DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[innerdude]

There is an approach to RPGing in which the GM has strong authority over framing the situations (for example, by deciding that an NPC accuses a PC of rape, and by deciding that guards come to arrest that PC). So the game is not a sandbox, because it is the GM rather than the players who has primary control over what it is that the players confront (this can be achieved in any number of ways, from retrospectively motivating NPCs, to determining that whichever door the PCs open, it will be the one with the interesting puzzle behind it).

But the GM does not exercise control over the resolution of the situations. Once framed, situations are resolved in accordance with the action resolution and shared table norms, as driven primarily by the players playing their PCs, but secondarily by the GM pushing back with the NPCs, environment etc.

Depending on the upshot of a situation, new parameters have been established which will determine what is a meaningful, sensible, permissible-within-the-fiction, etc scene for the GM to frame as the next situation for the players to engage via their PCs.

As much as you and I disagree about 4e, this is EXACTLY how I approach GM-ing.

Shocking, really; me agreeing with something pemerton says.

 

[haakon1]

For what it's worth, I did a little something like this once, also in the 3rd episode of a campaign.

The PC's had done the "Three Days to Kill" adventure, and had horses they had taken from the bandits they killed.

I decided the horses should have the brands of the people the bandits killed, so the PC's had stolen horses.

So, in a pub, I had a large number of town guards come in and say the people at the castle want to talk to them. I didn't say "arrested" per se, but they got the idea -- and I showed them the scene in "Conan: The Barbarian" where the guards arrest the party, to set the mood.

They went quietly, as a group. The boss in the castle said, when they arrived under guard and disarmed, that they were wanted for horse theft, which is a hanging offense, but he would wave the charges for them if they took on an adventure -- to get the magic apple from the Sunless Citadel. They agreed, but they've always disliked that NPC, feeling he screwed them.

I, however, thought they deserved it for not realizing bandits' horses were a bad treasure item to take! And I liked the overall affect of teaching: (1) actions have consequences, sometimes unintended ones, just like the real world. The setting pushes back on the actions of the PC's. (2) NPC's have their own agenda. Whoever had their horses stolen wanted them back. Bandit colleagues of those killed would narc on the PC's to get them in trouble. And the government in the castle needs stuff done by adventurers. Worked out for all of them, just not the PC's.

What's different between this scenario and the OP?

-- I did it to the whole party at once.

-- I showed them it was good enough for Conan, implying that the guards were not just going to kill them all and end the story for everyone. A bit of metagaming/DM hinting at what they should do, but it seemed fun at the time.

-- They didn't try to split the party, or fight the law. If they had wanted to "fight the law", I'd have warned them it's not easy to be an outlaw, but let them do it if they wanted to. Probably would have needed to end the session early after the initial fighting their way out of the pub scene (I had stats for the guards in case it went that way) and some winging of what they do next.

Another related comment: I like the setting to have internal consistency, not be player-centric. So the guards were Warrior 1, which happened to be a "balanced" threat for the party. But if the party were 7th level or something, the guards would still be Warrior 1. It's not their hit points, studded leather armor, and polearms that give the town guard authority -- it's the authority vested in them by the state, and the implication that harming them would make you an outlaw.

So what did the OP do wrong? Nothing. But he got himself into a pickle, and I'd try to avoid some elements of it: I typically avoid actions that might split the party, I wouldn't touch rape issues with a 10 foot pole, and if someone wants to do a "dumb" action, I'd tell them it's dumb but let them try anyhow, without pulling any punches on the consequences. And having a roll the hay with a random horny local NPC you know nothing about it would probably constitute a "dumb" action -- I'd roll some dice on the biological implications, and a "1" on a roll for that might have this kind of angry father consequence.

Running from the law isn't quite as dumb as jumping in a lava flow, but boneheaded actions lead to unpleasant outcomes in general. The universe (in my campaign) isn't going to give you a free pass just because you're a PC.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to jump over to the other side of the fence for a second here.

Look, as a player, when your DM waves a nice big, juicy sign at the table that says, "Hey, the adventure is over here", maybe, just maybe, give the DM a break and roll with it once in a while? Sure, it might not be 100% in character to surrender to the guards. No one is saying you have to do it every time.

But, OTOH, it's pretty obvious that the DM has something in mind here. Just balking and running away from the scenario is a bit of a dick move on the player's part. Roll with it. Give the DM a few inches and see what he does with it. Now, if the DM then has your character gang raped in the shower and then hung after a guilty verdict, it might be time to go shopping for a new DM.

OTOH, the DM probably isn't going to do that. He's likely, honestly, got something interesting in mind. Instead of just hopping on the horse and running away, which is going to cause all sorts of problems, maybe, back down a smidgeon and say, "Well, Billingsley doesn't usually do what The Man tells him to do. But, I kinda like this town and I don't want this crap charge hanging over my head forever. So, let's go sort this out."

It is very much a two way street.

 

[Janx]

I'm going to jump over to the other side of the fence for a second here.

Look, as a player, when your DM waves a nice big, juicy sign at the table that says, "Hey, the adventure is over here", maybe, just maybe, give the DM a break and roll with it once in a while? Sure, it might not be 100% in character to surrender to the guards. No one is saying you have to do it every time.

But, OTOH, it's pretty obvious that the DM has something in mind here. Just balking and running away from the scenario is a bit of a dick move on the player's part. Roll with it. Give the DM a few inches and see what he does with it. Now, if the DM then has your character gang raped in the shower and then hung after a guilty verdict, it might be time to go shopping for a new DM.

OTOH, the DM probably isn't going to do that. He's likely, honestly, got something interesting in mind. Instead of just hopping on the horse and running away, which is going to cause all sorts of problems, maybe, back down a smidgeon and say, "Well, Billingsley doesn't usually do what The Man tells him to do. But, I kinda like this town and I don't want this crap charge hanging over my head forever. So, let's go sort this out."

It is very much a two way street.

I agree with this. The GM made X amount of content. Sniff for it and try to play with what he's got, and not go off the reservation just because.

My group has a general metagame rule to agree to bite the plot hook. The GM owes them a decent and plausible plot hook that isn't a screw job they can smell coming but are obligated to take anyway.

Which [MENTION=25619]haakon1[/MENTION] reminds me of how "Three Days to Kill" totally screwed our campaign and was a screw job we saw coming but bit the hook anyway. The GM at the time normally rolls his own adventures, but he tried that flaming piece of poo. Unless he deviated from the supplied materials, that adventure is to blame for bringing down the apocalypse onto the campaign world (that we hence never played again).

 

[Nellisir]

There is an approach to RPGing in which the GM has strong authority over framing the situations (for example, by deciding that an NPC accuses a PC of rape, and by deciding that guards come to arrest that PC). So the game is not a sandbox, because it is the GM rather than the players who has primary control over what it is that the players confront (this can be achieved in any number of ways, from retrospectively motivating NPCs, to determining that whichever door the PCs open, it will be the one with the interesting puzzle behind it).

But the GM does not exercise control over the resolution of the situations. Once framed, situations are resolved in accordance with the action resolution and shared table norms, as driven primarily by the players playing their PCs, but secondarily by the GM pushing back with the NPCs, environment etc.

I'd consider this the middle ground scenario. I presented two extremes; and then the middle. This is the middle. It's a spectrum. It's not wholly PC run or wholly DM run.

 

[pemerton]

Look, as a player, when your DM waves a nice big, juicy sign at the table that says, "Hey, the adventure is over here", maybe, just maybe, give the DM a break and roll with it once in a while?

<snip>

it's pretty obvious that the DM has something in mind here. Just balking and running away from the scenario is a bit of a dick move on the player's part.

But how do you know in advance that the GM isn't expecting you to run away?

After all, as I was reading through the OP, it never occurred to me until the OP actually mentioned it that bribing the guards was meant to be an option.

As a GM, I find that it helps to prepare material that "bites" on the plot hooks dangled by the players.

I'd consider this the middle ground scenario. I presented two extremes; and then the middle. This is the middle. It's a spectrum. It's not wholly PC run or wholly DM run.

It's true that it's not wholly player run, nor wholly GM run. I still don't agree with the spectrum analysis, however - the third point of a triangle isn't located on a spectrum of locations between the other two points, after all.

The reason I don't like the spectrum analysis is because it tends not to distinguish between the various dimensions of the fiction over which authority can be exercised - plot, situation, backstory etc. Now in the abstract it might seem pedantic to distinguish between these things. But as a practical matter when it comes to functional RPGing, I think distinguishing between them turns out to be pretty crucial.

 

[Nellisir]

Thinking about this thread, I remembered a similar situation in one of my own games some years ago. This is how I handled it.
.... And everyone was happy.

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Hussar again"

 

[Nellisir]

It's true that it's not wholly player run, nor wholly GM run. I still don't agree with the spectrum analysis, however - the third point of a triangle isn't located on a spectrum of locations between the other two points, after all.

The reason I don't like the spectrum analysis is because it tends not to distinguish between the various dimensions of the fiction over which authority can be exercised - plot, situation, backstory etc. Now in the abstract it might seem pedantic to distinguish between these things. But as a practical matter when it comes to functional RPGing, I think distinguishing between them turns out to be pretty crucial.

That's totally true and valid. Honestly, my post was spur of the moment, and the moment was one where I really should have been doing something else. Oversimplifiied might be the kindest thing one could say about it.

 

[Janx]

But how do you know in advance that the GM isn't expecting you to run away?

After all, as I was reading through the OP, it never occurred to me until the OP actually mentioned it that bribing the guards was meant to be an option.

Good question. As a GM, I don't want to have to tell the players "psst, you are supposed to run away now."

I try to limit myself to wanting the PCs to do something in keeping with their goals and personalaity, but not in expecting anything specific.

I try to use more carrots, because odds are good you'll get a predictable response. If you use a stick (an arrest attempt) to instigate some player action, you may get undersirable responses (such as the PC leaving the game space completely).

There's a time for sticks, but I tend to use them when the players have screwed up or their PCs have been bad. Otherwise, the core lesson from the OP's story is, never mingle with the NPCs or they'll just falsely accuse you and arrest you.

As a GM, I find that it helps to prepare material that "bites" on the plot hooks dangled by the players.

That's how I get a high success rate with my plothooks. I make material that fits with what the PCs want to do or would want to do once they find out about it.

I avoid material that's going to be disinteresting.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
But how do you know in advance that the GM isn't expecting you to run away?

After all, as I was reading through the OP, it never occurred to me until the OP actually mentioned it that bribing the guards was meant to be an option.

Well, the first clue would be when you tried to run away and the DM says, "If you run away, your character gets ejected from the campaign."