Am I a cruel DM?

[The Amazing Dingo]

Something that is being hit upon now and that I missed in my initial post is that the DM should not, as Pendragon pointed out, adjust his PC's actions/intents because you want to put the PCs in a bad situation. I realized you said you hadn't figured out what your NPCs would do, but I thought that meant you had not figured out the details of what they would do (but had their intentions on double-crossing and such figured out).

That said, if it turned out as Pendragon said, that is wrong. A DM shouldn't adjust such things depending on the PCs actions just to screw them over. It is unfair and too unhanded even for a DM. The players should have an honest chance of winning.

 

[tonym]

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

For a DM, it is the easiest thing in the world to foil a party of PCs. At any moment in any campaign, the DM can yank away victory if he feels like it. Simply put, there is no way a group of PCs can cover all their bases, so Players need to trust their DM not to spoil their fun.

What usually makes a DM yank away victory from the PCs is when the Players screw-up big-time by making an error in judgment.

In this case it looks like the DM decided that the PCs screwed-up by trusting their allies. To me, that doesn't seem like the kind of error that justifies yanking away their hard-won victory. Especially when it sounds like you had the gnomes acting as solid allies until the minute you decided to take away the McGuffin, at which point you changed them into treacherous villains.

Tony M

 

[arscott]

Yanked away their hard-earned victory? Sure, these people spent untold hours striving to get that artifact, but it sounds like they didn't even know what it did. From a game perspective, artifacts are meant to be lost at the end of an adventure. And since it didn't fall into the hands of the infernal faction, the PCs essentially won.

 

[Ambrus]

Wow. I've never had a thread I posted promote such a large response before. Thanks for all the feedback. Some of you brought up some points of contention that I'll try to elaborate on for those who are curious.

Truthfully, it was pretty foolish to separate themselves thusly from the artifact and leave the artifact in the hands of others.

The artifact itself is fairly large (about the size of a large chest). They did consider putting a pseudodragon familiar and/or a sprite cohort into the box but decided that there was just wasn't enough spare room in the crate for that.

Did a Divination spell or such reveal something incorrectly?

No. They didn't cast any divination spells.

With what you said, the party attacked or was attacked by this faction once before.

They did have a few violent conflicts with this faction. But to their credit, the party did try to make it up to them by helping to pay for some of the gnomes to be raised later. After that, relations were a bit tense but some characters on both sides tried to champion the idea of cooperating.

I find it hard to believe they never discussed what they were going to do with the artifact.

They did talk about it briefly. The gnomes admitted truthfully that they wanted to bring it back to their venerable dwarf lady messiah (which the party met at the beginning of the campaign, fought briefly and remained dubious about) while the party stated their general intention of carrying it through a portal into a fairy realm to ask a PC's fairy-queen/goddess' opinion about it. They never really resolved these opposing plans but did generally agree that their first concern was getting the artifact safely out of the city. I believe the intention was to try resolving the matter at a later date.

Sure, getting the artifact is great, but their methods seems really, really short sighted. The party flat out -knows- who betrayed them. I don't know, it just kinda seems like a scapegoat would be more in order or something. *shrug*

"Short sighted" He he.

My players, please don't read this next bit (how does one black out text?):

The thing is most of the factions aren't entirely of one mind. The gnomes, for instance, that the party were speaking to were sincere and were even crated themselves alongside the party. It was those members of the faction who were responsible for loading the ship who actually made the decision to leave the party behind because they still don't entirely trust them and were afraid they wouldn't be able to stop the party if it insisted on taking the artifact elsewhere.

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 treacherous, then that is a bit lame. Because there would've been NO WAY for your Players to pick-up-on the gnomes' treacherous nature via roleplaying during all those previous sessions.

I hadn't decided that the gnomes would screw over the party because I had no way of knowing for certain that they'd ever have the need or the opportunity to do so. I simply kept in mind the various gnomes' opinions, attitudes and goals in mind and had them react to developments as the campaign progressed. The gnomes, for instance, proved generally unable to explore the dungeon themselves because they weren't well suited to it (some of them kept getting killed when they tried). They knew the party was down there and seemed to be making better progress than they were capable of, but the party also remained out of touch with them for long stretches. On the occasions they did meet the gnomes, I role-played some of them as friendly and helpful while others openly voiced their distrust of the party while others simply adopted a neutral wait and see attitude.

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!

Heh. I suggested this possibility to them as a "hey things could be worse" scenario but, as expected, few of them were comforted by this. The gnomes could have likewise left with the party's equipment and loot (much of it was packed into separate crates) but the gnomes felt that would just be cruel.

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.

Well, it's particularly hard when the player who is the most upset happens to be my live-in SO. Let me tell you, it was a cold lonely night in our apartment last night.

The other player who would have really freaked out was absent from the session. I fear she may just quit when she hears about what happens. She doesn't take party failure very well.

All I can do is offer you the hollow comfort that you are doing a good job.

Thanks for your support everyone.

 

[tonym]

... From a game perspective, artifacts are meant to be lost at the end of an adventure. And since it didn't fall into the hands of the infernal faction, the PCs essentially won.

But they lost the McGuffin to a bunch of gnomes. I repeat, GNOMES! Whom they trusted. What a humiliating end to such a long, complex adventure.

Now, a new adventure has begun: Recovering the McGuffin. That particular adventure may be a lot of fun. Hopefully it will be.

Nonetheless, the first adventure is over and it has ended on a low note--at least for some of the Players.

Tony M

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

The only part I disagree in this whole thing is the fact that you hadn't decided what the gnomes would do. I know it is hard and I find it amazingly difficult to predict which way my PC (I DM a solo game) goes most of the time.

Here is the deciding question for me and I know it might be impossible to answer or remember, but:

When you asked yourself about the gnomes did you say, "When given this opportunity, what would the gnomes do?" or did you ask yourself, "How best could I get this artifact away from the PCs?"

Something tells me, from the way you've been speaking, it was the former.

Otherwise, I think it sounded great. The gnomes sounded to be of a mixed enough attitude to have raised the PCs suspicions about having them as what seems like more perminent allies then mere dungeon-crawling allies. They should have dumped that familiar into the crate with it at the very least. Sorry for the familiar, but it was foolish to leave the artifact like that around gnomes, some of whom apparently didn't like the PCs at all (and for some good reasons).

If anything, I'd talk to your players and let them know that you didn't have it in for them but that they made a mistake. Since the PCs are that far behind and are of at least a mid to high level (if they are casting Raise), then they might be able to quickly catch up with their ship and get the crate back. At least, thats what I would try to do as a player right now.

Otherwise, I love the gnomes being split and their relations being somewhat rough at times. From everything I"m getting from it, I think it went well, though being able to plan the NPCs actions a little bit better might at least give the PCs a chance next time (i.e. - A Sense Motive Roll against some of the more hostile gnomes to see if they might turn on the PCs, etc.).

If anything, I think the PCs are upset that they didn't have a chance earlier in the campaign to read the gnomes a little better.

Yah for the wee folks!

 

[Ambrus]

When you asked yourself about the gnomes did you say, "When given this opportunity, what would the gnomes do?" or did you ask yourself, "How best could I get this artifact away from the PCs?"

I'd have to say the former. I didn't really plan on taking it away from them, asside from planning on having the demon-worshipers attempt it. What I did was figure out what each faction would do with it if they managed to acquire it: (the gnomes would do this, the demon-worshipers would do that, the church would do this and the party will decide on it's own what it wants). I was curious to see which group would end up with it.

The demon-worshipers tried and failed to grab it and were sent scurring away. They haven't had time to regroup and devise a new plan yet. The party had it and could have done any number of things with it (go ahead and try predicting a party's actions ahead of time) but the gnomes encountered the party and saw an oppurtunity they weren't expecting (it was a PC's idea to sneak onboard in crates).

Does that answer your question?

 

[tonym]

The artifact itself is fairly large (about the size of a large chest). They did consider putting a pseudodragon familiar and/or a sprite cohort into the box but decided that there was just wasn't enough spare room in the crate for that...

Ah-HAH! You foiled their pre-cautionary efforts ON PURPOSE! By making the McGuffin chest too small for their sprite! Or, rather, the gnomes did. (But same thing.)

Hmm. Actually, that would've tipped me off that something sinister was afoot. Between that, and the behavior of the various gnomes throughout the adventure (which you explained above), I'm a little surprised the PCs let themselves get crated-up. Very, very SURPRISED, actually...

No offense, but did you railroad them into the crates? You know, like some of the Players did not want their PC inside the crates and suggested other alternatives, but you shot down every idea they had until only the crate-idea was left?

I've had DMs do this plenty of times, is why I ask. As a Player, you can tell when the DM wants something to happen. You can try to avoid it, but if the DM seriously wants it to happen, he'll keep talking and talking until you give-up and do what he so clearly wants you to do.

Tony M

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

I'd have to say the former. I didn't really plan on taking it away from them, asside from planning on having the demon-worshipers attempt it. What I did was figure out what each faction would do with it if they managed to acquire it: (the gnomes would do this, the demon-worshipers would do that, the church would do this and the party will decide on it's own what it wants). I was curious to see which group would end up with it.

The demon-worshipers tried and failed to grab it and were sent scurring away. They haven't had time to regroup and devise a new plan yet. The party had it and could have done any number of things with it (go ahead and try predicting a party's actions ahead of time) but the gnomes encountered the party and saw an oppurtunity they weren't expecting (it was a PC's idea to sneak onboard in crates).

Does that answer your question?

That answers it just and fine was what I assumed you did, though a little reassurance is nice.

 

[irdeggman]

I never saw a mention of a Sense Motive vs Bluff check for any of the interactions.

This is a non-magical check that can be done at pretty much any time as long as the 2 sides are talking to each other. All skills involved can be used untrained also.

Now if there was no opportunity for the PCs to make such a check (or no reason because you hadn't decided what the gnomes we going to do) then you were a baad DM. The PCs would have had no way to figure out they were being outfoxed or played other than the metagame players' knowledge.

IMO a sense motive check should have been called for by the DM to see if the PCs thought that the gnomes were being helpful and sincere in the desire to be of aid. While the player's make the Sense Motive roll the DM makes the Bluff roll (or just randomly rolls some dice to keep the player's on edge if the DM knows that the gnomes are indeed being honest). The result of the check would be how comfortable the PCs feel about the situation.

This seems real reasonable since it was stated there was some discussion and disagreement between the players/PCs on what to do. A roll of 1 is not an automatic failure but can give an indication of how badly the PC is off in his interpretation of the situation.