It's not paranoia if you're roleplaying.

[EmperorNorton]

Y'all really do seem to be missing the point about my complaints about the 10' pole. It is the fact that it is just remarkably stupid. It is treated as some clever gamesmanship when it would be near absolutely useless in reality, especially compared to how cumbersome it would be to use.

This idea that "Oh you just don't like Dungeon Crawls" because I point out that the 10' pole is markedly stupid is weird.

It's quite possible that someone can like Dungeon Crawls, but think the idea of poking everything in existence with a 10' pole that somehow magically never seems to fatigue the character carrying it, or cause difficulties in winding corridors, etc is monumentally stupid.

It's this thing of "oh I want to test player skill" but what I'm saying is that if that is considered "good player skill" then what you are testing isn't actual skill or cleverness, but conforming to a different set of tropes.

Seriously, traps are fun in dungeon crawls. But the number of them that I can think of that would actually be triggered by a 10' pole are miniscule. Pressure plates would probably be calibrated to need more pressure than that. Anything that used magic would surely detect that it was just a stick. The only thing it might set off is something relying on a tripwire.

This is why the 10' pole style of gameplay doesn't vibe with me. Because so many of the things that most players seem to think are "clever trapfinding" behaviors would probably never be used by anyone who was actually experienced with trapfinding.

 

[Agemegos]

Well, we all play as we like. But the game is Dungeons and Dragons.

The game is not necessarily Dungeons and Dragons. I gave away my D&D stuff in 1982; the OP specified Coriolis: the Third Horizon, and asked explicitly about carrying the habits of a D&D dungeoncrawl over to other games in other genres.

 

[sharps54]

The game is not necessarily Dungeons and Dragons. I gave away my D&D stuff in 1982, and the OP specified Coriolis: the Third Horizon, and asked explicitly about carrying the habits of a D&D dungeoncrawl over to other games in other genres.

I do agree that just continuing to execute the same tactics regardless of the game you are in is a mistake. Every game, even different “campaigns” with the same rules and players, should be approached on its own merits and as its own unique thing.

 

[Agemegos]

I do agree that just continuing to execute the same tactics regardless of the game you are in is a mistake. Every game, even different “campaigns” with the same rules and players, should be approached on its own merits and as its own unique thing.

For instance, if I were to run a campaign in which the PCs were consulting detectives in the UK in 1889 then I might include an adventure or two inspired by The Norwood Builder and The Golden Pince-Nez, in which Sherlock Homes significantly did find concealed doors to hidden rooms. But if the PC who was a veteran of the War in Afghanistan pie-sliced every room he went into ("service revolver at the ready; cannot be surprised"), and if the pioneer of forensic science wouldn't go within ten feet of any piece of furniture until he had poked it with a stick

• that would be inappropriate to the genre
• realistically, hardly anyone would hire them because the general view of the police, press, and public would be that they were mad.

 

[Lofgeornost]

While the use of 10' poles in dungeons is pretty silly, I am reminded of a a remark by one of the characters in a tale by al-Jahiz: "Were I to start telling you about the virtues of sticks, the night would be too short!"

The story is amusing and actually gives some ideas of how people might have used sticks for various purposes. I'll spoiler it for length:

Spoiler: The Taghlabi Boy and the Stick

When I was a young man and my purse light, I left Mosul to go privily to Raqqa; and my travelling-companion was a lad from the Jazïra whose like I have never seen since. He told me he was a Taghlabï and a descendant of 'Amr b. Kulthüm. He carried a haversack, a water-skin and a stick. He never let go of the latter for a moment, but took it with him everywhere he went, which so irritated me that I almost threw it into the river. We were on foot; when we found beasts of burden we rode them, but otherwise we walked.

I made some remarks to my companion about his stick; but he replied that when Moses son of 'Imran saw a fire on Sinai and was minded to go and take a brand from it for his family, he took care to take his stick with him even that little way. When he reached the holy vale of the promised land, he heard a voice saying: 'Throw away thy stick and put off thy sandals'; so he threw away his sandals, which he did not need (for God had cleansed the ground of all impurities), and God put all His miracles and signs into Moses's stick, and spoke to him from inside a bush and not from with man or a jinn. He continued to sing the praises of sticks, while I laughed and paid no heed to him.

• When we set off on our donkeys, the donkeyman remained behind; my companion's mount went well, and when it showed signs of stopping he drove it on with his stick, whereas mine would not go, well knowing that I had nothing in my hand to use on it. The boy arrived at our night's halting-place long before me, and had time to rest himself and his ass, while I had to wait for the donkeyman to come up. I said to myself: That is number one!
• In the morning, when we were ready to set off again, we could find nothing to ride, and so started out on foot. When he got tired he rested on his stick; and he even ran and vaulted with it, putting one end into the ground and taking off like an arrow. When we reached the night's halting-place I was tired out, while he was still quite fresh. I said to myself: That is number two!
• On the third day we passed through an area where the ground was all cracked and fissured, and came upon a terrible snake, which attacked us. All I could do was to take to my heels and abandon my companion to the reptile. But he hit it with his stick and stunned it, and when it reared up and made to strike again he felled it with another blow of his stick and killed it with a third. I said to myself: That is number three, and the most serious yet!
• On the fourth day I had a great craving for meat; but I was a fugitive, and penniless. Suddenly a hare got up: my companion hit it with his stick, and before I knew what was happening he was holding it up in the air. We were able to slaughter it in the prescribed fashion. I said to myself: That is number four!
• Then I said to him: If only we had a light, I would not wait for the night's halting-place to eat it.' 'But you have,' he said, and taking a piece of wood from his haversack he rubbed it against the stick and struck a far better spark than markh and 'afar make. He collected all the twigs and rubbish he could find, made a fire, and put the hare on to cook. When we took it off it looked unappetizing, covered with earth and ash; but the Taghlabï took it in his left hand and tapped it a few times with his stick, and everything that had stuck to it fell off. We ate, my craving for meat was assuaged, and all was well. I said to myself: That is number five!
• Then we stopped at a caravanserai, and found that the rooms were full of dust and filth, for troops had been in it before us, and moreover the place was falling in ruins, and we could find no [decent] place to lie. My companion caught sight of the head of a shovel lying in a corner; he picked it up, fitted his stick into it for a handle, and began to clear out all the dirt; he cleaned the floor so thoroughly that the flagstones were exposed to view and the foul smell went away. I said to myself: That is number six!
• I was not anxious to put my clothes and provisions on the floor, so he took his stick out of the shovel-head, drove it into the wall and hung my clothes up on it. I said to myself: That is number seven!

When we reached the crossroads and I was about to take leave of him, he said to me: 'If you would turn aside and spend the night at my house, you would be fulfilling the obligations that devolve on a traveling-companion. The house is close at hand.' So I followed him, and he took me to a house adjoining a church. All night long he engaged me in conversation on a variety of topics and told me interesting stories. At daybreak he took up a piece of wood and began to strike it with the famous stick, and lo! it was a prayer-gong without its peer in the whole world, and he seemed to me the most skilful of men in its use.

'You wretch!' I said to him, 'so you are no Muslim, for all you are an Arab descended from 'Amr b. Kulthüm!'

'Yes, I am,' he replied.

'Then what are you doing beating that gong?'

'Excuse me,' he replied, 'my father is a Christian, and the priest of this church. Since he is very old, I help him as best I can when I am at home.'

I had been involved with a real devil, the cleverest, most urbane and best educated of men. I told him that I had kept count of the virtues of his stick, after having been tempted to throw it away. 'Were I to start telling you about the virtues of sticks,' he cried, 'the night would be too short!'

 

[Fenris-77]

The 10' pole was a necessity because the game also included save or die traps and didn't have any baked-in rules about telegraphing traps or anything like that. That second bit has changed in most newer OSR properties which tend to treat traps more like puzzles that surprises.

 

[Lofgeornost]

The 10' pole was a necessity because the game also included save or die traps and didn't have any baked-in rules about telegraphing traps or anything like that. That second bit has changed in most newer OSR properties which tend to treat traps more like puzzles that surprises.

Well, yes. But as EmperorNorton pointed out upthread, most traps probably wouldn't be set off by a 10' pole.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, yes. But as EmperorNorton pointed out upthread, most traps probably wouldn't be set off by a 10' pole.

Depends on the trap I guess. Anything with a pressure plate is fair game, same with threshold traps, button to push, etc. IDK, I'm not going to sell the creativity of players short when it comes to this sort of thing. It's also the case the the notion of a 10' pole is almost just short hand for a whole suite of cautious environmental behaviors.

 

[AsenRG]

S sharps54 I remember trying to carry a man-height pole (about 2 m long) through the somewhat-winding, somewhat-narrow corridors of an old, mansion-type building...
Let's just say that I got more lumps from it than I expected to get from sparring with it later that day!
...and a 10-foot pole is 50% on top of that!

So yeah, I'm totally with EmperorNorton that this kind of stuff is stupid in many, many dungeons...especially those that wouldn't conform to the D&D dungeoneering book.

OTOH...
SavAce if you're giving a pass to villain monologues, you should totally give a pass to a 10-feet pole. It's still a genre convention, just a convention from the D&D Fantasy sub-genre, which has dungeoneering at its core.
If you'd notice, Baron explicitly calls it "an entire series of tropes". His words, not mine!

Now, personally, I don't give a pass to neither villain monologues nor 10-feet poles. A villain can monologue before subduing the PCs if s/he's crazy - but my players know to declare shooting him while he's still talking.
It's only the desire to learn his plans that might prevent them. But way too often, the "final battle" consists of a player declaring:
"I shoot/stab him and say 'we knew that already, sucker'".

...and now I'm wondering whether they'd think to get in a building with narrow corridors when faced with a skilled quarterstaff/polearm user. I should check.

Either way, the point is, I love subverting genre tropes clichés. So my villains monologue only after having captured you, if even then. You could well find the villain who values practicality over flair, and he's going to execute you while claiming something like this:
"Well, you're just the latest obstacle that crops on the way of my plans. What? Tell you what my plans are? Goodness, no - I'd be ashamed of all the half-baked, half-improvised stuff I'm doing; my only defense it seems to be working. Now I leave you to the executioner, blood and gore have never stood well with my delicate disposition..."

So tl;dr I agree that 10-feet poles are a genre cliché, and would probably be stupid in many (not all) dungeons.
So would villain monologues, the only difference is they're the kind of stupidity that's expected in a different genre. And they still make sense for some kinds of villains (mostly those suffering from inflated sense of self-worth and trying to demonstrate it to all comers).
To me, it's all genre stuff that has bears no relation to how characters would act were they really faced with the obstacles and situations detailed by the GM.

Well, we all play as we like. But the game is Dungeons and Dragons. An entire series of tropes evolved about dungeoneering: elaborate traps, crazy monsters, 10' poles. It's a game, but obviously only people who enjoy it should be playing those dungeon scenarios. If you prefer intrigue and politics, or whatever else is not dungeoneering, D&D can do that too.

Well, the game ain't Dungeons and Dragons for many of us, but your post is mostly correct for those that play D&D.

(Other than the "intrigue and politics" part, that is. No edition of D&D that I'm familiar with is especially good for this. Sometimes D&D Referees know how to do those despite the system, though, which murkies the water...and that's the important part, really. I'm just stating it to assign the credit where it's actually due).

Hmmn. Perhaps my standard response of, "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case it's thinking of moving" maybe illustrative of the gamer paranoia? (Not mine; totally stolen from somewhere that I can no longer remember to give proper attribution.)

...maybe? What makes you doubt it?

Depends on the trap I guess. Anything with a pressure plate is fair game,

...is it, now? Why would the trapfinder calibrate it for the pressure of a walking stick, afraid of missing any blind men passing by? Or trying to make sure any random hare/ cat/ whatever can set it off?

It's also the case the the notion of a 10' pole is almost just short hand for a whole suite of cautious environmental behaviors.

Sure, but then let's describe those, not the stick part!

 

[Skarg]

So, last night, I played Coriolis: The Third Horizon with my group and a GM who was new to us. Much fun was had. But I was reminded of something while we played because the GM pointed out how tactically I was thinking as I moved my character, a former Legionnaire, through the adventure.

We didn't use a battle mat or anything like that, but I checked sight lines, covered angles, and played SEAL Team 6 in space. It seemed appropriate.

This got me thinking about how almost all roleplayers who cut their teeth on dungeon-style adventuring are hardwired for tactical thinking. Every thought, every movement, is geared toward minimizing risk. Open a door? How about using a pole? Advancing down a seemingly benign corridor? Where's that pole? See something unusual? Poke it with the pole!

Not every character should think this way because not everyone is a former Legionnaire with a big gun. But most do because their players have been conditioned to worry about traps and tricks.

Is this bad? Are we losing some of the subtleties of roleplaying by thinking in these terms? In other words, are we engaging with fiction or playing a war game in our heads?

That depends.

In some cases, depending on who the character is, and the situation, yes it can be out of character if the player is having the character do all sorts of precautions from gaming paranoia, for no in-world reason.

Much of that can be solved by the GM in various ways, or with better roleplaying by players.

It's possible to have a lot of fun doing that kind of play, though. And, especially if the GM and game system support it, it can make play very engaging. I love games which involve detailed tactical play and/or that take the details of situations seriously, and that let players use clever approaches to the environment.

Also, it's very possible to err in the opposite direction, in several ways. GMs and game systems that don't allow any sort of clever or cautious approaches, or good tactics, to affect what happens. Or game systems that are so abstract that there really isn't much situation in play to work with except for abstract meta-mechanics. For me, having spatial details and choices matter can be hugely immersive, while abstract meta-systems tend to take me out of the situation, and get me to just relate to the game as the game mechanics rather than what they supposedly represent.

I've also enjoyed seeing several non-gamers balk at fictional situations that don't make sense. e.g. "Wait, he has the killer on the ground - why are they leaving him there and letting him get up?" or "Why are they leaving those weapons on the ground?" or "Why would anyone let themselves be hit on the head from behind while making a phone call, when they KNOW the killer was just down the hall a minute ago?"

 

[AsenRG]

I've also enjoyed seeing several non-gamers balk at fictional situations that don't make sense. e.g. "Wait, he has the killer on the ground - why are they leaving him there and letting him get up?" or "Why are they leaving those weapons on the ground?" or "Why would anyone let themselves be hit on the head from behind while making a phone call, when they KNOW the killer was just down the hall a minute ago?"

A personal favourite, that, since before the time I'd seen an RPG game...

Spoiler: Possibly NSFW for violence, also might trigger some sentimental souls...

Also a link for those that might appreciate it:

The Physics of Head Stomps, Soccer Kicks, and MMA's Other Taboo Weapons

A physicist breaks down the complexities beneath some of mixed martial arts’ most dangerous (and banned) techniques.

www.vice.com

 

[Acmegamer]

Y'all really do seem to be missing the point about my complaints about the 10' pole. It is the fact that it is just remarkably stupid.

That's because you don't use the telescoping ten foot pole with accessories and attachments... obviously. No true Scots err adventure would be caught without one.

 

[AsenRG]

That's because you don't use the telescoping ten foot pole with accessories and attachments... obviously. No true Scots err adventure would be caught without one.

My first idea as I was scrolling, was "that sounds like something they're selling on Amazon"...


...then I scrolled down.

View attachment 80111

 

[Steve Hall]

I think the trad dungeon is just silly and have only run or experienced about 3 or 4. My knowledge of 10 foot poles is therefore non-existent.

 

[TheoryofGame]

So, last night, I played Coriolis: The Third Horizon with my group and a GM who was new to us. Much fun was had. But I was reminded of something while we played because the GM pointed out how tactically I was thinking as I moved my character, a former Legionnaire, through the adventure.

We didn't use a battle mat or anything like that, but I checked sight lines, covered angles, and played SEAL Team 6 in space. It seemed appropriate.

This got me thinking about how almost all roleplayers who cut their teeth on dungeon-style adventuring are hardwired for tactical thinking. Every thought, every movement, is geared toward minimizing risk. Open a door? How about using a pole? Advancing down a seemingly benign corridor? Where's that pole? See something unusual? Poke it with the pole!

Not every character should think this way because not everyone is a former Legionnaire with a big gun. But most do because their players have been conditioned to worry about traps and tricks.

Is this bad? Are we losing some of the subtleties of roleplaying by thinking in these terms? In other words, are we engaging with fiction or playing a war game in our heads?

Why can't we engage the fiction while playing a wargame? That's always been what I thought I was doing with these ttrpgs ever since I first played D&D. Sure we're play-acting these mythical characters but we're also playing this tactical dice game right beside it. Is it bad if he "get better" at the game? Nope. What's bad is NOT getting good at dungeon-crawling AS A PLAYER because every one of your characters that find themselves in a dungeon will suffer for your ignorance. And that means the groups you're in suffer as well.

There's nothing bad about system mastery just like there's nothing wrong with using rpgs to tell stories, right?

 

[Exploderwizard]

Then ten foot pole can be seen as a bit silly.......until it saves a character's life. It may not trigger some pressure plates but it may help with illusionary sections of floor covering spiked pits, oozes & slimes hiding in shallow pools of water, or even for the "hey thats a cool looking devils mouth carving. Wonder whats inside" moments. It is simply a piece of equipment. Take one with you or not according to preference.

 

[Godfather Punk]

I'm almost sorry I brought up the 10' pole topic. Almost... not really

Another form of paranoia I always encounter is distrust of task givers or just about any NPC. Over a long career my players have been betrayed probably once too often (by mostly published adventure's supporting cast) to just take anyone's word for granted, or will engage in complicated doublecross plans, just in case. It's annoying when the npc is actually honest, frustrating when you had a really nice heel-turn planned, and just wastes a lot of table time between the players.

You could say that as veteran adventurers they prepare for the worst (like the tactical planning in the OP), but then I think I should also give them negative modifiers for social interactions, like checking every corner of a room would give a time penalty.

So now I like to use npc's that will actively be helpfull and even altruistic. Never fails to baffle my group when they encounter one of those.

 

[Acmegamer]

Then there is also the more realistic sectional wooden stick/pole which would have not been encumbering to have. You'd have it broken down and tied to your pack in a small bag to hold the sections, or leather ties.

I was being glib above with my post on the Amazon linked sectional pole but honestly I feel that some here are failing their d20 idea check. Folks are resourceful and come up with all sorts of ideas to implement tool wise over the course of history and there are some fascinating examples out there.

Not all ideas are good of course, but there are quite a few examples in history that were quite good for what they designed to be used for. Tent poles and other supports were often sectional in design. Is it far fetched to consider that a "length as needed" sectional wooden pole isn't a useful item? I don't think so honestly. Modern tent pole shown below but I've seen the wooden insert versions without the metal.



Ever see how some medieval and older ships and boats were designed for another example? How the wood was put together etc. Think outside the box, it's not far fetched. Wood and hides/skins were used rather ingeniously.

 

[Voros]

10 foot poles suck.

/thread

 

[Voros]

The 10' pole was a necessity because the game also included save or die traps and didn't have any baked-in rules about telegraphing traps or anything like that. That second bit has changed in most newer OSR properties which tend to treat traps more like puzzles that surprises.

Good trap design is a real GM skill imo. Too often trying to figure out a trap is like trying to read the GM's mind. The puzzle model is far superior but can run into the same issues.

In the premier trap dungeon, Tomb of Horrors, the trap design ranges from well done to Godawful.

Maybe I haven't been reading the right blogs but it seems to be under discussed in the OSR and D&D in general.

 

[Black Vulmea]

See something unusual? Poke it with the pole!

That's what she said.


I'll show myself out . . .

 

[Voros]

I thought the title to this thread was some kind of play-on-words for a thread on the Paranoia rpg.

 

[Fenris-77]

I thought the title to this thread was some kind of play-on-words for a thread on the Paranoia rpg.

Me too. I came for that but I stayed for the silly.

 

[Voros]

A personal favourite, that, since before the time I'd seen an RPG game...

Spoiler: Possibly NSFW for violence, also might trigger some sentimental souls...

Also a link for those that might appreciate it:

The Physics of Head Stomps, Soccer Kicks, and MMA's Other Taboo Weapons

A physicist breaks down the complexities beneath some of mixed martial arts’ most dangerous (and banned) techniques.

www.vice.com

This may be better in the martial arts thread but are headstomps legal in MMA?

I hope so, as a boxing fan watching some of those 'moves' is really uncomfortable to watch.

Edited to add: Okay, read the Vice article which was pretty good and seems to suggest it's banned in the subtitle but oddly doesn't seem to address that in the body of the text?

 

[lategamer]

The 10' pole thing has always been one of those things that it feels like a certain segment of the D&D population thinks is "thinking tactically" while to me it just feels like nonsensical garbage. It wouldn't catch enough things to be useful compared to just advancing carefully while keeping your eyes peeled to overcome the actual logistical issues with carrying around a 10 foot pole and waving it around in front of you for hours at a time.

I remember in the distant past, several forums ago, when someone attacked the idea of the 10' pole and responded with the idea of a halfling on a 10' leash. Dark times.

 

[lategamer]

I seldom express myself so forcefully, but I am compelled to agree. I have only played two dungeon-crawls in the past forty years, because I find them stupefyingly boring and unbearably nonsensical. They maybe exercise tactical thinking, but they absolutely frustrate logistical or engineering thinking. A "pressure plate" in an ancient rock-hewn tomb‽ How the fuck does that work?¹ How could it be hidden or disguised? What the fuck is it for? If the ancients wanted to seal this tomb, why did they not fill it with concrete?

I think we covered in the OSR thread how Dungeons are an artifice for playing the game in a controlled manner and shouldn't ever be expected to 'make sense'

I'm supposed to be super suspicious, observant, and clever about dumb traps that couldn't have been made with pre-industrial technology anyway, but I'm not allowed to apply logic to their purposes, mechanisms, or practicality. Why bother?

Just cast "Continual Light" on a couple of geese and then drive the whole flock in the main entrance.

I got frustrated in 5E when the DM retconned Physics in game.

Plan A. Light fires at the entrance to a dungeon and can the smoke inwards. Anything breathing in there will have a pretty nasty day. Plus the smoke will reveal where the other exits are. In game justification? My character was a ranger and this is how farmers get rid of vermin in their underground sets/warrens. Fire will stop them from coming out of the entrance we are at. So we can watch for places where gobboes and geese emerge. But the DM doesn't like this idea and says the fire won't light properly.

Plan B. Look at the map. Divert a stream into the underground dungeon. Again critters may have a hard time if rooms fill up but we will have them on the back foot. DM doesn't like this idea so despite the stream being higher up and less than 50m away, it won't divert. Again, doing a divert or a culvert on a stream is well covered by the tech level.

 

[AsenRG]

Then ten foot pole can be seen as a bit silly.......until it saves a character's life. It may not trigger some pressure plates but it may help with illusionary sections of floor covering spiked pits, oozes & slimes hiding in shallow pools of water, or even for the "hey thats a cool looking devils mouth carving. Wonder whats inside" moments. It is simply a piece of equipment. Take one with you or not according to preference.

OK, yeah, I'll give you those dangers. Very dungeon-specific, most of them, but stuff one must account for when talking about dungeon fantasy.

This is exactly what I was going to say. IMO, death is one of the least interesting penalties in a game, for the same reason as Yes or No being the least interesting outcomes to questions. They end the line of questioning, where other answers and penalities continue the line, but with different framing.

I think you misunderstood my post, though. It was to mean "and if the others weren't mortal either, it wouldn't be interesting".
Also, death creates a void, like a stone dropped in a pool. And when there's one of them, nature not suffering empty spaces, the question becomes "what's going to fill it" - regardless of whether we're talking about a PC or an NPC.
That part is also interesting.

 

[Voros]

I think we covered in the OSR thread how Dungeons are an artifice for playing the game in a controlled manner and shouldn't ever be expected to 'make sense'



I got frustrated in 5E when the DM retconned Physics in game.

Plan A. Light fires at the entrance to a dungeon and can the smoke inwards. Anything breathing in there will have a pretty nasty day. Plus the smoke will reveal where the other exits are. In game justification? My character was a ranger and this is how farmers get rid of vermin in their underground sets/warrens. Fire will stop them from coming out of the entrance we are at. So we can watch for places where gobboes and geese emerge. But the DM doesn't like this idea and says the fire won't light properly.

Plan B. Look at the map. Divert a stream into the underground dungeon. Again critters may have a hard time if rooms fill up but we will have them on the back foot. DM doesn't like this idea so despite the stream being higher up and less than 50m away, it won't divert. Again, doing a divert or a culvert on a stream is well covered by the tech level.

Great ideas, that GM sucked.

 

[lategamer]

Great ideas, that GM sucked.

Or...the GM had put a lot of prep into the dungeon and didn't want our smartass ideas* from wasting that effort.

*cue a debate on when the players should suspend disbelief in a game and just play the damn game. I feel like this covers every Chaosium CoC adventure ever.

 

[AsenRG]

I think we covered in the OSR thread how Dungeons are an artifice for playing the game in a controlled manner and shouldn't ever be expected to 'make sense'



I got frustrated in 5E when the DM retconned Physics in game.

Plan A. Light fires at the entrance to a dungeon and can the smoke inwards. Anything breathing in there will have a pretty nasty day. Plus the smoke will reveal where the other exits are. In game justification? My character was a ranger and this is how farmers get rid of vermin in their underground sets/warrens. Fire will stop them from coming out of the entrance we are at. So we can watch for places where gobboes and geese emerge. But the DM doesn't like this idea and says the fire won't light properly.

Plan B. Look at the map. Divert a stream into the underground dungeon. Again critters may have a hard time if rooms fill up but we will have them on the back foot. DM doesn't like this idea so despite the stream being higher up and less than 50m away, it won't divert. Again, doing a divert or a culvert on a stream is well covered by the tech level.

BTW, any idea how long it takes to make a culvert (and for how many people working on it)?
Likewise for the fire, time and the fuel needed would be the issues.

Great ideas, that GM sucked.

Agreed. But maybe he didn't know enough.

Or...the GM had put a lot of prep into the dungeon and didn't want our smartass ideas* from wasting that effort.

*cue a debate on when the players should suspend disbelief in a game and just play the damn game. I feel like this covers every Chaosium CoC adventure ever.

Or, I suspect, if the GM was a young one and didn't know people do that, or didn't feel comfortable adjudicating what is going to be needed...

Of course, anything like a ToH-style Sphere of annihilation hidden near the entrance would make the water idea hard, but not the smoke one.

 

[lategamer]

BTW, any idea how long it takes to make a culvert (and for how many people working on it)?
Likewise for the fire, time and the fuel needed would be the issues.

Then that's the answer, not "No", or changing established facts.

I've played in games where the "smoking them out" works. It definitely makes for a different kind of dungeon delving. Keep your 10' pole but come and help me move 3d6 kobold corpses who all died from smoke inhalation.

 

[AsenRG]

Then that's the answer, not "No", or changing established facts.

That's the answer in my games, to be clear, I guarantee nothing about 5e games, which is what you mentioned!

If you can do it, fine. I don't need you to kill orcs manually if you can industrialize it.

Last time the players wanted to do the smoking out thing, I had to point out that in the region they were in, there wouldn't be enough fuel, most likely. Very sparse vegetation was already stressed numerous times, they were even bringing extra food for their donkeys!

I'd like to be better prepared for next time, though, hence I'm using the thread to ask you all.

Likewise for the culverts, which I don't think players have tried recently.

I've played in games where the "smoking them out" works. It definitely makes for a different kind of dungeon delving. Keep your 10' pole but come and help me move 3d6 kobold corpses who all died from smoke inhalation.

...well, if you can bring the pole to them, you can use the pole to help carry them. Just strap 3-6 of them to the pole, and two strong PCs can carry them out...

Or, you know, you can just use a shovel to dig their graves right there. Makes more sense to me!

OTOH, what I'd like to see is the faces of players once they see almost nothing getting out.
That's the moment when it's reasonable to utter IC "Guys, how are we doing with the supplies of holy water?"

 

[sharps54]

I think the only time i would frown on thinking outside the box is if you agreed to play a specific module and are specifically trying to fight the premise of the module. At the point the referee has planned on running this prewritten thing, and taken the time to prep and learn it, and the players, who agreed to play this prewritten thing, decide they want to open a bar instead of exploring the haunted house I think that is just players being assholes. But in a sandbox style campaign? Divert that river baby and let’s deal with the consequences from the farmers

 

[lategamer]

OTOH, what I'd like to see is the faces of players once they see almost nothing getting out.
That's the moment when it's reasonable to utter IC "Guys, how are we doing with the supplies of holy water?"

"Awesome. It's undead. And now we're swimming with them."
"Yeah, so how does holy water work....underwater"
"I didn't expect to have to stock up on water breathing spells"

 

[lategamer]

Divert that river baby and let’s deal with the consequences from the farmers

See, I would enjoy that sort of consequence.

 

[sharps54]

See, I would enjoy that sort of consequence.

That’s why even for one shots or short campaigns I try to come up with some problems the players are faced with or can choose to tackle but I don’t have solutions in mind, I like to prep by knowing the world and NPCs so I can react to whatever the players do. Expecting them to take the course I planned is futile because they rarely do.

 

[The Guild]

Virtually all of the issues can be avoided with one easy trick: Make sure everyone is on the same page regarding what sort of game/campaign you are playing.

Old-school dungeoncrawling? Yes, everyone should be paranoid, your characters will die occasionally and it will be hilarious and then you just take the next character sheet from the stack.

Almost anything else? Things will probably make more sense and there will not be oodles of traps in random places. Obviously a player can make a paranoid PC, but the paranoia should not be justified (not useful).


That said, I will note down an idea for a trapped treasure chest that opens a spike pit a small distance away. Open the chest while standing right in front of it? No problem, you just notice the pit opening behind you. Prod the chest with your trusty 10' pole? Down you go.

 

[chuckdee]

I think you misunderstood my post, though. It was to mean "and if the others weren't mortal either, it wouldn't be interesting".
Also, death creates a void, like a stone dropped in a pool. And when there's one of them, nature not suffering empty spaces, the question becomes "what's going to fill it" - regardless of whether we're talking about a PC or an NPC.
That part is also interesting.

Nope. I didn't misunderstand it in context. Taken out of context you could say that. But put it back in context with Casca, and no, we're on the same page, no matter how much you want to deny it.

 

[AsenRG]

"Awesome. It's undead. And now we're swimming with them."
"Yeah, so how does holy water work....underwater"
"I didn't expect to have to stock up on water breathing spells"

Well, I was assuming the smoke trick would be tried first. But yeah, undead underwater would suck mightily. I mean, water makes stabbing weapons the best choice...except they're the worst choice against undead!

OTOH, it kinda explains why mermaids are usually considered undead in Bulgaria...

Nope. I didn't misunderstand it in context. Taken out of context you could say that. But put it back in context with Casca, and no, we're on the same page, no matter how much you want to deny it.

...if you say so!
(And no, I'm not trying to deny being on the same page with you, it has happened before. I'm just not quite sure whether you realize how far my page gets...)

 

[Acmegamer]

I think we covered in the OSR thread how Dungeons are an artifice for playing the game in a controlled manner and shouldn't ever be expected to 'make sense'



I got frustrated in 5E when the DM retconned Physics in game.

Plan A. Light fires at the entrance to a dungeon and can the smoke inwards. Anything breathing in there will have a pretty nasty day. Plus the smoke will reveal where the other exits are. In game justification? My character was a ranger and this is how farmers get rid of vermin in their underground sets/warrens. Fire will stop them from coming out of the entrance we are at. So we can watch for places where gobboes and geese emerge. But the DM doesn't like this idea and says the fire won't light properly.

Plan B. Look at the map. Divert a stream into the underground dungeon. Again critters may have a hard time if rooms fill up but we will have them on the back foot. DM doesn't like this idea so despite the stream being higher up and less than 50m away, it won't divert. Again, doing a divert or a culvert on a stream is well covered by the tech level.

That's a bad GM. I love when players get creative like this.