D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

I mean, how did the mysterious stranger get into the jail? He must have had some means. Why would he not use the same means to get out with the PCs?

Any number of things could be simulated that would avoid the chance for the PCs to have to fight their way out.

I think you're missing the fact that the only thing that made logical sense in the gameworld, as authored by the GM and recorded faithfully in the GM's notes, is that the mysterious stranger had the means only of their own, solitary, ingress and egress.

Anything else would be verisimilitude-destroying GM metagaming.

 

[Flamestrike]

We're jumping back and forth between real life and game. In game, at this point I'd know the the the God of Gods will magic up something to beat me to be petty about me not doing what I was told.

That sentence right there tells me all I need to know about whether you'd be a good fit at games I run or not (and we can both agree you and I wouldn't be a good fit; we clearly have different expectations and gaming styles).

Nothing wrong with how you want to do things. But a player that assumes they can just stride into town and murder some random Zhent, Lord, Priest, wealthy merchant. or whatever without there being natural, in-game consequences for that action would lead to a nasty surprise for that player at my table.

No different to if I was GMing Cyberpunk or a modern day setting, and a PC insulted and then murdered a Mafia made man.

Presuming that player then had a sook and referred to me as a 'vengeful God of Gods, magicking up something to beat me petty for not doing what I was told' it would then become somewhat self-fulfilling, because it would most definitely lead to the 'God of Gods' sternly but politely asking that player to either pull their head in, or leave the game and find another table.

Either way (as I've said all thread) it leads to a win-win. In game verisimilitude is preserved, players are now aware actions have consequences, agency is maintained, they're also aware that the DM has the final say, murder-hobism stops, players stop arguing with the DM, and those that don't want those things, or can't do those things, find themselves playing at a table where they're happy as well.

All I want is for everyone to be happy, and my method ensures that happens.

 

[Flamestrike]

Crusader says what?

Norsemen going a viking, Spanish explorers in the New World, sugar plantation owners, Wyatt Erp...

Barring individual deranged examples, Norsemen, Wyatt Earp, Spanish Conquistadors of the New World, and Crusaders did NOT just go around murdering people for petty grievances.

Violence certainly was part and parcel of what they did, but that doesnt lead to them offing some merchant for not lowering the price on a healing potion or murdering him because they didnt want to pay for it at all.

While I'm sure there were some mad-dog individuals of those professions, trying to paint them as psychopathic, serial killers is just nuts.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm okay with something important being behind a secret door. Just not something that by itself means success or failure.

Except this was an all-or nothing, though - without finding the clue, a throwaway single adventure doesn't become a much more involved 5-adventure path.

I don't mind if the key to success or failure is hidden. They'll either find it or they won't, and either way, so be it.

Put another way, it's by no means carved in stone that the PCs will succeed on any given mission.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, how did the mysterious stranger get into the jail? He must have had some means. Why would he not use the same means to get out with the PCs?

Any number of things could be simulated that would avoid the chance for the PCs to have to fight their way out.

But again, you're operating with the agenda that the PCs shouldn't fight their way out. That's up to them IMO.

 

[pemerton]

But again, you're operating with the agenda that the PCs shouldn't fight their way out. That's up to them IMO.

Clearly it's not what the OP or the person the OP was substituting for wanted.

Which seems relevant to giving them advice.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I'm operating off the idea in the OP that either the original DM or the group as a whole found this a problem that needed fixing. This will depend on the group for sure, and as this thread shows, many folks have strong feelings about this kind of stuff.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the PCs being anti-heroes or even villains, as long as things don't get creepy or whatever. Not a problem in either of the groups I play with, but I know them all well enough that's not a concern. In a public game, I'd be more cautious about it, I expect, but I don't think I'd ban it outright.



I do expect that the difference between what the original DM intended and what actually happened is likely a factor. We don't know what that was, though. We only know what the OP shared. Based on what was shared, I don't really see where things would have went differently.

Here are what I see as the decision points for the players, such as they are:

• They could have not surrendered when arrested... but that would have likely resulted in a violent confrontation much earlier, and at a social event rather than a jail.
• They could have not failed to escape the cell. Of course, if they managed to get out of the cell, they'd still have to quietly escape from the jail... and we know how that went.
• They could have turned down the mysterious stranger's offer. This would have left them in the jail cell, waiting for the judge's mercy. We don't know what would have happened here.
• After accepting the mysterious stranger's offer, they could have escaped quietly. It's a bit unclear if they tried and failed to do so, or if they just went into murder mode right away.

Re the last point, a very key thing we also don't know is whether the initial flashpoint that started the combat came from a player's in-character action or from the DM-as-an-NPC. In other words, we don't know who shot first. If it was an NPC then the DM has only himself to blame. If it was a PC, all's fair - let it ride.

There's also a fifth option: after accepting the mysterious stranger's offer they could have chosen to stay put, hoping and trusting that said mysterious stranger would (by whatever means) see to getting them out of jail. Even before that, they probably should have asked about safe release as a condition of accepting said stranger's offer.

On the other hand, the DM could have done the following:

• The DM did not need to have the PCs arrested. That could have been left up to play (savvy moves and good rolls, clever roleplay, whatever).
• The DM could have decided that the authorities simply confiscated the PCs' weapons, but left them free on the condition they don't leave town. This lets the players go about trying to clear their name, but hinders their offensive capability.
• When the PCs surrendered to arrest, he could have had them immediately face the judge, just narrate their miserable night in jail, and then move to the scene with the judge, for whatever purpose that would have had.
• Alternatively, once they surrendered, he could have immediately jumped to the mysterious stranger, narrating the long hours until then.
• Once they accepted the stranger's offer, the DM could have had the stranger posses a means of escape... a secret tunnel or a teleportation spell or whatever.
• Once the players failed to escape and decided to go into murder mode, the DM could have sent fewer forces after them. The body count here is just as much the DM's responsibility as it is the players'. Okay, they're willing to kill to escape... once we know that, let's just move along instead of throwing more and more guards against them so that they become the greatest villains the city has ever known or whatever. Related, the DM can decide there have in fact been worse villains in the city's history.

In my eyes, the DM contributed to this outcome far more than the players did. Their points of input or meaningful decisions are really narrow and limited compared to the DM's.

The DM made some mistakes but I'm not sure it's quite as bad as your list here. The main mistake - and in fairness we as analysts have the wonderful advantage of hindsight - is your fifth point: the mysterious stranger should have either had means of escape on hand or told the PCs to stay put and that they'd get out safely soon enough e.g. after he'd bribed enough guards.

I know there's often a reflexive need to defend DMs, but I cannot understand how anyone could analyze the details we have and determine that the players were in any way in the wrong here.

I think the players made some in-character mistakes as well, upstream of the combat. Once things got nasty, though, it seems one thing simply led to another in a fairly predictable fashion.

 

[Oofta]

It appears to me that the second two sentences here contradict the first.

The player has full control over their PC. When they joined my game they agreed to a social contract and agreed to the low, low standard that they wouldn't run an evil PC. Since they can't run an evil PC and I don't ever tell them what their PC thinks or does, their PC becoming an NPC is the only logical outcome.

What's the alternative? Let people run characters I find offensive? Run a game that makes me and at least one player (my wife) uncomfortable so that you can't call me out for not living up to some philosophical standard?

 

[Mort]

Ignoring character input? Do your characters in your game talk to you? I find that a bit odd....

The characters (sure, through the players) picked a specific direction - that's character input.

Just because you don't like the specific direction, doesn't mean you should railroad them back on the path you do like.

Now, if you're not comfortable with the direction? You should TELL the players ( a simple "I'm not comfortable with the evil direction this arc/campaign is going, it's just not something I want to run..."). Why the need to "trick" them onto the path you want?

Heck you could come to fun compromise - the town and the guards were actually an evil death cult sacrificing outsiders like the PCs. That's what they actually planned to do at dawn!

Those guards/cultists needed killing.

There, the players got to enjoy their murderhoboing - but it was murderhoboing for justice.

 

[pemerton]

The player has full control over their PC. When they joined my game they agreed to a social contract and agreed to the low, low standard that they wouldn't run an evil PC. Since they can't run an evil PC and I don't ever tell them what their PC thinks or does, their PC becoming an NPC is the only logical outcome.

What's the alternative? Let people run characters I find offensive? Run a game that makes me and at least one player (my wife) uncomfortable so that you can't call me out for not living up to some philosophical standard?

A more accurate description, to me, would be that players face limits in their play of their PCs.