D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

I am curious - do these high level NPCs have nothing better to do than chase after low level murderers? And if they do, why do you need PCs when there are so many big fish who could sort out the problems I assume the party is usually hired to deal with?

I am not trying to make some debating point here - I see this advice all the time and I can't work out how it squares with a realistic world. It seems reminiscent of the Elder Scrolls games, with their scaling bandits and super-guards. How do you run a world where the players aren't the movers and shakers and not make them redundant?

Easy. The PCs are just a few movers and shakers among many, but those others are (most of the time) doing their moving and shaking in places and ways that maybe only impact the PCs tangentially, if that.

There's always a bigger fish.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough. I guess I just struggle to square that with the idea that the party should be heroic -

Who says the party should be heroic?

I mean, they can certainly try to be heroic if they want - and hell, they might even succeed - but heroism is not a requirement.

 

[Lanefan]

I would say, fist off explain what kind of game you run and how it plays out and find out if they want to continue., because it sounds to me there is a huge gulf between their expectation and what you plan to deliver.

Best typo I've seen today!

Explanation with fists. Well, I guess that's one way to do it...

 

[Lanefan]

In case it wasn't clear, I meant compared to the solutions provided by the OP.

Ah, gotcha.

I didn't say you were blaming the players. but there very clearly are many folks who are.

If I had a game that somehow went this way, with the players totally going rogue and attacking soldiers and the like, then so be it. That'd be the way the game went. But I'm also fine with the group being immoral or even bad guys. At least, up to a point. I wouldn't feel the need to try and correct their behavior or punish them or what not.

We agree on this.

If I did, I wouldn't address it in the game, I'd discuss it with them like adults.

What I don't get is arranging for this to all happen and then being upset at the results. That's my question. Given the scenario as described, and accepting that this is somehow not desired or was unexpected... how else could it have played out?

I'd love to hear what you think, @Lanefan ... to me it seems almost like a foregone conclusion.

Well, I suspect-without-evidence that either the original DM was expecting them to escape peacefully (somehow!) or - and I'm not sure if this has come up yet as a possibility - might have had a plan in mind to present a clear and obvious escape opportunity at some point later, maybe the next in-game morning or something after narrating a peaceful night; only things never got that far due to the escape-with-high-violence during the night.

I mean, for all we know maybe the guards were going to get secret orders in the morning telling them to take the prisoners out of town and quietly let them go.

And as it sounds like there was very limited if any communication between the original DM (ODM) and the replacement DM (RDM) before the session began, if the ODM in fact had such ideas in mind the RDM wouldn't have known of them. And so as the RDM could only go with what was in front of him, it's possible (again purely speculating here) that the overnight was narrated/played out in a much more granular manner than the ODM had in mind, thus giving the players what they thought were potential openings to escape - which, naturally, they leaped at.

Edit: typo

 

[bloodtide]

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

No. I'm not friends with any of them, and never will be.

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 first big problem with this is: It Is No Fun for Me. So, fun for everyone is important. I Can not sit there for five hours as they have their characters stumble and bumble around....and then I have the bounty hunters "not" catch them. Like the example I gave, they play the game as "it's a goofy silly pee wee sport cartoon" and I play the game of "hard fun hard like real life is pain and war". So they will do dumb things like light a big campfire....so the bounty hunters can find them easy at night. And...of course....when the character get attack at night, the players will wine and complain "it's not fair" and "there characters are not ready" . In short: not a fun game.

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!!!

I'm a Teacher DM, been doing it forever.

I know 'the internet' does not like the idea, but it does work out great in real life, 50% of the time....

 

[Tutara]

Easy. The PCs are just a few movers and shakers among many, but those others are (most of the time) doing their moving and shaking in places and ways that maybe only impact the PCs tangentially, if that.

There's always a bigger fish.

Why does that bigger fish only ever get involved when it's the players who've been naughty, though? Don't get me wrong - it's entirely fair for us all to nudge and wink and say 'let's just assume everyone else is off doing some other level-appropriate quest' - but my issue is only when the elite hit squad shows up to whack the PCs, but is nowhere to be seen when the prince has been kidnapped.

There isn't always a bigger fish, unless the GM says there is. It's entirely dependent on GM fiat. I'm not saying this is bad - making stuff up on the fly is quintessential to a good GM - but it's not the case unless the GM chooses to make it the case.

Who says the party should be heroic?

I mean, they can certainly try to be heroic if they want - and hell, they might even succeed - but heroism is not a requirement.

The person I was replying to.

 

[Lanefan]

Hah! I made that mistake once when I started DMing in junior high. I reasoned that something so important would be well hidden. Well, it was and they couldn't find it and the adventure crashed. Never made that mistake again.

I don't see this as a mistake. Instead, if they miss it they miss it; and maybe there's downstream consequences possibly including their somehow later realizing they missed something (we cleaned that place out two months ago - whaddya mean it's still active?!) and have to go back - which means you get two adventures for the price of one!

The 5-adventure path I'm running right now hinged on their finding a hidden clue in adventure 1 before getting punted (via a hidden teleport trap) to adventure 2. For all I knew going in, they'd find the clue but miss the trap, find the trap but miss the clue, or miss both. As it turns out they found both without any "help" from me-as-DM, and on we went.

 

[Lanefan]

No. I'm not friends with any of them, and never will be.

The first big problem with this is: It Is No Fun for Me. So, fun for everyone is important. I Can not sit there for five hours as they have their characters stumble and bumble around....and then I have the bounty hunters "not" catch them. Like the example I gave, they play the game as "it's a goofy silly pee wee sport cartoon" and I play the game of "hard fun hard like real life is pain and war". So they will do dumb things like light a big campfire....so the bounty hunters can find them easy at night. And...of course....when the character get attack at night, the players will wine and complain "it's not fair" and "there characters are not ready" . In short: not a fun game.

Yeah, that's a pretty big gap in playstyle expectations. Probably not the group for you.

I'm a Teacher DM, been doing it forever.

I know 'the internet' does not like the idea, but it does work out great in real life, 50% of the time....

Which leaves the other 50% to go out and spread tales of this horrible DM they had...no wonder we DMs get a bad rap sometimes.

 

[Lanefan]

Why does that bigger fish only ever get involved when it's the players who've been naughty, though? Don't get me wrong - it's entirely fair for us all to nudge and wink and say 'let's just assume everyone else is off doing some other level-appropriate quest' - but my issue is only when the elite hit squad shows up to whack the PCs, but is nowhere to be seen when the prince has been kidnapped.

Oh, I get this. There's usually some fairly simple ways and means to ensure the PCs are front and centre, though, without breaking anything in the fiction.

The elite squad are somewhere to be seen when the prince gets kidnapped; but that somewhere happens to be off in a different direction due to some clever deception by the kidnappers. While they're away the real location of the kidnappers-and-prince is discovered and the PCs are 6 days closer to it than are the elite squad.

And in my games those bigger fish get involved in all sorts of ways other than just smacking down the PCs; sometimes as mentors and-or trainers, sometimes as foes, but most often as resources and-or information sources.

There isn't always a bigger fish, unless the GM says there is. It's entirely dependent on GM fiat. I'm not saying this is bad - making stuff up on the fly is quintessential to a good GM - but it's not the case unless the GM chooses to make it the case.

The first time the bigger fish appear, this is usually the case. But at that point the PCs are probably low enough level that a guppy still qualifies as a bigger fish; the trick is to make those bigger fish big enough that they'll still be bigger even when the PCs get to higher levels.

For example, a 2nd-ish level party in my game met and had dealings very early on with an NPC who was in fact one of the biggest fish out there: an arch-vampire who had been quietly pulling political strings behind the throne for the few centuries since he himself gave it up on his "death". He gave them a few missions - sometimes sending in an anonymous bunch of expendable low-levels is less visible than sending in a high-powered and thus better-known crew - which were of benefit to both he and they, and which they mostly managed to pull off.

They're much higher level now, and he's still a big enough fish that they don't dare cross him - even though those less charitably disposed to the existence of undead would very much like to.

 

[Tutara]

@Lanefan I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning, and that all makes a lot of sense. I eschew settings with established power ecosystems- I prefer uncharted lands or frontiers because it circumvents all this - so although I'm unlikely to implement your ideals I can at least understand them. When I do run civilised games, the players are usually plucky rebels/criminal ruffians fighting against the system so the 'bigger fish' are the problem rather than the cure.