Am I a cruel DM?

[Noelani]

PC3 speaks.

I'm one of the other players in this game, mentioned previously as PC3 and as "the live-in SO". (FIANCE, dammit. SO indeed!!)

What Ambrus has neglected to mention is that we're geased to follow this quest through. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. We HAVE to get the artifact back or we'll die a slow ugly death. Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking.

I -did- do a sense motive check when one of the gnomes told us his plan. He was really clear what he was going to be doing, about the crates and getting us onto the ship, etc. I rolled a very high check. Apparently he still seemed sincere. I still didn't trust them. I've been the voice of dissention against the gnomes from the beginning. (This is all sort of ironic, given that I play a priestess of joy, and I'm the one who's the most pissed off).

Further, amongst the party we have a ridiculous amount of charisma. The paladin (Ketherian, or PC5) has a Cha 20, my cleric has 19 and the sorcerer (PC2) has 18. We made our intentions very clear to the gnomes as well. We spoke to them kindly and reasonably. We were very diplomatic. (I should ALSO mention here that I have a diplomacy check of 30.) If we can't win people over to our side, no one can. And we really were trying. Or at least I felt I was. Despite distrusting the gnomes. So much for that.

ALSO not mentioned, and I think this is the kicker, is that one of the PCs (PC1?) is himself a gnome. I honestly think in and out of game, that he was conspiring against the party the whole time. He's always seemed to have his own agenda, despite what the rest of the party wants, says or does. He's often off on his own. He was suspected of conspiring with the gnomes previously as well. So the betrayal of the gnomes thus becomes the betrayal of PC1. I'm not the only one who feels this way. (Absent PC4 will agree, for one).

This all boils down to: All the NPCS are out to get us, possibly without exception. Other PCs are out to get us, so the party itself is doomed to in-fighting from here on out. We can't ever win, no matter what we do, how long we play, or how hard we try. Every little victory we gain seems to be ripped away from us within a session or so.

I'm very tired of losing.

This isn't a matter of us PCs being incompetent. Its a matter of the world being completely stacked against us.

I think we had enough to do without being on a quest YET AGAIN to find the stupid thing. I wish I could wash my hands of the quest, honestly, but then my character would die. Because of the aforementioned geas.

I think my anger remains justified.

 

[Eric of Ptolus]

Tying it all together

Here's one idea how you can tie off the campaign thread.

It's a race to the dwarven homelands, first by ship. The gnomes have a serious head start. Have a series of roll-offs (seamanship abilities?) once the PCs acquire transport, in an attempt to let them cut the gnomes lead. After that, a footrace to the dwarf kingdom.

The gnomes/dwarves are trying to get the item to the Queen. Maybe she needs it to restore power to failing magical protective wards about the kingdom. Maybe she is dying, last in line, and wishes to use it to resurrect a dwarven noble who died too young (cursed, poisoned, or something).

Anyway, if the group catches the gnomes before the deed, they beg the party to let them use it before returning it to the group. Please ? Or have them show up as the enchantment is already underway. Great effect ! Would they deny the dwarves their next king ? "Just a few more minutes...".

Hope this inspires you in some way to rectify the dissention (sp?) in the ranks. FWIW, I think the manner in which you conducted the crate episode was well within the bounds of "what's fair".

 

[tec-9-7]

I think we had enough to do without being on a quest YET AGAIN to find the stupid thing. I wish I could wash my hands of the quest, honestly, but then my character would die. Because of the aforementioned geas.

I think my anger remains justified.

I agree. Were it me, I'd show up w/ a new character and inform the DM that the old one gave up, succumbed to the disease and is now dead.

 

[tec-9-7]

Ambrus, what exactly did you think would be your player's reaction to your decision in this?

"Oh yay! Great, we've only been at this a year so far, let's drag this out some more!"? I can't imagine that one even occured to you as a best-case.

Seriously, you all have obviously been playing for a while, could you really not anticipate the unhappiness of your players?

 

[swrushing]

A question for the GM in question...

Were you unaware of the, somewhat obvious, dissatisfaction within your players about the long and, seemingly, mandated quest, about their perception of not being "allowed" to win for any length of time, and so forth?

If so, if you were aware of all this, it seems the "next reversal of fortune" was unwise, as it drove the already tense situation over the brink.

if not, if this all came as news to you, you have a much bigger problem than a single session's ending.

My general rule is that when players leave pissed or upset or angry AT ME, i have done the wrong thing as a GM. Sure, on occasion they leave mad at my NPCs. On occasion they even leave ticked off at themselves. those are all a part of roleplaying in a challenging but enjoyable and "fair" environment.

But, if they leave seeing ME as the bad guy, ME as the force to be overcome, ME as the opposition stripping them of victory... then I have erred, its my bad, regardless of what anyone i describe it to over the internet says.

The "i did not know before hand what they would do" is a biggie to me.

Scripting a reversal-of-fortune on this big a scale needs to be a deliberate, seriously thought out and intentional element of the story, not a sudden "hey wont this be fun." From your fiance's description, this result not only whammies the interrelation with NPCs they had some good reason to suspect they could trust (good skills at sensing deception and making alliances and no hints of deception gained even while suspicious) but also resulted, not surprisingly, in direct dissension within the party characters, due to one of them being "in league" with the gnomes.

I would say that this type of reversal, especially if not the first, particularly given the player's feelings about the plotlines, deserved more than an on-the-fly decision about it and needed instead to be a calculated part of the overall story, one with potential clues given as to the "what was about to happen" so that once it occurred, the players did not come away with a sense of "we wuz robbed" BY THE GM, but rather BY THE NPCs.

Simple Rule: if it loses you players you wanted to keep, if it pisses off players you want happy, or if it puts them in opposition with you as opposed to your characters, it was the wrong move, no matter how well you can justify it to the millions of readers on the net. The number of people you need to convince its justified and right all fit in your living room (or basement or whereever you play) and the rest of us do not matter one whit.

good luck and I hope it works out for you and yours.

 

[Mystery Man]

I think the DM could have found something else to hook for the next plot and let that macguffin thing end. A sense of accomplishment and the rewards that go with it are all part of the game.

And that all I have to say about that.

 

[tec-9-7]

A question for the GM in question...

swrushing, please save this to a notepad somewhere - this is one of the best forumlated and most elloquent dissertations on DMing that I've ever read. My hat is off to you. Seriously.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pretty Big Points Left Out

What Ambrus has neglected to mention is that we're geased to follow this quest through. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. We HAVE to get the artifact back or we'll die a slow ugly death. Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking.

I -did- do a sense motive check when one of the gnomes told us his plan. He was really clear what he was going to be doing, about the crates and getting us onto the ship, etc. I rolled a very high check. Apparently he still seemed sincere. I still didn't trust them. I've been the voice of dissention against the gnomes from the beginning. (This is all sort of ironic, given that I play a priestess of joy, and I'm the one who's the most pissed off).

Further, amongst the party we have a ridiculous amount of charisma. The paladin (Ketherian, or PC5) has a Cha 20, my cleric has 19 and the sorcerer (PC2) has 18. We made our intentions very clear to the gnomes as well. We spoke to them kindly and reasonably. We were very diplomatic. (I should ALSO mention here that I have a diplomacy check of 30.) If we can't win people over to our side, no one can. And we really were trying. Or at least I felt I was. Despite distrusting the gnomes. So much for that.

Well, then, these are some very important points that we were not apprised of in the initial description of the events in question.

The Geas, of course, is a pretty significant problem for the group. I am not certain how the Geas occurred, though, so I won't address it. It might have been fair; it might have been railroading. Geas is a tough tool for a DM to use without ticking players off.

Opposed checks in Sense Motive/Bluff do mean that a very high Sense Motive check can be overcome by an even better Bluff check. But, clearly you had reason to believe that (1) you could win the gnomes over, and (2) that you could get some idea of what the gnomes were planning. After all, you have one of those rare groups smart enough to pump up Charisma and buy ranks in the social interaction skills.

Although it is metagaming, it also seems likely that you might have concluded that the DM put the gnomes there as a means to get you onto the next part of the quest (i.e., they provided passage out of the city), especially considering the obstacles that you had to overcome.

This all boils down to: All the NPCS are out to get us, possibly without exception. Other PCs are out to get us, so the party itself is doomed to in-fighting from here on out. We can't ever win, no matter what we do, how long we play, or how hard we try. Every little victory we gain seems to be ripped away from us within a session or so.

Personally, I don't think any player should ever come to the conclusion that all NPCs are out to get the PCs. If that's the conclusion you've drawn, then either your DM has created a world in which only fools play the roles of heroes, or he hasn't really thought this through.

As I said earlier, this was a problem in early modules, where the NPCs would always be ready to backstab the PCs. It was supposed to be a surprise. However, when it happens over and over, the element of surprise is lost. It's like the adventure where players are supposed to believe that a bunny on a stump isn't really a monster, despite the fact that normal animals never, ever appeared in adventures....unless they were there to attack PCs.

In my campaigns, I try to go with a "Most people are worthy of your trust and protection, but some are obviously not, and some are tricksy" approach. The PCs know that farmers will regularly grant them shelter in return for news. In the wilds, travellers' caches along the roads store needed supplies (replenish what you take, leave what you can spare is the general rule). People are generally honest, and dishonesty is not something you want to get a reputation for.


RC

 

[Kilmore]

I think my anger remains justified.

I absolutely agree, you anger does remain truly justified... within the context of the game. If that was one of my characters, I'd be kicking me some gnome arse.

I'm really not trying to shout you down here, but I agree completely with the way Ambrus played it. I'm not trying to sound insulting, but letting the gnomes make off with the thing really was a lapse in judgement. The fact is, even the highest statted and best paid NFL quarterbacks throw a ball that gets intercepted every now and then. Should you be pissed off? Yep. Should it wreck the game? Nope.

It is the DM's job to provide a challenge to the players in order to make the game fun. If the players fall short of the challenge, it hurts. However, if the challenge is real, the stakes high, and the victory finally in hand, the thrill is enourmous.

It sounds to me like Ambrus is trying to make the game a success, so I would have faith that if you persevere, you will attain your goals. And the victory will be sweeter if the challenge is real, so I really hope that he does not succumb to the clamor and turn over the Mcguffin without your party having to earn it back. I'm sure that's what you really want too.

Good luck!

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Hrm...it sounds like the gnomes who the party talked with were cool, but were overruled by their superiors and were forced to betray them.

Well, were I in the party, my initial reaction would be to hunt down and slaughter every single gnome in that faction. And, in fact, had they been tossed overboard, I'd've done just that. Instead, I'd allow myself to be talked into hunting down the artifact and smacking said gnomes within inches of their lives.

Oh, and I think that the gnomes were clearly lying about their ability to load cargo of only a certain size. Surely they've had to carry things larger than a chest?

Brad