Am I a cruel DM?

[swrushing]

No your not. This is coming from the player side of things. Firstly, as pointed out previously and numerously, the party should have been on their toes. They relied too much on someone else to get things done in this instance.

Hey, if nothing else, i bet they won't ever, under this GM, make the mistake of trusting NPCs when it counts (or relying on NPCs when it counts again) NO MATTER how good their diplomacy skills and sense motive skills and so forth are.

i would have to wager they sure elearned their lesson this time.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

i would have to wager they sure elearned their lesson this time.

If that lesson is "NPCs are never trustworthy," I agree.

I'm not sure that's a lesson I'd want my players to learn, but these players sure look like they learned it, and then some. :\

 

[fusangite]

Hey, if nothing else, i bet they won't ever, under this GM, make the mistake of trusting NPCs when it counts (or relying on NPCs when it counts again) NO MATTER how good their diplomacy skills and sense motive skills and so forth are.

Can you explain how you think the Diplomacy and Sense Motive mechanics were misapplied here? I think there is a pretty clear consensus that these checks can only apply to the NPCs with whom the characters are directly interacting. Is it your contention that these checks affect individuals beyond that? Also, even if the characters were affecting these other gnomes whom they were not talking to with their diplomacy checks, in order to get a Hostile NPC to become a Helpful NPC (what the characters were asking), a check of 50 would be required.

If that lesson is "NPCs are never trustworthy," I agree.

I'm not sure that's a lesson I'd want my players to learn, but these players sure look like they learned it, and then some.

In all the posts we have received, two NPC interactions have been described: negotiating with the gnomes and deciding to go on the quest. So there are two problems with your observation:
1. The sample is too small. You're arguing that because 50% of the two interactions we have heard about resulted in the NPCs betraying the characters, 100% of the PC-NPC interactions in this 35-episode campaign have involved the NPCs betraying the characters.
2. Even if you think two encounters is a large enough sample size by which to judge an entire campaign, there is the problem of the one other NPC interaction we know about. Correct me if I'm wrong but giving people 60,000gp in exchange for an enforceable promise is not normally what is defined as "betrayal."

 

[irdeggman]

Can you explain how you think the Diplomacy and Sense Motive mechanics were misapplied here? I think there is a pretty clear consensus that these checks can only apply to the NPCs with whom the characters are directly interacting. Is it your contention that these checks affect individuals beyond that? Also, even if the characters were affecting these other gnomes whom they were not talking to with their diplomacy checks, in order to get a Hostile NPC to become a Helpful NPC (what the characters were asking), a check of 50 would be required.

I for one never said the skills were misapplied. I have said that IMO the DM was at fault by not providing the PCs an opportunity to "smell out" the betrayal.

The betraying happened in the "back room" and totally out of the players' control or influence. Basically they had no idea there were other gnomes that had to be dealt with other than the ones they were negotiating with. As far as I can tell the gnomes that "decided" to betray the PCs never had any interface with them at all - hence no opportunity to determine that things would go wrong.

I would repeat that every indication given the PCs (the response from the sense motive check and reaction by the gnomes to the diplomacy) indicated that this was indeed the correct thing to do and was as safe as it could get.

The only reason I can tell from the posts that the players' felt uneasy was because of the number of times they had been screwed over or crossed by other NPCS (based on their comments).

Now how do balance that past history with the fresh data being provided? Heck even a spell (that they couldn't cast at the time for various reasons) would have given them the same information as the sense motive/diplomacy checks.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

Why do the pc's need a hint that this would happen? I don't get it. If the crown is upsurped and the new king decries all magic use is illiegal this would affect pc's. Now if PC's are in t he same city, hell the castle itself should they be privy to this in advance of it happening?

 

[fusangite]

I for one never said the skills were misapplied. I have said that IMO the DM was at fault by not providing the PCs an opportunity to "smell out" the betrayal.

The PCs did not attempt any investigation of whether they could be betrayed beyond a single Sense Motive check. They did not attempt to speak with the other gnomes; they did not attempt to follow or spy on the gnomes; they did not come up with any system for checking on whether the gnomes were following through on the deal, etc. If they had attempted things like this and the GM had thwarted them, then your above statement would be true.

In a game Teflon Billy ran, our party passed by a ghoul lair; inside there was treasure but we decided not to go into the lair but instead proceed on our way. TB did not "deny us the opportunity to sniff out the treasure" -- we just never acted on the opportunity that was available.

The betraying happened in the "back room" and totally out of the players' control or influence.

I don't buy that. Firstly, the fact that the characters didn't enter/influence the back room is not the same as them not being able to. Furthermore, the betrayal happened there because the characters permitted that to take place by virtue of the way they made the agreement with the gnomes. In a normal campaign, there are lots of off-screen consequences for the PCs' on-screen actions; this story is one such case.

Basically they had no idea there were other gnomes that had to be dealt with other than the ones they were negotiating with.

Wrong. Re-read the posts.

As far as I can tell the gnomes that "decided" to betray the PCs never had any interface with them at all

Did you not read the stuff about how the party had run afoul of the gnomes before and even killed some of them? It seems from the way you're expressing yourself that you think the party encountered these gnomes for the first time in the episode in question.

I would repeat that every indication given the PCs (the response from the sense motive check and reaction by the gnomes to the diplomacy) indicated that this was indeed the correct thing to do and was as safe as it could get.

Yes. But that's why D&D is more than a bunch of dice rolls. Even Noelani acknowledged that simple common sense suggested that trusting the gnomes was a bad idea, regardless of the rest of the Sense Motive check. Having a high Sense Motive is no substitute for actually thinking through the consequences of an action.

The only reason I can tell from the posts that the players' felt uneasy was because of the number of times they had been screwed over or crossed by other NPCS (based on their comments).

No. One of the four players who posted expressed this opinion. The other three did not. Why are you prefering the evidence of one player over that of the GM and three other players? What was expressed was that the party had had a rocky relationship with these particular gnomes in the past. That is the relevant piece of data here.

Now how do balance that past history with the fresh data being provided?

What do you mean here?

Heck even a spell (that they couldn't cast at the time for various reasons) would have given them the same information as the sense motive/diplomacy checks.

Wrong. A Charm Person spell unlike a Diplomacy check does cause an NPC to betray his allies in favour of the party. Clearly, if Charm Person had been used in place of Diplomacy, the gnomes would have warned the PCs.

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, I still don't understand why the party had to be crated. Or why the WHOLE party had to be crated. Why not leave a mage type outside to keep an eye on the gnomes. Once everything is loaded, the mage teleports to the ship. If the ship can fly with the anti-magic/teleporting artifact on board, certainly one can teleport to it.

IOW, even trusting the gnomes didn't require that they trust them completely.

And I still say the DM just makes a third party the real betrayers. That removes the failure of the party to sniff out the betrayal.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes. But that's why D&D is more than a bunch of dice rolls. Even Noelani acknowledged that simple common sense suggested that trusting the gnomes was a bad idea, regardless of the rest of the Sense Motive check. Having a high Sense Motive is no substitute for actually thinking through the consequences of an action.

So when is metagame thinking a substitute for role playing and what the character nows instead of what the player knows?

It appears to me that too many people are sustituting what they would know as players for what the PCs know and have evidence to back it up.

I listed all the evidence present and no one has been able to dismiss that. Saying the PCs didn't look somewhere only applies if they have a reason to want to look. In this case the result of the sense motive would have (IMO) been an indication to the PCs that their long time attempts to work on diplomatic relationship with the gnomes had indeed worked - i.e., the payoff of all that previous effort.

And I wasn't refering to the effects of a charm on the NPCs but was making reference to any divination type spells they could have cast. Charm person per the rules only puts the affected creature at friendly (not helpful) which is more limiting in the aid being offered. Augury might well have been the best choice, but with a 1 minute casting time and the odds that most clerics don't have it memorized (its one of those spells best kept on a scroll) it is probably not real likely it was an viable option. Likewise Divination would work, but also not likely to have on hand and be used in the situation. Detect Thoughts, Discern Lies, etc. would only give the same reaction as did the Sense Motive check.

And since it appears that 1 out 5 and quite likely 2 out of 5 (nearly half of the players) weren't satisfied then quite clearly something needs to be looked at in regards to the situation. A single person is not a reason to look too hard that something might be awry, but 2 out 5 is another story.

And I still say the DM just makes a third party the real betrayers. That removes the failure of the party to sniff out the betrayal.

That is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

 

[swrushing]

Can you explain how you think the Diplomacy and Sense Motive mechanics were misapplied here?

Looking back at the quote, i don't believe i said they were. Did you mean to quote someone else's post?

I think there is a pretty clear consensus that these checks can only apply to the NPCs with whom the characters are directly interacting. Is it your contention that these checks affect individuals beyond that?

No, not at all. After all, that would be such an easily reuted position to take, that i am amazed you inadvertantly assigned it to... ohhh wait... i get it.

Also, even if the characters were affecting these other gnomes whom they were not talking to with their diplomacy checks, in order to get a Hostile NPC to become a Helpful NPC (what the characters were asking), a check of 50 would be required.

scratches head... so the NPCs they were interacting with were hostile? i thought the gnomes working with them were, maybe at least neutral?
man, one would have thought a sense motive with a decent check, would have picked that hostility up?

Now, of course, had the NPCs they were interacting with been "honestly" intending to work with the PCs and help them, then its possible, just a little possible that those "honest" gnomes working out the agreement (who might have known they did not actually have the power/position to fulfill the agreement) MIGHT have told the PCs something like "hey, we gotta get this cleared by oue bosses" or might have, if they suspected they did not have the actual power to arrange all this, had their doubts picked up by the more sensitive members of the PCs using sense motive.

These are of course, just possibilities.

from what i gather, the gnomes the PCs were interacting with...
1. were truly intent on working together with the PCs.
2. were expressing their own honest intentions.
3. apparently had no detectable concerns that the plan would be overturned by those in charge, which of course, them being hostile-to-the-PCs gnomes seems a definite error on these work-with-PCs gnomes
4. were EITHER so convinced their bosses were goina long with the plan they took no efforts to confirm the situation OR were surprisingly, to them, powerless to ensure the agreement was done as they worked out.

the combination of coincidental limitation of access to anyone with duplicitous intents, lack of understanding or even doubt among the gnomes negoitiating that they were actually not going to be able to make this agreement work out as planned at all, and so forth made it fairly certain that the skills use or none use would not really hand the PCs useful info.

its wasn't that the PCs used the skills wrong or that the Gm used the skills wrong, its just that the sources of info were just totally wrong, clueless as to the risks, possessing only info that would mislead the PCs...

its almost like those nopc characters were crafted/built/sculpted like say bait for a trap. But, of course, that wasn't the case. Right? it just happened that the guys the party could read were unaware of the chance that the other gnomes might not have to honor the agreement.

But imagine how this overall situation might have turned out if, instead of getting "hey, they seem trustworthy and aren't deceiving us" hits from those well developed skills, the PCs had gotten also "yeah, but they still seem nervous, unsure, there is still something up here" because the gnomes working with the PCs were not either "flawlessly hiding the fact that they knew they still had to convince the bosses" or 'woefully ignorant of the fact that they still had to convince the bosses" or "totally wrong in their belief that the bosses would suddenly overocme all hostilities and go along with the plan."

********

At any time as GM, i can hand the PCs a contact who "believes everything he is saying" but who is just plain wrong and use my PCs own skills at reading people and at convincing people against them. Thats simple and easy and requires no more cleverness or fairness that me saying "hey, lets use their skills against them" and then, either before the fact or later when asked, adding to the NPC the relevent lack of knowledge or simply having the NPCs who served as my "info conduit" be just plain totally wrong on everything that mattered.

Its really not all that hard to fool someone when i control all the info flow.

But, of course, once i do turn their own character's expertise against them, ESPECIALLY if it is in a HUGE for the campaign situation like say blowing the end of a year long quest, I really ought not to expect them to be willing to trust their abilities or traits the next time.

Why should they in the future believe what NPCs are saying when their great skills at reading people and at convincing people to join their cause have proven in the past to be this unreliable?

They should learn the lesson the first time, shouldn't they?

Especially if its such a costly error for them the first time.

The Gm teaches his players, has the world teach their characters, every session. if its not a lesson you want them to learn, you shouldn't make it part of your lesson plan.

At least, IMO.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

its wasn't that the PCs used the skills wrong or that the Gm used the skills wrong, its just that the sources of info were just totally wrong, clueless as to the risks, possessing only info that would mislead the PCs...

its almost like those nopc characters were crafted/built/sculpted like say bait for a trap. But, of course, that wasn't the case. Right? it just happened that the guys the party could read were unaware of the chance that the other gnomes might not have to honor the agreement.

This is one of the things that has bothered me about this scenario. It feels like the event has been crafted to circumvent all of the PCs' usual ways to judge a situation. Perhaps it was just coincidence, but it feels like a deliberate workaround to foil PC skills. "Buffer gnomes" to give the PCs false readings, while the true "Plot gnomes" hide in the shadows to spring their betrayal on the PCs at the right time.

At any time as GM, i can hand the PCs a contact who "believes everything he is saying" but who is just plain wrong and use my PCs own skills at reading people and at convincing people against them. Thats simple and easy and requires no more cleverness or fairness that me saying "hey, lets use their skills against them" and then, either before the fact or later when asked, adding to the NPC the relevent lack of knowledge or simply having the NPCs who served as my "info conduit" be just plain totally wrong on everything that mattered.

Its really not all that hard to fool someone when i control all the info flow.

But, of course, once i do turn their own character's expertise against them, ESPECIALLY if it is in a HUGE for the campaign situation like say blowing the end of a year long quest, I really ought not to expect them to be willing to trust their abilities or traits the next time.

Why should they in the future believe what NPCs are saying when their great skills at reading people and at convincing people to join their cause have proven in the past to be this unreliable?

They should learn the lesson the first time, shouldn't they?

Especially if its such a costly error for them the first time.

The Gm teaches his players, has the world teach their characters, every session. if its not a lesson you want them to learn, you shouldn't make it part of your lesson plan.

Very well said.