3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[Nagol]

I don't know the module, and so don't know quite what this entails. I took it to mean that the party were being stealthy/secret in the city.

I guess we have different responses to this, which goes back to the question of "what is offensive to a reasonable person's sensibilities?" I tend to assume that my players will have their PCs steal documents without any moral qualms. Especially when the target of the theft is an immortal who has an effectively unlimited access to such documentary resources.

Or have I misunderstood what this scroll is? It sounded like it was some sort of document/record of the contract governing the inevitable's conduct.

Depends on what the group knows at the time doesn't it?

It didn't sound like the group knew more than "This guy is disguised like someone we know or that someone is acting awfully weird. Let's knock him down, grab what's on his belt and scram!"

Rather than "That's an Inevitable -- a divine construct bent on maintaining the order of the universe! Let's knock it down, grab what's on its belt and scram!"

Both of those offend my sensibilities from a Lawful standpoint. The first less so, as the circumstances could be such that further investigation/remaining at the locale is dangerous and the belt item may be a good place to start an investigation. Performing the same act when a strong reason has been presented for the theft is an entirely different story, of course.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I do feel that pain. I've had groups deliberately disengage from plot hooks to wander the wilderness for many weeks only to return outraged by the radically changed environment. Working out the changes absent player involvement and following through isn't always fun. Dealing with the player outrage is also often not fun.

The World is ALIVE things happen whether the PCs are there or not. I believe you should set a pace, and have time sensitive events as well as windows of opportunity. The BBEG isnt just sitting around he's actually doing stuff, and is going to reach his goal unless the PCs actions or other events slow him down or force him to take a different course of action. As far as hooks/clues/leads I'll agree with TheAlexandrian's node based design, +1 to BoE for linking to him. If the PCs refuse/miss/ignore a clue or what have you, there is another one-AND they dont need to find or see everything to reach a conclusion.

Let me also just throw this out randomly, this was originally posted on ENworld, but has since been hosted here on dungeon design-but this doesnt just apply to dank corridors, but to even outdoors or various related areas. Its all about player choice, and to exploration, the PCs sometimes have to be able to miss things.
Dungeon Mapping

(...and if he makes another "gay" comment like that, give him a sturdy boot to the curb for me.
--Steel Dragons

Just a random note here really, just my personal thought-its not the crux of whats being going on with this campaign of course. As for the "gay construct" comment, what I WILL SAY-is that if anything makes you (The DM) or your players uncomfortable, or you dont like it youserlf-absolutely. However I just feel to mention that myself, were it my table, I would not automatically "boot" people to the curb/corner (as it has been said many times, in various forms) for a single incident. And multiple incidents? It may speak to the maturity of a player, but it does matter with whom you are playing. Some people swear at their table, and its the kind of milieu you are gaming with.

I myself grew up hearing it tossed around publically through basically all of highschool (you know the maturity of highschool), and college , and of course just the internet (you understand the maturity of the internet) -that it basically doesnt register to me. It ranks on the level of "retarted" in relation to people with learning disabilities. (Albeit-there's a difference for me when using to describe something versus somebody.)

Hell Katy, Perry has a song about-albeit more tongue in cheek than anything, people have written worse verse (like Buju Banton). (You know mass media.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_So_Gay

By comparison, I find a word like f----t offensive, I just do. For me its a much stronger word, and I (a black man) would equate it the N word (but even thats complicated). While I have actually witnessed both used as insult by both old people (like my parents, or my grandparents) and young people (just people I know) -I- dont do that. But I dont necessarily raise objection or call people out for it unless I know its actively offending people, or offending me.

The table is supposed to be a comfortable gaming enviroment for everyone. If something your players are doing offends your sensibilities, or that of others at your table, it should definitely change. I wouldnt boot him without letting him know how you feel about it first. Your table (regardless of whether its actually at your home or not) is your demesne and people will abide by whatever rules or sensibilities you have to keep things fun for you and everyone. Even if by some chance, all your players were fine with the Monk/Paladin, if YOU are not you should talk to everyone and vice versa should you unknowingly offend them.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

In response to the one individual earlier (or anyone else) responding to "be looser about player alignments". I call B.S.


This is a Monk/Paladin (a class that LOSES HIS POWERS if he fails to be lawful and good). It also has two characters with exalted feats which LOSE THEIR POWERS if they fail to be good.


No. Do not be "loose" regarding alignments. A big part of why this conversation has developed into a discussion about railroads is that alignments, and more specifically, alignment restrictions, are about limiting choices...and forcing players to make the hard choice (or lose their powers).


So I ask you all, given these in game restrictions, meant in part to reinforce roleplaying, but also to put some limitations on powerful feats, would you, if playing, prefer:

1. Your DM reminds you your chosen action might cause you to irrevocably lose a major part of your character's abilities?

2. You are allowed to do what you want to try, and then (GASP!) suddenly, from seemingly out of the blue (to you) you lose a major part of your character's abilites.


Because attacking an agent of the good gods unprovoked (and killing him no less) is something that in my campaign would lose paladin and exalted status. No questions there.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

And this confirms my dislike of alignment as one of the single biggest yet utterly needless causes of player/GM conflict - precisely because it invites the GM to dictate to the players how they are to play, with(as far as I can see) no value at all being added to the game. Hence my view that it should always be downplayed in those games that feature it, if not outright ignored.

A Paladin is supposed to be both Lawful and Good. Its actually very important to how the class/profession is supposed to behave. If you throw the whole concept out of the window-then what governs the paladins's behavior?

Again, they are supposed to uphold a CODE of conduct. If they can just act any way they want, any time they want there is no code. A Paladin's deity (IF he has one, he doesnt have to), or the dieties/forces of good DICTATE what they expect. The DM is effectively those forces. If paladin cannot uphold whatever those standards are, he risks having his divine pally powers taken away, and being a fallen paladin.

NOW there are various degrees of GOOD and LAW-Not every "evil" character is a complete monster and not every "good" character is a saint. And so a DM does not often have to intercede in the case of a player and their alignment. But some acts are clearly evil and in the event a player develops a pattern of behavior that is clearly evil the DM should say "Change Your Alignment". A paladin is held to the utmost standards, the highest standards, the highest degree of Good and Law. BEFORE the game begins, a DM should define what these highest standards are when a player wants to take the class.

Furthermore, after the game begins you should NEVER remind them, nor bring it up when something threatens their alignment. Let the player get into the role, and if they act in contrary to it, let them realize it in character.

If Paladins were always reminded "Ah, Ah Aaaah!" then they would never fall and experience the journy of redemption or go the path of the Black Guard. Being a Paladin or a Cleric is to also risk falling. If you remind them every time, you arent letting them "feel" and realize the kind of character they really want to play. They might discover The Dark Side, realize they just arent cut out for that kind of life and have a crisis of identity, or be HORRIFIED and experience personal horror when they realize what they have done.

Dont hold their hand, trust that they understand the expectations of the gods after you have discussed it with them, and then have the deities respond accordingly after a pattern of negative behavior OR sometimes- after single grievous offense.

There IS in fact a magical item, Phylactery of Faithfulness in the SRD that tells you when you about to do something that threatens your alignment, but I think that sucks all the fun out of it.

 

[shadzar]

So many questions...

1. was the party supposed to go north with the refugees, or for some other reason?
2. was the city they ended up at with the refugees the closest or because the things you changed when they did not directly go north due to the missed hook?
3. what does the shapeshifter/lady Kaal bit have to do with anything?
4. did the guards ever direct the party to take the refugees north as you planned to do? what was the players response to this?
5. did anyone else along the way happen to meet the party before they got the refugees to the city that might have directed them north instead of to the city, or was the shapeshifting spider the only encounter from picking up the refugees to getting them to the city?
6. why did you openly question/reprimand the monk-paladin players actions during play? was this a new player learning how to play?
7. if the city council had a law to kill people wearing blue shoes, was the monk-paladin expected to follow it and kill people, in cold-blood, just because it was the law? (alignment is tricky)
8. this city was not yet supposed to have them be there, but you let them divert from the linear path of the adventure; what would it have hurt to let the refugees in, and the party continue on there way elsewhere to later have to return when it was time for them in the adventure to do so, as the monk-paladin wanted to do and may have actually gotten them back on track to the north for whatever was there?

I think that first disagreement played a major role in what happened later, when the monk-paladins actions were, as they put it "second-guessed" rather than rolling with it since you had knowledge about the game they did not. when every action attempted was shot down as bad, then the frustration began and probably the importance of player choice was felt by all players. leaving the refugees outside the city still provide them some protection as they could have camped there, so this option isnt entirely a bad one for the monk-paladin to make. he seemed then forced to do something about the refuges, so decided that something was wrong with the city (i think you said as much it was being controlled) and felt the need to do something about it.

Had I been playing with this course of events, I would have felt the city is where we should be, because things were out of the ordinary and something was up and needed to be done. Your players may have felt the same way, rather than leaving the city, because you stressed it when they got there, rather than letting them leave the refugees.

9. What part did the refugee play in the overall plot? Were they jsut you standard escort mission to give the party a reason to get to a specific place to drop them off?

It just seems a lot of the problems happened right there with the city guards, and dropping off the refugees, that caused the trainwreck to me. That is where I would focus as you yourself stated it was the first disagreement, and should have been solved before continuing. I am not sure what part that city had to play initially, and what you added to make them need to stay there since you later mention they were supposed to be their later when the city was rather emptied, but I would have not placed something big there right now after an argument had already began, I would have tried to get them to move on as the monk-paladin tried to do.

 

[Az005]

Hi Shadzar,

A lot happens in campaigns I guess. Sorry I haven't included everything in my original description.

I waver between looking back at the decisions they made because it forced innovation and a unique path through the module, and being angry at recent events.

Anyways, answers.

1 - The north portion of the Red Hand of Doom area is a stronghold of the invading Hobgoblin army. The plot hook indicated enemy activity in the area. So, no, the refugees were more or less to be guided to safety by their own NPC leaders. They would have gotten to this city, Brindol, far later on their own. The PCs essentially rushed them along.

2 -Brindol was their intended destination, but they arrived early due to PC's direct escort.

3- Spy for the invading army. Shapeshifter. Mind influencing spellcaster. She had engaged the party and fled on the road, only to turn up in the political map of Brindol later (I thought it would be a creative reuse of a villain). It is relevant because the party suspected any appearance-altering NPC was potentially her.

4- The guards indicated they were ordered not to let them into the city. Higher ranking NPCs either cited problems letting them in (internal conflict), or for them to head further east to a city called Dennovar. Another week's travel. PCs were of course, outraged. Rightly so. But instead of asking for an audience one party member let loose a torrent of insults. Are NPCs supposed to just sit there and take it? The ranking NPC, Lars, decided to go in and ask whether the city council wanted to meet with them. This took time. During that time the PCs opted for the sneak-in attempt.

I did ask-twice for the paladin's storm-the-castle entry because I wanted him to understand that the city would view him as a criminal element. I was prepared for that.

5- They encountered a higher ranking "Lion of Brindol". The plot hook is extremely weak. It tries to direct them north. Read the module if you're interested.

6- Well. Some actions were party actions, and I didn't so much reprimand the party as explain what NPC reactions are when they choose certain options. I often asked for confirmation from the monk-paladin because he seemed to have the idea that I was obligated to paint all his PC actions in a favorable light -- not use the town wizard to oppose him or what have you. That was an option btw. The party mostly convinced him not to do it. I guess I was at the point of "I don't want them to die to the town guards and wizard, this guy lacks stealth". Better to have them die by the hand of their own decisions? Perhaps. Kill the town guards just for following the orders of their lords? Is that a thing a paladin/exalted group would do? An option, yes, but with Heavy penalties. I wanted him to understand that.

As for reprimands... What they would call reprimands I would call a normal NPC reaction. What does a town guard say, objectively speaking, when you tell them they failed in their duty to singlehandedly hold back a hobgolin army. Or ride out 50km out of town to gather all farmers away from their cherished land to save their lives. Or any other number of contrived failings of a 1/4CR militia.

When the party trashes a cathedral in the course of a battle which could have been avoided. When the cleric of the town is angry with them, is that a reprimand? Maybe I'm a little jeered at the same time.

I mean, when you give players freedom you have to work a lot more in statting things, thinking about NPC reactions -- and when they act unpredictable it is very taxing. Its to the point where I have to plot out, "Well, what if they stuff a grenade down its trousers? What should be the decision tree after that? Let me think on that for an hour after work..."

7- No, of course not. But I think your analogy may be a bit too far out to sea. Its certainly morally questionable -- enough to prompt PC action. But is it, reasonable? Someone comes to your lavish rich city and demands you allow 3500 displaced refugees in. The refugees have no food, no jobs, next to no money. They want food, water, shelter. There will be increased crime, no doubt. And, for what? Where's the real threat?

Of course its a humanitarian crisis. Override these objections. But wait, what's that? If we do we'll lose a third of our combat strength? The hell?

Its a mystery! This was designed to allow the PCs to feel a sense of justified moral outrage. Fight the man, in a sense.

8- I guess it would not have hurt. It was a choice. I was trying to get creative. I'm getting the feeling that players need to have queues be very apparent, almost childishly so. Every time I try to create any kind of nuanced problem this kind of reaction crops up.

See my answer to #6 with regards to some initial monk-paladin frustration.


9- General heroics. Larger than life immersion. Exodus/protect the poor and defenseless.

As for the town guard thing, I'm grimacing right now. I lack the proper emoticon to communicate that to you.

The player convinced himself that the town guards were lifeless NPCs who were incompetent at their job and that his was the flawless renegade paladin hero. I'm not saying that storming the city, killing a platoon of CR4 guards and bashing the spider caster, Lady Kaal, both or all the ruling caste, wasn't an option. It was an option.

But it was not an option for an exalted party. So I had to second guess him -- try to make him hesitate. Or? Well. Its going to be a very short campaign for these PCs.

Can you imagine the amount of abuse I'd be on the receiving end, had I indicated the second he killed a town guard him -- and any who helped him-- instantly lost connection to Pelor? Sheesh.

 

[shadzar]

1,2,9. ok so the PCs were to defend against the advancing goblin horde this Brindol, and were supposed to have not reached it yet due to being out fighting the goblins, but took it upon themselves to escort the refuges rather than let the NPCs lead them?

3. you added this spy person in while they were already off track escorting refugees when the NPCs were supposed to do it.


wait... why were the PCs not supposed ot escort the refugees..and if they weren't then how did they end up doing so?

seems that now is where it all got off track. was that weak hook for the PCs to go north the only thing that had them end up with the refugees?

you said you had been away from DMing for a while...so a reminder...read through and find weak parts of published adventures, as well as errors, and have fixes in place. NO published adventure is without errors.

6. as for reprimands it was the guard questioning the monk-paladin as to his actions of disobeying the city council or yourself? and it was you or the NPCs asking him about leaving the refugees to begin with. not sure what was in character or out, and it seems many int he thread view it as you asking the player, rather than in game actions questioning the monk-paladin, as well the way you present it and say the player felt "dejected" makes it seem as if you the DM is asking the player, rather than NPCs in game.

if it was the guards...well how did they know what alignment he was to even question? if it was you...you cant do that. you have to let player action run its course, even to the detriment of the adventure. if you invalidate player choice, then the players will become dejected.

yeah the guard/monk-paladin interaction seemed to be a big part playing into all sorts of later conflict with you and the players. the monk could have been acting within the law and good trying to get in and see why the city that the refugees were supposed to go to was turning them away. that sort of sets off all sort of plot flags and flashing warning lights to me.

Refugees: We are supposed to be here
Guards: You cant come in
PCs:

if the guards/city council were being controlled, then why would attacking them have made Pelor mad?

the PCs could easily see that something wasnt right and an unjustice was being done, and could have been responding to it in the only way you allowed for...at the time.

now i am not trying to side against you, just posing questions and trying to assume the player perspective, sicne you already know your own and knew more about what was going on, so that i could help shed light on what the players may have saw or been thinking with the limited information they have as opposed to all the information about what was going on that you had.

you tried to have the city ready for them, good...but things went wrong and now you want to amedn that. so you are trying to get ideas to fix the problem before tlaking to your players. all good.

just hope some ideas are helpful and let you see the other side as it were to be able to understand what they might have been thinking in case your disagreement could have been error on your part no matter how big or small as well as there so blame doesnt just get tossed back and forth.

i will see if i can find this adventure and read it to see what should have happened per it, and where maybe some things werent clear that may have confused you and the players.

i think the biggest sumbling blocks were the players escorting the refugees, and then when they reached the city.

and you might be right, your players may need bigger signs like a glowing hook to follow, or more subtle indications of when they get off the path if you are playing through a published adventure, and only have the adventure itself as what to run without other areas planned out outside of what is in the published product.

EDIT: ooh, and it isnt possible to forsee questions people may have to ask about things happening in your game, just like it isnt always forseeable to know what the players may do...so not presenting everything is why people can always ask quesitons letter to understand parts that may have been missed or left out. so no need to ever apologize for that as facts can come out over time to help clear up finer points.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Refugees: We are supposed to be here
Guards: You cant come in
PCs:

if the guards/city council were being controlled, then why would attacking them have made Pelor mad?

the PCs could easily see that something wasnt right and an unjustice was being done, and could have been responding to it in the only way you allowed for...at the time.

It doesnt sound like the guards were being directly controlled, just under orders by an imposter.

 

[Kraydak]

Basically, you made a major (but common!) mistake a few times. For some reason, whenever PCs start leaving the desired field of action, DMs start populating regions with conflict, and then are surprised when action gets derailed.

If PCs encounter conflict, two results dominate the probabilities:
a) the PCs assault the conflict, quite possibly triggering more problems.
b) the PCs leave the conflict, and quite probably, the map.
Neither of these results is desired when off-map.

In this case, the players actively tried to sidestep the conflict with the gate guards (by abandoning the refugees) and get the game back on track. But you basically told them, up front, that abandoning the refugees was a no-go. Oops.

Then, in an apparent attempt to derail the module even more, you introduced a shape-shifting impersonator. Quick lesson: no one ignores or takes shape-shifting impersonators lightly, and rightly so: it is a highly aggressive action. Without any strong evidence that the guy wasn't unfriendly, the party assumes that he was unfriendly (much like the spider-lady.....) and take action accordingly.

Fortunately, the fix is easy. Don't delay the PCs any more, try to punish them or anything. Have the authorities tell the PCs that things are going badly back in the main arena, and tell the PCs that they (the authorities) are exasperated. Offer teleports to get the PCs out of their hair. I offer good odds the players will take you up on the offer and the whole incident with be forgotten.

 

[frankthedm]

would you, if playing, prefer:

1. Your DM reminds you your chosen action might cause you to irrevocably lose a major part of your character's abilities?

2. You are allowed to do what you want to try, and then (GASP!) suddenly, from seemingly out of the blue (to you) you lose a major part of your character's abilites.

Character actions are the Player's responsibility. That "option one" is a core magic item available for the headslot costing 1000gp.

Phylactery of Faithfulness
This item is a small box containing religious scripture affixed to a leather cord and tied around the forehead. There is no mundane way to determine what function this religious item performs until it is worn. The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect his alignment and his standing with his deity, including magical effects. He acquires this information prior to performing such an action or becoming associated with such an item if he takes a moment to contemplate the act.

Faint divination; CL 1st; Craft Wondrous Item, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law; Price 1,000 gp.