The PCs should always have more than one viable approach to any challenge they're facing

Agreed. DMs who go in with a rigid mindset of railroading only the solutions they plan for are a special kind of cancer

I wouldn't go so far as to call it pampering, but I can't say I wholly agree, either. That's certainly a good general rule, but it's perfectly fine for there to sometimes be one right way of handling a problem as long as it doesn't come to the players trying to read the GM's mind.

The important thing is not designing challenges with multiple solutions in mind, it's in keeping an open mind any solutions the players come up with, even if they're not ones you've considered. Unless you have a GOOD reason to shut a particular solution down completely, you should probably at least give it a chance of working.

I don't think it's about whether or not the DM wants to kill the players, it's more about whether or not the player's actions should logically result in them dying given what's already been established. If you're in front of the king of the realm and surrounded by his knights and their entire army and your Rogue says "I attempt to kill the King and take his crown", then yeah at the very least your Rogue is going to die and if the entire rest of the party tries to fight alongside him, then yeah I think that would be a reasonable point to TPK.

honestly, I feel this goes away if you start floorplanning, and don't make all the walls out of unobtanium.
Nothing is more than a few explosives away!

>Do you want a realistic and dour game, or do you want it to be RADICAL?
That kind of forces another decision: whether you want to keep playing with this group.

If you feel like having a realistic and dour game, but the group dynamic or vibe just keeps gravitating towards RADICAL cinematic shenanigans, what do you do? And what goal are you trying to reach for yourself in doing that?

Attached: beast, titan, tundra.jpg (722x454, 130K)

that would depend on your player's desires. if they want the realism go with that, if you think they would hate it, don't. your role is to know everything there is to know about the setting and be the arbiter of what is and is not true, so that your players feel that they are interacting with an environment rather than sitting at your LGS in front of a card table drinking Mountain Dew. whether that world is whimsical and silly, or dramatic and "realistic", is not critical - what is critical is that it's consistent.

Attached: 1520218170597.jpg (344x377, 48K)

>your Rogue says "I attempt to kill the King and take his crown", then yeah at the very least your Rogue is going to die
One player in your group is taking the RADICAL approach. The rest of the group don't agree. It sounds like the group vibe is against the rogue. He's the odd one out, and his character dies to remind him of how the dynamic of this group works.

>if the entire rest of the party tries to fight alongside him, then yeah I think that would be a reasonable point to TPK.
If the entire group is up for it, but the DM disagrees, doesn't that put the DM into the rogue's position? He's the odd one out when it comes to the group vibe. Should he end the game over this? Should he grab the reins and attempt to force the social dynamic in his desired direction by killing the party as a warning, then 'winding back time'?

...just good game design in general.

Doesn't their suggestion of a RADICAL plan nudge your perception of what they want in a certain way?

Attached: otherworld, swamp dweller.jpg (643x900, 630K)

Then these rolls better be balls-to-the-wall crazy.
Or, you know, you could be boring and sensible and make it backfire in a minor way while accomplishing their objective.

>If the entire group is up for it, but the DM disagrees, doesn't that put the DM into the rogue's position? He's the odd one out when it comes to the group vibe. Should he end the game over this? Should he grab the reins and attempt to force the social dynamic in his desired direction by killing the party as a warning, then 'winding back time'?
PCs do stupid things, PCs get killed. That's how it should be. Time for a new campaign.

Now, if they want to play a game where they can just kill the king and his bodyguards on a whim? That's something they should discuss with the GM in advance.

How does good game design handle realistically stupid decisions?

>A player decides to face overwhelming odds in his underwear.
As a DM, what do you now want to achieve? Which consequence do you give this player? How does this consequence work towards achieving your stated goal?

Attached: beast, war, masked.jpg (702x492, 345K)

Assuming that your players are actual adults who can try new things, then you can talk to them and see if you can make that happen.
Otherwise, find a new group. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to ditch your old one, but find some fresh blood that wants in. easy enough.

>PCs do stupid things, PCs get killed. That's how it should be.
I neither agree nor disagree, but I do want to know what the goal of this decision is.

>Now, if they want to play a game where they can just kill the king and his bodyguards on a whim? That's something they should discuss with the GM in advance.
I've been told in a number of different contexts that people don't really know what they want. How do you feel about that?

>Time for a new campaign.
It's time for a new campaign. Do you prep this campaign in a way that fits the playstyle the players displayed in the campaign you ended? Or do you talk to the players about changing their playstyle to fit the sort of campaign you just ended?

Attached: ape, monkey, wraith.jpg (1200x896, 288K)

>Assuming that your players are actual adults who can try new things, then you can talk to them and see if you can make that happen.
I'm assuming you mean talking to the players about changing their playstyle to suit the sort of adventure you want to run. This next part is purely hypothetical and this is not intended as a value judgment, but how would you feel about this stance being described as "holding the game hostage"?

>Don't get me wrong, you don't have to ditch your old one, but find some fresh blood that wants in. easy enough.
Could you clarify this for me? Does "not ditching the old one" mean you'll maintain a friendly relationship, but that you won't be gaming with them anymore? Or does it mean that you'll try to add people who see things your way to the group? Is your next group going to be completely new, or is it just going to be a new combination of old and fresh faces?

Attached: beast, titan, armored, sea.jpg (1112x719, 179K)

I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that there's no "one correct way" of running a game. but your role as the DM is to decide "what happens" in response to your players deciding "what do we do". (along with the dice and mechanics, where applicable.) the problem is, where do you draw the line? how far can you go without breaking down the illusion of a world?

RPGs are make believe, and so things such as continuity and cause-and-effect, which are supplied by the laws of physics IRL, need to be supplied by your narrative, instead. if your party says "We jump into an active volcano to see if there's treasure at the bottom", are you going to have them not die, just to keep the story going? is that RADICAL? how RADICAL can a story really be, if your players realize that nothing can actually kill them because it's made up, it's not a real world, and the only reason you keep saying that their characters are surviving is DM fiat? obviously it is a matter of taste and the sweet spot is going to vary from player to player and from group to group, but I think that, even for the silliest player, there's a line that can be crossed after which it no longer feels like a game and starts feeling like a bunch of guys sitting around a table throwing dice and making up retarded bullshit. that's why we use dice in the first place, to impose the illusion that some things just ARE, and are outside of the control of the players and DM. it's more fun that way. the threat of failure needs to at least SEEM to exist or else there's no tension or challenge to overcome.

Attached: 1517613664248.gif (250x250, 847K)

>Otherwise, find a new group. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to ditch your old one, but find some fresh blood that wants in. easy enough.
This. If your group isn't interested in the type of game you want to play, there's nothing wrong with finding a group that is. My real-life group, for example, are a bunch of cool dudes and they're fun to play with, but they're not nearly as interested in the story and character aspects of roleplaying games as I am. That's why I have my online group, who are perfectly willing to sit around and talk in character for hours on end.

See, I’m a huge fan of whimsical and silly— and I might as well add “cute,” while I’m at it— but I also like cleverness, and would hate running a game that indulges dumb ideas or poorly-considered plans. (An idea that’s clever and audacious might get a bit of extra leeway. “Rule of smart,” maybe.) Does that put me on the “realistic” end?

>There should be more than one right option because that's good game design
>Yeah but what if they pick the wrong option

...

I just want to note that I appreciate this kind of thread, where OP just asks a question about gaming philosophy and plays devil's advocate chasing down arguments. I think it's helpful to examine these practices critically every now and then

>I neither agree nor disagree, but I do want to know what the goal of this decision is.
Actions have consequences.

>I've been told in a number of different contexts that people don't really know what they want. How do you feel about that?
That's often the case, but what can you do? I for one do know that I don't want to run a serious campaign only for the players to suddenly try to steal the king's crown right in front of all his bodyguards because "lol I'm so random!"

>It's time for a new campaign. Do you prep this campaign in a way that fits the playstyle the players displayed in the campaign you ended? Or do you talk to the players about changing their playstyle to fit the sort of campaign you just ended?
That's something that we should talk about. Everyone involved is an adult, so finding some kind of solution shouldn't be too hard.

the existence of more than one viable solution does not preclude the existence of unviable solutions, user

user, we don't need that lava to kill them to have the threat of failure.
We just don't need treasure at the bottom of it.
Or, more specifically, we just don't need the treasure you are looking for at the bottom of it.
Make a character as super-powerful as you want, if your powers aren't directly related to your objective, you're just a man.

though, I reject the core premise that the threat of failure is needed to make things interesting, or that you need tension. I've had DAMN good times just sitting there and hearing about how monsters behave, with no personal consequences or stakes.

Yeah no fucking shit.

>but your role as the DM is to decide "what happens" in response to your players deciding "what do we do".
That is the tool you have at your disposal as a DM. From your post, I gather that you feel it's important for your stories to progress sensibly, based on cause and effect. Let's say that's the story goal you're trying to achieve with your decisions.

But what is your goal for the group of people (friends, I hope) sitting at your table?

Attached: beast, stonecrusher, enslaved.jpg (774x804, 189K)

>Actions have consequences.
Is that a goal, or an approach towards achieving a goal?

If you were put on the spot and asked to phrase an underlying goal, what would you say?

Attached: horror, basemen.jpg (2544x1692, 2.96M)

Look at this fucking giraffe ass motherfucker

>Is that a goal, or an approach towards achieving a goal?
Both. As a GM, part of your job is to referee the game. That means that when a PC does something(try to steal something, for instance), you interpret that both in terms of rules(sleight of hand check or the equivalent, for instance, with appropriate bonuses and penalties according to the situation - sometimes it might be an automatic success or automatic failure) and in terms of how that interacts with the setting(you try to steal something, if you succeeded, that something is now in your possession. If you failed, that something may or may not be in your possession, but there are SOME kind of consequences for the failure, otherwise no check would be necessary).

Another part of GM's job is to maintain a degree of verisimilitude and coax the players towards a certain kind of mood. If someone makes an aggressive move towards the king(the person or the institution - or both, in case of trying to steal the crown from his head), it would be quite strange if they got away with it. And if you've been trying to steer the game towards a certain kind of mood, well, those efforts have quite certainly fallen flat unless that mood leans towards slapstick.

I'm trying to find out the different reasonings behind declaring that an option is the wrong one.

RPGs are a little tricky. Theoretically speaking, everything is an option. Where is the borderline between 'obviously ridiculous ironic option' and 'amusing off-the-wall option'?

If a DM finds out there's a dissonance between his subjective borderline and that of his players, what does he do?

Does he put his foot down, strongly requesting that his players consciously move the group dynamic away from the point it had reached organically? Or does he change his approach to better suit the organic group dynamic? In either case, what goal does he have in mind?

Attached: beast, war, psion.jpg (825x591, 408K)

> In an adventure path, GM is pretty awesome and works hard.
> Players are newbies but they are learning, I just sit back and enjoy the ride.

> The path has an encounter with a swarm, melee weapons deal 0 damage to swarms, only area effect spells can help here.

> GM refuses my desperate attempt to use a large log to harm the swarm.

> I encourage the party to run as we have no way of dealing with this threat at the current time. (This is after I had to walk into the swarm to pick up an ally so they wouldn't die to it)

> After we recovered my character suggests the more magically inclined characters should perhaps look into getting some spells to handle further swarms.

> Two levels later, we encounter an even more dangerous swarm, I am still powerless to damage it.

> None of the casters chose any options to handle it. Fuckme.parchment

> GM insists that these swarms aren't very strong and the book says we have to beat this one to progress.

> OoC suggest that the GM should reconsider the encounter due to our inability to do anything about it.

> GM remains adamant that this is important to the path

> I finally lose my patience and ask if I can just pick up a slab and squish them.
> "Oh yeah you can do that, I was hoping you guys would find a creative solution"

> ....

...and this is why 4e declared Swarms were insubstantial against melee, rather than invincible to it.

I never played 4e, what does that mean?

If there is only one approach to their current situation, then they can either
a) use that approach and succeed (dice willing)
or b) do something else and probably fail.
Since failure doesn't move the game forward and tends to be undesirable to players, it's a non-choice: use the one correct approach or fail.
This is bad, because it denies the players the ability to make any real decision about how to proceed. Good design leaves many potential solutions to the encounter, each with different advantages and disadvantages, and lets the players pick the one that matches their priorities best.

>bunch of guys sitting around a table throwing dice
>(sleight of hand check or the equivalent, for instance, with appropriate bonuses and penalties according to the situation - sometimes it might be an automatic success or automatic failure

On the subject of dice and checks. How important is it for players to be able to gauge or even influence their odds of success?

How informed do their decisions need to be? At what point does informing their decisions as a DM turn into spoonfeeding them information so they'll make the decision you would have made in their place?

I posed the question in the OP because I'm trying to figure out how to make the decision making in a game rewarding without simply caving to every zany demand a player might come up with, and without 'holding the game hostage' every other session based on my admittedly human and limited view of what is 'realistic'?

It's hard.

Attached: beast, flying, sea.jpg (1000x524, 65K)

>If there is only one approach to their current situation
"If you've reached this point as a DM, then you've already failed."

Would that be a correct interpretation of your post?

And if so, how do you snatch success from the jaws of failure? Do you give the players a little RADICAL leeway? Do you adjudicate that some of the impossible options are more possible than would be realistic?

Would you put verisimilitude on the line at that point, just to be able to maneuver the story and the characters into a more tenable position?

Why or why not?

I made a conscious decision to behave like the poster Mr. Rogers knew I could be. I am not disappointed in the direction it has taken this thread in. Thank you all for your thoughtful posts, anons. I'm going to go feed my son now. I won't be able to post for a bit, but I will be checking up with this thread later on. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, either to me or to each other.
Thanks again. I consider all of your contributions to this thread quality Veeky Forums material.

Attached: magical creature, silvermender.jpg (894x894, 145K)

It's about 2.5x as effective to use area attacks against swarms as melee or ranged attacks, but you CAN kill that stack of rats with a hammer if you really want to.

Attached: everything-can-be-beaten-2002-issue-0-printing-1st-vf-76e8e7fa1e9c0f89376422a4f075c23b[1].jpg (400x336, 41K)

I don't actually think of how my PCs are going to succeed or fail at a given situation. I put them in a situation and see what they come up with. Maybe it will be good, and they succeed. Maybe it will be bad, and they get hurt.
If they fail, they fail. The point is that I'm not putting them in the 'guess what the GM is thinking' situation where there is EXACTLY ONE solution that they must think of to proceed.'

My games tend to be high lethality meat-grinders. 'Throw our PCs into the grinder and come back with another party later' is a valid approach

"It depends" is the only answer I can give you, here. There are no hard and fast rules. Generally, I would say you want to give the players information based on what/how much their PCs know. For instance, let's say a PC is trying to jump a gap. Now, if you look at a gap, you probably have a fairly good idea of how likely you are to be able to jump over it, and so should players. And this is the case with most other situations, too. Unless it's routine situation to them, you need not give them the DC for the check, but if they ask you should give them a good idea: A DC 15 jump is something you'd describe to the fighter(with +10 bonus) with something along the lines of "You're pretty confident about making the jump" and to the wizard(with no bonus) as "That looks pretty dangerous. There's a good chance you'll fall if you try it without help".

But even then things might not be as simple as they seem: maybe the surface on the other side is deceptively slippery, for instance, so if you don't make a clean jump, there's a good chance you'll fall even if you manage to grasp the ledge.

And then there are times when the PCs simply have no way of knowing what their odds of succeeding with a particular action. The party comes across some totally weird monsters, and the wizard would like to cast Sleep. What's their will save bonus? Can they even be affected by Sleep? Unless he manages some knowledge checks or there are obvious clues(a skeletal creature will likely be undead and therefore immune for instance), he has no way of knowing. Likewise with most knowledge and perception checks. Unless you know about a particular obscure thing, you have no way of knowing just how obscure it is. Unless you find a trap, you have no idea how hard it is to find.

1/2

I just throw a challenge at them and see what they do. Whether or not they overcome it is irrelevant, because I don't have any preplanned plot.

2/2
You're absolutely right! It IS hard. What I said above is good for most groups, but maybe your players would rather focus on the tactical and resource management aspects of the game even at the cost of immersion. In that case it could be that they'll love you for giving them accurate numbers to aid in their decisions.

>And then there are times when the PCs simply have no way of knowing what their odds of succeeding with a particular action.
Does letting the continuation of the game depend on a single, uninformed gamble serve your goals as a DM and theirs as players?

Hypothetically:
A random encounter table spits out a monster with specific weaknesses and strengths your party can't counter. It's too fast to allow them to escape. They could try to 'brute force' the issue by whittling it down with small amounts of damage, but the odds of a TPK are through the roof. This monster living in this area is an as-yet undiscovered plot point that will become important to the overarching story.

What do you do, and why?

Attached: doorofperception.com-moebius-color-25.jpg (840x837, 766K)