Pathfinder 1E Looking for the outsiders' view

[N'raac]

Thinking on my "in a perfect world", it would have been reasonable role playing for the Wizard to dig in his heels and state that he categorically will not participate in these "tests" demanded of him, so either get on with the matter at hand or seek assistance from someone more willing to jump through your hoops - a trained dog, perhaps.

If the other players want to persuade him to go along with the requests, then let them do so in character. One group of powerful people with, I assume, considerable political influence seems to be standing beside the Wizard - what will his fellow PC's offer for his assistance? Is the Wizard going to walk away from that power base, or will he go along with party consensus to retain his alliance with this powerful group, and their political connections?

Similar for the GM - will (can) this fellow offer a different reward, forego these tests, arrange a meeting with the higher ups, etc., in order to secure the desired assistance, or is he willing (or forced) to let them walk away, secure in his belief he can obtain assistance from some alternative source? He seems to be played as secure in the belief the PC's will provide their assistance for what he offers, but what happens when that belief is shaken, especially given the urgency that seems to be attached to getting that assistance in place for the coming evening?

Turning this from an in-game issue to an out of game issue is where the real fault, on both player and GM, lies. I've looked across the table at a GM in the past and stated that the premise set by the scenario is, in my view, perfectly reasonable, but my character's personality dictates that he would not participate given that premise. So if he (and I) have to sit this one out, so be it. The GM's solution was a pretty minor addendum to the premise which accommodated my character's morals and beliefs so that he would participate, which was role played in game. But we were both able to take the issue as an in game concern - perhaps if the GM does not understand my character's morals and ethics, the blame for that rests with me, the player, and I should explain to him out of game and out of character so he can take this into account as he sees fit.

If the premise had not changed an my character did not participate, so be it - I had enough faith in the GM to expect I'd have something to do as a player, even if my character was cooling his heels. But he would also work to persuade other characters of his viewpoint, so there could possibly have been a larger group unwilling to participate (probably mandating bring in some outside forces), or we could have walked away as a group. While it might be possible to persuade the Wizard to go along because his friends do, it is also possible his friends would be persuaded by his viewpoint. I'm a big fan of the character being played in character, so I'm probably more militant than some in this regard, but I can envision a player not enjoying the game if the only way he can participate is to significantly compromise his vision of his character.

Like some others, I don't care what "the module says". Sometimes, what modules say is unmitigated crap, and it is the GM's job to modify the module accordingly, or select a module which is better written and/or a better fit.

There's a broader issue here, to me. I've seen a lot of games where the GM decides to change the basic world assumptions (in this case, a decimated population with the PC's at or near the top, and familiar with the other powerful players), but then writes or uses adventures written under the base assumptions of a typical milieu in that game. Departing from the typical world assumptions requires a lot more customization of modules and similar items so they fit with the revised in-game realities. No such modification was done here, so the adventure doesn't mesh well with the world.

 

[moxcamel]

Seems to me like every player in the room except the wizard was on board with the adventure, so I just wonder if this conflict is more of a symptom of larger issues. Do the DM and player not like each other? Does the wizard player somehow feel jilted either personally or because of something that happened in-play earlier? Is the DM intentionally goading the player? What's *really* going on? I've had conflicts in my game similar to this (the "this wouldn't motivate my character" variety), but never to the point where tempers were raised. Sometimes I (the DM) conceded and figured something out on the spot, sometimes the player offered up a suggestion we both agreed on, and sometimes we just decided screw it, let's just move on. Because while the hook is important, it's not the whole enchilada. D&D is a cooperative game, and sometimes the needs of the many blah blah.

Ultimately, everyone's there to have fun. If somebody's not having fun, then the core reason needs to be addressed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If this were my PC (and I assume we are talking 8+ level here) and I would be very mad at what appears to be a deus ex machine elmunchkin style NPC...

If I don't care about money or what ever hooks are I may tag along with my friends, or I might start openinly planning the NPCs humiliation or death...

 

[jasper]

Rule 0. This is a game, that is the ultimate hook for your pc.
Rule 0.5. Hooks sometimes don't work will all players/pcs/dms. Work with and get along. If not, Angry Andy the Great Adventurer will be drinking beer at the bar the rest of night.
Module rule 0. Some things may need to be secret even if Thor the All know is the pc. Ask the player does he want to play tonight.

 

[Derren]

Assuming there is no personal conflict behind the table the player was in the right. He role played his character rather reasonably from the description you gave and the DM was not prepared for it as he seemes to expect a straight railroad with no questions asked, aka bad DMing.

 

[Umbran]

Module rule 0. Some things may need to be secret even if Thor the All know is the pc. Ask the player does he want to play tonight.

Odin is the All-seeing. Thor is usually not all that bright.

The fact that it is in a module does not mean we should always accept it. "Module" does not equal "sacred" or "inviolate" or even "well written". In D&D, characters have access to lots of information, and your module needs to take that into account in a reasonable manner, instead of just saying, "No!" There are times and places where the characters can be completely stymied, but that itself is a plot point - the fact that they are mysterious is a major thing, and may be something the PCs want to walk away from, just as they may want to walk away from the huge ancient red dragon...

And PCs should be allowed and expected to react as the fictional characters they are, and to act intelligently (if they have a decent Int score, at least). "I need you to be stupid or play against character to make the session go," is a sentence that admits to some GM failures.

 

[jasper]

Odin is the All-seeing. Thor is usually not all that bright.

The fact that it is in a module does not mean we should always accept it. "Module" does not equal "sacred" or "inviolate" or even "well written". ..

And if the player things he is Odin; why the DM has secret information from the module which makes the pc Thor? The group has decided to play the module. Cut the DM some slack because we all here to game. Bluntly.. Please play stupid in this scene because I don't to waste 1 hour of game time to come up with a great hook for your special snowflake.
Or all board for the adventure train tonight. Sorry Umbran is being a pill tonight, his pc is staying at the station. And Umbran is making the pizza and beer run.

 

[fagura]

Seems to me like every player in the room except the wizard was on board with the adventure, so I just wonder if this conflict is more of a symptom of larger issues. Do the DM and player not like each other? Does the wizard player somehow feel jilted either personally or because of something that happened in-play earlier? Is the DM intentionally goading the player? What's *really* going on? I've had conflicts in my game similar to this (the "this wouldn't motivate my character" variety), but never to the point where tempers were raised. Sometimes I (the DM) conceded and figured something out on the spot, sometimes the player offered up a suggestion we both agreed on, and sometimes we just decided screw it, let's just move on. Because while the hook is important, it's not the whole enchilada. D&D is a cooperative game, and sometimes the needs of the many blah blah.

Ultimately, everyone's there to have fun. If somebody's not having fun, then the core reason needs to be addressed.

There is absolutely nothing else behind this. These guys are very good friends, perhaps both slightly strong-minded. Today, we went out to drink beers all together and agreed to roll it back and give it another try.
The view that all play should be within character is very cool. I really doubt we could pull it off though. I guess it requires pretty good role playing and discipline but most of all the habit of doing it. As a group, we more or less lack all 3

 

[Umbran]

And if the player things he is Odin; why the DM has secret information from the module which makes the pc Thor?

I'm sorry, but your grammar makes this difficult to parse.

By the OP, the PC has good reason for expectation that he should know quite a bit. The GM should justify breaking from those expectations.

The group has decided to play the module.

Apparently not, which is kind of the problem. The GM does not seem to have gotten everyone to buy in well.

Cut the DM some slack because we all here to game.

We lack the full context - it may be the player's being difficult, but it can as easily be that the player's been cutting slack for quite a while, and it is time perhaps we cut the player some slack. Lacking the full context, we can only judge on first principles - what the GM and player each should be doing in general. And the GM seems to be lacking here a bit. That's not a major call of judgement against the GM, or something. It was a slipup. They happen. Fix it and move on.

Bluntly.. Please play stupid in this scene because I don't to waste 1 hour of game time to come up with a great hook for your special snowflake.

To me, most of the issues the player raised are pretty darned basic, not "special snowflake" stuff. And the player did suggest alternates, which the GM rejected for unknown reasons - it isn't like the player's not trying to negotiate or cooperate.

 

[N'raac]

Odin is the All-seeing. Thor is usually not all that bright.

ON TOPIC: Umbran's comments are dead on and well stated. It's also good to hear the group worked out a mature solution.

OFF TOPIC GAME MEMORY: I can't remember why our characters were entering the dungeon to undergo the "Tests of Thor". I do recall the group faced, first off, with a room full of weapons. Someone picked out a war hammer and held it up, resulting in a booming voice stating "THOU HAST PASSED THE FIRST TEST OF THOR!" and a secret door opening.

To which my response (in character - low WIS character...) was "Well, Thor never was the brightest of deities..."

To which another player responded that "NAME never was the brightest of DM's".

That I don't recall a TPK, and the character lived a long and successful career, I attribute to a GM (and Thor) taking matters with a decent sense of humour...