Am I a cruel DM?

[Teflon Billy]

Only those who believe the purpose of playing a game is not to have fun would think that "enjoyable" is not the correct answer.

Don't be obtuse Hong, there is no argument to win here, much less win by arguing semantics.

If you are seriously implying that your belief regarding what I meant by "Enjoyable" vs. "Believable" was that the game is best served by being unenjoyable, then I have overestimated you throughout your posting history.

The other option is for me to assume that you are not actually retarded and tht you are just being argumentative because you love semantics and think this kind of argument makes you look clever.

It doesn't.

Not, of course, that anyone said anything about "universally enjoyable".

More of the same and best ignored.

It is true that:

1) There is more than one dimension to what makes a game enjoyable.

2) Different people will put different priorities on each dimension, depending on taste.

This does NOT lead to:
3) You must therefore cater for everyone's tastes.

It DOES lead to:
4) You are under no obligation to game with people whose tastes are radically different to yours.

It ALSO leads to:
5) If you have decided that someone's tastes are not so radically different to yours as to rule out gaming with them, you have an obligation to work with them to build a game that will be an enjoyable experience to both, since roleplaying is (generally) a social nteraction carried out between equals, and unless the two of you are clones, there will likely still be points of disagreement.

Of course, 5) requires something in the way of people skills and the ability to reach a consensus. I believe I said something earlier about those with the social skills of a walnut, which might explain their difficulty with this.

And to think I managed to distill all of the above into...

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.

...n the same post you were disagreeing with.

 

[FCWesel]

Ambrus, looking over the thread, I don't see a problem with what your NPCs did. At all. I mean, not ALL HOPE is lost, right? The heroes are well...uh, heroes, right? So they can do something...heroic...and get after it right?

I also wanted to note that I found your posts and replies both calm, collected and gentlemenly and my hat's off to you on your most noble conduct. Not to mention the fact that you posted the inquiry here shhould tell your players YOU personally didn't set out to screw them over.

Believe it or not folks, sometimes NPCs *just do things*...Seriously.

 

[fusangite]

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it, but 'something' is bugging me about how Jebeddo, Esme and Ketherian so completely disagree with Noelani. It's like, why are they not giving her any support at all? She is their fellow Player, and they are all flat-out contradicting her.

I don't know whether you're aware of this but, even in the 21st century, people can still just be wrong. Your preposterous idea that noticing someone is wrong is somehow hostile or mean is frankly... wrong.

Being in the same gaming group as another person does not require you to agree with them -- if anything it charges you with a greater responsibility to point out when they are wrong.

What if Noelani stated that she believed Ambrus was trying to kill her and the other three players contradicted her? If they denied that he was, would you find fault with them then? How about if she stated he was building a dirty bomb with salvaged x-ray machines and was going to detonate it for Al-Qaeda? The mere statement of an opinion is insufficient, by itself, to make the opinion valid. We are all wrong from time to time. Why is it not okay/possible for Noelani to just be wrong?

It would've been so easy to say something like, "I understand where Noelani is coming from; the world often does seem to be stacked against us. But I enjoy it, personally."

But what if the world really doesn't seem that way to them!? What if it really isn't? What if it's so friendly that NPCs the characters hardly know give them 60000gp worth of stuff just for agreeing to carry out a quest?

But none of them are sypathizing with her... I am confused.

Of course you are. You have drawn a conclusion and now the evidence doesn't fit it so... you're about to announce an evil conspiracy of the GM and all the players lying to us about the game so as to make the GM's fiancee feel bad...

I guess I still believe Noelani, in other words.

So, what's the motive behind this unanimous wall of lies that her fiance and his friends have cooked-up for us?

Ambrus' world would be improved if it was a little less frustrating. Not a cakewalk, of course. STILL frustrating. Just a little 'less' frustrating.

Improved by whose standards? Noelani would like it more; you would like it more. Most contributors to this thread and most players of the actual game wouldn't find it improved.

 

[Esme]

Clarification

>I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it, but 'something' is bugging me about how Jebeddo, Esme and Ketherian so completely disagree with Noelani. It's like, why are >they not giving her any support at all? She is their fellow Player, and they are all flat-out contradicting her.

Perhaps I should offer some clarification to my previous posting, in light of the preceding remark from a poster (thank you all by the way for your various insights. Our game seems to be the matter of quite the discussion!

I totally understand and sympatise with Noelanie's point of view. It was a big dissapointment to loose the artefact, after thinking we could trust the gnomes. It's disheartening and frustrating. I died and game back to recover the item. Noelanie has every right to feel the way she does. Earlier in the campaign, the group tried and failed to stop the demon-worshiping faction of performing an evil ceremony. It stung for a while to have failed but we moved on to bigger chalenges. And we REALLY hate that faction now I can see Noelanie's pont of "another challenge failed, another challenge to difficult for us".

However, after the shock wears off I see the potential for the story to go forward and for it to be interesting and challenging. While Ambrus' decision might have been harsh, it was neither cruel, which implies malice and forethought, nor gratuitous, as demonstrated by his concern by our reaction. I think he is an impartial and fair judge of events. In this situation, events just got the better of the party. But I will not blame anyone in the group for feeling the way they do. it's only human.

*Esmé hugs Noelanie*

Oh but those gnomes have no clue who they pi**ed off!

Esmé

 

[irdeggman]

Thanks for posting, Jebeddo and Esme. Coupled with Ketherian, I now count 3 Players who are fine with Ambrus' handling of the gnome situation. Not only fine with it, but happy with everything Ambrus has done

And that is what is really about after all. 3 out 4 have posted saying they truely enjoy the game and after a while got over the dissappointment of failure. IMO the one that posted (note this was a while ago) was reacting emotionally from the first feelings after the occurance and hadn't had time to let the overall potential/possibilities set in yet.

I also agree with the postive and controlled manner in which Ambrus has responded to posted criticism. If he handles his games in the same manner then they really can only be enjoyable, IMO.

 

[Numion]

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.

I think you are onto something here. In the real world leaders have since the dawn of time sent others to do their diplomacy, bluffing and sensemotiving. Often with the negotiator being clueless to the leaders real intentions - just as a safeguard for not betraying them unwittingly.

In a D&D world where the leaders are aware of people who can sense your motive with ease this shouldn't be too surprising or uncommon.

 

[Ambrus]

And that is what is really about after all. 3 out 4 have posted saying they truely enjoy the game and after a while got over the dissappointment of failure.

Don't forget though that there remains a fifth player whoose opinion you haven't yet heard. She is now aware of what occured (Noelani informed her by email) and though I haven't yet heard her reaction yet, I fear the worst.

IMO the one that posted (note this was a while ago) was reacting emotionally from the first feelings after the occurance and hadn't had time to let the overall potential/possibilities set in yet.

Since it seems unlikely that Noelani will post here again, I should mention that although she has calmed down, she mantains her opinion (as I understand it) that what I did was wrong and that I acted unfairly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems to me that, after everything has been discussed, any error you might have made was well within normal tolerable limits. And it also seems that there is so much good stuff going on in your game that you deserve higher limites than average.

From what I'm reading, you've pulled off the impossible and made at least some of your players feel special because they've been Geased. That's something I certainly could not have accomplished! My hat is off to you!

If you ever move to Toronto, and you're looking for another player, let me know!


RC

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Well, that's the thing that would bug me as a Player. If you, as a DM, knew from the get-go that the gnomes would screw-over the party, that's fine--because then there'd a good chance that one of your Players would've picked up on their trecherous nature via roleplaying. But if for months you roleplayed them as truly trustworthy NPCs who 'liked' the PCs, because you knew them to be trustworthy NPCs who liked the PCs--but then, when the party finally relied on that trust in a big way, you suddenly decide they were secretly treacherous and have always been trecherous, then that is a bit lame. Because there would've been NO WAY for your Players to pick-up-on the gnomes' trecherous nature via roleplaying during all those previous sessions.

I'm with your Players on this one.

Tony M

Well some of the players are with the DM it seems. Given the backstory of the gnome/dwarf faction and the fact that the PCs had killed some of the their group it was massively unwise to trust them. If I were the Dm I would have just sat with my mouth agape as the players gave away the object of their quest to a group that they had no business trusting in any way. Mind-boggling!

edit - upon reading the rest of the thread (or at least more posts in it) there is one thing that really does need repeating (I think swrushing posted it) that you need to make the game fun for the players - all of them. Convince the internet hordes all you like there is still the problem with having at least 1 possibly 2 unhappy players who don't want to play anymore. That is a bad thing. I don't suggest a reversal of events but something needs to ahppen to swing the advantage to the PCs for a little while (a lifting of the geas would be my first instinct - I've always hated them and never use them. They, and don't be offended at this, always seemed like the ultimate railroading device, imo)

 

[jmucchiello]

I think this is easily salvagable. I'd spoiler this but I'm just assuming the players won't care where the idea came from....

If the players are upset that the gnomes betrayed as it appears on the surface then they just have to turn up a few dead gnomes (including one of the ones negotiated with) and find some clues to the demon faction having interrupted the gnomes transfer of the artifact and party onto the ship. Now the players can team up with the surviving gnomes (run into later) to get the artifact back/avenge the dead gnomes.

---

I can't believe some of the responses in this thread. How could the gnomes they beguiled with great feats of diplomacy not give them some recompense for taking the artifact? Well, they didn't kill the party, that's reasonable recompense I think. Those crates could just as easily have been loaded into the locked hold of a ship that had its keel ripped and sank.

---

Hong, given you are correct that gaming should be enjoyable, does not mean that 100% of all gaming time must be joyous. Some enjoyment can be had with a frustrating cliffhanger or setback. In this case, some of the players found the setback too great. Still if recovery from the setback is plausible and quick it will also be satisfying, perhap enjoyable.

---

Ambrus, I'd be really worried that only your SO (SO? Fiancee!!) is upset. How cold have the last few days been?