole purpose. If you tell players that they must get a copy of something then of course it draws their thoughts to he original. Especially if they know there is a whole plane full of the shit they have to recover. It seriously is like being told your mission is to recover a pitcher of salt water and then being denied simply going to the ocean to get some more.

If we had an adventure like that in my group it would likely become the butt of jokes. "Oh, do you need for us to chop some wood, or recover some dirt for you milord? Perhaps find your missing pocket lint?"

Why not make it unique instead of a commodity? How about the sacred fire of Dislun is actually the trapped princess of a kingdom from the elemental plane of fire?

Ghostwheel wrote: After all, why journey to the temple of the flame which holds the most sacred fire of Dislun which is a direct copy of the most primal of flames when you can get it simply by planeshifting to the elemental plane of fire and scooping some of that up?

Because you are low-level.

Ghostwheel wrote:After all, why journey to the temple of the flame which holds the most sacred fire of Dislun which is a direct copy of the most primal of flames when you can get it simply by planeshifting to the elemental plane of fire and scooping some of that up?

Easy, you don't. You journey to the temple of the flame to get the duplicate elemental fire before level nine.

Ghostwheel wrote:Could be; but replace that with any other way to derail the plot. That might be scrying and teleporting to the McGuffin, going ethereal and bypassing the infiltration of the dungeon, using Commune to discover the identity of the killer, or any other number of ways to ignore plot points. That was just one example, but there are a ton others.

They're not ignoring the plots, they're solving them through proper application of their abilities. Hell, they're being fucking proactive, as they're not waiting around for some NPC to point them in the right direction.

Just because they didn't make sufficient numbers of Gather Information rolls, engage in masturbatory "roleplaying" with a recalcitrant informant, and wander through the maze so the fighter could get stabbed a few times by the minotaur before finding the McGuffin doesn't make it a bad thing.

Maybe the players keep trying to shortcut the adventures because the adventures suck. They're trying to skip the bullshit to get back to the fun. Sadly for them, you appear to be trying to design the fun out.

violence in the media wrote:They're not ignoring the plots, they're solving them through proper application of their abilities.

Efficiency.

It sounds like the big problem here is that I'm not quite clarifying myself as I would like; players have means of getting to different places once they exceed a certain level cap, but not to the exact place of the McGuffin that needs to be reached, via portals.

So there would be portals that require a certain level or whatever (maybe not, who cares) to the Abyss and other planes of a similar size and public-knowledge level. These would be public and common enough that PCs of level X can find them without a problem under their own agency without help from the DM. However, if you want to go to the Inner Sanctum of Demogorgon on the Abyss, you need DM agency since that would be a specific place and could short-circuit the plot.

I care less about the PCs being able to walk to other planes, and more about them being able to circumvent the plot spontaneously and ignore encounters/plot points/challenges simply by teleporting to wherever they need to go. If getting to another plane is a plot point (for example, if the portal is blocked/under watch of Demogorgon's guards), the PCs can fight their way through or work to find another way to the Abyss, perhaps through a different portal that they can find on their own which might even take them closer to their destination. But they shouldn't be able to simply make the problem go away by using a spell to make it so that it doesn't exist in the first place.

Another thing that I'd forgotten about is the Incantation section of UA. That might also be a way to give players more ways to access more tools without making them auto-win or abusable in combat, and giving a reason to adventure (we need to take the dragon's hoard for material components for this ultra-powerful incantation/ritual).

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Efficiency.

...Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ghostwheel wrote:

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Efficiency.

...Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The point of that comic isn't that teleporting is lame. The point is that giving someone with teleportation powers a standard fetch quest results in a really short and boring quest. It is a failure to match the adventure to the PCs capabilities.

I think that it can have a number of points--it just depends on how you interpret it, and from which point of view you do so

Ghostwheel wrote:It sounds like the big problem here is that I'm not quite clarifying myself as I would like; players have means of getting to different places once they exceed a certain level cap, but not to the exact place of the McGuffin that needs to be reached, via portals.

I'm curious. Have you read the actual text of the plane shift spell?

Yep, and by that time you can also have teleport and get to where you want to go by casting it a few times after getting to the plane of your choice.

I'd suggest reading this, then. Frank went to a lot of trouble fixing the problems you're complaining about while not reducing player agency.

I've read it, and while it fixes a number of issues it doesn't take care of all the ways that wizard-level characters can bypass the plot by a long shot. The easiest example? Charm person. "Oh no, I don't want to actually RP and talk to this person and perhaps gain his trust. No, we'll just charm him and then he'll do exactly as we want." That's also something I don't like.

Okay. Assuming that you remove charm from Wizards, would you be willing to run creatures with charm powers like succubi or mind flayers?

Ones that influence PC decisions, nudging them slightly in a certain directions by having the DM feed a player like they're doing something right or w/e? Sure. I would emphasize the roleplaying aspect of it, but there would be no element of actual control to the nudging, and the player would be able to freely react completely as they wanted to the information presented.

Taking control of a PC's character and saying, "You're not in control, you can't do anything, go sit in the corner until your PC is back under your control and I stop running them, or you can play your character but have to kill your allies, increasing general resentment and anger in the group"? Under virtually no condition without expressly speaking to the PC first and getting their complete and un-coerced agreement.

Ghostwheel wrote:I've read it, and while it fixes a number of issues it doesn't take care of all the ways that wizard-level characters can bypass the plot by a long shot. The easiest example? Charm person. "Oh no, I don't want to actually RP and talk to this person and perhaps gain his trust. No, we'll just charm him and then he'll do exactly as we want." That's also something I don't like.

Translation: You're going to fucking play magic tea party with me whether you like it or not.

Look, players are generally reasonable people. They'll talk to your NPCs and stuff. Willingly even. If the players have gotten to the point where they feel the need to Charm (or Intimidate/Bluff/Psychic Assault) every person that might have information they need, you (the DM) are being too much of a pain in the ass regarding disseminating that information.

If the player doesn't want to interact with your obnoxious, filth-ridden, street urchin or is uncomfortable with your portrayal of an over-sexed tavern wench, let them fall back on game mechanics! The problem is most likely those particular NPCs with information, and not all NPCs with information.

While I can understand your perspective, and agree with you that some players will certainly be like that, I've been in enough games where the first though of the party wizard was to charm/dominate/mindrape their enemies into submission. Not because the game was boring, but because HE HAD THE POWER. It just feels like that kind of power often corrupts, especially for people who don't feel powerful in their day-to-day lives.

So it can go either way, and I'd rather hedge my bets on the safe side than the one that can lead (and has, in the past) to a game that doesn't work well.

What if there were a limit on how many creatures you could successfully maintain a charm/dominate link with?

That would keep characters from running the place over with minions, but still give them an interesting toy in their toolbox.

If the wizard wants to use mindrape on random commoners... well, that's his shtick. As a DM, you'll find that if he can't mindrape commoners... he'll end up stabbing them. Or fireballing them or whatever.

So you can't say "I'm gonna deny these things because it will stop problem players!" because you'll be dead wrong. You're just limiting your character options, and letting problem players be assholes in DIFFERENT ways.

Players should have charm person. Players should have fly. Players should have teleport and planeshift.

erik: Don't think so, and leadership/minions are another part that I disapprove of for a number of reasons. I'll list them if you like, but I don't think anyone will be convinced by my reasons, or will provide substantial enough reasons that speak to my point of view to convince me, so I don't think there's much point to it. If you're truly interested though, I'd be happy to explain in IMs

FV: Perhaps in your paradigm of how the game should work they don't. But no, it is not the "right" of players to have all those things. Shocking, yes, I know, but not all PCs can teleport on their own power. And telling me, "the game should/is/must be like this," doesn't really convince me to change anything either, regardless of how many times people say it when I have actual reasons for wanting what I want, especially if they don't provide reasons that are stronger than mine that speak to my point of view.

For the last fucking time: the players doing something you did not expect is not a flaw in the game. If you have a problem with it, it is a flaw with you. Period.

It is not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the other people at a table will come up with exactly the same ideas for where they want the story to go as you do. It's a cooperative storytelling game, which means that you have to cooperate with your players. Yes, there is a very real chance that the other players will take the story in a direction you did not originally intend, but that's a good thing. In fact, that is the entire reason that the other players are at the table in the first place. If the story was just going to follow the script you wrote at the beginning, you'd just write the fucking story and let your friends read it.

When you whine about the players have agency and using agency, you look like a whiny little bitch. The DM has a lot of power, and if your story ideas aren't interesting or motivating enough to compel the players to interact with them if they have other options, that is entirely your fault.

The fact that players can do X, where X is "some thing that affects the way the plot turns out" is not the problem here. You have complained about all values of X. The problem is that you are getting upset when the players take actions or make choices that affect the direction and outcome of the story. And since that is the player's entire fucking job, I will go out on a limb and say that your problem is not rules related. Your problem is that you just aren't mature enough to DM.

DMing means accepting that some of the ideas you think are super cool just won't engage the players very much. And when that happens, you have to bend. You are not the director of a movie, you don't get to decide what the protagonists do in any particular scene. You're the guy who makes scenery and hires extras. You are not the star of the fucking story, the player characters are. And they get to make some fucking choices, and you get to fucking like it.

-Username17

I, for one, don't see making RP MTP-only inherently wrong. Adjudicating rules for RP is notoriously difficult, and often ends up as 'MTP with rules you pretend to follow'. Honesty in this case is probably a good thing.

Large numbers of 'free' minions can cause a game to grind to a halt, both by being overpowered and by taking up too much time. Restricting domination effects to concentration duration is a lot easier than coming up with a good rule set for dealing with tons of heterogeneous minions.

That all said, this sort of thing can make certain interactions somewhat difficult. Uncooperative players may always end up acting like kender because the DM can never play the 'awe card', and tight-fisted DMs can make players feel like second-class citizens.

Some social rules are fairly straightforward to adjudicate without disrupting the MTP immersion. Detecting lies is probably the easiest. Just pit your sense motive bonus against your foe's bluff bonus. If you fail, you're just in normal MTP mode; if you succeed (or fail by a lot), you're in normal MTP mode but with some additional knowledge.

Ghostwheel wrote:While I can understand your perspective, and agree with you that some players will certainly be like that, I've been in enough games where the first though of the party wizard was to charm/dominate/mindrape their enemies into submission. Not because the game was boring, but because HE HAD THE POWER. It just feels like that kind of power often corrupts, especially for people who don't feel powerful in their day-to-day lives.

So it can go either way, and I'd rather hedge my bets on the safe side than the one that can lead (and has, in the past) to a game that doesn't work well.

Aside from simply HAVING TEH POWAH, I'd like to hear what else was going on with that wizard. You specifically mention that the wizard would do this to all enemies, as opposed to all NPCs, so I need to ask: would you prefer simple fireballs and lightning bolts?

I don't even understand what your beef is with a PC defeating enemies. That is the point.

The game may not have been boring, but I stand by my previous assertion that there was something going on in that game in regards to interactions with enemies/NPCs. I can imagine such a thing, because I've played in games that were awesome up until you actually had to talk to someone that had something you needed (and many people that didn't).

Going to reply to these one at a time to keep my thoughts straight, in no particular order.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I, for one, don't see making RP MTP-only inherently wrong. Adjudicating rules for RP is notoriously difficult, and often ends up as 'MTP with rules you pretend to follow'. Honesty in this case is probably a good thing.

Large numbers of 'free' minions can cause a game to grind to a halt, both by being overpowered and by taking up too much time. Restricting domination effects to concentration duration is a lot easier than coming up with a good rule set for dealing with tons of heterogeneous minions.

That all said, this sort of thing can make certain interactions somewhat difficult. Uncooperative players may always end up acting like kender because the DM can never play the 'awe card', and tight-fisted DMs can make players feel like second-class citizens.

Some social rules are fairly straightforward to adjudicate without disrupting the MTP immersion. Detecting lies is probably the easiest. Just pit your sense motive bonus against your foe's bluff bonus. If you fail, you're just in normal MTP mode; if you succeed (or fail by a lot), you're in normal MTP mode but with some additional knowledge.

I actually have social rules that allow any character to participate, even the Cha 6 barbarian with half his face chewed off. Looks forward to it in a coming showcase

violence in the media wrote:Aside from simply HAVING TEH POWAH, I'd like to hear what else was going on with that wizard. You specifically mention that the wizard would do this to all enemies, as opposed to all NPCs, so I need to ask: would you prefer simple fireballs and lightning bolts?

It wasn't just one wizard--it's a number of players I've seen throughout the time I've been playing D&D--most of the time during which I didn't even DM.
And yes, I prefer that to mind-controlling anyone you want to in order to A. get another ally, or B. potentially cutting away any mystery left in plot.

violence in the media wrote:I don't even understand what your beef is with a PC defeating enemies. That is the point.

Please don't straw man; I've got no beef with PCs defeating enemies. Yes, this is the point of combat. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I'm against PCs defeating enemies in general.

violence in the media wrote:The game may not have been boring, but I stand by my previous assertion that there was something going on in that game in regards to interactions with enemies/NPCs. I can imagine such a thing, because I've played in games that were awesome up until you actually had to talk to someone that had something you needed (and many people that didn't).

Not really; just that whenever there was someone we potentially needed to talk to the player would have the character bust out a charm person (and stronger versions at higher levels) to bypass RP. I'm not a big fan of completely ignoring RP interactions with a single spell.