DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Wild Gazebo]

I think the railroading is sketchy because the DM was responding to a large absence of the character from the adventure. He wasn't responding to an inaccurate interpretation of how he thought events should unfold (though there may have been a bit of 'novice' flavoring to the encounter).

That seems to be the distinction in this scenario. Railroading is a very broad term that can be applied to many situations...but rarely helpfully.

I will say that just recently in a game I was playing in, my DM really allowed me options in a scenario he was fairly confident would land all of the PCs in a palace prison. We were summoned by a monarch (newly anointed) to swear fealty as a trap set by a scheming bishop.

Needless to say, we were surrounded by the entire court, royal guard, court mystic, templar knights, and a good number of high ranking priests. Me, being a wizard in a land who hates wizards, threw decorum and good sense to the wind and did the old invisible, fly, flee trick. After several (lucky) rolls and many tight situations my character escaped...needlessly glossing over many of my DM's hard planned prison adventures. But, letting it play out and rolling with the punches, it became quite a compelling addition to our world. I worked at forming an underground resistance and a prison break developing into all sorts of fun conflicts and factions. Whereby we are currently running errands for the one member of the monarch's privy council who still has a head on his shoulders...and working hard to get the bishop excommunicated (or preferably dead).

So, as in all things roleplay related, let your imagination guide you. Just as the players have a wide spectrum of options available to them...so do you.

 

[Loonook]

I understand that perhaps I am a simpleton. I admit that the game for me is an evasion. I see innocent people being punished in real life for crimes they didn't commit, and I hate it. At least let me have some confort from our fantasy stories.

Oh and one more thing... unless your players are actually your friends and you're sure they're fine with it, avoid any reference to sexual harassment and violence against children in your games. I went even as far as consciously deciding to stop mentioning children and offspring in my campaigns (except of course in harmless situations) to prevent any chance of having to deal with sensitive issues: no baby orcs in my game = no trite paladin dilemmas about what to do with them.

So how would I handle your case now? I would talk the player into not running away and tell him that the guards will believe him and not proceed to arrest, and if the player doesn't want it, I'll scrap the whole incident and pretend it never happened.

Sirius Black, Ned Stark, Giles Cory, Jean Valjean, etc. would like to have a word with you. Players who can handle the material make for a great game when they can't just go around breaking the law, and a corrupt police force is both a reality and a great fantasy environment. There should be moral questions in your games when it comes to law enforcement, and a certain amount of ehh can happen.

Also, saying 'no children because someone may slaughter baby orcs' just seems as trite as the paladin dilemma you establish. A whole city of adults just seems silly. I've had kids corrupted by demons, families who slay together, and even the occasional question regarding youth. In a medieval society twelve would be considered an adult and plenty of children of that age would see war out their front doors. Things happen to children just as often as adults. I love a certain amount of verisimilitude in the idea that kids can be harmed, taken hostage, and otherwise become... Just like adults.

Also kids can be awesome NPCs. Kids with unique powers, thieves, toughs, prodigies, child-kings, sorcerer's apprentices, novices... I cannot imagine a campaign without a whole Age category.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Also, last time someone arrested my PCs, they left them with weapons and left the cell door unlocked. "Aren't you going to lock this?" they asked. "Will it even slow you down if you want to escape?" asked the jailer. "No," admitted the PCs. "Then why bother?" asked the jailer, and went off down the hall.

Well known PCs are big damn heroes. Easiest to treat them that way.

That takes me back to a 2nd edition high level campaign I was in. The captain of the guard was sent and ordered to bring 50 men. He ordered his men to wait at the end of the street and walked up to us. He apologized profusely the whole time. Making several mentions of his children and lovely wife...even inviting us to supper after all of this unfortunate bureaucracy was worked out.

We were laughing the whole time. Out of breath and crying through the laughter because of how completely obsequious all of the NPCs were, we had to stop for the night rather than talking to our 'captor'

Good times.

 

[S'mon]

Do any venerable DMs or players have any suggestions about how to get past this conflict? Am I "doing it wrong?"

I think you made a mistake, yes. You created this situation; the PC is responding reasonably, and you're telling him he'll have to make a new PC.

I think your big problem was creating a situation likely to split the party before they had bonded as a party. You've created a metagame issue - the game needs the PCs together, but you've created a situation that drives them apart, and no impetus for why they would want to get together again.

In the circumstances, therefore, I think it's concomitant on you to (a) allow the PC to flee and (b) within reason*, come up with a scenario that gets the group back together. Eg the girl's lies are uncovered; the other PCs discover the renegade PC is innocent and have reason to track him down & bring him back.

*If the PC starts killing guardsmen it may be necessary to retire him as a PC, but you need to show a bit of flexibility here.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am far from venerable, but here's my 2cp

What you did wrong was to have this scenario in your game. Do not try to put a case like arresting an innocent PC (if I understand right, he's being setup and did not commit any crime) in the game unless you're confident that the players will be fine with it.

IMXP there'a lot of people who hate when their PCs become victims of injustice because this unfortunately is one of the most heart-breaking, hope-draining and enraging thing that can happen in real life. Let the evil guys in the story have the exclusive on being unjust, because many players will not just submit to the accusations if they think their PCs are innocent, and some may even attack the guards.

How did you honestly expect the story to continue, had the player played "correctly"? Did you expect him to surrender to the guards, face the accusations, probably go to jail and wait to be saved by his pals? Were you going to put some trial into the story? This may actually be interesting for some gaming groups, but personally I wouldn't like that at all, I would find it boring (I rarely enjoy trials in movies and TV-series). Also for me D&D is actually a game where I want to see the BBEG get caught, killed, and possibly worse, and if the good guys are caught into something like that, I want it to be the evil guys' work (which obviously should then be caught, killed, and possibly worse), not the regular, legitimate law.

I understand that perhaps I am a simpleton. I admit that the game for me is an evasion. I see innocent people being punished in real life for crimes they didn't commit, and I hate it. At least let me have some confort from our fantasy stories.

Oh and one more thing... unless your players are actually your friends and you're sure they're fine with it, avoid any reference to sexual harassment and violence against children in your games. I went even as far as consciously deciding to stop mentioning children and offspring in my campaigns (except of course in harmless situations) to prevent any chance of having to deal with sensitive issues: no baby orcs in my game = no trite paladin dilemmas about what to do with them.

So how would I handle your case now? I would talk the player into not running away and tell him that the guards will believe him and not proceed to arrest, and if the player doesn't want it, I'll scrap the whole incident and pretend it never happened.

I have to say this is so far from how I run my games.

I have thrown my innocent PCs in jail had them framed for murder. Had a scenario very similar to this take place. The daughter of the magistrate seduced the bard then cried rape.

The Bard was thrown in jail and then escaped and went in to hiding while the party tried to figure out what was going on. The player playing the bard had a blast donning disguises to sneak around and investigate.

The daughter had been replaced with a doppelganger who was hired to distract the PCs from their mission. She picked the bard because he was a known ladies man.

When they found out it just made them hate the BBEG more it was great.

As for children just a few weeks ago the party came across a small hamlet that had been wiped out by ghasts. And yes I pulled out the small children begging the party to help them. And the parties reaction and how to deal with these young ghasts was great.

The players told me I really freaked them out and made them squirm. I asked if it was okay and they were all enthusiastic about it.

Yes you have to know your players and I am glad that I have mine because vanilla style games with no areas of gray bore the living daylights out of me.

But to each their own. Which is why I think it is a mistake to tell a DM on the boards that he shouldn't do something in his game just because you would not like it in yours.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Your player was right. You were railroading him.

No, he wasn't.

You don't get to play the "if you do this, then you have to roll up a new character" card and then claim that it's all logical from the perspective of the game world.

You want the guards to be a credible threat? Then make them a credible threat. Backing them up with a metagame threat doesn't make them credible. It just makes the railroading blatant.

If the BBEG shows up early on while he's still more powerful (setting up a recurring NPC), and he's a lich, or a dragon, or just a warrior who's a BAMF, and a player says, "I'll attack him" with a level 1 PC after he's taken out the town guards who attacked him, I see absolutely no problem with saying, "well, if you do, you're dead."

Now, you seem okay with this (he's a credible threat). We're on the same page (even though setting up a recurring BBEG is too heavy-handed for me, personally).

If, however, the PCs are offered a decision, and the party decides one way, and another player decides he'd rather leave, I don't think it's fair to say it's railroading. That is, the other players decided to cooperate with the law. One player didn't. It's not railroading to say, "if you split with the party, you're not going to be in the party, and will need a new character."

If a player says his PC would rather stay behind because he objects to the party's decision, he can. That's fine. He can also leave. That's fine. But he's now not part of the party. Pointing that out is perfectly fine, in my opinion.

If the players go into a dungeon, but a superstitious druid PC's player says "I'm not willing to go in" I think it's fine to point out "well, the party won't work with someone who doesn't have their back, so you're basically going to lose the character." It's a meta-warning. It's not trying to railroad him.

It's saying, "this will split you from the party. The other PCs won't accept it. The environment (town, etc.) won't accept it. You may want to reconsider if you want to keep the character, but you can go ahead if you want to." It's the same if the PC wanted to torture someone when he's in a very Good-aligned party (with a Paladin to boot). He can do so if he wants to, but there're consequences.

Yes, the GM brought the situation to the player. Sometimes, there are tough decisions to be made. To me, it's just as acceptable as any other tough situation you find yourself in, including people with hostages, morally grey areas, and the like. They're fun; they're interesting.

I should note, the situation sounds heavy-handed, but it may not be (depends on how naturally it unfolded). But, even if it is, that's not railroading. And I think it's wrong for you to label it so. Rails are there to guide the story in a certain direction, and as long as the players would have supported the PC in question, and the GM ran with it, there's no rails. The other players effectively vetoed it. Just my opinion, of course, and it's no more valuable than yours. As always, play what you like

 

[Li Shenron]

I have to say this is so far from how I run my games.

I have thrown my innocent PCs in jail had them framed for murder. Had a scenario very similar to this take place. The daughter of the magistrate seduced the bard then cried rape.

The Bard was thrown in jail and then escaped and went in to hiding while the party tried to figure out what was going on. The player playing the bard had a blast donning disguises to sneak around and investigate.

The daughter had been replaced with a doppelganger who was hired to distract the PCs from their mission. She picked the bard because he was a known ladies man.

When they found out it just made them hate the BBEG more it was great.

That's actually what I meant: evil was behind the injustice that fell upon them. Of course there's no way I can tell whether the OP's case had some evil scheme behind, but IMHO there'd better be.

Yes you have to know your players and I am glad that I have mine because vanilla style games with no areas of gray bore the living daylights out of me.

When I am a player I like having to confront the shades of gray. But I had players that I knew could not easily tolerate the feeling of being "framed from murder" unless I gave them clue that evil was behind it, which implies that the story will be about uncovering it and restore justice. Making the story so that really an injustice happens is different.

But to each their own. Which is why I think it is a mistake to tell a DM on the boards that he shouldn't do something in his game just because you would not like it in yours.

See that I said he shouldn't have done it because of what in fact it brought to his table... If we had written a post like yours, where everybody had fun with the scenario, I would have written that he did a great job.

In the general case my suggestion is to try sensitive scenarios only if you're fairly sure the group will accept them, and avoid them otherwise if you don't know the group enough. It's nothing more than a safe precaution, really.

 

[Thunderfoot]

First off - the words "Wrong", "Always" and "Never" being flung around need to come to a halt.

EVERYONE needs to understand that there are multiple ways the game can be played. One person's scripting is another person's railroad. One person's sandbox is another person's player pandering. Please remember this is help based on opinion. I agree that the OP had some issues and asked for opinions, but most folks saw a chance to educate, so try to help, not criticize, please.

Stylistically, I've noticed a big shift in what is acceptable for a DM to do and what was acceptable. Every edition has brought change to the table and empowered the player, whether for good or ill. Some players seem to think it should have always been this way, some DMs think it should revert to a DMG, a screen and you're lucky if I tell you your saving throw chart. There are positives and negatives for both styles.

So before this gets locked because of petty style wars, think before you type folks, let's not make it personal. Okay soapbox stashed, lay on!

 

[Desdichado]

And then I have to ask, how do you arrest a player? Send one guard at them so they can kill or escape them if they want because hey, I have to make sure every option is open to him? How are the town guards a credible threat if they do that?

And I have to ask: why did you want to arrest the character at this point in the game? Later, after there's some party cohesion, and some ties to the area, and all that, sure. But you had none of that, so arresting him was a railroady, heavy-handed approach to begin with. You started the game off with a situation that requires context to really successfully navigate, and you hadn't yet established any context.

Sometimes it's not just about how you do things, sometimes some things just aren't going to work at a certain juncture in the campaign, and no way of presenting it is going to be a great idea.

 

[Desdichado]

A bitter pill (does not escape) goes down easier with sugar (choses to be captured; displays nobility and self-sacrifice). Players should be rewarded for acting in character. (And before someone brings it up, sometimes the reward is a glorious death for the character. That's cool.)

That assumes that nobility and self-sacrifice are, in fact, acting in character. Didn't the scenario explicitly say that the character was a mercenary and sometimes brigand, though?

Sounds like it's trying to force a characterization on the character that is actually completely out of character.