am I right to feel disgruntled?

[Stonegiant]

I am not trying to say every thing has to be realistic nor am I saying lets run amok with a high fantsy magitech game either, but in a world where deep mysterious dungeons are explored, where it seems that all of humanity is threatened along its borders by the forces of chaos, where the sword or the spells of one hero can turn the tides of a war it seems consistent that a herd of goats is going to be a pain in the ass, the question you must ask and your DM should have allowed you to ask is-
"is this pain in my ass worth the reward?" if the answer is yes than grab your crook and get busy, if it isn't, oh well next idea! If I had a nickel for every hairbrain scheme that my players ever thought up and/or attempted I would right now own a Woodgrain box 1st edition OD&D set and some other cool extras. I liked the idea from a players perspective and probably would have helped you with it if I was playing with you. On the otherhand I would also be completley cool with the DM throwing in difficulties due to this attempted enterprise, thats their job! They are supposed to throw difficulties in our paths as we attempt to obtain the gold and magic.

[Mythmere]

I don't object to the plan having drawbacks, eg a higher chance of wandering monsters, maybe you've got to roll under your Charisma to get them to do anything - maybe everyone gets a minus on reactions from nobles but a plus on reactions from peasants etc.

I *would* point out that this is a game where you can go caving in plate armour. If there are going to be difficulties, fine, but let's have them on the same level of realism as everything else.

What I object to from my DM is stopping something, apparently on the grounds that it doesn't fit the style of adventure he wants.

What I object to in this thread is hand-rubbing and 'oh man, I would so punish you for doing that'. OK, if that's the punishment, then what's the crime?

A big theme I see on this board is the assertion that later versions of D&D are wrong because they're all about railroading the characters through the DM's story, whereas 1st edition is about players exploring the game world.

I would've thought this was a pretty classic case of railroading. I also would think that gleefully killing someone for doing the 'wrong' thing is worse than railroading.

EXCELLENT point (this and your earlier posts about what's the crime).

First: If a character were hoarding goats not as an adventuring tactic but as a source of wealth toward retirement, I'd treat it very differently. That sort of thing I tend to be pretty hands-off with. A lot of the fun of the game involves a player's vision of the character's retirement, and there's a different approach to becoming a ship-owning mercantile lord in the big city versus a country lord on the border. I let players build toward their vision without too much interference (not without any, but without too much). It sounds like this is not what you were doing, so moving on to the next point ...

I do "interfere" if the group's approach isn't in line with a sword and sorcerous feel ... unless the whole group wants to try such a campaign and that includes me as well. If everyone wanted to make their adventures center around a business, so be it. But if things don't feel adventurous enough because of one player, and other players are getting antsy, as the DM I've got the option of handling it out of game by just "telling" the players to change or in-game by having the environment nudge them into adventuring rather than business. Again, it sounds like this is not what you were doing, but I might have misunderstood.

Finally, what I take it you were doing was to adventure using goats as a strategy, much as I've seen on a smaller scale with a mule or a canary. The idea is to use the goats as speed bumps rather than using 0 level fighters.

Yes, I would have villagers laugh at it. The players in my campaign would already be busting a gut over the strategy. The world's not a medieval simulation, but even if it were, (1) the characters are "foreigners" from five or more miles away, (2) these foreigners are dressed like non-peasants but are herding goats, (3) the foreign goatherds are planning on taking their goats underground ... etc. But the main reason that villagers would laugh has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that we're playing a game and that the situation is funny because it's not sword and sorcerous. It puts the game more into the realm of fantasy humor than anything else; it's the old Wormy cartoon, or Fineous Fingers. The game becomes a parody of itself, which is fine (in my campaign). So, the source of the humor (reflected in the villagers) is completely a meta-game thing. If no one around your game table laughed when you suggested using a herd of goats in the dungeon, then your group has a different dynamic than mine. Our group would be rolling in the aisles, and the NPCs would be reflecting the fact that the feel of the game is temporarily in self-parody mode. I should mention that I tend to run worlds that feel a lot more like Jack Vance and Fritz Leiber than RE Howard or Clark Ashton Smith.

As to railroading, if something looks like it's going to become a game-damaging strategy (building a medieval equivalent of a tank, "inventing" gunpowder, etc) I'm going to assume (using the logic of the game, not of a simulation) that for some reason in the universe it doesn't work as well as the tried-and-true method of relying on human heroism. I'm having a bit of trouble putting this into a capsule explanation, but I guess the best I can do is to say that as the DM I'm not going to allow a strategy that changes the whole structure of risk-and-reward. If it breaks the game, then it doesn't work - my "proof" is that if it worked someone would already have done it in the game world, and the characters would be farming the guy's estates over the top of the emptied dungeons he owns. Not logic that works in the real world, but definitely apropos for a fantasy game.

My logic here has nothing to do with what's fair or realistic. It has to do with what keeps the challenge, pace and "feel" on target for the group as a whole. That's different from railroading, to my mind. Railroading is when adventures and events stalk the party rather than vice versa, and there is no escape. Ruling out particular strategies, or giving them a dangerous or embarrassing downside isn't railroading; it's the DM's proper tool for maintaining the game's challenge, pace, and feel.

As I said, I wouldn't rule out the idea of a herd of goats used as dungeon stormtroopers. But I'd put in a lot of counterbalancing factors, including humor; enough to make sure that the game doesn't become a game of managing goats and remains a game of fantasy adventure.

[geneweigel]

Getting a pie in the face isn't always DM TO PLAYER though, its a two way street sometimes.

Most games the DM is going to be a ballbreaker all the time and this I despise because it makes heroes into overly conscious worms. I consider myself a master player and when I get the shaft you know something has gone wrong with the game. However, I will go with what the DM says but I will never go down without a short protest if they're just being a bastard! (However, recently I did let one large mistake fly after my character was "killed" by another PC and the game ended without me making a peep about him still being alive but this was for tactical reasons. To get the last laugh! )

As a DM, I play it fair first and try to see the perspective of the players and the behaviors of people in general. If someone buys a goat there may be a line of questioning as to whether they need a handler, goatherd or even a butcher. Once the person selling hears they are taking them across the countryside then they may say they require at least a handler, etc.. If the character answers with arrogance then there is no "karmic D&D wheel" that is going to come around and "get them" later for "saying it that way" in my campaign. Some people must mind their own business sometimes and me as a DM attaching myself to this character that I'm roleplaying to make him the "god of goathandling advice" who punishes those who fail to listen is patently ridiculous. But tell me you haven't seen a douchebag DM get all balled up over his NPC chatter getting rejected before? Yeah... you know what I'm talking about: Take some grocer's advice or you're dead!!!!

Not me, shit happens randomly or by prepared design and tactics not by some petty revenge of the moment for offsetting the story. Thats just bullshit. I believe if leaving town with several goats you would get many suggestions to keep your goats under control once out in the wilderness on "non-goat paths" you're going to draw wild attention with perhaps a double rate. Thats all.

[Ska]

Poor DMing if your DM cannot just allow you do to what-ever you want.

If you want to try to herd a bunch of goats while you roam the ruins why not? Now, it is likley the goats might attract more wandering monsters depending on the circumstances, but so what?

I always stay neutral and never try to rail-road PCs into anything or prevent them from trying anything. Of course, the PCs risk the results of any of their actions.

[Philotomy Jurament]

The most common response to this seems to be along the lines of "if I was a DM I'd let you do it, but I'd also punish/kill your character for doing it."

It's not punishment, it's just highlighting the consequences. Using goats is a creative idea that has some advantages. It also has some significant disadvantages that the goat-utilizing player is likely overlooking.

I like the idea. I think it'd be new/different, for one. I also admit that I'd enjoy highlighting the disadvantages, but that doesn't mean my purpose would be to punish some 'gaming crime,' or that I would ignore/eliminate the advantages.

(Lastly, while I think the goat-thing would be entertaining, I agree with some of the others who've said they wouldn't want goats to become a long-term aspect of the campaign.)

[skathros]

I'd LOVE for my PCs to pull something like this. .

I love it when my PCs pull stuff like this. It makes it fun for me as a DM. I think the "NPC won't travel with goats" route was an easy "cop-out" way for the DM to get out of the sheer beneficial influance of having goats provides.Were it me, I would simply say "Touchee" and think of an "evil DM" way of using the goats to my "evil DM" advantage.

[AxeMental]

Q: "The most common response to this seems to be along the lines of "if I was a DM I'd let you do it, but I'd also punish/kill your character for doing it."


I don't think thats true (at least from those posting here). I think people are just saying goats would logically increase the likelyhood of a random encounter (by X amount) and might attract different kinds of monsters then might otherwise take notice. This is not "punishment", its nuetral DMing (though admittedly entertaining). The BIG question is, by how much. And that would depend on where your trying to go (a DM judgement call). If he is being vendictave, than he's a sucky DM.

Heh, reminds me of "Shark Week" chuming up water and then taking a dip.

[Arthnek]

There is give and taken in any adventure. It is not about screwing the players. It is about having a fun time on both sides of the DM screen.

Brace for brief DM rant. Impact in 3...2...1...

I consider goats to be like any NPC you want to haul along with your hero. If you brought along Bottle the loot carrying gnome as a sidekick I would probably work out a personality for Bottle. What is he like? What is he willing to put up with? Is there a reason he is willing to follow you around carrying your stuff beyond the big one gold piece you pay him an adventure?

With the goats I would want to play with them too. Does the middle ages smell? what is that supposed to mean? The point is that your heavily armed and wanting to be taken seriously sometimes (maybe) fighter is acting out of character. As the DM I am totally fine with that. I am not trying to kill you by having the NPC's you encounter notice the fact that you smell like you've been recently cleaning out a barn rather than smelling of oiled leather and steel and cold blooded killing like every other fighter I have encountered....

If you as a player go out there and buy a herd of goats as your ingenius plan for countering traps or what have you then that is awesome. If you get all pissy about the NPC's giving you odd looks or having a trio of Anheg boil out of the ground to eat your goats then your the kind of player that wants everything to roll their way and pouts when something doesn't go exactly the way you planned. Man there is nothing less Conan like than a pouting player mad that his brilliant plan to be an epic hero with his flock of goats ran into a hitch.

I mean if the goats get eaten...go buy more. They are cheap. Isn't that what you do when your Gnome porter NPC gets eaten? If the goats die then you should have fought harder to stop that from happening or you should just buy more and laugh it off. When the PC party rogue gets turned into manwhich by a trap you just find some other halfer to fill the job right?

Ultimately if you are running around my game world with a herd of goats I -am- going to have them eat a magic item or a spell book. Unless you are clever enough to find some way to stop the goats from getting into things. Not because I am trying to screw you but because D&D is give and take.

I gave you the Crypt of Barnasus the Devourer...you gave me your herd of goats. You adventure in the crypt and try to get all the loot and fun out of it you can...I am going to play around with your herd of goats and get all of the fun I can.

Of course. I just have to ask you.

Why goats dude?

Erm...

Shouldn't your Conan style sword and sorcery character be working on his harem of beautiful slave girls or a small army of bloodthirsty savages to follow him into battle?

Harem girls or goats.....Harem girls or goats....hmmmm Man if you are picking a herd of goats to sock your time into rather than building your viking longship or recruiting your band of 13 warriors to follow you into the next Vault of Kaza-Dum...I kind of have to wonder about why.

[TRP]

Okay. I'll say it without being diplomatic. PCs as longterm goatherds is a stupid idea in a D&D game. Well, in any game that I'd DM anyway.

As a DM, I'd shrug off the use of a goat or two, every now and then, but a whole herd of goats for more than a single game session? I wouldn't be bored to tears as a DM, because I wouldn't allow it to last long enough for myself to get bored. Having to frequently come up with cockamamee wolf attacks, laughing peasants and consequences for a continually slow movement pace would be as fun in a game as driving ten penny nails through my hands.

You wanna be a multi-session goatherd? Not in my game. Find a DM that enjoys that sort of thing. To keep myself interested in the game, as a DM, I don't need Conans, Elrics or Randolph Carters in my games, but hell, I need PCs with a sense of pride.

Oh yeah, and if I were a co-player, and had to put up with a herd of goats, I'd probably just leave a message that says, "See you at the dungeon, and if I miss you, then sorry for cleaning out all the good stuff. Ciao."

EDIT ADDENDUM: I don't believe that I've ever seen two pages discussing whether a herd of goats should be allowed in a D&D game. What's next, determining how many fields of carrots vs potatoes my character should plant? I mean, potatoes could be tactically useful. Ya know, carry around a few dozen sacks through the dungeon, throwing the spuds all over the place in hopes of triggering traps.

[geneweigel]

What I find in a lot players is that they show up out of nowhere and one appears the same as the next...

ERRNNNNNTT!!!!!

XXX

Thats automatical failure in my book. You're going to be on the losing side of experience unless you can prove your character is interesting to me. If you're just a "we all know D&D and love the stereotypical play" type player then you've already failed.

The player who buys a shit load of goats because tonight he will be "Gak of the Goats" is going to get farther than a carefully played but unremarkable paladin in my campaign!

I subtract xp for accumulated "BP"

Bore points!

[TRP]

The player who buys a shit load of goats because tonight he will be "Gak of the Goats" is going to get farther than a carefully played but unremarkable paladin in my campaign!

Emphasis mine.

The key is "tonight". Okay, every now and then something like this fun and even clever play, but as a DM, would you actually enjoy the players replenishing their herd through every pissant village that they encounter? Monsters, wolves, disease, trap detection, undead shield or what-have-you wipes out a herd. So, the players go out and buy another herd, and that gets wiped out, so they buy another. Session after session after session. puhleeze.

[Korgoth]

Eventually, they'd start depleting the local goat population. The price would go up, and eventually people would stop selling them (they need them, after all).

I'm still not seeing the problem. Or are DMs really so attached to their lovely pit traps?

Goats are an excellent tonic for the pit-troubled adventuring party. Should I lose my 5th level character to yet another of the DM's beloved "poison spike" traps? No, not intentionally. If my character has to go into the "Maze of Pit Repetition" then goats are not only a good solution, they probably warrant bonus XP for clever play (or a reduction in the training quartile).

Of course, that trap where if you cross the jade tiles you animate the Stone Golem... well, goats are kind of a liability for that one, or at least no help at all.

But the last thing I have sympathy for is a DM who whines because his players are too clever. Next time, install some better traps in your dungeon!

No, "Mordath's Discount Pits" is not "the solution for all your trapping needs."

[AxeMental]

Q: "Okay. I'll say it without being diplomatic. PCs as longterm goatherds is a stupid idea in a D&D game. Well, in any game that I'd DM anyway."

If this bugs you as DM just make it that goats refuse to go into wild places (with monsters about). Animals can sense danger, right? This would be logical.

[TRP]

Animals can sense danger, right?

DM: That depends.

3rd Level Goatherd: On what?

DM: On whether they are African or European goats.

[Age of Fable]

Of course. I just have to ask you.

Why goats dude?

I think the root problem here is that we're a Terry Pratchett party in an Anne McCaffrey world.