Am I a cruel DM?

[Raven Crowking]

If your only purpose as a GM is to please the players from minute to minute, you're not going to be a very good GM. Some players supported the GM; others did not. The role-playing world is full of people who have different tastes in gaming. Some players felt the GM did the right thing. Some did not. Gming isn't about pleasing all of the people all of the time. It is about creating a believable story in a believable world. A world full of flat NPCs with no agenda of their own is not that kind of world.

Herein, we agree completely.

RC

 

[Anabstercorian]

I think, personally, that while your idea would have been justifiable in most circumstances, it's unjustifiable against a party of 3 Cha 18+ characters one of whom has maxed out diplomacy and is using it actively. Find some way to retcon this in to a non-treasonous thing - maybe for some reason that gnomes HAD to separate the party and bug out, and they'll contact them later with ladles of apologies.

 

[billd91]

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.

Major misconception here. Just because the dice could determine that NPCs will view the PCs as friendly, that doesn't mean that they can be won over and give up their own agendas. That would be relegating an role-playing to just a series of dice rolls and that's not a good thing. The gnomes could be quite friendly and still plan on screwing the PCs over. It's a question of what the gnomes are willing to be friendly and cooperate on and what issues are completely off the table. Letting the PCs walk away with an artifact that they also want would quite reasonably be off the table.
Sounds to me like some players are WAY over-reacting. I can understand some frustration. It happens. But it sounds to me like they may have been a little too trusting and that chicken of gullibility has come home to roost.

 

[Arc]

I think the sub-factioning of the gnome faction should play a major part in this, and resolves a lot of the mechanical problems being cited. Sure, your players may have diplomacy mods of 30+, and be able to sense motive there way out of pretty much any lie. However, that doesn't mean that the gnomes the party talked to weren't intending to do as they said. It just means that another group of gnomes either overruled or overpowered them (or simply neglected to consult them at all). Some of the gnomes very well ought to be allied with the party, and should the party meet up with the gnomish ship again (hopefully in the near future, so the event is still fresh), then many of the gnomes ought to side with the party, or at least remain neutral in the fight.

That would actually make a great set piece. The party chases the ship down (or teleports to it, which would certainly speed things up), and finds the gnomes on the verge of violence about what to do with the McGuffin, and the left behind PC's. I'm not sure how you'd be able to accomplish this without a bit of railroading, but you might consider a well timed Scry informing the party of this split within the gnome faction. That would add a lot to the final encounter between the gnomes and the PC's, especially if the PC's can't tell which faction the gnomes belong to at first, and have to judge quickly before things get out of hand (who wants to kill the gnomes who've been trying to help all along).

As to the feeling that the adventure was "done", and that the removal of the McGuffin is simply stealing the party's thunder, I must disagree. If the party obviously had at least one challenge left ahead of them (removing the artifact from the city), then there should be no reason for them to assume that the quest was pretty much in the bag. Such an assumption seems almost arrogant on behalf of the PC's, because they're essentially stating that they've done enough work on such an epic quest, and so they're giving up caring about finishing it. I suppose it's time to reference LOTR again: Did Frodo and Sam give up when they reached Mordor, and Frodo was paralyzed? They certainly had done quite enough to get there, so they ought to not have to face any more challenges before they finished the quest. It's an oversimplification, but I feel the gist of the idea still applies: the PC's are getting lazy at the end of the quest, and so you shouldn't pull any punches in keeping up the challenges because of that.

My hat is off to you regarding your improvisational skills. You managed to impliment a major plot twist that doesn't really conflict with anything in your campaign (as I understand it), and did it nearly subconciously. An aside: Should it really matter whether a DM plans things or not? As a player, how are you supposed to know the difference (if you have a compitent DM), and so how should it matter?

I'm not sure about the merit of Geas as a motivation for the plot. Could you expand on how the Geas was placed, and why the PC's accepted it? I think that would clear up a lot of misconceptions about it.

 

[hong]

Gming isn't about pleasing all of the people all of the time. It is about creating a believable story in a believable world.

GMing is about creating an ENJOYABLE story in an enjoyable world. This is so staggeringly obvious that I can only conclude that a GM who does not grok this must have the social skills of a walnut.

As to what constitutes enjoyable, grasshopper, now _there_ is a topic ripe for discussion.

A world full of flat NPCs with no agenda of their own is not that kind of world.

Not, of course, that that had anything to do with the original question.

 

[hong]

Sounds to me like some players are WAY over-reacting. I can understand some frustration. It happens. But it sounds to me like they may have been a little too trusting and that chicken of gullibility has come home to roost.

I will remember this line the next time someone whinges about their players not trusting them.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think DM cruelty is the issue here. It's whether your players are enjoying your game. From the looks of it, they are not.

My suggestion is to talk to your players and find out what they want. If necessary, freeze the current campaign and re-start one that will be more to their tastes. In particular, the geas does not seem to have gone down well.

If you really want to continue the current storyline, my advice would be to have one of the friendly gnomes contact the PCs (to show that not all NPCs are untrustworthy) and tell them where to find the other gnomes so that the PCs can descend upon them like the Wrath of the Gods and beat d20 kinds of stuffing out of them (so that the PCs can vent their frustrations). Then wrap up the campaign quickly and start another one more to their tastes.

 

[Malic]

On what we've heard so far, it still sounds to me like the plot twist was reasonable. The diplomacy/bluff thing doesn't matter if the gnomes they discussed the plans with weren't the ones who left them behind. IMO this artefact being pretty much a priceless thing to both sides, just because the PCs are very charismatic and the gnomes are friendly to them doen't mean they gnomes should automatically change their goals wrt it, or that the PCs should assume they will.

My group, just as an example, would feel a bit cheated if the gnomes didn't follow their established motivations and take the thing when it was dangled in their face. Although we would be pretty irritated if we couldn't get a line back on them in a reasonable time, to keep the quest moving forward.

That said, it does sound like there might well be a problem here - the overall tone of the campaign, at least as perceived by some of the players - and that does need addressing. Wrapping the artefact arc up quickly is probably in order. Checking if this is part of a pattern of constant reversals and betrayals by NPCs, or not, would also be good.

The suggestion up thread a bit, that the gnomes might be able to repair it, sounds really good to me. The gnomes might well have to repair it for their own purposes. That done they might be able to do their thing and let the PC's take it afterwards, or vice versa. Or of course the PCs could do the Wrath of ?? thing and then find the artefact was fixed ready for the final act.

Good luck!

 

[Berandor]

I think the plot twist was reasonable and well-done.

HOWEVER (big however), part of the group at least seems to be totally sick of the plot. Two players are ready to throw the towel and don't want to hear any more of it, if not for the death of their characters.

So, my suggestion would be to contact them out of game. Tell them that this incident opened your eyes about their feelings. Explain to them how some of the gnomes were trustworthy, and others weren't (this is not the time for meta-game doubts). Have the trustworthy gnomes come back or leave the PCs a message and a trail of bread crumbs. Promise a short finish for the plot, but be firm that you want to finish the campaign for all of the players, since they all invested a lot of time in it. Give yourself a time frame for this finish, say 5 more sessions max. Inform the players of this time frame. Keep to this time frame.

Finish the campaign on a high note, and then have a beer will all of them and talk about what happened, and what each of them can do to make the next campaign better. Perhaps a smaller, shorter plot? Perhaps more allies? Perhaps a different DM? A different system?

You've had 35 sessions to get that far. Don't let it go to waste - but end it quickly, or it might spoil on its own.

 

[irdeggman]

On what we've heard so far, it still sounds to me like the plot twist was reasonable. The diplomacy/bluff thing doesn't matter if the gnomes they discussed the plans with weren't the ones who left them behind. IMO this artefact being pretty much a priceless thing to both sides, just because the PCs are very charismatic and the gnomes are friendly to them doen't mean they gnomes should automatically change their goals wrt it, or that the PCs should assume they will.

And that I think is the crux of the matter. The PCs had no way of determinng they were being misled.

Adding to that the DM said he didn't "plan" on things happening the way they did but it fit the motivation of the factions of gnomes.

The PCs/player's did nothing wrong as far as I can tell. They did a Sense Motive to determine if the gnomes could be trusted (it appears their checks indicated they could).


It appears to me that the DM suddenly saw an opprotunity and used it, but the PCs/players had no way of seeing it coming. This, IMO, is absolutely wrong. As was presented in the original post it appeared as if it was the PCs/players' choice to do things they did when in fact the situation (geas, sense motive check, urgency, every one after them, etc.) dictasted their actions - hence it was out of their control.


Bottom line is that the players should be presented things to make choices which determine outcomes. In this case that was not done, unless there is another piece not presented.

It doesn't really matter if the PCs' were adjusting the attitudes of the gnomes or not, what does matter is the sense motive/bluff check results. That is what they are for.