D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dungeon World, eh?

View attachment 283705

Exactly! There is a whole mechanism for roll playing "I'm a trouble-maker" basically. Note how nicely packaged all this is, in PbtA style. First it tells you when the GM should trigger this move, and then interestingly on a 10+ you apparently just get to be studly, everyone knows you are a bad-ass, or maybe a loser thief, whatever. 7-9 is always where the fun is though, they COME FOR YOU!

But remember how DW works, you got into trouble because, basically you wanted something, or are something, or needed something, that lead you to make the decisions that got you framed in the "I could get in trouble here" scene, and then presumably you didn't roll so well. It is all truly your frying pan and your fire, the GM simply described how hot they are!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You'd rather Tyr polymorph them all into deer and have wolves hunt them down? Or for alternate universe versions of the characters show up... more powerful versions, naturally... and beat them up and show them how to play right?

You'd rather that then a simple "let's wind back the clock on this and see if we could have handled things differently"?



Yeah, agency isn't really a factor at all here.



I'm wondering, from what we know of the situation, what positive outcome do folks think was possible? The blaming of players by many here seems really odd to me.

They weren't really given any choices. How else was this supposed to go?

We don't know, @bloodtide didn't really describe how the fight got started, just that it was part of the 'sneaking out of the jail' thing. There's an implication the players could have avoided it, but it isn't really clear if that was telegraphed, if someone just rolled bad dice (and how many rolls were asked for before that happened), etc. Without knowing that stuff, we are not sure. Its possible the PCs got to the middle of the jail and the players just suddenly shouted "massacre" and killed a bunch of people for no discernible reason. I highly doubt that, but without more clarity this is not, well, clear.

 

[Lanefan]

No it's not meaningless. There are multiple game effects that key to alignment, plus it's cosmically - in game - relevant (where they go on death).

In my games, mass murders are not Good aligned.

They aren't in mine either; and that would reflect if-when someone cast Know Alignment on them even if it disagrees with what's written on the character sheet. I mean, sure, I make allowances for the fact they're violent people in a violent world, but even then it's usually pretty easy to tell between good and evil.

Feel free to run it otherwise in yours.

The part I run otherwise is that alignment-based game effects (e.g. acceptance/rejection by aligned weapons, reaction to consecrated ground, etc.) will start functioning based on the actual played alignment rather than the written one once the character's been around long enough for a played alignment to become apparent. The players know this.

As for where the characters end up after death...well, if they're going to be revived anyway then it doesn't really matter, and if they're not going to be revived then it doesn't really matter; so it'd be rare indeed (but, I'll admit, not unheard of) were this to ever become relevant in play.

 

[Lanefan]

Thats because the DM didnt pull them up on their murder-hoboing.

They only whine when you call them out on it. Let it happen and they have no reason to whine.

And neither does the DM, IMO. Just because they've engaged in the game in a manner unforeseen, that's no reason to complain. Hell, at least they're engaged.

I agree with your position re in-fiction consequences for murder-hoboing, but I strongly disagree with not letting it happen in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, this is of course where we get into the very large differences in our preferred GMing techniques and game selection. When I was running trad 2e games, 25 years ago or so now, then yes I would be heavily considering how the action would shape the trajectory of play, since I was the one in charge of that! I don't want to open up battles that have been hashed out in previous threads, but IMHO that is what ALL trad GMs do. They may cloak it in 'living world' or 'sandbox' or whatever, and play that trajectory more or less loosely, but ALL of them/us think about whether or not the game is going to play OK if NPC A reacts like X to situation N. It just comes with the territory.

As I say, this is why I don't run this sort of game anymore. In the sorts of games that I'm interested in running, the 'PCs get framed and go to jail' thing would be, probably a combination of some GM framing, and playing out consequences of low rolls, or something similar. There is simply no need for the kind of mitigations, nor the 'going off the reservation' type of thing that happened with the OP, it simply isn't something that is possible within the process of play of a game like Dungeon World. The narrative, up to a point, COULD take place, the PCs get framed, sent to jail, maybe get in trouble due to one of them panicking and trying to escape, and then hooking up with a stranger who gets them out. Failure at that last point, well, since it doesn't SEEM interesting, its unlikely to come up. Since these games are based around the characters, who they are, their relationships, contacts, entourage, etc. it would hardly make sense for one or all of them to simply start hacking up random people. I doubt the situation would actually present itself at the table, as scene framing would likely go from "OK, we agree to go with Stranger" to "OK, we're hanging with Stranger and dude is telling us what he wants..." there would be little need to pixel everyone's way through leaving the jail.

Yeah, very different priorities. I have zero interest in Dungeon World or any game that shares its narrative DNA, so "scene framing" simply doesn't work the same way for me, and my concern is for what happens in the emergent story and the results of the PCs actions, not "what seems interesting".

 

[Lanefan]

I don't want that.

Firstly, because it's totally unrealistic (people don't just go around causally murdering people over minor inconveniences unless seriously mentally unwell)

In the real world, sure. But in a typically-violent D&D setting it would be perhaps a little more common, and the consequences would likely be just as violent in response.

and secondly (assuming a Good aligned PC) its in no way morally freaking good, so it's a double whammy of rubbish roleplaying.

That's problem #1 right there: assuming that any PC is Good-aligned. Abandoning this assumption makes things work much better.

Sure, if we're playing an Evil party,

First off, why restrict things to a "good party" or an "evil party" or whatever. Just let people play what they want, and then...

and the rest of the group are OK with a 'deranged psychopath who kills for next to no reason' hanging around with them (and even in an Evil party, who the heck would want such a dangerous madman hanging around with them?)

...indeed; I'd expect the rest of the PCs to finish off the madman before anyone else had to, as a simple exercise in risk reduction.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I have had no contact other then that single e-mail for the game. But it's not like I know the guy, anyway.

One player of the game did e-mail me to say how great he thought the game was, and he looks forward to "being on the run for the next game".

OK, that's a very good sign right there. Any idea what the rest of the players thought of it all?

He thinks the DM will be busy again this weekend...

So...maybe run the game again. I'm so tempted to start the game with Tyr coming down and ploymorphing all the PCs into deers and then seting a pack of wolves on them to rip them apart. Then maybe see if they want to play Munskin for the next couple hours.

But at my heart is a Teaching Railroad DM of horror...so, I have my forced game plan. Start off with the PCs hidding in the caves...and have some Dumb and Dumber bounty hunters after them(to set up some illusioniusm for the players). Then toss a nice...Adjustment Bureau, TVA, Timecop and "Put Things Right that Once Went Wrong" plot at them. Toss in some modrons "fixing reality" to attack the characters. Then have alternate copies of the PCs show up. They will claim to be from a "good" alt world where they are not murderhobos and are here to put right what once when wrong: The PC slaughter fest. And when the PCs fall for this....they discover the alt PCs are really from the "evil twin" world where the alts did the slaughter and are now out to slaughter all their alts across reality.

This lets me show them their characters made much better and like three times as more powerful. I can tell by looking they made their characters using only the 'core' 5E stuff. The players will either kill the double characters or, more likely have their characters killed by the doubles. Each way, they will see much better and more powerful versions of their characters.

Not a fan of this, though; and even less so given it's possible (and in one case, confirmed) the players want to keep going with this diverted story.

Sure, send things after them - but do it neutrally and fairly, using elements that make sense in the fiction as already established. Remember there's always a chance that the PCs can find a means of getting away; so allow them that chance (but at the same time, allow them a greater chance of failing to get away).

The very fact you seem intent on teaching them a lesson is a big red flag, and IMO a very poor approach to a session. Don't do it!!!

 

[Lanefan]

Okay… who still thinks a do over is a bad idea?

Me.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm wondering, from what we know of the situation, what positive outcome do folks think was possible? The blaming of players by many here seems really odd to me.

They weren't really given any choices. How else was this supposed to go?

I'm not blaming the players at all, and yet I still disagree with the idea of a do-over.

The potential positive outcome could well be a greater level of player engagement in that game/campaign - they're driving the bus now, to the extent the DM is willing to let them, so let 'em drive and - while still making sure there's consequences out there - see where it goes.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

Kind of reminds me of the kind of thing I have come across in some modules where the vital clue is gated behind a difficult to find secret door.