Am I a cruel DM?

[Tom Cashel]

First, I don't think what you've done is "cruel." The whole idea of a trustworthy NPC claiming to have a ship ready strikes me as unfair use of meta-information by both sides. You switched things up behind the scenes (as noted by tonym), but they likely felt they were safe, because how could the DM screw them after all that work (I guess I find it hard to believe that the players would be so dumb without meta-thinking to make them feel safe)? So, the scam itself doesn't strike me as very useful, but that's not the point.

Here's the meta-concern that matters to me:

Were I a player in your campaign who'd just spent 35+ sessions (that's a lot of sessions...140 hours of play if you play only 4 hrs. each time) searching for an artifact, I wouldn't be upset that we'd gotten stung for the item.

I'd be upset that after all that work, it's not over yet. When do we get to be finished with our quest and do something else? When will the DM finally let us succeed?

I could be wrong...but maybe I'm not.

 

[Ketherian]

Was I unwise in handling the situation the way I did? Am I just mean?

Speaking as a player in said game, I think the DM is worried about loosing players as well as their trust.

The game went pretty much as he described it. The solution of trusting the gnome-dwarf-psions was not the only solution; but it was the only solution the players agreed on (with some disention). The party is now suffering an extreme bought of shoulda-woulda-coulda; and naturally few members are taking it a lot harder than others.

Speaking as a DM (oher games, other systems) - I understand the quandry and I don't feel the GM was being either mean or cruel; although the end result is hard to take - but then when is it ever good or nice to realize you've been betrayed? Half the party is bent on revenge agains the demon group while the others are pretty much limited by alignment. Loosing the alliance of the gnomen-dwarven-psion group is exceptionally hard on one member, as it was his only grounding in society. The DM didn't mention it - and maybe this PC has it wrong - but the LG faction seems to be split - one part is very much for the party (and has already sacrificed to assure our success) while the other (and more powerful) faction is wondering what the heck is going on (and actively trying to find out).

Timing did not allow us to use Zone of Truth nor did the attitude of trust we were trying to instill. Divinations are hard to come by when you've got no supplies and no time to get any. We asked only for the most meager of supplies (diamond dust to perform restorations) but we could have insisted on more. The players are in a situation of their own making.

It really sucks, and it's nice to know the DM is as bummed as his players - but my vote is to say the DM is not being mean, just thorough.

I do know that once the McGuffin artifact is recovered - we'll all be pining for short adventures. Players and GM alike.

 

[scourger]

Hilarious!

And well played by you as the DM! I thought while reading it that the PCs would hear a splash just as the crates start to fill with water when the gnomes jettison their competitors as so much ballast bound for Davy Jones' Locker. You might even have drowned them! But, your nice gnomes left them in a safe warehouse. The players should count their lucky stars the PCs are not dead after a misstep like that, especially with the history of a few gnome deaths on their heads. I really am surprised the gnomes ddin't try to get a little pay back for that!

Now is their chance to pursue the treacherous gnomes. They have to team up with another faction that happens to have a ship; or hire a pirate boat; or steal their own vessel.

Or the artifact is just gone. Maybe the players are just sick of it. Maybe they had their chance and blew it. The gnomes do whatever neutral thing they do with it and their dwarves; the world changes for good or ill; and the game goes on.

I don't think you're a cruel DM. I've exploited player choices in much worse ways. I once used a greater doppleganger to kill off an entire party PC by PC until I had a TPK, and I had each eliminated PC help emilimate the next one by playing the doppleganger who was now in the guise of that PC! It was great! They embraced it in a truly dark fashion. Some felt badly later, but there were no such complaints at the table!

 

[IronWolf]

Sounds to me like a great plot! I am sure it was disappointing to have the artifact stolen after such a long time questing for it, but once the artifact was found the group should have been quite careful in who to trust it to (especially if they knew others were looking for it). The party now knows who to go after to gain it back a second time, so all is not lost. They will probably be more careful with it when they get it the second time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd be upset that after all that work, it's not over yet. When do we get to be finished with our quest and do something else? When will the DM finally let us succeed?

When will the DM finally let us succeed?

Admittedly, we might not be seeing the whole scenario here. However, assuming that the DM is doing a reasonably good job, the DM determines the circumstances and the opposition. The players determine, within that framework, when they will succeed based upon their actions and choices.

Sure, the DM has a partial responsibility over pacing. However, if, and only if, the circumstances and/or opposition are somehow unfair does the DM have an
absolute responsibility.

In this case, it is quite clear that the players had won. They then turned around and foolishly gave away what they had won when they trusted the gnomish faction. Sure, if they were really nice to the gnomes, perhaps some of them might feel sorry for what happened and try to make amends in another way. But I, for one, would not have them absolutely betray the gnomish faction, either. Maybe some form of consolation prize. You know, a messenger arrives with a package and a note: "For your service in the cause of blah, blah, blah, and as a token of our goodwill, we send you the gizmo of godzmo. No hard feelings."

The DM should be careful not to make every NPC a rat-bastard who'll betray the PCs at the first opportunity. Early modules were rife with these type of characters. Hence, early players learned to trust no one. Unless the DM wants a very cynical group of untrusting PCs who view every NPC as potential fodder, the "bad egg" NPCs need to be balanced against a lot of openly honest and/or unexpectedly helpful NPCs. Otherwise, all NPCs will soon seem to be "the enemy" -- even those that the PCs are supposedly saving or helping or protecting.

But, as has been pointed out by others, the PCs had many opportunities to prevent this outcome. Foremost: Have one of the PCs crated with the McGuffin.

Players (and PCs) make mistakes. If they're wise, they'll learn from them. DMs make mistakes, too. This just doesn't seem to be one of them. YMMV.


RC

 

[fusangite]

I would really enjoy being a player in your game. If that kind of thing happened to my characters more often, I would probably enjoy D&D more.

That stated, I am now imagining how this would have gone over with my old gaming group. And already I can see that two of my players would have freaked-out over this. So being in the right or pulling off what, in my view, is some really good story telling that makes the world more vibrant and real, has resulted in some players being upset instead of appreciative.

All I can do is offer you the hollow comfort that you are doing a good job. Some of your players will never "get" why your decision was right. Some are realizing it right now. Some will be cranky until the moment they get their hands on those bastards who stole their stuff. The ones who never get it -- you should reconsider whether you want them in your next campaign. Those who will eventually get it sometime between now and the end of the campaign will be more trusting and appreciative the next time something like this happens.

 

[tonym]

But, as has been pointed out by others, the PCs had many opportunities to prevent this outcome. Foremost: Have one of the PCs crated with the McGuffin.

I was assuming the DM had arranged things so that no PC could be crated with the McGuffin. Like the crates were already built and the McGuffin was so big, it needed its own crate. Or the McGuffin was radioactive or stank real bad or something. But maybe the PCs didn't think of the idea of somebody traveling in the McGuffin crate (which is what many of you posters think had happened).

So, which is it?

Was the idea of a PC entering a crate with the McGuffin in his lap an idea nobody thought of? Or was being crated with the McGuffin simply not an option?

Tony M

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, Tony M, but if I were playing, the minute I was told the McGuffin had to be crated seperately would be the minute I would have said: "Well, that's not going to happen, so what's Plan B."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You know it's funny, in the game I currently play in, we're the exact opposite. We trust nobody. And the DM finds it hilarious that we are so completely paranoid that anyone could be a traitor/doppleganger/fiend-in-disguise.

I agree with tonym. There was a similar thread recently about a paladin's crisis of faith, where the DM planned to present the paladin with two choices, and whichever one the paladin selected would be the wrong one, as far as his goddess was concerned. It's a no-win situation. As a player, I can't stand that kind of negative railroading.

Now let's look at your game. My main problem is that, from your initial post, you seem to indicate that any and all of the main factions in the campaign would have betrayed the PCs, had then gotten the chance. Again, it's a no-win scenario. No matter what the PCs do, they had no chance of making lasting allies, creating real trust, or earning anyone's respect enough to not be taken advantage of. This would annoy me in the extreme. Especially if the DM used this kind of scenario to take away an artifact that had taken a year of real time to get.

So are the players expected to quest after the darned thing for another year, because they made the mistake of thinking they could form a positive relationship with an NPC faction?

I'm with your players. It's like J.R. waking up and saying the whole last year was a dream. You've completely negated a year-long campaign goal through questionable means.

 

[yangnome]

I see no problems with what you did. If you ran the adventure anywhere close to how it was written, I am surprised your PCs trusted the gnomes (or anyone else) at all. I also really like the fact that the PCs got duped by a gnome prank of sorts...

The issue of whether the PCs could or could not be packed with the artifact really doesn't matter. If the PCs were not allowed to be packed with it, that should have raised red flags. Had a PC been allowed to be packed with it, it would have sucked to be that PC. Could you imagine being the lone guy clutching onto the artifact on a boat full of gnomes who wanted it? That would have been a far worse scenario; the group still would have lost the artifact and probably a PC. Further they'd feel completely obligated to go after the artifact.