3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[Az005]

Hey folks,

I suppose I'm looking for some form of co-miseration, and though these unfortunate events are in the past, I still have some kind of masochistic urge to review them to see how I could have improved matters.

Stay a while and listen. Be warned that this exposition contains spoilers to the Red Hand of Doom campaign, and you should read at your own peril:

My group consisted of five players, and I had chosen to run the module Red Hand of Doom as my first DM-ing experience in recent years. We had chosen to include the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Magic of Incarnum as additional source books.

The party consisted of a wizard (specialist, who chose evocation as his banned school), a monk-paladin, a cleric, a rogue, and a totemist. The cleric and totemist had opted for Vow of Poverty. At the time I probably did not appreciate the potency of the combination.

The module went well enough, and I had decided to include some additional optional plot options which would later develop into an Elder Evil type of game situation. This involved a procession of Inevitables which were wandering the world attempting to enforce a particular contract -- and the goodly gods had a vested interest in this being done, though it was so buried in antiquity that the players would need to do a lot of question-asking to unveil the plot.

The party continued through the module fairly well finishing the first portion of Drellin's Ferry. However, the party did not find a mandate to head north to the Blackfens. Admittedly, the hook to do so provided by the module is very weak. I formed a backup-plan to have the lord of the major city they were escorting the Drellin refugees to; for him to direct them north. Along the way they encountered a shapeshifting monstrous spider sorcerer, she became a reoccuring villain after they had failed to kill her on the trip.

I also wanted to outline how lady Kaal was a political rival to this Lord, Jarmaath, and set her up as a social-enemy. To represent her as a bad influence, I had her cause a stalemate in the city council which prevented allowing the refugees in the city.

One of the players, the monk-paladin, took objection to the town guards refusing the refugee caravan entry. Guards indicated they were following orders. A ranking NPC attempted to mediate, and the entire town guard was accused of being non-intelligent, negligent, etc. The monk-paladin suggested that the party's role was completed, that they had delivered the refugees to the city, and if the city was as beligerent enough to refuse them entry then so be it.

I asked the monk-paladin whether following orders from the city council was lawful. He replied that it did not matter. I asked whether abandoning the refugees was considered heroic or good. He decided he would storm the city and allow the refugees entry by force. I asked whether that was wise.

And so our first disagreement began. As a GM this makes my role difficult, as there is a limit as to how many different routes I can present. This ended in the monk-paladin being frustrated in a dejected mopey way. I explained there was a political problem in Brindol I wanted the party to solve, he indicated storming the city may have been an option, then. The party eventually opted for a sneak entry.

I discussed it with them and it was suggested I not second-guess party decisions so much and instead find a way to work with them. Fine. Okay.

It was soon revealed that one of the political leaders of Brindol was being mind-influenced by the spider-shapeshifter, Miha. At the time they decided not to directly oppose her.

Later on in the city, I decided to introduce another one of these extra-module plot hooks. An inevitable appeared walking out of Kaal's manor. It appeared like a previous NPC, Tune was the name, but was not giving the obvious body language.

Here is where it all started to fall apart. The monk-paladin, not sufficiently convinced it was Tune due to it not acknowledging them. So he decides to trip it. I interpret this as an attack action and it is revealed that this fake-Tune is an inevitable. The contract on its belt is stolen by the rogue, and the party makes its escape.

The next morning the party performs an Augury to determine whether destroying the scroll would be a good idea. Woe. Lots and lots of woe. I give enough explanation of the contract translation that the inevitable is trying to prevent the release of some very old bad thing.

Soon after, the party finds that the inevitable is now taking on the appearance of one of them, the rogue, using a Disguise Self. They lure it to the cathedral. It performs several suggestion attempts to force the party member luring it to stop that it might find where they had absconded with its scroll. This fails. It opts to use an enervation ray to drive the point home and increase the success of its next attempt. But cannot complete the action before the lure runs away.

Anyway, its lured to the cathedral. It sees that the party wizard has its scroll. It does not respond to communications, and attempts to walk past the rest of the party and take it back(though its intent could not be completely discerned).

A long drawn out battle ensues, where I try my best to not end in TPK. In the interest of keeping things moving, I have the creature not use the bulk of its abilities in a horrid underestimation of the party's strength and make it choose very poor tactical options. They have all their resources expended, but kill it. I end the night explaining how they had wrecked the cathedral, and how the divine casters/vow takers, suffered a horrible black out upon killing the inevitable.

The next session, I attempted to drive the point home about how they may have done something wrong. The blackout, how the city cleric, Goldenbow was not pleased with their destruction of the cathedral, and how they questioned why the party had killed the inevitable.

The monk-paladin took great exception to this. They saw nothing wrong with their actions. I disagreed based on the fact they had stolen its scroll, and initiated combat with it during their first meeting.

The monk-paladin contended that:

- I am a PC and I should be able to kill "gay constructs" without any qualms
- It did not communicate with us
- A trip attempt is not assault
- It, therefore, responded with disproportionate force and "attacked us first"


I disagreed. Due to the nih ridiculous penalties for being prone, I see trip attempts as extreme assaults on the safety of NPCs and PCs. Also, since they stole from it, and since it does not have mortal sensibilities, and since it believed itself far more powerful than the PCs, that it felt no obligation to parle with them.

My response was to chastise them in-game, but reward them with loot and XP. Consequences would be levied in the lack of that NPCs contribution to stopping a BBEG lurking in the shadows beyond view.

Suffice to say, my session went into thermonuclear melt down. Monk-paladin yelled quite a bit and accused me of being very much unintelligent.

Lamentably, it ended with people stomping off cursing.

My question to you, dear readers, is what DMing policy could I have employed to provide an enjoyable game for such an individual?

Perhaps I just feel the need to talk about this, because I am rather saddened to see something I invested work into crumble -- and for a friend I was on good terms with to now think very much less of me in terms of a GM at the very least.

Well. Thats it. I hope you enjoyed my train-wreck story.

 

[DragonLancer]

The cleric and totemist had opted for Vow of Poverty. At the time I probably did not appreciate the potency of the combination.

Vow of Poverty is broken. Live and learn. Never allow this feat.

I asked the monk-paladin whether following orders from the city council was lawful. He replied that it did not matter. I asked whether abandoning the refugees was considered heroic or good. He decided he would storm the city and allow the refugees entry by force. I asked whether that was wise.

I had a similar situation a few years back when I ran Shackled City. Sometimes players just get it into their heads that because they are the player characters, that they are above the law and can do what they want.

I discussed it with them and it was suggested I not second-guess party decisions so much and instead find a way to work with them. Fine. Okay.

It's your job to second guess them. It's part of being a DM. If you don't second guess how can you add plot elements that are relevant to them or your plot?

The monk-paladin took great exception to this. They saw nothing wrong with their actions. I disagreed based on the fact they had stolen its scroll, and initiated combat with it during their first meeting.

The monk-paladin contended that:

- I am a PC and I should be able to kill "gay constructs" without any qualms
- It did not communicate with us
- A trip attempt is not assault
- It, therefore, responded with disproportionate force and "attacked us first"

1. If this was my game, this player would not be returning to the table next session. Simple as. That attitude (and not just the "gay construct" comment) is not good playing. Se my above comment about players seeing themselves as better than they are. He may be one of the heroes but there are always bigger fish out there.

2. To be fair, it is an intelligent creature and could have. They may be beings of dedicated Law but a better way of handling the situation could have been to have it ask for the scroll first and then see whether violence was nessecary. Maybe these individuals could have track down the target of the contract?

3. A trip is an aggressive action if not an attack. If someone did that to you or I out of the blue, we'd certainly see it as such.

4. No, they did. A clever party might have cast divinations and/or followed the individual to learn what was going on.

Suffice to say, my session went into thermonuclear melt down. Monk-paladin yelled quite a bit and accused me of being very much unintelligent.

Lamentably, it ended with people stomping off cursing.

My question to you, dear readers, is what DMing policy could I have employed to provide an enjoyable game for such an individual?

Perhaps I just feel the need to talk about this, because I am rather saddened to see something I invested work into crumble -- and for a friend I was on good terms with to now think very much less of me in terms of a GM at the very least.

I think, by sounds of it, you have quite a good game there. I think your players, or at least one of them, needs to re-evaluate their attitudes and ways of problem solving. I'd get them together away from the game, get some coffee and something to eat, and talk it over. Find out what they expect from the game and explain what you want to get out of it. Find a common ground.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Well. Thats it. I hope you enjoyed my train-wreck story.

I did enjoy it, actually. It seems to me like you did fine. The problem isn't with the game; it's with the players.

You said you hadn't DM'ed in years. Have you DM'ed the player of the Monk/Paladin before? It sounds like his style doesn't mesh with yours. Also, his arguing how NPC's and Monsters should act and what those actions constitute is fine up to a point, in my opinion. However, if he doesn't admit that it is ultimately the DM's call, not his, he will never be pleasant to game with.

If he doesn't want to play in your world, he can go run his own.

I'd get them together away from the game, get some coffee and something to eat, and talk it over. Find out what they expect from the game and explain what you want to get out of it. Find a common ground.

This is good advice. One option should be continuing without the Monk/Paladin.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

The monk-paladin contended that:

- I am a PC and I should be able to kill "gay constructs" without any qualms
- It did not communicate with us
- A trip attempt is not assault
- It, therefore, responded with disproportionate force and "attacked us first"

1) As a PC, you can attempt anyything you want to. The world will react to your attempt in plausible and understandable ways based on what you are, what you do, where you are, and who else is involved. Blowing up a cathedral will have repercussions. Stealing items of power will have repercussions. Killing divine agents will have repercussions.

2) Yes, it did. It asked previously for the scroll to be returned even augmenting its "requests" with magical compulsions in an attempt to end this situation without further violence. Once that failed, it escalated to violence.

3) Trip is most definitely an assault, heck it's even battery.

4) Attempting to recover visible stolen property from the robbers who took it with violence from you is not "attacking first".

I probably would have had the inevitable identify itself and warn of dire divine consequence unless the stolen property was returned at the first meeting after the theft.

 

[Wik]

Hate to be the dissenting voice, but your story often felt like you were trying to force the PCs into specific actions... and often, when that happens, a significant minority of players will do anything to "get off the rails" - this includes attacking obviously non-enemy NPCs.

Remember that the PCs only see what's in front of them, and not your grand plot. So, they see a golem pretending to be one of their old friends, with an assassination order on it. It tries to blast them with a death ray. Sounds to me like it's time to kill some NPCs.

Finally, notice the part where you said you tried to avoid a TPK? Don't do that. Instead, let the TPK happen. Generally, TPKs are pretty difficult - one or two PCs will die, absolutely, but it takes a LOT for the entire party to bite it unless the group absolutely refuses to run. The problem is, once you get into the "I must protect the PCs" mode of thinking, it's hard to break out of it. Because who are you to decide which encounters are worthy of plot protection?

Essentially, trying to prevent TPKs is preventing players from making choices - because they don't even have the option to die based on their choices.

I hate to use the "r" word here, but I find it kind of ironic that you described your problem as a "train wreck". My advice to you would be to take your campaign a bit off the rails, and see if that fixes your problem players. Sounds to me like it just might.

 

[Nagol]

I do agree that at my table the Monk/Paladin would probably have died storming the city early on.

I tend not to second-guess the PCs as the DM (nearby NPCs will react as their personalities allow), but to have the universe respond to their actions.

 

[Az005]

[MENTION=40177]Wik[/MENTION]

I think dissent may be more enlightening. Of course I appreciate Dragonlancer's and Nagol's replies as well -- who doesn't like feeling their position reinforced?

They did cite the inevitable's usage of Disguise Self to impersonate others as a contributing factor to their identification of it as an enemy -- although I find this a wee bit much. Monk-Paladin went to the point of calling it "identity theft". I wonder how its viewed when PCs do it, should it have the evil descriptor? Hehe.

One thing I did notice in your view was that you assumed it was an 'assassination contract' which it was not. I know inevitables often serve that function, but in this case that was not its mission. This information was given to the PCs prior to the encounter -- though they later minced how it was not 'disseminated' from the Wizard.

I tend to make the assumption that when I'm doing plot exposition, that the receiving party member relates it to the other PCs unless he makes an explicit statement to withhold information...

I'll admit I had rails. In a deterministic universe there are many rails. I figure I just add lots of train interchanges, and it won't be boring. What I find difficult, is that sometimes any impedance of the party on those rails which was morally complex or diplomatically complex, was vehemently rejected and cited as railroading, unfair, offensive...

Let them go off the rails, guards attack, find post justification to declare themselves morally sound...find even stronger forces against them, lose divine powers... That route only leads to me getting yelled at more.

 

[Nagol]

That suggests there is a disconnect between what all the parties want from a game.

Some like intricate plotting, moral ambiguity, and investigations.

Others want to be pointed at a threat, kick in some doors, and have some fun scraps.

Both can be great fun. They're only a problem when the agendas of the whole group are at odds.

 

[Treebore]

In my game that Monk Paladin would no longer be receiving any divine powers hat so ever. I would railroad him into atonement or becoming something else, consequences of your actions tend to RR people like this all the time.


So I would put him on the train and take him on the ride they demanded, whether they want to accept the consequences or not.

The player always has the option to leave my table, and I would not be upset if they chose that option in a situation like this.

You are the DM, and even in 3E you still clearly get to decide what the consequences are. For anyone to say "It should have done x or y!" only shows an ignorance of how life is unpredictable, and a DM is fully justified to have their NPC's and monster react in completely unpredictable ways.

 

[Beginning of the End]

My question to you, dear readers, is what DMing policy could I have employed to provide an enjoyable game for such an individual?

(1) Using "gay" as a slur is completely inexcusable and would get that guy's ass booted to the corner.

(2) Don't design or run railroads.

The PCs have done some things you, as the GM, think are stupid. That's OK. It sounds like there are some ridiculously awesome consequences that could flow from those decisions. Rather than arguing with the players in an effort to convince them that they should do something else (or should have done something else) the best option, IMO, is to simply pursue those consequences.