D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[dave2008]

Update! Saturday comes quick! I ran the game...again.

So the game started with the players doing nothing. The characters are hiding, but the players can't decide what to do. they get some laughs when they slaughter the dumb and dumber bounty hunters. Then back to doing nothing.

Then their alternative PCs show up: pretending to be good and helpful but really the 'evil twins'. The players get all confused with the 'multiverse idea'. As the players follow any NPC as a DM, they fall for the trap where their alt PCs pretend like they will fix things....but then attack the players to "slaughter out what once went wrong".

The players go nuts as their PCs die as they are not familiar with the concept of character death. I tell them they can re make their characters as alt alt PCs crossing over to this world. They don't really "get" it and complain they "can't" play the same PCs "again". They do like the idea they can "get revenge" and sneak attack the evil twin alt PCs. They don't do anything to alter their PCs and just want to "use their old PCs as not new alt PCs".

So they pop in, and attack the evil twin PCs....and loose....and are all killed again. I offer to let them, again, remake the characters and try again. They give up and say "what is the point".

And the game ends. I sent the e-mail to the DM of this game....but no answer back yet.

Are you being serious? Is this what you really chose to do?

 

[dave2008]

I never tell my players what they can or cannot do, I will let them know what the consequences are. That first level PC wants to try to take out that dragon? Go for it. I may ask if they even want to bother rolling initiative because their PC is going to die, but it's the player's choice.

If you consider telling people the consequences of their actions is that I assume control of the PC if they go evil [edit to add] telling the players what they can do[/edit] , that's your choice.

To you respond to the wrong post? Your response doesn't have anything to do with my post. I never said anything about assuming control of PCs or telling players the consequences of their actions. Where did you get that idea?

I said you can and do object to some player actions. You have specifically said you don't allow, i.e. object to, evil PCs.

To be clear, I have no issue with that. I do not want to and will not run a campaign for evil characters either.

 

[Oofta]

To you respond to the wrong post? Your response doesn't have anything to do with my post. I never said anything about assuming control of PCs or telling players the consequences of their actions. Where did you get that idea?

I said you can and do object to some player actions. You have specifically said you don't allow, i.e. object to, evil PCs.

To be clear, I have no issue with that. I do not want to and will not run a campaign for evil characters either.

I don't "object" to anything the players do. It's their PC. But the only time I'll tell a player "You can't do that" is if it's something I don't think is impossible such as the PHB example of jumping over the moon.

But it's certainly possible for a PC to decide that the ends justifies the means. They can sacrifice a hundred innocents to theoretically stop a greater evil and if they do it becomes part of the game world's history. It may even make for a really cool campaign story arc. That particular scenario hasn't ever happened but a decision that could have broad ramifications has. Long story short, one of my players did decide as the campaign was wrapping up (20th level) that their PC would begin a quest to destroy The Fates and took some steps starting down that path. If the character were successful, it could have very widespread ramifications. Stopping that character could become a central part of my next campaign if my players choose it as one of the options.

So I don't object to that character being so upset that they can't change something that happened in the past that they decided they would be willing to watch the world burn as long as they had their vengeance and a chance at "fixing" time to their liking. I just don't want to run the game for that character because they were willing to do whatever it took to make it happen.

There are exceptions to every rule. Some things I would object to and stop, such as graphic descriptions of torture. But not all evil acts would fall under that category. That's what I was trying to explain.

 

[dave2008]

I don't "object" to anything the players do. It's their PC. But the only time I'll tell a player "You can't do that" is if it's something I don't think is impossible such as the PHB example of jumping over the moon.

But it's certainly possible for a PC to decide that the ends justifies the means. They can sacrifice a hundred innocents to theoretically stop a greater evil and if they do it becomes part of the game world's history. It may even make for a really cool campaign story arc. That particular scenario hasn't ever happened but a decision that could have broad ramifications has. Long story short, one of my players did decide as the campaign was wrapping up (20th level) that their PC would begin a quest to destroy The Fates and took some steps starting down that path. If the character were successful, it could have very widespread ramifications. Stopping that character could become a central part of my next campaign if my players choose it as one of the options.

So I don't object to that character being so upset that they can't change something that happened in the past that they decided they would be willing to watch the world burn as long as they had their vengeance and a chance at "fixing" time to their liking. I just don't want to run the game for that character because they were willing to do whatever it took to make it happen.

There are exceptions to every rule. Some things I would object to and stop, such as graphic descriptions of torture. But not all evil acts would fall under that category. That's what I was trying to explain.

Wow, I can't tell if your misunderstanding, stubborn, or both.

 

[Mort]

First, I would actually like to thank @bloodtide for his OP and updates, despite the relentless criticism (much of which has been mine). Certainly has brought on an interesting discussion.

With that -

I think I will reassess labeling the players' murderhobos. These are clearly new players just finding out what this whole D&D thing is. They were following along the plot. When the DM put guards in their path, they took out the guards - because they likely didn't realize you could subdue and also, because they weren't seemingly presented with another obvious option. Plus lets face it, if this where a video game, that's what you do - with likely no consequence. They weren't randomly slaughtering; they were taking out obstacles in their path. So, perfectly reasonable new player behavior.

I REALLY dislike the consequence here. It has zero bearing on what the players (or their PCs) did. Instead, it's just the DM going "I'll show those yahoos how to REALLY design their characters..." and then proceeding to execute their PCs. This AFTER they were actually having fun exploring the initial consequences of their actions no less!

I just can't see it EVER being a good idea to send a massively powerful hit squad at the PCs for no reason than to "that'll teach em to thwart my railroad!" It's essentially, rock falls everyone dies level of DM fiat - only even more adversarial and petty. Because the group thinks they have a shot, when they really don't (as they learned the second time around). I mean what else needs to be said other than the group gave up in frustration and quit!?! If that's not an undesired result, I don't know what is.

 

[Oofta]

Wow, I can't tell if your misunderstanding, stubborn, or both.

Not sure what you're talking about. I don't object to the player no longer playing their PC by committing suicide by dragon or by choosing to become evil. I also don't see a significant difference in the end result.

When it comes to how I handle evil characters if there's a different point to be made I don't see it. Objecting to something means disapproval, I don't disapprove of people who play evil PCs. I choose not to play games with evil PCs whether I'm DM or playing a character. If you consider that "objecting" then we simply define the term differently.

I'm done with the semantics games. I allow people to do whatever they want as long as it's within the rules. If they choose to commit evil acts they can no longer run that character in my game. Call it what you will.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Including (but not limited to) the PCs having a bounty placed on their heads, being declared wanted men in the Kingdom, or having the Kings men or similar people coming after them, in the same way the FBI would come after you IRL?

How is that illogical or immersion breaking?

It is illogical and immersion-breaking to assume something that exists in real life (FBI raids) would apply in substantially the same manner in a fantasy world, and that it is the only direct and natural consequence of the adventurers killing multiple guards in a prison break.

First, it assumes that the lord actually cares enough about several dead guards to send anyone after the adventurers. Maybe he does, but maybe he doesn’t.

Second, even if he does, it assumes that posting a bounty is a good idea. A good lord may not want to encourage his citizens (most of whom are commoners) to throw their lives away pursuing people who are guaranteed to tear them to ribbons. Even if this isn’t a problem, he must weigh setting a bounty against using that money for the good of his people.

He also needs to have that money handy in liquid form. Many feudal lords were land-rich and cash-poor. They simply couldn’t afford a thousand gp bounty to hunt down guard-killers, without seriously impacting their rulership.

You also need to consider the bounty hunters’ side of the equation. A high level adventurer just isn’t going to be tempted unless the bounty is really high. And morever, he doesn’t actually know the level of the target. Is the target 3rd level or 20th level? All he knows is that the target killed several guards.

Finally, you also need to consider tactics. Unless the bounty hunter has access to mid- or high- level divination magic, heading out into the wilderness to try and find the characters doesn’t make any sense. The wilderness is too big, and with poachers, travellers, hermits, woodcutters, humanoids, there is no assurance that w hunter will find there target. It makes much more sense to wait until they arrive at a settlement and hit them there before they melt into the wilderness.

But all this is moot. Because you are not sending “consequences” after the party because they are the natural and logical consequences of what preceded. You are sending consequences because you don’t like the actions the players have taken. Trying to solve an out of game problem (a mismatch between your preferences and the party’s preferences) using an in-game solution is not likely to work.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The players go nuts as their PCs die as they are not familiar with the concept of character death. I tell them they can re make their characters as alt alt PCs crossing over to this world. They don't really "get" it and complain they "can't" play the same PCs "again". They do like the idea they can "get revenge" and sneak attack the evil twin alt PCs. They don't do anything to alter their PCs and just want to "use their old PCs as not new alt PCs".

So they pop in, and attack the evil twin PCs....and loose....and are all killed again. I offer to let them, again, remake the characters and try again. They give up and say "what is the point".

This comes off as straight-up bullying behaviour. You are using the power that you have as DM, and your greater knowledge of the system to TPK the party because they didn’t act the way you liked.

You had several options to de-escalate. You could have talked to the players. You could have talked to the original DM and simply told him you weren’t interested in running another game for this group.

Instead, you decided to “show them whose boss” by killing off their characters. That comes off as a DM on a power trip.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Update! Saturday comes quick! I ran the game...again.
...
And the game ends. I sent the e-mail to the DM of this game....but no answer back yet.

Since you mentioned the Rec Center, I wonder at the age of the players. I'm guessing the average age is about 14-15 or so, early High School age? Also, I am curious if you think that the previous DM was no longer interesting in running games at the Rec Center, or simply unloaded the party onto you? From your reports I have gotten the impression that these players may not have the experience to understand that they can choose a different path than what is handed to them. They might not have the maturity or understanding that battle is not the only solution to a problem.

Doesn't seem to be your problem anymore, regardless.

First, I would actually like to thank bloodtide for his OP and updates, despite the relentless criticism (much of which has been mine). Certainly has brought on an interesting discussion.

Indeed!

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you (and your players) are down with that kind of play, then fine. But the OP in question is 'how to deal with it when you're not OK with it' and the answer is pretty darn simple.

Yes. Don't run that game.

It's not their game. They're not their players.

They are effectively the guest in someone's house going around and throwing out the contents of their fridge.

When I say the DM is not the players' daddy and doesn't get to 'teach' them moral lessons or discipline them, it counts double here as this is a weird uncle they've never met coming in and delivering spankings.