Am I a cruel DM?

[Ambrus]

I'm surprised. I would NEVER have guessed that an NPC so untrusting and cruel as to cast a geas on the PCs for the obvious purpose of threatening them and controlling them would 'ever' voluntarily remove it.

I'm sorry, at the time it didn't occur to me that casting Geas/Quest might be considered cruel. It is available for good clerics to cast. The party chose to freely swear the oath themselves, her intention was simply to ensure that they kept their word before she entrusted them with the sum of her wealth and her hopes.

Although, of course, you mentioned that the PCs could be punished by the Law for daring to adventure without a geas. (CRIPES!!!) I'd still get it removed.

It's not necessary to be geased to adventure in my campaign. The cardinal sanctioned the party's order to help ensure they'd have some legal protection if they were apprehended by the city guard while adventuring within the city, which might have necessitated some illegal activities such as breaking and entering into a building while investigating or fighting in the streets if confronted with enemies, ect.

The cardinal didn't know the anchoress was going to cast geas beforehand so he didn't warn the party. The anchoress cast it as a silenced spell because she had taken a vow of silence long ago. Why she did it is detailed above.

It sounds to me like you made sure the failure was going to happen by keeping those sinister gnomes unavailable for conversation.

The "sinister gnomes" didn't feel the need to go meet the party directly since they were in the process of deciding to work against them. There was nothing they needed to learn from them at that point so why go and chat?

Furthermore, if the gnomes that trusted the PCs were familiar with the 2 never-met sinister gnomes, they should have warned the PCs about the potential for treachery while crated.

It didn't occur to them that they might get overruled by their own allies.

I'm not trying to justify what I did or make excuses, but please keep in mind that I was improvising most of this as it developed. :\

 

[fredramsey]

Just my two coppers:

I think you have some whiny players. It sounds to me like something that could happen in the scenario, therefore, the characters have to deal with it. It's all about challenges after all. As long as it makes sense in the story, there is really no such thing as an "unfair" challenge, IMHO. I don't think my players would have batted an eye. They would have said, "Why those @#$%ing little gnomes! Let's go after them!"

 

[irdeggman]

I'm not trying to justify what I did or make excuses, but please keep in mind that I was improvising most of this as it developed.

And this is another major part of the problem. Such a major turning point in the overall adventure shouldn't be winged like that. Too many things were obviously not thought about ahead of time.

The gnomes that went against the PCs - were they from a different sect than the ones that the PCs made friends with? If so then how did those two groups get along? There should have been a disagreement over what was happening amongst the gnomes - those friendly to the PCs should surely have argued against the stealing the artifact. In fact based on how you presented that the interacting gnomes were in deed "friendly" to the PCs it should most likely have been a "loud" disagreement (Listen check anyone).

I reiterate that the PCs (and players) should have the opportunity to make poor judgements for themselves. Since they didn't interact with the ones that were betraying them they couldn't make that call. The story shouldn't advance without the PCs which is what happened.

The PCs made the only call they could with the evidence they were given. Their doubt over the trustworthiness of the gnomes was put to rest by the sense motive check. The player who still didn't trust them was metagaming, since there was no information presented to do otherwise - in fact the information supplied led the PCs to believe they were safe.

As far a LG priest placing a geas - I have to agree it just doesn't make sense. That is to say placing the geas without letting the party know it was going to happen is not a very lawful nor good thing. More on the level of chaotic (while it could still fall within the good guidelines and not be evil it is really not lawful). Let me guess the geas was another winged issue. How many clerics have prepared a geas in their spells for the day? And since this was a cleric that took an oath of silence pretty much all spells would have been prepared silent (hence using up many high level spell slots). Lets see a silent geas spell uses a 7th level cleric spell slot and affects a single creature - so how many were prepared/cast? again the problem with winging things.

I would not in any way redo time though. What has happened has happened. As a responsive DM you could talk it over with your players and let them know how you mishandled some things but will do better in the future. I would also lay out a new storyline that allows the PCs the means to reach another climatic ending and finding the artifact - an obvious clue left behind by the friendly gnomes would be a handy thing, also reflecting that not all of the gnomes are to be mistrusted.

 

[billd91]

And this is another major part of the problem. Such a major turning point in the overall adventure shouldn't be winged like that. Too many things were obviously not thought about ahead of time.

I disagree that a major turning point needs to be thoroughly scripted out. As long as the DM has the general motivations and character of the NPCs thought out in advance, any winging-it that is true to those motivations and characters is AOK in my book.
I suspect you're also coming at this problem as a DM who generally plans/writes out their adventures rather than typically wings it. There are definite style differences between the two and I think that DMs who plan details in advance tend to extend less legitimacy to DMs who wing it. And I think that's unfortunate.

 

[tonym]

I'm sorry, at the time it didn't occur to me that casting Geas/Quest might be considered cruel. It is available for good clerics to cast. The party chose to freely swear the oath themselves, her intention was simply to ensure that they kept their word before she entrusted them with the sum of her wealth and her hopes.

The anticipation and/or reality of blood running from the PCs eyes and ears is where the in-game cruelty of geas comes in (that's my description of the daily damage; yours may involve boils or spontaneous combustion). When the NPC cast geas, she cast the spell to kill the PCs in a hideous way. Unless it was all a bluff. But then she'd have to be certain that her spell wouldn't kill anybody--which would be a very difficult thing to do. What if a PC had 1 hp after a battle and decided to quit the quest? Twenty-four hours later, death by boils! Okay, an extreme example, but still....

It's not necessary to be geased to adventure in my campaign. The cardinal sanctioned the party's order to help ensure they'd have some legal protection if they were apprehended by the city guard while adventuring within the city, which might have necessitated some illegal activities such as breaking and entering into a building while investigating or fighting in the streets if confronted with enemies, ect.

The cardinal didn't know the anchoress was going to cast geas beforehand so he didn't warn the party. The anchoress cast it as a silenced spell because she had taken a vow of silence long ago. Why she did it is detailed above.

Oh. I thought the geas was part of the cardinal's whole concept of sanctioning the party. My bad. Please disregard that previous criticism about PCs needing a geas to adventure in your world.

Hey, that means the party can lose the geas and still benefit from working with the cardinal, should they get arrested. Very neat.

Dang, your campaign is complex. (Not a criticism. Just marveling at it, like I would a spiderweb.)

The "sinister gnomes" didn't feel the need to go meet the party directly since they were in the process of deciding to work against them. There was nothing they needed to learn from them at that point so why go and chat?

Well, that is very realistic. But it makes the Player's job a lot tougher, of course.

Tony M

 

[Raven Crowking]

I disagree that a major turning point needs to be thoroughly scripted out. As long as the DM has the general motivations and character of the NPCs thought out in advance, any winging-it that is true to those motivations and characters is AOK in my book.

I agree. The problem is not whether or not it was pre-planned, but whether or not it worked. Saying the DM shouldn't wing a major plot point is the same as asking the players to do foolish things now, before the DM has time to plan. It is also asking the DM to railroad the players, which is seldom a good thing IMHO.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ambrus,

For the record, your does sound like an interesting campaign world. I don't see anything wrong with the way you're winging things, per se. I do think that, between sessions, though, you ought to give some consideration to what has happened, and where things are going. Again, matters of context and overall pattern rather than individual encounters.

Sure, X may do Y in the heat of the moment. That doesn't mean that, later, when X has cooled off, he doesn't regret doing Y. It's true of real people, and should be true of NPCs as well.

Let what happened stand. Then consider how their actions impact the NPCs views of themselves. Then decide what they do next.

Also, consider giving the PCs some reason to like/trust at least some of your NPCs. I have lots of chances to take advantage of people every day that I do not take. Lots of people have a chance to take advantage of me as well, and do not. Usually, it is a lot easier to take advantage of people you don't like, or people that you can discount as individuals for whatever reason.


RC


P.S.: I am assuming that the contract written up by the players and Cardinal was the substance of the Geas (otherwise hard to do Silenced). In this case, the PCs shouldn't have agreed to it if they didn't want to be bound to it. They still should have been warned prior to agreeing. If the Abbess can communicate the terms of the Geas, she can sure as hell communicate that the Geas is going to be cast.

Were I a player in your game, I would have told you my concerns, but I wouldn't have let what I've heard so far stop me from playing. I certainly wouldn't expect you to "grovel", as one poster suggested. A lot of what we've been able to glimpse seems quite involved and interesting. I truly hope you get past this point, and we get to read all about it later as a Story Hour.

RC

 

[Hitokiri]

There are definite style differences between the two and I think that DMs who plan details in advance tend to extend less legitimacy to DMs who wing it. And I think that's unfortunate.

Thats OK, I usually extend less legitimacy to GMs that plan everything out in advance.

On the issue of winging it:
I rarely have my games scripted beyond the goals and starting positions of the NPCs. I try to know where each one is, and how they are LIKELY to act in some basic situations, but to my mind having everything decided beforehand makes for a static world. PCs should not be the only one reacting to events around them, and being able to change what an NPC does (as long as it remains true to character of course) seems to bring my worlds to life. Have I winged major plot twists that have screwed over PCs before? You bet I have. The real trick here is to not do it too often and to make it abundantly clear that what has happened is just a setback, not a complete failure. Everything in moderation is the key.

Now, with that background for me, I'd have no problem with what you did from a purly in-game related perspective. However, it sounds like you need to talk with your players and figure out why some of them are becoming bored with the game, and whether it is salvagable or should be tied off ASAP. If frustration is the biggest problem (as opposed to just being tired of playing in the setting, which would be enough to put the campaign to rest imho), then think about letting the players pull off a major coup. It sounds like there is quite a bit of splintering in the gnome factions, could the PCs use that to their advantage. Could the PCs play the gnomes off against one another and possibly oust the gnomes that are working against them, thus not only securing the artifact but also the support of the gnomes (who they know are trustworthy since they've cleaned house)? The artifact needs to be repaired iirc, are the gnomes planning on doing the repairs themselves (thus allowing the PCs to retrieve the artifact and esentially skipping one of the steps they need to complete).

There are some great opportunities here for the PCs if they will just look for them. I'd say let them sweat it out for another couple of games, and then let them have the artifact back (and maybe put them even closer to ultimately fulfilling their quest). And don't, for the love of god, pull another major plot twist for some time. Barring the PCs doing something horrendously stupid, they should be fairly confident that the artifact is not going to be leaving their possesion again anytime soon. Of course, all this assumes your players cool off a little bit and aren't ready to just call it quits at your next session.

 

[Ambrus]

The anticipation and/or reality of blood running from the PCs eyes and ears is where the in-game cruelty of geas comes in (that's my description of the daily damage; yours may involve boils or spontaneous combustion). When the NPC cast geas, she cast the spell to kill the PCs in a hideous way.

Well, I've actually toned down the effects of the geas to make it more player friendly. They've never suffered any damage from it. They actually took a ten day week of down time to re-equip and have some magic items made. The first few days nothing happened except for a general feeling of anxiousness, the next few days brought a growing sense of unease and anxiety. Only by the end of the week did they start suffering any ill effects in the form of nausea. It all disappeared as soon as they resolved to head back into the dungeon the next day. This to me, seemed like a more LG version of the spell.

As to why the LG Anchoress would feel the need to resort to casting geas, well without going into her background in depth, I'll say she has some serious trust issues and a few 'people' problems.

Dang, your campaign is complex. (Not a criticism. Just marveling at it, like I would a spiderweb.)

Thank you. Thankfully I have two gifted note-takers (Noelani and Ketharian) to help me remember what I'm doing. It's also more complicated than I'm making it out to be. I've been doing my best to keep these descriptions simple so you all don't confused or distracted by the details. For instance, I didn't mention that the city is built on a airborne island of stone high above the earth or that the ship was actually a flying ship. That's why I didn't originally mention the geas either.

Well, that is very realistic. But it makes the Player's job a lot tougher, of course.

I agree. My intention is to offer up a challenging campaign. The issue now seems to be whether it's too challenging.

I do think that, between sessions, though, you ought to give some consideration to what has happened, and where things are going.

Well, I always spend more time planning the session then I do spend running it. I like to feel prepared. I also think it's the only way to improvise well (knowing what all the NPCs are doing/thinking/planning) so that I'm ready to react when the party does something unexpected.

Also, consider giving the PCs some reason to like/trust at least some of your NPCs.

Like 60 000 gp gifts?

A lot of what we've been able to glimpse seems quite involved and interesting. I truly hope you get past this point, and we get to read all about it later as a Story Hour.

I've never written (or even considered) writing one. How's it work?

And just to clarify something, I have five players. Two have voiced support for what I did, one hasn't offered any objections yet, one is quite upset and the other isn't aware of it yet (though she'll almost assuredly be quite upset too).

 

[Teflon Billy]

You are mean only if your campaign end there.
Otherwise it's just the beginning of "part 2: artifact recovering": more fun for your players!

This 2was my feeling as well. If the thing can't be Plane Shifted or Teleported, then your group has a pretty good chance of tracking them down don't they?

Hire a ship! Get a bunch of Locate Object scrolls! Start using Gather Information to find out where Gnomes would ship the Atom Bomb if they had it.

Talk about a motivated group