Am I a cruel DM?

[Malic]

Well, it's a bit academic us arguing about it really, as it is really the business of the group, who know all the circumstances ... and accordingly the following comments are not meant to be disrespectful to the players involved, I know I don't know the full story ... but hypothetically, based on what we have heard here, I totally disagree that there was no way the party could have seen this coming. A Sense Motive check is not a substitute for the PCs thinking about the situation. First is the importance of the item itself to several parties, and the fact that the group was aware that the gnomes had their own plans for it and that the gnomes knew the party's plans were different, and this situation had not been worked out. Then there is the fact that the party knew that not all the gnomes had the same attitude to the party, and in fact some were unfriendly. Even if there were no other gnomes involved and the ones they were talking to were 100% sincere at the time, and then changed their minds ... as an artifact this is one of the most valuable objects in the world, that is a heck of a lot of temptation to put in front of anyone, with the guards helpfully neutralised and a getaway vehicle waiting. Now perhaps there were reasons the party would believe the gnomes would be as loyal as their closest family about it, but I haven't read any here.

This is totally seperate from the other campaign/player enjoyment issues that seem to have built up, of course.

I don't have a problem with a GM doing something he hasn't planned in advance, if it is consistent with the drivers that have been established in advance, and doesn't contradict the past. It sounds like this example qualifies.

 

[fusangite]

Characters in the game endure hardships, they get depressed, they get frustrated, tired and maybe even feel hopeless - and that's all well and good.

The players, however, shouldn't feel tired, depressed, frustrated, and hopeless. People game for enjoyment, and none of those things are conducive for enjoyment.

I think your observation is based on a common modern misconception about human relations: that if people feel a particular way, their feelings are inherently justified and people should alter their treatment of this individual simply because they feel bad with no reference to whether those feelings are reasonable.

I GMed a campaign once where I set up an epic battle where the players had to respond, in the middle of the night, to an emergency. They didn't have time to don their heavy armour and make it to the battle in time. Of course, I had scaled the battle so the characters could win it without their armour but that wasn't good enough for one of the players.

He demanded that I suspend the armour donning rules and when I wouldn't, he chose to spend the entire episode donning armour, stormed around the house while everyone else fought and then insulted me at the end of the game. He remained furious for two weeks, claiming that I didn't care about the game being fun anymore. But I held firm. As a GM, I simply wasn't interested in playing 18 Int villains if they couldn't use clever tactics to mess with the characters.

This is the gaming world. People with poor social skills, inappropriate attachments to their characters and various other psychological problems are pretty common. I work with players who are socially and economically successful but from time to time, some have taken unreasonable emotionally-based positions.

I have a lot of trouble with using people's emotional reactions to something as the sole test of whether it is reasonable in any area of human relations -- but especially among gamers.

What I have witnessed in this thread is the GM appearing upset and virtually everyone siding with him; suddenly a player appears who is more upset. People pretend that she has given us new information and this has caused them to change their minds. But in reality, she provided no new conclusive information; instead her emotional intensity caused us to reorder our moral hierarchy of who was in the right. Because in today's PC world, whoever is most upset is automatically more correct.

 

[Ambrus]

Wow. I'm still staggered by the amount of keys people have been willing to press in response to this. I appreciate all your opinions and criticisms. There are a few issues people have been kicking around or have been waiting for my response to judge (the single sense motive check, the casting of the geas and the goodwill of the gnomes) so here goes:

The Geas:

The party's investigation into the gnome's activities (tunneling into the dungeon) led them to seek out a high placed member of the LG church, a cardinal, who they befriended and whose help and advice they wanted. In trying to help the PCs on their quest, the Cardinal has cast numerous spells (restorations, cures, break enchantments, raise deads, communes) for free (except for the material costs). At one point he suggested to the party that it would be in their best interest to form/join a holy order, sanctioned by himself, dedicated to this "holy" quest (recovering the artifact). He told them that it would help shield them from the crown if they were ever apprehended doing something seemingly illegal. Ecclesiastics have their own legal system separate from the state's legal system. As members of a holy order they could simply claim to be on church business and somewhat exempt from state prosecution. Together they penned a charter for their new holy order incorporating the party's gods and philosophies rather than just the cardinal's god (which is quite progressive and somewhat unorthodox for the Cardinal's church). After dark they went to the cathedral to seek out the blessing and advice of an ancient elven anchoress (a religious recluse) who lives entombed in a small cell in the floor of the cathedral. Together they prayed and each read through the party's newly scribed charter (including the Cardinal) and as each of them finished reading the oath "to retrieve and return to the gods the [sought out artifact]" she cast a silenced geas on each of them. She did it because she'd been waiting for a group of heroes to fulfill this quest on her behalf, but she was weary of putting her complete faith in a group of strangers she'd just met. After they were all geased she used an unseen servant to lift out of the floor a king's ransom in donations and tithes she'd collected over the previous century (60 000 gp worth) for the party to use as they saw fit during the quest. A shopping spree ensued shortly thereafter.

The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.


The goodwill of the gnomes and the sense motive check:

Like I mentioned earlier, the gnomes and the party have had a rocky relationship. But members of both sides have tried to put that behind them and cooperate (even though the party killed 2-3 of their members). The party has eventually won over most of the gnomes they've dealt with personally. In the end, they were dealing with two gnomes, one who was already won over and one who was distrustfully. Pretty quickly, the party won even this holdover to their side (even though their long term goals differed). When the sense motive check was made (I usually prefer to roll social rolls myself in secret but my fiance made this roll herself) the gnome was truthfully relaying his immediate intentions to the PC gnome (to go talk to the other gnomes involved, arrange a place for the PCs to hide and to arrange the crating details and then to return to retrieve the party). These two gnomes had been won over by the party and were sincere in their efforts. They had themselves crated up alongside the party. It was the members of the gnome faction who they had entrusted to load them onto the ship and their superiors (whom the party had never personally encountered) who made the final decision to leave the party behind.

The gnome faction did consider taking the PC gnome (whom they like and trust) with them but they were worried that the PCs would be able to track them down much easier if he was with them. OOG I was also dubious about splitting up the party. The gnomes knew that the party had formed some kind of secret order, but were unaware that they had been geased (the party hasn't advertised that fact).

Hope this clears up some details for you all. :\

 

[hong]

I have a lot of trouble with using people's emotional reactions to something as the sole test of whether it is reasonable in any area of human relations -- but especially among gamers.

Because, after all, gaming is a character-building experience. It's not good for you if you're enjoying it.


Hong "is STILL waiting for 7 Habits of Highly Effective Munchkins" Ooi

 

[fusangite]

Because, after all, gaming is a character-building experience. It's not good for you if you're enjoying it.

Hong -- I feel you are wrong. Why won't you change your mind to make be feel better?

 

[hong]

Hong -- I feel you are wrong. Why won't you change your mind to make be feel better?

Because posting on this here mailing list _is_ a character-building experience. Now bend over.

 

[tonym]

The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.

I'm surprised. I would NEVER have guessed that an NPC so untrusting and cruel as to cast a geas on the PCs for the obvious purpose of threatening them and controlling them would 'ever' voluntarily remove it. I wonder if this news comes as a surprise to any of your Players. If my PC was in that party, the next goal would be to visit that anchoress.

Although, of course, you mentioned that the PCs could be punished by the Law for daring to adventure without a geas. (CRIPES!!!) I'd still get it removed.

These two gnomes had been won over by the party and were sincere in their efforts. They had themselves crated up alongside the party. It was the members of the gnome faction who they had entrusted to load them onto the ship and their superiors (whom the party had never personally encountered) who made the final decision to leave the party behind.

Ah, so they had never met the two gnomes that turned their plan into a shambles. No wonder everything went awry. Ambrus, earlier you referred to the PCs' losing of the artifact as a "failure." It sounds to me like you made sure the failure was going to happen by keeping those sinister gnomes unavailable for conversation.

Furthermore, if the gnomes that trusted the PCs were familiar with the 2 never-met sinister gnomes, they should have warned the PCs about the potential for treachery while crated.

Tony M

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

EDIT: On second thought, no point in responding.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I have witnessed in this thread is the GM appearing upset and virtually everyone siding with him; suddenly a player appears who is more upset. People pretend that she has given us new information and this has caused them to change their minds. But in reality, she provided no new conclusive information; instead her emotional intensity caused us to reorder our moral hierarchy of who was in the right. Because in today's PC world, whoever is most upset is automatically more correct.

Fusangite,

While I agree with most of what you've written here, I do disagree with your "pretend that she has given us new information" statement. The new information that she gave us does pertain to both in-game and metagaming issues.

The basic scenario as described by the DM is still absolutely fine. The basic foolishness of the PCs in letting the gnomes crate up the artifact separately is still absolutely real. It is definately okay for the DM to have NPCs change their plans according to circumstances. Indeed, it would be a serious detriment to the game if the DM did not.

That said, over a reasonably long period of time, PCs with high bonuses to Sense Motive have a reasonable expectation of being able to sort out who their allies are, and who their enemies are. Of course, the players should still expect to use their own wits. But they should also be allowed to use their characters' abilities.

Secondly, we have also been informed that several of the PCs had a high Charisma, and good Diplomacy skills. Should the gnomes have taken the artifact? Yes. I do not agree with the idea that time should be backtracked and that this should have been done differently. But they should have also felt bad about it, and this should be apparent in their actions. As an obvious example, they could have left the PCs something for their troubles. Had it been within the gnomes' abilities, they should have tried to satisfy the needs of both parties. (Of course, this may also be true of the PCs -- Diplomacy can have some serious negative modifiers if the diplomant is inflexible.)

These are in-game issues, and there is some evidence that they came up over the course of several sessions.

As far as meta-gaming issues go, issues of railroading and NPC behavior arise from the player's post.

Geas is, by and large, a railroading device. From a meta-gaming standpoint, Geas is the ultimate DM's "You will follow my plot or else" and, as such, should be used sparingly if at all. If the Geas is treated as a curse, then the PCs should have an opportunity to break that curse. If the Geas is not treated as a curse, then the PCs should have additional, and personal, reasons to follow the quest in addition to the cattle prod that Geas provides. If this is true for a short adventure, it is exponentially true for a long campaign.

The idea that PCs can, and will, be betrayed by NPCs that they trusted is as old as gaming. In fact, many early modules used these sorts of NPCs as "surprises" in the storyline. And these sorts of NPCs can be surprising, if they are used in moderation. The player's post raises the issue that deceitful, unethical NPCs are encountered far more often than trustworthy NPCs. While some may view this as being "realistic" (discounting their own personal friends and associates, of course), it creates a very sharp divide between PCs and NPCs. PCs are, generally, trustworthy. NPCs are not.

In such a world, it is difficult to perceive even PCs as trustworthy. It is certainly difficult to have any motivations which are not self-serving. What is the motive of saving the village from the Awful Green Things if the villagers are as conniving and backstabbing as any Awful Green Thing the PCs have ever faced? More conniving, actually, because at least the Awful Green Things aren't pretending to like the PCs!

Players whine. It's part of the nature of the beast. Normally, when all else is equal, I fall on the side of the DM. After all, the DM has invested the most time...and probably money...into the game. But the fact that players sometimes whine without good reason does not imply that all player complaints are baseless.

These are not issues that were raised by the DM's initial description of events. And, again, while they do not change the cleverness of the events described -- I could easily see myself doing the same thing, had I thought of it -- they do change the context in which those events took place. It is, I believe, this context which needs to be addressed.

The DM can make a good start by simply evidencing that the gnomes did feel guilty, and that the PCs' efforts at swaying them were not all in vain. This can be done without ret-conning, using several methods suggested in this thread. I am no fan of ret-conning.

It may also be valuable for the DM to consider why the PCs should care what happens to the NPCs in this world. Is good equivilent with stupid? Or are most people's lives and freedoms really worth fighting for?


RC

(The Ever-Opinionated)

 

[Raven Crowking]

The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.

While everything seems reasonable in and of itself, again I believe that there might be issues of context. For example, what is the anchoress' goal in casting Geas if she will remove it later, quest not having been completed?

One player says, "We can't trust any NPCs; they're all out to get us."

If you cannot trust the LG anchoress to tell you that she intends to Geas you if you accept funds/a quest, then that player may well be right. Had they been told, and been given a choice to accept or decline, then the Church might well have been considered allies. As it is, the Church pretended to be allies while sneakily taking control of their lives in an underhanded way (player perspective).

Again, the question becomes, why would the PCs trust or want to help anyone in this world?

Another question is, why couldn't the PCs take the artifact to the Church for aid? Why did they have to trust the gnomes? If the Church is far away, the characters cannot simply return if the quest goes awry; they must follow the artifact or suffer the consequences.


RC