Vaalingrade
Legend
The problem is, they often DM and kill characters until they get what they want.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General Run Away!
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Sure, there are limits. The proffered goods need to be something the target is willing to accept.But not too permissive.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I'm kidding here, of course, but only a little. The game is supposed to be fun for the DM also, and part of the fun of playing the role of a big fearsome monster is cackling maniacally while everyone runs in terror. It doesn't hurt to let the DM have that moment every once in a while.
My long time players know the deal: I am on their side and want them to succeed, but once the dice come out we are playing for keeps.
Vaalingrade
Legend
I get the desire, but one has to acknowledge that 'let me humiliate you and waste your valuable free time with a shaggy dog story*' is a big ask. Possibly or even likely so big an ask that the answer is going to be 'no' most of the time. And character murder in hopes of forcing the issue is going to make the no more firm, not less, ESPECIALLY when compliance still doesn't guarantee they're going to get away or survive.
Like, okay, I'll give you your moment and run. Oh, but then maybe I get chased down and ganked for a bad roll from a clunky chase system. Or I have to sacrifice treasure. I am not getting anything of value from this compromise. All I'm getting is a mounting resentment.
*From a lot of players' perspectives.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I don't think it's advisable for the DM to want any particular outcome - easy win, hard-fought victory, pyrrhic victory, rout, chase, or whatever - except that whatever outcome arising from play be fun for everyone and help contribute to an exciting, memorably story. Maybe that ends up being the PCs running away from some horrific threat. But it isn't wise in my view for the DM to hinge their fun on that outcome occurring or working hard to make it happen.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I don't understand the humiliation angle or the mounting resentment that you mentioned. In my experience, the only people who are going to mock or punish a player for running (or anything else, really) are their fellow players.
You're right about the clunky chase system, though. Someone needs to fix it.
I think hinging what happens next on a particular expected outcome is a bad idea. Never gate the game behind a die roll. But I think it is perfectly okay for a GM to design an encounter with an intent -- hard, scary, epic, whatever. You just have to remember that dice being dice and players being players, things are just as likely to go sideways.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Yes, I'm referring only to predetermined outcomes the DM wants to see here. Make it a hard encounter. Just don't plan on it being the rout the DMs hopes it will be.
Vaalingrade
Legend
It goes back to what I was talking about in my first post.
Forcing a rout is an interesting thing in non-interactive fiction, but the player is the one experiencing it by proxy. The hero you're playing is forced to break and run like Brave Sir Robin and they KNOW it's because either the DM is trying to make it happen or purposefully making things unfair by not following the encounter guidelines.
Thus, humiliation and resentment. I forced to either be a coward or die by someone expressly trying to make that a thing despite knowing I don't want it and that I'm giving up valuable free time to play with them. What's there not to be resentful about?
If I set an old school Paladin to fall through a sadistic choice, I'm in the wrong.
If I force a player's character to do any other thing they're not cool with, I'm in the wrong.
But Forcing a rout is okay because the DM really, really wants to? Nah, bro.
