Pathfinder 1E Looking for the outsiders' view

[fagura]

Today, there was a major disagreement regarding an in-game issue (that nevertheless expands in out-of-game territory and perhaps a big discussion on the GM-player relationship and way to handle conflicts) between 2 of my friends, so here I am looking for an outsiders' view of the situation.

A few details, for a background to the conflict: We are playing a custom Forgotten Realms based setting - there has been a major destruction and only 1% of the population survived). Today, we began playing a new module (lvl 13). One of my friends would play a wizard. This wizard had also participated in our last module, which was a customized / lowered version of Paladin in Hell. At the end of Paladin in Hell, the party saved the world from total destruction. We discussed what had roughly happened the next 50 years. And then we decided playing this new module.
The truth is we never decided in detail how strong the survivors would be (how many adventurers, what lvl etc), although we all agreed that the characters that finished Paladin in Hell would be rather among the strong ones. We also never agreed how famous these characters would be, although we said they would be among the rather famous personalities.
The theme of the new module was about a person needing help (preemptive attack to protect 1 person's life). Our characters were approached by a well-known order (to which this person had ties). They were asked to help and agreed, each for his own reasons. They took the quest and went to meet the person. That person had them pass a rather simple 'test' to prove their worth. They passed. He gave them details about the preemptive attack. They left his place... CONFLICT

Anyway,to the conflict: when we began with the character hooks, the player with the wizard looked dissatisfied with the way his character was hooked. The reason was his character was really wealthy (so he did not want money which was the first generic hook for the module). He suggested an alternative hook (he wanted fame, so he asked that the order would propose to the authorities that a statue to honor the adventurers that had saved the world should be constructed). This was not accepted by the GM. He said that the wizard would meet the leader of the order the next day to discuss the matter in detail, but nevertheless he had to go to the person needing help now, as this matter was pressing. The wizard reluctantly agreed. At the meeting, the wizard was insulted by the simplicity of the test (he had to verify whether 4 magic items were fake or not, which was in essence a Detect Magic - Spellcraft check with a very low DC). He role-played the situation by saying "You summon one of the saviors of the world to help you and you want him to prove his worth in a first grade test? I am not a little boy. I have matters to attend to. Please tell us why we are really here". The person in need of help (who was very heavily warded magic-wise) at first explained "You are here to help. When you help someone, you help him the way he needs to, this is part of it". The wizard reluctantly took a look at the first item, revealing within a few seconds that it is a fake and its true properties and then said, still rather annoyed (the player as well i believe). "Ok, enough of this, what is next? a couple of goblins? why are we here?". Then, the person in need of help began talking rather aggressively to the wizard, saying "Who do you think you are, talking to me like this" and generally had an attitude "you don't want to help, get out" approach. The wizard started examining him to see if he was mighty enough to cause him trouble. He asked the GM what he could get without casting (Detect Magic to see what spells were already in effect on him) and the GM was vague (probably he was not prepared for this), saying he had many auras and spells cast on him, some of them up to 9th circle spells. The wizard asked what spells and the GM said "let's not focus on that, you pick, he has a variety of transmutation spells". Anyway, the wizard-player very reluctantly explained why the other items were fake. Then the help-needer provided all the details we were looking for, but said that the preemptive attack had to happen that night. It was then that the wizard 'exploded', as he realized that he would have to finish the adventure before speaking to the leader of the order about his reward.

At the conflict that followed, the arguments on both sides were the following:
Wizard -
1. it is your job to hook my character properly, my wizard is not interested in money or alliances but fame and political influence he would not do anything before agreeing for a reward,
2. it is insulting for a well-known character especially a wizard with a big ego to undergo such novice tests especially when his aid is asked for,
3. who is this guy with the 9th circle spells? He is a major personality in a city, we are supposed to have met all notable surviving personalities in the world, how come my wizard has never seen or heard of a character with access to 9th lvl spells

GM -
1. i gave a variety of hook options: money and a potential alliance with a big order and a strong character. if your character is so selective on hooks, it is not my fault, he is not suitable for this module
2. this is what the module author has written
3. this is how it is. I am not going to reveal anything to you about this guy

To sum up, I am looking for an overall assessment of the situation, but also an opinion on how far should a Gm go to hook his players and how he should have handled the situation if he did not (the same goes for the player) and how you think we might be able to resolve this now to resume playing.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IME, a DM needs to hook PCs before the campaign starts. Furthermore, all of the PCs should go with the same long-term hook. Session 0 is the most important session.

If all but one of the PCs like the hook, perhaps a PC who doesn't like the hook should play a new character who would accept the hook. (I had to toss a player from my game over a similar situation recently, though that was just one of the reasons.)

It looks like the PCs were not given long-term hooks previously, requiring the DM to come up with new separate hooks which didn't really make sense for the campaign. It also looks like the player doesn't like the campaign, and so can't be made to accept the hook. Said player should seriously consider not attending.

 

[Keldin]

While it's part of the DM's job to provide the hooks to draw the characters in, it's part of the player's job to, well, not be an ass about things. If the character is not flexible enough to accept the hooks, then another character should be used. If the PLAYER is not flexible enough to either accept a hook or switch character, the most likely case is that he shouldn't be in the game at all. Everyone is there to have fun -- including the DM. It sounds to me like the player is ruining everyone else's good time, and cutting your losses might be the best thing to do.

 

[The Human Target]

Like most arguments, its seems two sided.

The DM was being a bit obtuse or rail roady, and the player was being stubborn and inflexible.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm really not sure what to say on this, but this is a starring reason why I don't run pre-written modules, and why I often dislike playing in them.

First: When your DM feels it's the player's job to bite his hooks, and not his job to make the hooks look appetizing, we have a very adversarial problem. If it were an issue of "we're playing an evil campaign so having good-aligned goals is probably a bad idea" I would side with the DM and suggest Mr Wizard should reroll someone who might be more interested in eating babies and burning bunnies. But this isn't that case. It's a case where the module provides a select set of rewards, which of course favor characters who want those rewards, but provides no suitable reason why there can't be other rewards beyond "well the module doesn't say so!" which is a pretty pathetic cop-out by the DM.

DMing is like fishing, it requires patience and the ability to think on the fly. Catching fish, and players, is not about simply casting a line out and waiting for the fish to bite. It's about making the fish want to bite, and different types of fish require different types of lures, hooks, and bait. If you're only casting one hook, you'll only catch one fish, or maybe none at all.

Second: I don't like "mysterious god characters". Plot armor annoys me. The players are listed as some of the most powerful folks to survive the apocalypse, and they've got the whos-who on darn near everyone else. I agree that suddenly running across the ubermensch is going to come across as forced, and when investigating who or what that person is gets handwaived away as "this guy is so powerful, I can't tell you about it of I'd have to kill you." just rubs me wrong. In fact, a number of these elements were present in the game I quit after only an hour.

Thirdly: telling the wizard player that since the gold reward doesn't suit them, but the attack still needs to take place, they're now going to have to do the attack, with no guarantee of a reward when it's over, just a "nice chat with the guy in charge." Who undoubtedly will tell the player "sorry, all we've got to offer is a mountain of gold, can't do anything else for you. And I am not getting the feeling the DM is willing to budge on what will be offered the player.

Frankly: short of this DM being my best friend, or the group being made of my best friends, I'd quit.

 

[Libramarian]

I think as a player when you agree to play through a prepackaged adventure it's your responsibility to recognize where the railroad tracks are and follow them. That's just how it has to be for this style of play to work. Complaining about it is as asinine as calling customer service to complain that you don't like the storyline of a computer RPG. I think it's especially immature to ruin everybody else's fun by starting an argument in the middle of play. If the player wants complete control over the story of their character then they should be writing fiction by themselves instead of playing a game with other people IMO.

 

[steeldragons]

As with most interpersonal conflict, and has already been covered by several responses, the fault lies on both sides.

The GM:
- "This is what the module says" a.k.a. 'MY hands are tied." and/or another way to say "I don't have to explain myself to you" and/or anther way to say "Just do what I'm saying." This is BAD DMing. If you aren't capable of changing/seeing past what's in the module, you shouldn't be sitting in the proverbial "big chair."
- If you are planning ot run a railroad, "just cuz/for fun", then that shoulda been communicated to the players prior to beginning play. It doesn't sound like, in this case, it was,...so again, BAD DMing.
- Not knowing the motivations and having a sense of the objectives of your PCs, particularly when they are recurring characters?! This is POOR DMing. As someone's mentioned, this [also] shoulda been handled BEFORE you began play.
- Not taking into account the games history and the PC's place in the world, i.e.: These are the guys that saved the world and anyone who's anyone KNOWS this and, if not personally acquainted, knows OF them. Some piddley "prove yourself worthy" test, written in the module or not, should have been skipped/ignored. This is POOR DMing.
- Mystery NPCs are some of the best bread and butter a DM gets to play with...but, see above regarding the notoriety of the PCs and their place in the world...the DM is under no compunction to "explain" to a player where/who/how things get done. This isn't the same as the "Just do what I say" above. This is about sitting at a poker table and saying to the other person "Give me your cards." That's a big NUH-UH! You haven't heard of him? Fine. YOu don't know who he is? Fine. This falls in, a bit, to some of the player's fault to be addressed below. The question for the players and PCs are "Why haven't we heard of this guy?! Where'd he come from? Who are his allies? What can we learn about him [in character!]?" Saying "I'm not telling you, the player" That part's all fine and dandy...if the DM had nothing to go on/work from in a game-world context other than "It's what's in the module"...?!?! Again, poor DMing.

For the player:
- There is a degree of...let's say "bending expectations" that is inherent for D&D to function...at all, let alone well. Back in the day, "YOu all meet at a tavern" was a forgone conclusion. There were not arguments as to WHY we were in a tavern or that "my PCs wouldn't be in a tavern"...you just come up with a reason why you would be...cuz you're hungry or thirsty or looking for a job tended to work just fine. Not quite the same situation here, but the same premise. You are agreeing to go on this adventure...with this PC...it's on the DM and the Player to agree on certain things...but if there weren't anything else to go off of..."Because my friends [the OTHER PCs] are going and [since you said he's kinda arrogant], obviously, they will need my expertise/help." That took me all of about 10 seconds. If the player wasn't capable of doing that...say it with me folks!...That's BAD playing.
- The player's attitude while doing the tests, if "in character", is completely justifiable. That's GOOD [role] playing...and from my admittedly cursory familiarity with the PC and the situation, sounds to me like it makes complete sense. If it was the player being pissy...then that's poor playing. It sounds to me like this was probably a combo, so we'll call it a wash.
- Demanding answers from the DM that he is unwilling or, even, incapable of giving you...and not recognizing that sometimes, as the player, you DON'T get all the answers nor are entitled to them...Making a stink because you don't get answers to anything you want...That is poor playing.

As for those suggesting in this thread, that if the player couldn't get what they wanted from the DM, the onus was on the player to change their PC to fit the scenario. I must disagree. I mean, yes, it would have been a quick fix. But the point/basis of the problem is that the DM and PC were not on the same page to begin with...that's the DM's fault, not the player's job to "change your character." If the player had KNOWN and could have chosen, then fine. That doesn't sound like it is the case here.

All in all...and do understand I am coming from a perspective as a DM and a player with more years/time in the DM's chair than playing in recent decades...I see more of the DM at fault here than the player, though certainly there is blame on both sides.

 

[Umbran]

Player -
1. it is your job to hook my character properly, my wizard is not interested in money or alliances but fame and political influence he would not do anything before agreeing for a reward,
2. it is insulting for a well-known character especially a wizard with a big ego to undergo such novice tests especially when his aid is asked for,
3. who is this guy with the 9th circle spells? He is a major personality in a city, we are supposed to have met all notable surviving personalities in the world, how come my wizard has never seen or heard of a character with access to 9th lvl spells

1. Hooking is a mutual responsibility. I note that alliances and political influence are synonymous, if you play them correctly. So, work with your GM on this.
2. The player has a good point here.
3. The player has a good point here.

GM -
1. i gave a variety of hook options: money and a potential alliance with a big order and a strong character. if your character is so selective on hooks, it is not my fault, he is not suitable for this module
2. this is what the module author has written
3. this is how it is. I am not going to reveal anything to you about this guy

1. As above, the hook is a mutual responsibility. Work a bit more with your players on this.
2. So, GM, you edit it to match your party, or you choose a different adventure. You chose to present it, so you can't pass the buck back to the writer. You took responsibility for it when you chose to run it.
3. So, GM, you are setting your players up to distrust the situation. That means they may walk away, unless they *really* want what you're offering. Be prepared for the PCs to call your bluff. Note that the NPC is begging the PC's help here, so his negotiation position is pretty weak.

Given (2), I am willing to hazard a guess that (3) is a problem because the module doesn't give the information. It is probably written with a base assumption that the population is large, so that there are many people the PCs won't know about. The GM is responsible for rewriting to fit his or her setting, and maybe skipped this step. Since there's been so little action, go back, rewrite the start, and try again, I'd say.

 

[fagura]

Thx for all the feedback. I agree with most saying the blame is on both sides.
I do believe hooking characters properly is a big deal and all this would have been avoided if it had been done. IMO, although both have responsibility for the hook, most of it falls on the DM. As a party, we have played several modules in the past with the hooks altered / modified to fit our characters, it wouldnot have been the first time. The player could have gone along I guess or been open to more options. But in case, I believe adaptability is one of the primary traits a DM should demonstrate. If there are specific requirements when an adventure is run (ie rewards are only monetary), they should be communicated to the players in advance.
The truth is the rest of us had realized that the player was frustrated, nevertheless he did not ruin the session, at least not at first. He did ruin it (both him and the DM) when they started arguing for a couple of hours about how this should have been resolved. Although I didn't like that the session was ruined, I believe in the long term we might have earned sth as a group (namely pay more attention to hooking and resolving such issues). Although both had responsibility for this, I believe the player has the main portion of the blame as he was the one that started the argument.
Regarding the tests and the NPC, I am 100% on board with the player. It should have been ignored and modified. I believe the DM was not thoroughly prepared for these contingencies and misjudged the situation and given that we all have jobs and other things to do, I don't really blame him. It could happen to anyone although it should not happen often (which doesn't in his case).
Removing the player or the DM is really not an option for us, we are friends and prefer more collaborating solutions. Disagreements have happened many times in the past, there are always ways to work around them if both parties are willing, which they are, so no problem there. Re-running the entire thing sounds like a very good idea, essentially a big roll-back with new hooks and modifications. The playing changing character is another option, but is on him. Changing adventure is a final option.
The general question that comes out of this IMO though, is the following: The DM role is to facilitate people have fun, agreed. The DM has more 'obligations' though than the players in the sense that he must read the adventure, prepare many monster tactics, prepare for contingencies, battlegrids, keep in mind his players etc. For everyone in my group this is indeed a burden, since we do not have much free time and although we all like DMing, we like playing more (and this is why we are rotating the DM's chair). If there is a fine line after which the DM has so many obligations, that his own fun is ruined, should he decrease his obligations (in essence prepare less - improvise more), accept the obligations as part of his job and require that he changes soon or quit Dming?

 

[ExploderWizard]

1. Hooking is a mutual responsibility.

Thats the way the law treats it around here. Both the John and the professional end up getting arrested.