Am I a cruel DM?

[fusangite]

Well, now that the details are in, it's just a matter of mopping up.

1. Those cruel untrustworthy NPCs... who give out 60,000gp in equipment to people they hardly know in exchange simply for an enforceable contract. I just don't see how the word of one player about NPC behaviour can be preferred over much more detailed, precise information from the GM. Geas seems like a perfectly reasonable insurance policy; without it, it would have been foolish in the extreme for the cardinal to hand out 60,000gp in resources. Surely the characters did not imagine they were getting this king's ransom with no consequences or strings attached.

2. Diplomacy checks of 30. So, the gnomes who were impressed went off and pleaded the party's case to their superiors -- using their own diplomacy checks. I think this is a basic game mechanical issue in which the GM is clearly in the right -- you cannot do second-hand Diplomacy. If you persuade an agent, emissary or ambassador of something, when they go to make your case to their superior, they use their own diplomacy skill not yours.

3. Sense motive checks of 30. It seems to me that the only way Sense Motive could have been triggered here would be if the gnomes had misrepresented their superiors' intentions -- if they had said, "my superiors agree with me." But instead, they were pretty up front that they would have to sell their superiors on the idea of not screwing over the characters.

 

[fusangite]

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.

How on earth do you play NPCs? Do you write down their response to every possible thing the characters could do in advance or are you a living breathing human like the rest of us who designs NPCs with motivations and personalities and plays them like people?

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.

What is your evidence that they didn't? All you know is that they didn't successfully persuade their superiors of the wrongness of taking the artifact. For all we know, they may well have been strong advocates for the party.

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.

What nonsense! They knew of the existence of these people. They knew that the gnomes were going to report to them. It is the job of the players not the GM to ensure that they meet the people relevant to their quest. Perhaps a reasonable precondition for agreeing to be separated from the artifact would have been to speak to the people who were actually in charge.

The PCs made the only call they could with the evidence they were given.

Actually if you read the approximated dialogue, you'll see that they were going to have their familiars guard the artifact and then abandoned the plan in mid-stream for no good reason. The NPCs indicated that they couldn't put a human-sized person in the same box as the artifact but took no position regarding familiars.

Also, are you really suggesting that these gnomes were really the only possible option for shipping this thing? On what evidence do you make this assertion? We don't know enough about where the characters were to know what other options may have been available.

Their doubt over the trustworthiness of the gnomes was put to rest by the sense motive check.

Yes. But if I become convinced that a king's ambassador is on my side, it tells me nothing about whether the king is on my side.

The player who still didn't trust them was metagaming, since there was no information presented to do otherwise

You mean like all their previous interactions, conflicts and other experiences with these gnomes? How is that not information? Remembering what happened last week and knowing who you're talking to is not metagaming.

- in fact the information supplied led the PCs to believe they were safe.

I suppose that would be true of a player who only joined the campaign in that session. But I believe all the players were veterans.

As far a LG priest placing a geas - I have to agree it just doesn't make sense.

Then why isn't it an evil spell in the mechanics?

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.

It was very lawful. The party made the agreement; if they did so in good faith, the geas would not affect them; if they didn't, this would be divine punishment for their bad faith.

I agree that it I had been the GM, I would have made the geas an explicit part of the contract, basically saying, "I'm going to cast a spell that ensures our agreement is adhered-to." But that's a pretty minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. Geas is sometimes a punitive spell but it seems to me that the spell is more a magical mechanism of enforcing a contract that would otherwise be unenforceable.

More on the level of chaotic (while it could still fall within the good guidelines and not be evil it is really not lawful).

How is making people abide by an agreement inherently chaotic?

Let me guess the geas was another winged issue. How many clerics have prepared a geas in their spells for the day?

What gives you the sense that they met the cleric, made the agreement and got the 60,000gp in one day? I have created ecclesiastical judge NPCs who always have geas prepared because their business is enforcing contracts and meting out punishments. If that was the main job of the cardinal, I would expect her to have the spell prepared in any case.

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).

The Silent Spell feat adds one level to a spell. So, where does you "many high level slots" come from?

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.

How on earth do you run NPCs? Seriously!? Or are your players just really really predictable?

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.

Don't do this Ambrus. Admit you're wrong only if you're wrong. Don't cave in just because people are getting upset. Otherwise, you'll give them an incentive to get upset again. And nobody wants that.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Well, now that the details are in, it's just a matter of mopping up.

1. Those cruel untrustworthy NPCs... who give out 60,000gp in equipment to people they hardly know in exchange simply for an enforceable contract. I just don't see how the word of one player about NPC behaviour can be preferred over much more detailed, precise information from the GM. Geas seems like a perfectly reasonable insurance policy; without it, it would have been foolish in the extreme for the cardinal to hand out 60,000gp in resources. Surely the characters did not imagine they were getting this king's ransom with no consequences or strings attached.

2. Diplomacy checks of 30. So, the gnomes who were impressed went off and pleaded the party's case to their superiors -- using their own diplomacy checks. I think this is a basic game mechanical issue in which the GM is clearly in the right -- you cannot do second-hand Diplomacy. If you persuade an agent, emissary or ambassador of something, when they go to make your case to their superior, they use their own diplomacy skill not yours.

3. Sense motive checks of 30. It seems to me that the only way Sense Motive could have been triggered here would be if the gnomes had misrepresented their superiors' intentions -- if they had said, "my superiors agree with me." But instead, they were pretty up front that they would have to sell their superiors on the idea of not screwing over the characters.

If all of the information Ambrus gave is correct, then all of Fusangite's above conclusions are mechanically correct.

If this aggravates the players, then there are some decisions to be made.

Hong mentioned earlier that the "purpose" of a campaign was to present an enjoyable gaming experience in an enjoyable world, while Fusangite would replace "Enjoyable" with "Believable"

Neither is the correct answer.

I've played in both sorts of campaigns, and I much prefer the Believable model to the Universally Enjoyable one (Call me a simulationist if you must), but if the players want a world where they will succeed then you need to look closely at whether you have any interest in providing a game world like that.

Myself? I wouldn't bother.

Your fiance? Sounds like she doesn't want to bother playing in a "simulationist" world.

No right or wrong here, just differing tastes.

For what it's worth, I would've loved to be involved in this campaign as player, and from my vantage point, Ambrus sounds like Hell-and-Damnation as a DM (which is good)

 

[irdeggman]

Let's see - I don't script everything. I do script major attitudes events (ambushes, betrayals {as in when it's likely and what is apt to prompt the event}, etc.) I do script or at least have a general concept laid out on how an NPC will initially react to the PCs, this of course gets modified by how persuasive their arguments are. I don't always ask for a dice roll, in fact I prefer to weigh the merits of the plan presented to the NPCs and have them react accordingly. I in general hate having an NPCs reaction determined by a dice roll.

What I gleemed out of the posts was that the fact there was a disagreement between the gnomes was the "winging". This is a purely NPC interaction with NPC and should be more planned since it cannot be affected by anything the players do and is behind the curtain so to speak.

Things that could have (and probably should have) been scripted would be, IMO:

1. The location of the ship (a possible escape route).

2. Other possible escape routes. A DM needs to have more than one way out of a trap since players will more often than not avoid doing what the DM had planned so other possibilities need to be available.

3. The presence of the gnomes and their general attitude/motivations - prior to the PCs showing up.

4. Any internal conflict in motivations for the gnomes (e.g., more than 1 sect present).

5. The boxes themselves. A means for hiding the PCs and artifact onto the ship.

6. How the gnomes would initially react if confronted by the PCs.

7. To what extremes are the gnomes willing to go to achieve their goals and exactly how far apart are those goals from those of the PCs.

8. What happens if the PCs lose? This one is extrememly important since many times DMs fail to have a contingency plot/story in case the PCs fail to accomplish a specific task.

If you look at what I have listed you can readily see that there is a whole lot of room to maneuver about in reaction/response to the PCs' actions and yet some essential plot line devices are prebuilt into the scenario.


In the case presented most of the storyline progressed without any PC interaction and that is what is wrong about it. Decisions that adverse affect the PCs were made without them having any way of knowing what was going on. It is way different for them to have been successfully deceived but when all indications given to them were that they were doing something right then there is a game fault here and the players have a very legitimate right to be upset. They will most likely get over it once you have given something to go on but until then they feel betrayed (at least that is what I'm getting out of this).

Ambrus, if you were so convinced that what you had done was correct then why bother to post it as a question in the first place? I mean you must have thought it possible that you had been unfair to the players or else you wouldn't ahve bothered posting it for discussion. It really seems that you have been spending your time trying to justify your decisions/actions instead of listening to what others see as right or wrong about them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Being geased, especially long-term, is no fun for the players even if it is plausible within the gameworld. In this case, fun trumps plausibility.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was very lawful. The party made the agreement; if they did so in good faith, the geas would not affect them; if they didn't, this would be divine punishment for their bad faith.

I agree that it I had been the GM, I would have made the geas an explicit part of the contract, basically saying, "I'm going to cast a spell that ensures our agreement is adhered-to." But that's a pretty minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. Geas is sometimes a punitive spell but it seems to me that the spell is more a magical mechanism of enforcing a contract that would otherwise be unenforceable.

Hmmm. I imagine that a Lawful Evil or a Lawful Neutral character might not have a problem with what occurred, but I doubt that would be the case were the character Lawful Good. According to Ambrus, the PCs and the Cardinal worked out the details of the contract, and the details of the contract did not include the Geas. It was hidden. It was not part of the contract. Plain and simple.

Moreover, I will go so far as to suspect that it was not made part of the contract because Ambrus knew that his players would balk at accepting it. Why? Because almost every player out there balks at accepting magical compulsion. Anyone who says they're surprised that the players are upset over having their characters magicallly compelled either hasn't been playing that long, or isn't being completely honest (though perhaps they are only fooling themselves). It is my opinion that Ambrus has been playing for a while.

Dropping X gp as a reward? Well, that's nice, but it isn't necessarily a reason to trust people. I've worked for companies that dropped nice Holiday Bonuses but took you up the backside during the remainder of the year. In real-world terms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are more important than any temporary monetary gains. In my opinion, this holds true in fantasy games as well.

What the Abbess did essentially boils down to: "I don't trust you, because I have met so many people in this world who cannot be trusted. And, guess what? I cannot be trusted either."

It is perfectly fine to have the Abbess be a bleeping bleeping so-and-so. It is perfectly fine to have the gnomes be bleeping bleeping so-and-sos. It is perfectly fine to have the gnomes steal the treasure simply because the PCs made it so damn easy.

But having the majority of NPCs turn out to be bleeping bleeping so-and-sos creates a world where the PCs are forced to be the same simply to survive. If that is what the DM is going for, then I suppose there isn't any real problem. But it isn't a realistic simulation. It certainly isn't realistic within my experience. Games theory has looked at cooperative strategies, and would suggest that this constant betrayal of trust is a very poor social stategy for any world, fantasy or real.

Don't do this Ambrus. Admit you're wrong only if you're wrong. Don't cave in just because people are getting upset. Otherwise, you'll give them an incentive to get upset again. And nobody wants that.

And, yet, I agree with this. Don't admit that you're wrong, Ambrus. Simply ask yourself: "Who are my PCs supposed to care about? Who are my PCs supposed to trust? Who is worth questing for (without a Geas)? Who is worth dying for?" If you can answer those questions (or, better, your players can), then I am getting the wrong idea from what I've read, and your players are just whiny.

If you can't, though, it's far, far better to provide those answers in the future than it is to ret-con the past. Easy enough to say, "You were in CITYSTATE? Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany...."


RC

 

[Mallus]

Hong mentioned earlier that the "purpose" of a campaign was to present an enjoyable gaming experience in an enjoyable world, while Fusangite would replace "Enjoyable" with "Believable"

Looks to me that for Fusangite "believable" is a vital part of "enjoyable", not some competing goal/design paradigm.

No right or wrong here, just differing tastes.

Exactly

For what it's worth, I would've loved to be involved in this campaign as player

Me too.

Doesn't this all come down to knowing your group, and knowing when to mete out rewards and challenges? While I can sympathize with the frustrated players, some of comments in this thread --particularly ones to the effect of "the players must always be presented with enough information to make an informed choices" strike me as well, awful. Its all about presenting players with a steady stream of challenges. And nothing's more challegning than a situation that blindsides them... so long as that's not the only kind of challenge you present them with...

 

[Raven Crowking]

ome of comments in this thread --particularly ones to the effect of "the players must always be presented with enough information to make an informed choices" strike me as well, awful. Its all about presenting players with a steady stream of challenges. And nothing's more challegning than a situation that blindsides them... so long as that's not the only kind of challenge you present them with...

Well, what if you said: "The players should be presented with whatever information is available to the characters"? I think most of us would agree with that. And, regardless of what else may or may not have occurred, this was largely done...assuming that Ambrus was quite clear that the gnomes the PCs were dealing with had no real power. Again, the PCs made it easy for the gnomes to change their minds.

However, that doesn't address the problem of rat-bastard NPCs. Obviously, we all like to play r-bNPCs as DMs. And, equally obviously, the r-bNPCs are the ones we love to hate as players. So, r-bNPCs are an important and integral part to any campaign world.

But, they should not turn out to be the average NPC.

In order to make a world breathe for players, the PCs need NPCs that they care about. They need NPCs that they like. They need NPCs that they would face danger for, and, if necessary, die to defend. In other words, they need sympathetic NPCs.

Sympathetic NPCs are, if anything, more important than r-bNPCs.

So, hey, I would have enjoyed playing in Ambrus' game, especially with "new Geas-lite" because I, for one, wouldn't have let the artifact out of my sight. Moreover, when I discovered the Geas, I would have considered either confronting the Church ("This was not part of our contract!" "Neither was the gold, but you accepted that readily enough." "You #$(@!s!") or getting the Geas dispelled by a qualified practitioner.

I also note that the Geas would have no effect so long as I kept the artifact close (due to its antimagic field).

Maybe the gnomes' goals and the party's are not mutually exclusive. As I pointed out earlier, Diplomacy only really works when both sides are capable of some flexibility. The diplomat has to have something to offer. I wouldn't mind knowing more about this. Lots of available possibilities.

But I'd still want some NPCs I liked.

I also wouldn't mind knowing why the Church wouldn't take the artifact out of the city. Still no answer on that one, and it seems a bloody obvious idea to me.


RC

 

[Arnwyn]

Sounds like the DM did a good job to me.

Also seems like a certain player is simply projecting other issues onto this particular situation. Not a valuable attitude.

 

[wally]

Just wondering. I think the GM mentioned that the artifact being discussed actually radiates an anti-magic field. If they are putting this on an airship, I need to ask...Does this airship have any magic keeping it afloat or pushing it forward? Wouldn't the anti-magic cause some problems? Even if the boat is big enough, I would imagine that there would be some problems.