D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[hawkeyefan]

This echoes my recent thoughts, that I had not got around to articulate. If the players were supposed to escape then why did they encounter the guards?

Yes, why not simply allow the mysterious stranger to help them escape in full? Guy didn't even live up to his end of the bargain.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What if there were some sort of research grant involved and you were asked to publish your results? Asking for a friend.

Take money to advance the cause of human suffering?

Well I kind of already do that. How much are we talking?

 

[Mort]

Yes, why not simply allow the mysterious stranger to help them escape in full? Guy didn't even live up to his end of the bargain.

Yeah, this part sticks out. Why on earth would the players accept the offer to escape, but then (apparently deliberately per the OP) be "not quiet" about it alert the guards and then the slaughter begins?

There had to be SOME intervening trigger between them 100% on board with the plot as it was going (to go quietly and then to escape quietly) only to suddenly go all murderhobo.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to story design, there are a lot of issues with this entire scenario. Maybe the original DM had something else in mind but

• Was it clear to the group that they had to escape? They voluntarily surrendered after all
• Was there an option to clear their name with the authorities? Were they told what would happen to them in the morning, or were they just led to believe they would never see the light of day again?
• Was the mysterious stranger clear about what they wanted? It would seem to me that since they were framed the most likely person for framing them was this stranger. Why would they accept his deal?
• Were the options to escape clear? The OP isn't clear on how they screwed up the escape attempt, but if they thought they had no choice at a certain point a lot of players will just jump on the train.

But put me in the "There is no 'get out of jail free' card if you screw up. The consequences to your actions are the consequences.

 

[Clint_L]

This is a problem as old as the game: How does a DM get the players to stop just outright slaying all NPCs, but more specifically the "good guys". Assuming that the PCs are at least sort of good, or at least want open access to good/neutral civilization.


This is not a problem in my Hard Fun Old School Unfair Unbalance style games. So here is what happened over the weekend:

Another DM could not make it to his game, so he asked me to cover for him. He gave me his notes, but we had no time to chat. So it's an urban set game, I'm not sure it it's published or homebrew as I only had his notes. Last game the PCs did a task for an NPC, and the game ended at a big party. This game picks up at the party. The players have fun for a bit and then the plot kicks off: the NPC is found murdered...and the PCs get blamed for it. The PCs surrender and get taken to jail. They get informed that they will spend the night in jail as the judge won't be in until morning. The players panic a bit here and try to escape...but fail. As per the plot, later that night a shadowy figure shows up and offers to free the PCs if they do a job for him. The PCs agree to this magically bound quest. While the PCs could have made a quiet escape....they don't. The guards get alerted and alarms are sounded.

And as the city guards attempt to recapture the escaping prisoner PCs, the PCs just go full blown murderhobo on all the city guards. So this is the good city where a lot of the rest of the game is set, going by the notes. And the PCs getting arrested for falsely killing the NPC, that they could have been found innocent for, does not even matter now. The PCs have now just become the worst mass murderers in city history killing many guards and such.

The players never give any of this role playing any thought. They are LOCKED into the idea that ANY combat encounter MUST be a murderhobo slaughter fest to the death. A guard hits them with a net, they must use thier most deadly weapons, spells and abilities to do a ton of damage and slaughter the guard.

After the slaughter fest, the PCs flee the city and go to hide in some caves. And this ends the adventure for the night. Of course, next game brings up the problem: what will the city do about the most vile and evil mass murderers in all of history. Sure you could just ignore it. But most DMs like to have a bit more 'reality based games' where consequences matter.

I sent the game notes to the games DM, and he was a bit shocked the players did the murderfest. There is a chance, he said, he might need me to cover the game next week. So that puts it back to me of what might happen. My reaction would be the super harsh way...killing the characters. And maybe reseting the game with some time travel or something like that.

But this leaves the issue of talking to the players. I'm not really a fan of talking. They think they did nothing wrong by slaughtering so many NPCs, but then still "get" that they had to flee the city as they are now mass murderers. I know from many past "talks" that nothing much will come from such a talk. I'm sure the players will say "anything in the game that gets in my characters way will be slaughtered!!!!!!", as that is exactly what they did.

But....here I am. Asking for maybe another view point? Is there anything new to say on this topic? I guess someone might say that a game must have a session zero where the DM very slowly and carefully tells the players the way good, evil, slaughter and common sense work in the game. Though in this case it's not "my" game. Still the players "get" that it was wrong to slaughter all the guards......but that did NOTHING to stop them.

So, anyone?

Oh man, I run into this kind of thing all the time with beginner players at school.

At session 0 I emphasize to the students that the campaign will be A) PG-rated (school), B) they have to work on imagining that there will be logical consequences for actions, and C) I am not interested in running a dark murder-hobo campaign. Then I remind them as needed.

So, I have one current student who keeps suggesting that his barbarian wants to decapitate slain foes and carry the heads around openly. And I keep reminding him that A) this is psychopathic behaviour that will definitely interfere with his character's ability to function in society, B) it makes the other players uncomfortable, C) not PG, and D) no.

Sometimes, you just have to assert your prerogative. You want me to run games, then I've gotta be having fun too. And also, context matters.

 

[Oofta]

Oh man, I run into this kind of thing all the time with beginner players at school.

At session 0 I emphasize to the students that the campaign will be A) PG-rated (school), B) they have to work on imagining that there will be logical consequences for actions, and C) I am not interested in running a dark murder-hobo campaign. Then I remind them as needed.

So, I have one current student who keeps suggesting that his barbarian wants to decapitate slain foes and carry the heads around openly. And I keep reminding him that A) this is psychopathic behaviour that will definitely interfere with his character's ability to function in society, B) it makes the other players uncomfortable, C) not PG, and D) no.

Sometimes, you just have to assert your prerogative. You want me to run games, then I've gotta be having fun too. And also, context matters.

It seems like some people have a problem with simply establishing expectations and talking about issues and want to just jump straight to "punish the PCs to teach them a lesson". Blech. I just tell people I don't want to run a game for evil murder hoboes. Works just fine and sets expectations up front before they even join my game.

In all the years I've been DMing I've had one person quit because they "wanted to explore their dark side" whatever that means. But that's okay, I'd rather have a game where we're all in agreement about what we find enjoyable.

 

[CleverNickName]

@EzekielRaiden , @hawkeyefan - I agree with everything you posted. Like I wrote before: there's nothing wrong with the DM limiting the choices presented to the player(s) in order to avoid unwanted outcomes. (Unwanted by the players, unwanted by the DM, or both.)

BUT some folks have been very vocal about the DM manipulating the fiction behind the scenes like this, and they might not appreciate these limitations. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

 

[Clint_L]

For me, this comes down to being about consent, which always trumps narrative realism, or whatever. We are playing a game that has a lot of potential for uncomfortable situations, so you have to be clear about expectations up front and then adhere to them. I don't consent to help a player entertain their graphically violent character fantasies, so it's not happening in my game. The potential for character death is another issue that should be resolved up front, as well as the potential for any "adult" content.

These are more issues for negotiation at my home games, though. When you're running a campaign at school, it's pretty straightforward: it's gonna PG content, period. I'm not risking my job over a D&D game!

 

[Lanefan]

If you have good aligned PCs acting like Ted Bundy and murdering everyone left right and centre, you have bigger problems.

Where does it say the PCs are good-aligned? Their character sheets?

Meaningless if their actions in play say different.

If they rage quit the campaign afterwards, it's a win for the table.

If they instead pull their heads in, it's a win for the table.

Neither of those is a win for the table.

The first is a loss for everyone: the DM has no players, and the players have no game.

The second is a win only for a DM attempting to force a playstyle on to players who'd rather play differently; and that never ends well.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, they don't have to agree to be arrested, they can break the whole game and apparently threaten to end the campaign instead!

It would only end the campaign if the DM wasn't willing and-or able to hit that player-thrown curveball.

I mean, oddly, to my mind its less impacting their autonomy to just say "well, you got framed and you are now in jail" than it is to play out all the non-choices leading there. Its not like jail is, narratively, a bad situation to be in, lots can happen that is fun and interesting, many possible choices!

With this I agree; there's no harm in the players tacitly agreeing to let their PCs be captured.

But by the same token, I see no harm in the players tacitly disagreeing with staying captured once the plot piece (the shadowy guy) has happened. They busted out with extreme prejudice. Fine.

Again with the shadowy figure's deal, exactly what are the choices here? I mean, sure they 'have a choice', and as every player in this sort of game knows, the expected 'choice' is to go with what the GM obviously prepped! The players certainly didn't choose to be in this situation, its a total railroad.

It is, and capture scenarios like this are one of those infrequent cases where a brief bit of railroading can work quite well.

Did they KNOW that the escape choices actually meant? The problem here is you assume that players understand many things that often are pretty opaque at best. It SEEMS obvious to the GM, but quite often its not at all obvious to the players. And again, they clearly DID NOT have a choice, as the way they approached it is now derailing the whole campaign! That is not a choice.

Disconnect in causality here. The players felt they had a choice and made it. That said choice seems to be derailing the campaign is unrelated to the existence of the choice in the first place; the blame for any derailing IMO falls at the feet of a DM unwilling (or unable?) to run in react mode with what the players are giving him to use.