DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Mishihari Lord]

I'll say what others haven't. He's right. You're wrong. You STOPPED the game.

But let's back up.

The DM's role is not binary. You are not either "adversarial" or "permissive". What you should be is "challenging" and "supportive".

Players have two jobs to do: 1) to control their characters in a manner consistent with their perception of the character, and 2) to control their characters in a manner consistent with the nature of the game (which postulates a certain level of group activity & cooperation between the characters).

The DM's job is to present the players with scenarios that don't bring the two into conflict. You didn't do that.

(snippage)

I very much disagree with the last statement. Given the expected scenarios and the known nature of the game, it's the players' job to come up with appropriate PCs that work with these constraints. Unless the DM did a bait and switch, it's not the DM's fault.

And no, definitely not a railroad.

 

[catsclaw227]

As an aside, I find the double standards at play here interesting. The discourse revolves around the DM and his failings, but I'm not sure anybody has mentioned the player in question's apparent complete disregard for the fact that there's a game going on that he's supposed to be partaking in, and that generally speaking it's best not to have your character do things which will clearly make things difficult for everybody else.

No double standard as far as I am concerned and if you've read my comments you'd understand what I mean.

In my opinion, the scenario played out poorly by the player, the DM and the fellow players. But the reason is because the set-up was very poorly managed from the beginning.

As I stated earlier:

In my opinion the game set-up was messed up from the beginning before this encounter even happened.

First, the players and PCs didn't all know each other or have ties to each other so that in the event of a difficult situation they would have incentive to band together and work as a team. The OP admitted this himself a few pages back.

Second, since it is an AP, I am guessing that either the players weren't told in advance that it was an AP or that they didn't understand that they were getting into a game that had a relatively linear narrative structure by nature. If they did, in fact, know and understand this, and agreed (which is a totally fine playstyle -- APs are VERY popular), then they weren't truly committed to the social contract they accepted when the game started.

Yes, it's metagamey, but it's an important distinction to understand if a group of players want to have an enjoyable table experience.

I never, ever downplay the importance of establishing the social contract between players and DM before starting a campaign, whether it's defining house rules or having a thorough playstyle discussion beforehand.

 

[S'mon]

This doesn't excuse the DMing errors which I think are obvious (saying "Don't do that or you might as well roll up another character", and starting off the game with the PCs not knowing each other), but still.

I think starting the PCs off unconnected, then actively pushing them apart, while running an AP that requires they stick together, was the big mistake.

There are circumstances where a player may need to retire a PC, depending on the campaign. But that's always a tough call to make, and I think the player here certainly had a reasonable expectation his PC could act naturally without getting the chop.

 

[pemerton]

Does the DM want the player to engage creatively and realistically with his game world by thinking about the situation for, like, 5 seconds and figuring out a sensible and interesting way around the problem? Yes. I don't see a problem with the latter at all.

But why is mounting one's horse and riding off not a sensible and interesting way around the problem?

It's certainly more likely to succeed, I would think, then trying to bribe or sweet-talk guards whose only property you are aware of is that they try to arrest you on the basis of false accusations!

I'm not sure anybody has mentioned the player in question's apparent complete disregard for the fact that there's a game going on that he's supposed to be partaking in, and that generally speaking it's best not to have your character do things which will clearly make things difficult for everybody else.

In my view the player in question did two things that I really can't have a lot of truck with - he gave a kneejerk response when if he'd thought momentarily he could have come up with something creative, and his kneejerk response was something that undermined the game itself.

But from the player's point of view, how does getting arrested on a serious (capital?) offence not undermine the game? And what is uncreative about attempted escape?

I find the double standards at play here interesting.

Only one player's PC was threatened with imprisonment/death/"you're out of the game because you're not dancing to my tune". The situations is not symmetrical as between the different players - hence, different judgements don't reflect a double standard.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's certainly more likely to succeed, I would think, then trying to bribe or sweet-talk guards whose only property you are aware of is that they try to arrest you on the basis of false accusations!

Agreed with this.

But from the player's point of view, how does getting arrested on a serious (capital?) offence not undermine the game? And what is uncreative about attempted escape?

Nothing is uncreative about it, I agree. It's just disruptive to the goals of the other players, which is why I asked why you thought they were being disruptive.

Only one player's PC was threatened with imprisonment/death/"you're out of the game because you're not dancing to my tune".

I think this is really poor framing. The PC was threatened with "your PC is out of the game if you leave the party members and indicating that you have no reason to stick with the other PCs."

This is letting the player have the option of leaving the party, but letting him know, "you realize that you're leaving the party" and him saying "yes."

I also see nothing wrong with threatening a PC. This is generally speaking what combat is about. Threatening in a social situation with imprisonment/death is also fine, especially when there's plenty of room to work within the goals of the group (ie, not leaving the group).

Just my thoughts, of course. Not 100% sure what you think, as I don't think you've replied to my response yet. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

Taking off and fleeing is one way of trying to work out the issue of being arrested. Given that the arrest is for a crime that the PC did not commit - and is, therefore, in some sense wrongful - what reason has the PC, or the player, got to think that justice will out in the end?

Well quite. Whereas, in this situation, it seems that the other players, as opposed to having their PCs back the PC whom they knew to be wrongly accused, decided to hang their fellow PC - and thereby their fellow player - out to dry.

Who talked about abandoning the town? Plenty of fugitives flee from the law without abandoning the town. They hide out in the woods. They sneak back in at night. Their friends sneak food and water out to them. Etc.

Because he is the one whose PC the GM has had wrongly accused of a crime, and when he responds to that by having his PC try to flee - a fairly common and reasonable response to unjust accusations from unknown authority figures - the other players, as I said, hang him and his PC out to dry.

Neither does the player, presumably. But nor does the player wish to have his PC arrested. The situation seems to have been contrived by the GM, and then when the player tries to deal with it, the other players shaft him. What do they think they are adding to the game at that point? What was the GM hoping to achieve?

And apparently the plot as well. If Rise of the Runelords only works if one of the players - who is playing a brigand, as apparently okayed by the GM - lets his/her PC be arrested, the GM might at least have the courtesy to explain what is going on, and even to treat the whole thing as a cutaway, rather than presenting it as a genuine situation in which the player has genuine choices to make for his/her PC.


This is exactly what I was talking about.

If the player goes into hiding that is one thing from what the OP said it looked like the players was going to just take off and leave the area permanently.

That brings up the issue of the DM then having to run two separate games. Which in the long run does not work. It is one thing to have the party separated for a short time you cut back and forth between the groups.

But in this case te DM would have had to prep two separate adventures each session if he wanted to include the runaway player in the game.

And the other players did not hang him out to dry. They told the DM that if he ran they would not go with him and in their eyes that would presume guilt. Again you are asking them to use player knowledge that the guy was innocent not character knowledge. For a lot of players that is not an enjoyable way to play. They don't know that he is innocent where are you getting that from?

You seem to be okay with the one player playing his character but not the rest of the players that seems rather unfair. This player could use player knowledge and assume that the DM is not trying to screw him over or he could ask the DM look do I have a chance of getting a fair hearing.

 

[Nellisir]

I very much disagree with the last statement. Given the expected scenarios and the known nature of the game, it's the players' job to come up with appropriate PCs that work with these constraints. Unless the DM did a bait and switch, it's not the DM's fault.

I don't think I'd call it a bait-&-switch; I think the DM wasn't prepared to have to improvise part of the adventure. I enjoy them sufficiently that I've never actually run a published adventure; I usually have a map, monster stats, and treasure, and just wing everything else, but not everyone is that comfortable with improvising.

I'm not sure what kind of PC would be appropriate for willingly being arrested and thrown in jail on a false charge.

I don't hand the players a script (I'd have to have one, for one thing). Maybe the OP did let them know "the scenario", but it didn't sound like it to me. The characters were unconnected. The player had no way of knowing that the adventure required his arrest. And the DM reacted to a player straying outside the script by threatening him with the ultimate banhammer.

I'll be honest; I've run games where I've told the players "your characters all know each other, you trust each other, we're skipping all the getting to know each other ." That's my choice; if the OP doesn't roll that way, that's fine and dandy, but he makes his life that much more difficult if he then puts characters relatively unknown to each other in an adversarial position.

The character didn't express opposition to the party, he expressed opposition to being arrested. Unless the DM gave him specific knowledge (which he didn't), that's not out of bounds. I've made decisions as a DM that resulted in characters leaving the party, but not without a lot of consultation with the player, and never to force them into an adventure.

So, I stand by my original statement. It was a bad call on the DM's part. It's not the end of the world. I've done worse. The fact that he started this thread shows a willingness to learn and engage in a discourse, which speaks very highly in his favor. I'd be willing to game with him.

I am not at all familiar with Rise of the Runelords. How pivotal is this false accusation scenario? What's the premise of the adventure?

 

[Nellisir]

Edit: I think most of the bases have been covered in this conversation, so aside from comments directed to me (which are fine), I'm not going to say anything new.

 

[catsclaw227]

I am not at all familiar with Rise of the Runelords. How pivotal is this false accusation scenario? What's the premise of the adventure?

The whole scenario is supposed to be only a small, side, smaller-than-mini encounter. See below:

[sblock]The younger daughter of a general store owner want's to fool around with a handsome PC. She's kindof a trouble-maker, but her older sister is getting all the attention from her father because of a relationship between her older sister and a man from the lumbermill.

When the PC is drawn to the basement of the store by a story about rats, the truth comes out and she wants to get cozy with the PC. Father eventually walks in on them (Both the daughter and the PC are supposed to get a DC 15 listen check to hear him coming) and if they don't hear, then her bodice is off and father catches them fooling around. He gets mad and lifts his meaty fists. The PC can talk his way out with bluff or diplomacy. If the PC flees, then dad won't follow, but PC won't be able to shop in the store anymore (and PC gets -2 on diplomacy and Gather Info checks about town until they make right with the store owner).

The adventure specifically says:

This encounter is not meant to be physically ruinous to the PCs, but it can certainly head that way—Ven might be a commoner, but he knows his way around a fistfight. If the PC retaliates with lethal force, Ven tries to flee with his daughter to call the sheriff, at which point the PC’s reputation in town immediately falls under scrutiny.

There's nothing about the girl claiming rape or anything like that... It's only supposed to spiral out of control if the PC kills the father and is then facing a murder trial. Turning it into a rape charge is what screwed the pooch.[/sblock]

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm not sure what kind of PC would be appropriate for willingly being arrested and thrown in jail on a false charge.

I would say a PC that is connected to the location, one for whom permanently leaving the place behind would be worse than the inconvenience of defending against a false charge.