The first game of D&D 3.0 I played was at the WotC flagship megastore in Seattle. I got randomly assigned to a party, and two of the PCs were half ork barbarians. At one point we were trying to solve a riddle (jump on the correct tile) and nearly lost our sorceror. To be safe we asked the half orcs to do tile jumping instead. After a few misteps they realized they were in no danger, since the combined damage from all the traps was not enough to kill them. Gleefuly they lept from trap to trap, even after the puzzle was solved. Lightning trap! Poison darts! Sleep dust! Falling bucket of swords!

I mention it because it was interesting to see them transition from "adventuring" to "goofing around" I suspect that they did it to goad the GM into ramping up the difficulty (which he never did.)

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumThe first game of D&D 3.0 I played was at the WotC flagship megastore in Seattle. I got randomly assigned to a party, and two of the PCs were half ork barbarians. At one point we were trying to solve a riddle (jump on the correct tile) and nearly lost our sorceror. To be safe we asked the half orcs to do tile jumping instead. After a few misteps they realized they were in no danger, since the combined damage from all the traps was not enough to kill them. Gleefuly they lept from trap to trap, even after the puzzle was solved. Lightning trap! Poison darts! Sleep dust! Falling bucket of swords!

I mention it because it was interesting to see them transition from "adventuring" to "goofing around" I suspect that they did it to goad the GM into ramping up the difficulty (which he never did.)

It's an interesting point.  As GM when you're creating scenarios there is a tendency to want to taylor it to the power level of the group you expect to be entering the area.   The entire scenario's difficulty is directly proportional to the level of the group expected to enter it.   The GM is thinking "I don't want the entire party to get killed... there's some statistic that suggests that on any given trip only 10% or so should be at significant risk..."  So in this case the GM is tayloring the scenario... and may get it right or wrong.   The problem with this approach is that he can't be sure really who will actually enter the scene for sure.  What if the main fighter has a hissy-fit and stays home sulking?  Suddenly the scenario is way tougher than the party.

Edit: On the other hand he might make it too easy for them, as appears to be the case with the trap you described.  Perhaps he was loath to change it on the fly because "well that's how the so-and-so created the trap"?  I could see that happenning.  

Conversely, another approach is for the GM to map out scenarios "logically" according to his back story.   Does there need to be an impregnable fortress for the Bad Guy?  You bet.   Does he set traps at the entrance?  Sho enough.  Should they and are they lethal to those who don't konw the secret?  You got that right.   After the trap is sprung does the horn blow and the archer brigade and armed guards show up pronto?  What do you think?  And so if the 2nd Level party decides to assault the Fortress of the Black Bard you have to figure they're going to get creamed.   It's a foregone conclusion and no tayloring is going to save them.   They should have gone on an easier trip... but of course, how would they really know that until they try it out - and get killed?  

So it's a bit of a conundrum.   To Taylor For Party Level or to Set The World?  

The third option that comes to mind is for the GM to improvise along the way.   But this leaves things open to GM abuse, and mistakes.   Improvisation is great and a necessary requirement... but there's a fine line where it goes over some edge or other and it becomes the GM exercising his will upon the players.  

Each of the three methods has pros and cons.   Even a mixture of the three has it's own potential issues.   My question, then, is how do you plan your scenarios?   Party-Taylored, World-Logical, or Improv?

Quote from: VBWyrdeMy question, then, is how do you plan your scenarios?   Party-Taylored, World-Logical, or Improv?

World-logical, with as just enough Improv to make sure everyone has a decent time, and even that's not guaranteed. Fortunately, all my players are completely aware of this, so they accept the assumption of risk.

Also fortunately, my GM mixes all three more-or-less transparently, so our group can actually bet on having a good time when he's GMing. But he's got a lot to deal with, in terms of dangerously unpredictable players who are sometimes impossibly reckless:

A small group of adventurers [D&D] located an orcish mining and construction settlement that appeared to be the source of the complaints a treant leveled at us when we happened by its grove. Orc woodsmen were cutting down huge swathes of forest while their gnoll overlord stood around looking like the target of an eventual boss battle. They'd constructed walls, and there were something like 400 orcs, knolls, and other assorted not-nice fellows in residence. Worse, they were digging deep into the mountain, a surefire sign they're doing this to construct some sort of temple to She Who Shall Not Be Named, an elder goddess of chaos whose works we'd often encountered.

A frontal assault was out of the question. Guerilla warfare was clearly what the GM anticipated, but he's never locked so hard into rails that we can't break them if we push. The druid and ranger climbed the mountain to get the lay of the land, and made note of the spring-fed river which ran along the base of the wall. A plan was hatched.

When you're a GM, and you've designed a large encounter which should span a few sessions and require some serious thinking and combat, what do you do when your players decide, instead, to talk all the local beavers into coming to work with you? When they start summoning masses of beavers? When they turn into beavers and start damming the river upstream of the wall? Many GMs will struggle, fight against the players, invent some mass of archers living further up the mountain who foil your plan so that the GM can go back to his story. Our GM doesn't do this. He let us build up the water into a large retaining pool, then destroy the dam, timing it give-or-take so that the floodwaters catch the orcs coming back with their daily lumber. We killed hundreds of orcs in a single moment, killed their masters, nearly drowned the overlord of the whole operation, with virtually no risk to us.

The players were very happy. The GM was pleased that he got to play with some clever players. And it was made possible by GM flexibility, dedication to the established world, and attention to the feelings of the players. At no point was any attention paid to the GM's desires for the course of resolution. I mean, we ruined his plans, ruined half the work he'd done, by coming up with something he couldn't have anticipated - a Beaver Party? Really? - and instead of throwing his toys out the pram, he was as happy as a GM whose hard work has all been destroyed by a wall of water can manage to be.

We do this all the time to him. I could list off dozens of examples - Lil Buddha shooting his yakuza boss in the face right in the middle of a conversation stands out - of times when we did something reckless, unplanned, or just plain fucking crazy. Paul lets it play, and only pushes things about when he thinks it's necessary to have a good time. And the "good time" he's shooting for is a good time for everyone at the table, not just his own.

That's how we do it.

I'll still never forget that game. Beaver Dam? Say what...? Heh. Between that and "We buy all the slaves. All of them." I think sometimes I should tape my games.

as a DM, I LIVE for the Reckless Players. The ones who take chances are the ones who make things happen. There's an episode of Star Trek where Kirk says, "Gentlemen...RISK IS OUR BUSINESS!". Often I can get this player to do things that will have dire consequences for the entire party, and maybe get him to take down a few of the other PCs with him.

When I'm not the DM, I AM the Reckless Player. Anything...even death...is better than boredom. If it kills me, I don't mind rolling up a new character. The way I see it, I just saved the party, since none of them will now make the mistake I just made.

Caution is for the real world.
SCREW CAUTION in my fantasy game.
amen.