3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[shadzar]

As presented, it didn't seem to me that the paladin knew it was an inevitable. And a cop tripping an FBI agent whose deep undercover? I don't think that would be a sackable offence.

At the meta-game level, I personally would be careful, in a game with a monk-paladin in which I'm also using traditional alignment rules, not to introduce major plot points that the player of that particular PC can only engage with in a single way that is dictated by the PC's alignment. I would see this as a recipe for player frustration.

I have bolded the more important part of that directed advice to sum up a DMs responsibility to give players choice meaning.

doesnt matter if it has to do with alignment or not, when you have something that can only be done one way with no advance warning and large signs that let the players choose if they want to ride the train...it wont turn out happy for anyone.

with alignement you msut still try to see it form the players view and ask them later before making judgement.

at the time they didnt know who it was and was taking steps towards an investigation. mugging and running away could tell the level of the opponent, offer them little damage, find out why they are acting funny, give a chance or reason to follow them when an important document has gone missing form their person to see who/where they run to....

remember we arent talking about today's standards of super-inflated morales an egos either. when it comes to alignment isues, many people may want to turn down their gauges a bit and realize they are playing a game in undeveloped societies as compared to today.

if the monk paladin was walking down the street and got feces poured on him from a window above, should he attack? maybe your games society is more advanced than that, but you have to make sure the players know of these things and waht is socially acceptable behavior in order to know what would be viewed as good or bad(evil).

I remember in the past when you went to cities and such you would check in and find out the local customs...while sneak entry doesnt give this option...you must still have a way for them to find out. Until the inevitable was revealed for what it was, nobody else PC or NPC in the game should have had any idea, only the DM.

Im rambling so...try not to add anything that can only be solved in one way, unless you are clearly giving the option to know of that way in advance.

 

[Az005]

This keeps getting lost.

Info before:
- suspicious shapechanger

Actions before:
- attack & steal contract scroll

Info After
- Augury to not destroy scroll
- Knowledge planes check indicating what Inevitables are and how they tend to act, what will make it go away (return scroll)
- Scroll itself outlines important mission to prevent release of bad monster.

Actions After
- Lure Inevitable to ambush point
- Attempt to get info out of inevitable by holding scroll hostage (keeping it behind a blockaded library)
- Attack inevitable after it ignores blockade attempt to hold its scroll at bay.

Not once did the inevitable initiate combat.

So, yes. At the first encounter their actions were a misunderstanding. It was meant to be an instance of players making a mistake based on incomplete information. But their subsequent follow up actions, in my opinion, were not thought out and play out to what looks like theft, ambush, and destruction of a lawful outsider.

*shrug*

One can mince how many clues I gave them. But I gave them information. They chose to ignore it. They always do. Keep things simple. Remind them often.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which is fine... you can run your game however you want and no one will say otherwise. But you posted that you were a bit upset that the players get pissed at you regardless of what you do, so all we're doing is pointing out the places where some of that acrimony could have gotten generated.

And you never did answer my question. What was your expected "right answer" to the party bringing the refugees to the front gates? Did you have one? If you didn't... then right there is the reason why your party will "always get pissed at you" as you said. You are giving them impossible to win scenarios.

Now some players are okay with that kind of thing. It generates drama and allows them to play their PCs in situations that are different than usual dungeoncrawl rping. I myself have no problem with these kind of scenarios in my roleplaying, because I find the improvisational back and forth between player and DM to be a lot of fun. But it seems like at the barest minimum your monk/paladin player did not like it, and basically said "screw it" when the ideas he came up with were shot down.

So my suggestion would be one of two things. If you did in fact have in your mind a path the PCs could have taken to have them fulfill their quest... then drop a few more breadcrumbs to help them out if they don't seem to be getting it. Or if you haven't decided on a way for the PCs to succeed... either lighten up your "realism" on one of the other paths so that the PCs can finally take it and feel good about their result... or let them fail at the main task but give them a quick win elsewhere so they feel like progression has been made.

It's tough to do... especially when you might want things "gritty"... but not all players want that. Some want to feel like progress is being made. And if you occasionally have to help them along to achieve that... it's not a bad thing.

 

[Az005]

Which is fine... you can run your game however you want and no one will say otherwise. But you posted that you were a bit upset that the players get pissed at you regardless of what you do, so all we're doing is pointing out the places where some of that acrimony could have gotten generated.

And you never did answer my question. What was your expected "right answer" to the party bringing the refugees to the front gates? Did you have one? If you didn't... then right there is the reason why your party will "always get pissed at you" as you said. You are giving them impossible to win scenarios.

Now some players are okay with that kind of thing. It generates drama and allows them to play their PCs in situations that are different than usual dungeoncrawl rping. I myself have no problem with these kind of scenarios in my roleplaying, because I find the improvisational back and forth between player and DM to be a lot of fun. But it seems like at the barest minimum your monk/paladin player did not like it, and basically said "screw it" when the ideas he came up with were shot down.

So my suggestion would be one of two things. If you did in fact have in your mind a path the PCs could have taken to have them fulfill their quest... then drop a few more breadcrumbs to help them out if they don't seem to be getting it. Or if you haven't decided on a way for the PCs to succeed... either lighten up your "realism" on one of the other paths so that the PCs can finally take it and feel good about their result... or let them fail at the main task but give them a quick win elsewhere so they feel like progression has been made.

It's tough to do... especially when you might want things "gritty"... but not all players want that. Some want to feel like progress is being made. And if you occasionally have to help them along to achieve that... it's not a bad thing.

Backtracking a bit. There were several options at the gate scenario. The first most obvious answers were:

- Ask Winston, the NPC leader of Drellin's Ferry to mediate. Most favorable option.
- Ask a guard, diplomacy the Town Guard Captain Lars to mediate for them.
- Bribe/Sneak in (the one they picked)
- Storm in (possible negative consequences for a good/exalted)

I think I've related this throughout the course of the thread, but its easy to get lost in all the replies and responses. I'm sorry if I didn't directly answer your query until now.

What the player was frustrated about was that "Threaten and Intimidate the town guard" wasn't an option. Which I interpret was a subset of Storm the City -- not the best idea for a good party.

Its easy to assume I didn't give them information and they're justified with being angry with me (who doesn't love a good middle ground fallacy) and I keep coming back to protest that this was not the case.

 

[shadzar]

This keeps getting lost.

Info before:
- suspicious shapechanger

Actions before:
- attack & steal contract scroll

Info After
- Augury to not destroy scroll
- Knowledge planes check indicating what Inevitables are and how they tend to act, what will make it go away (return scroll)
- Scroll itself outlines important mission to prevent release of bad monster.

Actions After
- Lure Inevitable to ambush point
- Attempt to get info out of inevitable by holding scroll hostage (keeping it behind a blockaded library)
- Attack inevitable after it ignores blockade attempt to hold its scroll at bay.

Not once did the inevitable initiate combat.

So, yes. At the first encounter their actions were a misunderstanding. It was meant to be an instance of players making a mistake based on incomplete information. But their subsequent follow up actions, in my opinion, were not thought out and play out to what looks like theft, ambush, and destruction of a lawful outsider.

*shrug*

One can mince how many clues I gave them. But I gave them information. They chose to ignore it. They always do. Keep things simple. Remind them often.

Thanks for outlining it like that, it makes it a bit clearer, but still leaves ME with some questions not really knowing of these Inevitables...

Said throughout the thread that they are a "paragon of law and good". So they are the embodyment of law and good?

Would an entity of pure law and good ignore a request for communication when offered? In regards tot he scroll being held hostage, it seems IF this thing can communicate it would have tried to.

This is why I always break down alignments into their two parts. Not wanting it to happen in a public place, and probably not thinking able to convice this imposter to willing come with them from the onset (why the mugging occured), it seems the actions were in good faith, and willingness to cooperate was not absent so they werent acting in an evil manner. While not 100% lawfully done, the Inevitable also did things that werent seen by the party as Lawful Good either by it taking the form of an acquaintance of theirs. Which might had led them to be wary again as with the gaurds acting suspicious and think something about the information they were given wasnt right.

You have a BIG series of suspicious activity going on that seems like exactly what a party would thrive on to make their own path through an adventure, rather than you having to make them take the weak hook to go to the north, the followed these other stronger looking hooks.

I am curious what exact info they were asking of this thing, and why it would not respond when presented the chance for a simple non-combat resolution. I can assume one was why take the form of someone they knew.

Again there is a LOT going on in this city since you are ad-libing things, so there is a LOT for the players to investigate about. Maybe you overwhelmed yourself and them with it all, and for the greater good they choose the path that they thought would bring about the biggest positive results.

Couldn't find the adventure, so still not sure how much you added, so could be wrong about what was there and what you improvised.

Backtracking a bit. There were several options at the gate scenario. The first most obvious answers were:

- Ask Winston, the NPC leader of Drellin's Ferry to mediate. Most favorable option.
- Ask a guard, diplomacy the Town Guard Captain Lars to mediate for them.

Didn't an NPC attempt to mediate, but that didnt work, so you removed those options?

It really didnt matter, though since the players, not the refugees, were intended to go into the city.

Except I recall you mentioning the players attitude about the guards was a problem. If they were intended ot get in, and did so without killing someone in cold-blood, then that entire task was completed successfully. They got into the city without violating alignment. Sneak in while not lawful was one of your allowable options.

 

[pemerton]

There were several options at the gate scenario. The first most obvious answers were:

- Ask Winston, the NPC leader of Drellin's Ferry to mediate. Most favorable option.
- Ask a guard, diplomacy the Town Guard Captain Lars to mediate for them.
- Bribe/Sneak in (the one they picked)
- Storm in (possible negative consequences for a good/exalted)

I don't myself fully understand why it's OK for the exalted to sneak in but not to honourably fight their way in. Can't the paladin-monk do subdual damage with no penalty? And as a paladin, doesn't the code of honour get in the way of sneaking?

I get that the players didn't tackle the scenario in the way that you expected them to. Or would have liked them to. But isn't that their prerogative? They're the players, after all. I'm just not seeing how they tried to do, or actually did, outrageous things.

At the first encounter their actions were a misunderstanding. It was meant to be an instance of players making a mistake based on incomplete information. But their subsequent follow up actions, in my opinion, were not thought out and play out to what looks like theft, ambush, and destruction of a lawful outsider.

Maybe a bit like Shadzar, I still don't feel the force of all this.

The inevitable was impersonating their acquaintance. Why? (And how is this consistent with lawfulness? It seems on the chaotic side to me - and bards, the magic-using class one would most associate with illusory disguises, have a "no-law" alignment prerequisite).

As you describe it, they used a threat to an inanimate object (the scroll) to try to get information from the inevitable. When it didn't cooperate it, they fought it. This is so close to standard operating procedure for D&D play that I can't see what's wrong with it.

In my previous campaigns one of the PCs was an animal spirit who had been banished from heaven. By living on earth as a human rather than a fox he was violating the terms of his banishment. Heavenly constables therefore came to arrest him. He fought them, and so did the rest of the party - including a paladin and a cleric/monk. This was the start of what turned out to be the main focus of the campaign and its resolution - the effort by the party to undo what they took to be all sorts of disasters and injustices that had resulted from heaven entering into contracts and imposing all sorts of sanctions that upheld the celestial order but that were going to leave the earth in jeopardy. The paladin and the cleric/monk took themselves, in doing this, to be doing their duty (for the paladin, in particular, his duty of compassion), not to be violating it. What would it have added for me, as GM, to stick my bib into this? I'd presented the players with the situation - they then worked out how to respond to it.

Anyway, returning to your scenario, if you didn't want them to fight the inevitable, why did you not have it give them the information they wanted (which, presumably, was along the lines of "Why are you impersonating us and our acquaintances?"). For dramatic effect, you could even have had it give the information, then dramatically snatch the scroll from a PC's hand - thereby revealing that it had chosen to tell them, rather than being forced by their petty threats - which would have reinforced the superiority of the outsider to the PCs (if that's what you were going for) without more or less obliging them to let it go about its business with them being in complete ignorance of that business except that it involves pretending to be the PCs and their acquaintances.

I'm still not sure what you were hoping to achieve, as a GM, by saying (in effect) to the players "There's this really big plot going on, and it involves impersonating all sorts of people in the gameworld that you care about as players and that your PCs care about ingame, but you're not allowed to engage with it except by observing it from a respectful distance." I just don't get it. My minimum advice would be - if you want to avoid what you yourself have described as a train wreck in the future, then be clear on exactly what it is that you're hoping to achieve through your GMing techniques. And I don't mean "What are you hoping to have happen in the gameworld?" I mean "What experience are you hoping to generate at the gaming table?" You seem to me to have focused excessively on the former question, when it is the latter that is (in my view) far more important.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

A paladin tripping an inevitable.

An embodiment of law and order.

Thats like a cop tripping an FBI agent.

Quietly as its kept, theres a bit of a cop/fed rivalry, but thats not the subject of this thread.

Anyway, how have things gone since the Trainwreck?