D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I wouldn't even call this a GAME thing really. You simply have certain personal preferences for what you want to experience. That's cool. I mean, its obviously going to mean you won't run certain possible games. I doubt that's a very big burden. I'd just hope that all the people you play with are understanding.

On the last bit: Yeah. One or two of them also really likes stuff that goes hard for the Grim And Dark Stuff. Even for them, one who had to leave all of his then-current games to deal with some IRL stuff paid me one of the greater compliments I've received: "Your game is the only one that was hard to leave." Had anyone voiced an issue, I'd have listened and tried to work something out. (Plus, it's not like I don't have dark things in the game. An assassin cult, a codeceps-style fungal hive mind of evil terrorist druids, a cult of aberration-worshippers with mindflayer assistants, a devolutionary mind-virus that can be spread just by hearing a song...seems plenty dark. I'm just not keen on players BECOMING that darkness.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would say that if we're going to speak of agency, and there are outcomes that are unwanted, then why arrange the situation to put the players in the exact situation that you don't want?

I don't think that anyone is objecting to negative consequences for player choices, I think it's more about the players being painted into a situation with increasingly narrow choices, and then acting as if they did something wrong.

So go back to the party when the NPC is found dead, and they are accused of the crime. They can surrender... or what? Commence the slaughtering then? The players opted for the peaceful choice. But they just as easily could have tried to fight their way free. If that outcome is no wanted, then making it possible seems like a misstep on the DM's part, no?

Go back to the jail cell. They can sit and wait for the judge, who they've been told won't be available for some time. The mention of that implies to me that they're meant to do something beforehand, otherwise, why mention it? It has the feeling of a deadline, the way it's presented. So they try to escape. They fail, and remain trapped in the cell. Not really much choice here.

Go back to the mysterious stranger showing up in the jail and offering them an escape at a cost... they accept. They then have to sneak out of the jail. What are the possible outcomes here? They escape and go do the stranger's quest, or they fail to escape and... what?

If they get caught by the guards, what do you think is going to happen? They agree to go back to their cell and await the countdown to the judge? The more time in that cell, the more the game feels like it's spinning its wheels. So they decide to take action... and as is often the case in D&D, that means fighting.

If this result is not wanted (and by not wanted, I'm going off of the DM's desires here) then why arrange for it to be possible? They've been slowly pushed into this situation with very little choice about it. Deciding to fight their way out is the only active choice they had. Everything else is things hapenning to them... they're passive participants in the events. Finally, they chose to act. And now they need to be punished for it?

That's absurd.

The problem is in viewing this as if everything that happened was the choice of the players, and so the consequences are all on them. Clearly, a lot of what happened... most, I'd say... was because of the DM's choices... so it's at least as much on the DM as the players. I expect, based on the surprise of the original DM, that going on a slaughtering spree was unlikely for this group of players, and that they only did so out of frustration and confusion about what they were "supposed" to do.

To insist that the players are fully responsible and so the consequences need to be as severe as possible is mistaken. The DM created this situation, and if it's unsatisfactory to them, then they need to own that.

Right, I think this is less really about 'player agency', though the narrowness of the scope of available options is notable, and more about "don't roll dice unless there are interesting failure options." Why was it possible for the PCs to fail to escape with the Cloaked Stranger if such a failure was not interesting? Clearly it was envisaged that the PCs would so escape, that it was the outcome desired by everyone at the table, and which was the only one that would lead on to whatever was intended to come next. So it should have simply happened, no questions asked, because failure was uninteresting! There's no point in putting forth 'player choices' where the only interesting choice is X. Don't roll dice when success is the only interesting result.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm finding some really interesting links between this thread and the one discussing How's much control DMs really need.

Like for example, some of the people advocating FULL DM control is preferable (in that thread) are advocating here, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should the DM exercise that control to retcon or otherwise affect an outcome perceived as undesired.

I suspect their response would take the form of something like, "Consequences for player actions are sacrosanct, while future events that might or might not happen are absolutely free to change." Of course, the issue with this claim is...the consequences are future events, here, so it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Mort]

Right, I think this is less really about 'player agency', though the narrowness of the scope of available options is notable, and more about "don't roll dice unless there are interesting failure options." Why was it possible for the PCs to fail to escape with the Cloaked Stranger if such a failure was not interesting? Clearly it was envisaged that the PCs would so escape, that it was the outcome desired by everyone at the table, and which was the only one that would lead on to whatever was intended to come next. So it should have simply happened, no questions asked, because failure was uninteresting! There's no point in putting forth 'player choices' where the only interesting choice is X. Don't roll dice when success is the only interesting result.

I'm finding the failure to escape a real disconnect.

The players wanted to escape unnoticed. The DM, who was already pushing the players along a certain plot, clearly wanted the players to escape unnoticed.

So the DM, who was not hesitant to railroad, and the the players, who were not hesitant to follow the railroad wanted the same result (at least initially, before the murderhoboing got underway). Why didn't it happen?

The OP clearly knows. he was DMing! And yet that part is left unclear.

Really has me scratching my head.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What are the consequences if you were to punch a member of the Mafia, a street Gangster, an elected Politician, a Police officer or similar in real life?

What on earth do you think happens to a PC after the murder a member of the local Thieves guild, a Lord or a member of the town guard in game?

They are -almost certainly- going to come gunning for him, with every resource they have.

People generally don't react to friends getting killed off, by just ignoring it dude. Powerful people, and Law enforcement, doubly so.

Meh. I spent a bunch of time in Nairobi and around some other areas in Kenya. Law enforcement and 'government power' in general is a much different sort of thing than people are used to in modern high income parts of the world. Most of history has been MUCH more like that than what 99% of the people on this thread are used to. Sure, sometimes you messed with the wrong people in the wrong place, but generally speaking 'authorities' power doesn't extend much beyond their arms and direct minions. If you go to the part of town where the government ministers live, and you screw around, a bunch of assagi with AKs come and party with you. If you go off someplace in Ukambani and do whatever, well, maybe eventually some local 'big guys' will come and have a talk, OK? Its all far less organized, formal, and far less worried about than you might imagine. I'm not saying anything goes, there are no consequences, but its not like if you punch a cop in Central Park!

Heck, in England as recently as 300 years ago it was incredibly dangerous on the roads, because there were highwaymen everywhere, you think that was because nobody could be bothered to get rid of them, or they weren't actually a problem? No, the government, supposedly this mighty empire, was too weak to police the roads within 50 miles of London. Before modern communications, automobile transport, etc. it was HARD to keep order anywhere. Rome had the same problem 2000 years ago, you could get robbed 50 miles outside the city walls, it happened 100 times a day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, they don't. All you classic/trad GMs are all on about the authenticity of the living world and verisimilitude and variations on the theme of games that focus the development of the world on the PCs as unrealistic and whatever. This is what reality is like. Sometimes someone murders a bunch of people and walks away! Sometimes (and in a fairly chaotic low tech fantasy world filled with evil bad guys, bandits, orc tribes, wars, etc. this all seems pretty likely) authorities just don't have a lot of power. Sometimes they don't feel like doing something. Sometimes other authorities take advantage, etc. etc. etc. All this is stuff that happens in the REAL world, so why is it implausible in the fantasy world? I mean, sure maybe there ARE consequences, or at least there certainly are some people that would like there to be. Maybe some time in the future the party fighter will feel a shiv stuck in his kidney while he's drinking at the bar, and a voice will say "remember that guard captain! That was my father! Ain't paybacks a bitch!" Or maybe not.

Not what I was saying. Are you considering all those other possibilities fairly and objectively, or are you doing so because you want a plausible result that doesn't involve the party being wanted fugitives who people are trying to bring to justice on behalf of the wronged?

 

[Vaalingrade]

They'd send 30 hitmen to murder you in your sleep instead of 1.

And so they have chosen... mist.

Not that the mob has any of the spite a DM who feels they've been challenged does. They want their guys to live, not just be fodder to send in waves until they've 'won'.

 

[bloodtide]

Wouldn't this just make the players feel like garbage? Is that your intent?

I don't think so. I don't see why they would think that....and if you do, I'd guess there is a chance they would too.

My intent is first of all to run a fun game, for everyone. And with my crystal ball I know these players will make the worst bumbling fugitives from the law characters. It's already bad enough that they are clueless, but worse as they won't even try. They see the game as a "silly life is like a sports star demi god" for their characters. I'm a Hard Fun Dark Gritty DM that sees the game as "life is war or harsh reality and characters are nobody". So, for example, as they are "hiding in the wild" when they KNOW they are being hunted they will leave a huge trail, make tons of noise and light a huge camp fire at night that can be seen for miles. And I know I could not even explain this to them as if I was to say "the bounty hunters saw your fire" they would just give me blank looks like "what?".

So I know the "on the run from the law" sub plot won't be all that much fun. Af show theter some more slaughter where they kill more good folk, they will be caught. Not so much fun of a game.

So I will:
1) show them better made characters more along the lines of what they want the character to do, not just pick from the five super powerful internet popular types.

2)Give them the tools and make a couple of real life skills to "hide on the run" if that is what they want to do.

3)Give them the tools to "put things right" if that is what they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm finding some really interesting links between this thread and the one discussing How's much control DMs really need.

Like for example, some of the people advocating FULL DM control is preferable (in that thread) are advocating here, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should the DM exercise that control to retcon or otherwise affect an outcome perceived as undesired.

I'm not part of that thread (trying to take the advice of other posters here actually). I just don't like changing the past because its become inconvenient.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Meh. I spent a bunch of time in Nairobi and around some other areas in Kenya. Law enforcement and 'government power' in general is a much different sort of thing than people are used to in modern high income parts of the world. Most of history has been MUCH more like that than what 99% of the people on this thread are used to.

I mean... even in the high income parts of the world, the actual rate of solved murders and disappearances is abysmal.