My poor, unfortunate players...

[Hardhead]

Would you expect that DM to then come online, crow about how stupid you are, and punish you later in the campaign?

I'd certainly expect to be made fun of. But my group is pretty bad about that. We make fun of each other all the time, so that may be group specific.

As for punishment later? Definitly, if it made sense in the context of how I'd screwed up. If I'd released an evil on the world (as this player did), I'd expect it to come back to haunt me.

Would you expect him to encourage other players to roast your familiar or otherwise plot against you for putting your hand in the cubby hole? no.

No, but for releasing a horrible evil on the world, yeah, I'd kind of expect it. Hell, we've done it before in my group. We had a player. You know the type, always a trouble maker. If an NPC said, "This is how you save the world," he'd specifically not do it, just to blow up the world.

However, via other characters getting mad at him, we were able to teach him a bit of a lesson. Shame can be a powerful motivator. The DM cannot control how his players react to the player that screwed up. That's their call. If they want to play being pissed off at that player, that's their decision, and they probably have a reason for doing that, both in and out of game.

The consequence is: The characters go to some other plane, where life will be difficult for them.

The consequence should not ever be "the DM takes pains to make the game less fun for me".

Personally, I think he was a bit easy on them. It's like an adventure where you get a great boon from an NPC for going on an adventure. Well, you were going to be going on an adveture anyway, so what's the big deal? Putting you on another plane, where you'll have more adventures, is barely a punishment at all.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'd certainly expect to be made fun of. But my group is pretty bad about that. We make fun of each other all the time, so that may be group specific.

A little mocking is to be expected, and nothing bad. As long as it is good-natured. As long as everything the player says isn't answered with "at least WE don't screw up and are idiots" or something like that.

As for punishment later? Definitly, if it made sense in the context of how I'd screwed up. If I'd released an evil on the world (as this player did), I'd expect it to come back to haunt me.

But I wouldn't expect my friends to get nasty at me.

No, but for releasing a horrible evil on the world, yeah, I'd kind of expect it. Hell, we've done it before in my group. We had a player. You know the type, always a trouble maker. If an NPC said, "This is how you save the world," he'd specifically not do it, just to blow up the world.

Doesn't seem to be the case here. The way it sounds it isn't a continuous thing and she didn't want to to ruin the fun for everyone.

However, via other characters getting mad at him, we were able to teach him a bit of a lesson. Shame can be a powerful motivator. The DM cannot control how his players react to the player that screwed up. That's their call. If they want to play being pissed off at that player, that's their decision, and they probably have a reason for doing that, both in and out of game.

Again, we aren't speaking about a notorious troublemaker. And depend on the DM being able to control how his players react to a player that screwed up once. If it happend while I was wearing the Hat, and other people started getting nasty, I'd had a word with them. And if they insisted to keep on being nasty, I'd boot them for disruptive behavior.

Personally, I think he was a bit easy on them.

Well, I think the 100 (or 200) XP per level the sorc will lose when her familiar dies - and the grief she'll have of it being dead as well as the knowledge that it was those people she thought of as friends, who did it in cold blood, will be quite enough punishment.

 

[BSF]

Wow. It's been interesting reading, that's for sure.

OK, I can see where some of MerricB's language might seem adversarial toward the player, but then again, I don't really know him. Nor can I actually hear what he is saying, or relate it to body language. Based on the history of his posts, he doesn't come across as somebody that routinely screws the players, has a personality conflict with a player, or even really tries to punish a player.

I'll go with history on this one.

I see a few people concerned about conflict between players. That is a legitimate concern. But, I am in no position to really judge. I'll wait to see if merricB has a followup post of "My players hate one other player and it is disrupting our game/fun." If that doesn't happen, I will assume it is under control. Otherwise, why shouldn't the other players be annoyed that they were so close to success and then had it robbed from them by their own team?

It seems like a few people are forgetting that the point of the adventure was not to kill the BBEG. It is to destroy the evil artifact. To destroy the evil artifact, you must follow a pretty specific set of guidelines. In this case, the conditions specified that the person wearing the crown must deliver the killing blow/spell. The PC's seem to have known that. The players were reminded at the beginning of the session. The Sorceror took a calculated risk that a magic missile wouldn't kill the BBEG, and thus eliminated the party's chance to destroy the artifact.

Destroying artifacts is notably difficult. In this case, it was relatively easy. The player got carried away and blew it. Yes, I suppose merricB could handwave the consequences away, but that is not the type of game I would want to play in or to run. I woudn't have fun playing a game like that. In this case, the error of one party member has far reaching affects. The whole party will "suffer" as will the people affected by the new, improved, BBEG. It is an interesting conundrum for the PC's to deal with. But, it just escalated their problems. It is possible for the players to interpret this as "punishment", except they were aware that it would not be good if the artifact was not destroyed. It is possible for 3rd party observers to interpret this as "punishment", but none of us is in a postion to realy judge that.

Overall, I think merricB did a good job running the scenario. Sure, he adhered to the stated way to destroy the artifact and some people might think he was too rigid in this regard, but I don't agree. While his language might sound derogatory to you, it doesn't sound like he really has a problem with his players. But, he is stating that they did not achieve the goal of destroying the artifact. Now, it sounds like his game is going to be a little more interesting, a little darker, because of the actions of the PC's. When the PC's win, the world is brighter and happier. When the PC's "lose", the world might get darker. It sounds like the Players were really pulling for a win and the actions of one player/PC is what robbed them of that chance.

Poor PC's indeed. But, it is part of the game.

 

[MerricB]

How do you know we're not talking about a notorious troublemaker, KaeYoss? You don't. If you want to keep making these assumptions, please do so elsewhere. There has been a growing friction between that character and the other PCs.

I have not encouraged the death of the familiar. It was something thought up by the other players; I have not acted on it, nor am I likely to. Indeed, the campaign is taking a short break so that I can get some playing time in - and the DM is that player who played the sorceress. (And I did my scanning of certain rules from UA to help the player DM us better, as the DM won't have access to a copy of UA).

Frankly, I think the days of the sorceress PC are numbered. When added to other actions during the campaign, I don't see the PC being viable for much longer. Why would the paladin work with her any more is a valid question, for she acted in an evil manner by releasing the necromancer despite her knowledge of what would happen.

This is a separate matter from how her player interacts with the group, which is normally in an excellent manner. The sorceress has been entertaining to watch, but...

That I'll be making things tough for the sorceress is just asserting the verisimilitude of the game world. She has acted in a foolish manner, hurting many of the NPCs in the world. They won't be unaware of her actions, and as a result these powerful NPCs will be unhappy with her.

If it makes things untenable for the sorceress to be continued as a PC, then that's just something that will happen. If your PC killed the wife of the Emperor of the Known Universe, who was loved dearly by the Emperor, would you expect that no-one would come after you?

Good play by the sorceress' player may mitigate what happens, and I am not a DM who ignores good play.

Cheers!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

How do you know we're not talking about a notorious troublemaker, KaeYoss? You don't.

I haven't read anything like: "The sorceress screwed up, and it wasn't the first time. I'm one of those sunny boys that thinks the best of someone until it is stated otherwise.

If you want to keep making these assumptions, please do so elsewhere.

Make me.

There has been a growing friction between that character and the other PCs.

You say that now. It has never entered the conversation before. All that there is until this point is: "she screwed up, I hope the other players make her live hell on earth".

If you want to discuss things properly, and not people make ridiculous assumptions like the players aren't out to ruin the game for everyone else (we all know that every player does that, so of course we think this is the case until someone says "Hey, but this guy is special in that he doesn't want to kill my campaign"), you have to give us the facts.
If you don't want to give us the facts, be prepared that people assume the normal whenever there isn't anything written down that lets us think otherwise
If you just want us to agree to you and say "Damn, that (dog of the female persuasion) wants to kill your game. We hope that the other players will bully here from coast to coast, too. Ha ha, how droll: They want to kill her familiar. Keep up that bullying. Nevermind there's a paladin in the party who would, under normal circumstances, be declared fallen twice over for not puttin his foot down right then. Never let get good roleplaying get in the way of a good hate!" You can go and pay someone to give your ego a polish. I can't speak for the others, but I won't support player bullying in any circumstance. Even if it is a problem player, you can do things like grown-ups, meaning talking to the player in person, or if push comes to shove, to throw him out of party. You don't bully people out of groups. Period

I have not encouraged the death of the familiar. It was something thought up by the other players; I have not acted on it, nor am I likely to.

But neither have you talked to the players about it. You know, telling them to behave properly, and maybe telling them (as you have done before) clearly what happens (to their alignment) if they kill someone out of spite.

Indeed, the campaign is taking a short break so that I can get some playing time in - and the DM is that player who played the sorceress. (And I did my scanning of certain rules from UA to help the player DM us better, as the DM won't have access to a copy of UA).

I would say "I hope she pays you all back for wanting to kill her familiar", but that would be a nasty thing to do, and it's beneath me.

Why would the paladin work with her any more is a valid question, for she acted in an evil manner by releasing the necromancer despite her knowledge of what would happen.

Except, of course, that she said herself that it wasn't her intention. She wanted to help. She didn't think it would kill him. And so it wasn't an evil act. Unless, of course, the paladin has reason to doubt her sincerity.

This is a separate matter from how her player interacts with the group, which is normally in an excellent manner. The sorceress has been entertaining to watch, but...

I think that will change. If the other players take that fault personally, and start doing thigns like killing the sorc's familiar, the player's opionion of the other players will likely suffer from it.

And have you tried talking to the player? Does he know that the party has problems? Well, now he knows, he has to guard his familiar all the time, but before that?

That I'll be making things tough for the sorceress is just asserting the verisimilitude of the game world. She has acted in a foolish manner, hurting many of the NPCs in the world. They won't be unaware of her actions, and as a result these powerful NPCs will be unhappy with her.

As long as this will remain in-game, and not be ported out of game, with the player sitting seperate from all because noone can stand him anymore, that's fine.
And don't forget that these NPC's, or at least the lawful and the good of them, should not only see the deed, but also the intention behind it. They might be unhappy with her, but those who will be out to get her without knowing the why of the actions should not be the lawful or good ones, or otherwise your just rationalizing a "code red".

If it makes things untenable for the sorceress to be continued as a PC, then that's just something that will happen. If your PC killed the wife of the Emperor of the Known Universe, who was loved dearly by the Emperor, would you expect that no-one would come after you?

I'd expect the Emperor to send people to get me. If he's a good emperor, they might very well be sent out to arrest me, so I might be properly interrogated. If he's an evil one, he'll just unleash his bloodhounds.

Good play by the sorceress' player may mitigate what happens, and I am not a DM who ignores good play.

You seem to ignore bad play, though. Or else you would have talked to the player before, and if said player is really that unbearable, have asked him to leave the party - at least until he changes his attitude. You wouldn't turn a blind eye on freakin lynch law within the party.

 

[Beard in the Sky]

What an amazingly long thread about something so small. Merric, if I were you I think I would just let all of these people who don't know you just be upset... as soon as you turn off your monitor, they have a tendency to go away.

 

[Saeviomagy]

What an amazingly long thread about something so small.

I really am still trying to work out exactly what the original post's point WAS.

 

[Olive]

Remind me not to post ammusing anecdotes about my campaign on these boards for a week or so. It seems people have some issues.

Merric, if you have an artfefact, tell the PCs in player how to destroy it and one of them ignores it and does something the PC knows is going to be a disaster and then you change things to elt the party live then it sounds like you were pretty nice to them to me. considering the previous 2 TPKs you mentioned, being nice seems like the right thing to do.

I'm not sure why people are reacting so badly to a simple expression of exasperation, or why they are getting so hot under the collar about percieved slights to your friends that they don't know. But I really do think that if people are going to say 'you keen saying "kill the familiar" and "make her life hell on earth"' then they should probably quote. Cos I don't think that reporting feelings (other PCs wouldn't mind if the familiar was dead) is the same as gloating (I hope they do kill her familiar). And they way I read it it was reportage not gloating. I do udnerstand some people's concerns (favouring one particular player etc) but youve clearly explained how that was a misunderstanding (it was the crown at issue not the particular character).

I'm also not sure how giving an adventure with a goal and a consequence if that goal is not met is railroading. Did you force them to go for that goal? No? then it's not a railrod, it's an adventure freely taken within certain contraints. Nothing more. And to be honest, it sounds like a good one. I might check out the link that Diagalo provided.

 

[Gez]

Except, of course, that she said herself that it wasn't her intention. She wanted to help. She didn't think it would kill him. And so it wasn't an evil act. Unless, of course, the paladin has reason to doubt her sincerity.

Actions dictate alignements in D&D. Thought or ignorance is not an excuse. She took an unnecessary risk to hog the spotlight a bit, and that proved fatal to the party as a whole.

 

[Tessarael]

[..] There has been a growing friction between that character and the other PCs.

[..]

Frankly, I think the days of the sorceress PC are numbered. [..] Why would the paladin work with her any more is a valid question, for she acted in an evil manner by releasing the necromancer despite her knowledge of what would happen.

[..]

I've experienced a couple of major inter-PC conflicts that became inter-player conflicts as a result of people getting emotional. If someone is making mistakes, or messing up the storyline, how about you guys all sit down and discuss it?

I'm leaning towards agreeing with Kaeyoss. On simple face value, the Sorceress PC made a big mistake, and it _wasn't intentional_.

I've played with players who could sometimes be foolish and mess things up. It can be annoying. At other times they are great roleplayers.

There are two ways to deal with this in a friendly way:

(a) accept that mistakes are made, and that there are game world consequences (though I see no reason why there should be inter-PC acrimony, unless it was intentionally done by the Sorceress)

(b) give some leeway for other players to give advice, yell "no" and so forth. Gee, if my PC saw your PC casting an offensive spell that would kill the bad guy ...

Evil implies intent to me. Sometimes one just makes mistakes, forgets, is otherwise occupied, etc. Talk it through, find out what really happened - I can easily imagine such mistakes happening simply because someone didn't hear or forgot the DM advice. I've seen it happen.

Just my thoughts ...