Am I a cruel DM?

[Raven Crowking]

At this point, wouldn't it perhaps be better if the gnomes sent the means to break the Geas?


RC

 

[tec-9-7]

At this point, wouldn't it perhaps be better if the gnomes sent the means to break the Geas?


RC

At this point, the best thing would be for the DM to do a mea culpa and flat reverse the events from the previous game IMO. It would not be particularly satisfactory, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing that particular game any more w/o some major grovelling from the DM and then a major change of the situation.

 

[Kilmore]

At this point, the best thing would be for the DM to do a mea culpa and flat reverse the events from the previous game IMO. It would not be particularly satisfactory, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing that particular game any more w/o some major grovelling from the DM and then a major change of the situation.

Did you save the game?

 

[tec-9-7]

Did you save the game?

If I forgot to, I'd break the disk and toss it into the garbage.

 

[tonym]

Whoa. When a Player that the DM respects enough to plan a marriage with says she is "very tired of losing" in his campaign, and refers to the McGuffin as a "stupid thing" and says the world is stacked against the PCs, I'm inclined to think that the DM might be less interesting in creating a fun experience for his Players, and more interested in frustrating their efforts.

The big give-away is the gaes. It's the gaming-equivalent of the DM putting puppet strings on the PCs.

Tony M

 

[Impeesa]

What, none of the party can cast (or hire someone to cast) a Greater Teleport to "30' away from the artifact"?

--Impeesa--

 

[tec-9-7]

What, none of the party can cast (or hire someone to cast) a Greater Teleport to "30' away from the artifact"?

--Impeesa--

After reading Noelani's post, what possible reason would the players have to think that this would succeed?

 

[fusangite]

I'm having rather a different reaction to the "new information" than others are. I don't understand why the geas thing is relevant here. How does the motivation behind their quest for the artifact bear on whether the gnomes' behaviour was reasonable? I'm sorry but I just don't follow. Indeed, this falls into the same category as a bunch of other irrelevant data such as:
(a) the fact that some people in the party have high charisma scores
(b) the fact that one of the PCs is a gnome

How do these three things have any bearing on what how the situation with the gnomes worked out? What -- do gnomes only steal from non-gnomes? Are charismatic individuals impervious to robbery even when locked in crates leaving a priceless artifact unguarded? Do devious people take pity on individuals because they are subject to a geas, quest or curse?

No! Are you people on glue? Nothing's changed here!

Well, almost nothing. I am curious as to why the Sense Motive check turned up nothing. I can think there are reasons it might have but I don't want to prejudge. So, if you can wade through all this nonsense about the geas, Ambrus, let me know.

And congratulations on your engagement!

 

[swrushing]

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.

aw shucks... thanks.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm having rather a different reaction to the "new information" than others are. I don't understand why the geas thing is relevant here.

Because the PCs can't quit. If the geas wheren't there, now that the artifact's been stolen, the PC's could say "oh, well, sucks that those gnomes backstabbed us. Let's go check out the Tomb of Ancient Loot and see if there's any left."

But because of the geas, the PCs can't do that. They have to set out to look for the artifact again. This completely invalidates the campaign for the last year+ of real time. They didn't have the artifact then, and now they don't have the artifact again, and they must find it again. Or die.

And then after possibly another year of real time tracking the thing down again, they have to hope that another group of NPCs doesn't miraculously have 30+ ranks in Bluff (which I'm willing to wager none of the gnomes actually did,) to fool the highly-diplomatic and motive-sensing party into trusting them.

How does the motivation behind their quest for the artifact bear on whether the gnomes' behaviour was reasonable?

There are multiple issues here. In-game justification, In-game mechanical fairness, and out-of-game campaign satisfaction. The gnome's actions might have been fair, but were they mechanically fair? (Where bluff checks rolled vs. sense motive, did the gnomes have reasonable scores not meant to screw the PCs, etc. etc.) Possibly not. And as for out-of-game satisfaction, clearly there is a problem here. The fact that the geas prevents the players from dumping the quest rather than repeating a year of real-time progress is one of the problems.

I'm sorry but I just don't follow. Indeed, this falls into the same category as a bunch of other irrelevant data such as:
(a) the fact that some people in the party have high charisma scores

With a Diplomacy of +30, Neutral NPCs you meet automatically become Friendly. A PC with that kind of score should be able to be reasonably sure that most NPCs he encounters are going to like him, and want to do well by him, unless they're already Hostile. And even if they're Hostile, there's a darned good chance they'll be merely Neutral instead.

(b) the fact that one of the PCs is a gnome

This relates to the player frustration, not whether the gnomes acted reasonably. Again, there are several issues here.

Are you people on glue? Nothing's changed here!

A lot has changed, and you'd have to be on glue not to see that. Before, we had no understanding of why the players would be willing to quit the campaign, when the scenario seemed so standard. Now we know the whole story. The new information makes things much clearer.