Am I a cruel DM?

[Ambrus]

Phew. Nice summary Raven.

Feel free to correct me if I've missed anything important.

Since Raven Crowking went to so much trouble to collect the entire story together in one place, the least I can do is volunteer some clarifications and answers to his questions Hopefully this'll help people's understanding of the situation.

They spoke to them kindly and reasonably, with at least one Diplomacy check of 30.

There wasn't actually any dice rolled by anyone to win over the gnomes during the events in question. The "30" mentioned above was Noelani stating that she has a total diplomacy modifier of +30. I generally don't bother rolling diplomacy checks (I usually prefer to roll social skills in secret as the DMG suggests) unless the party is trying to win over a mortal enemy. Since the gnomes they met during this encounter were at least willing to talk to the party it's safe to assume that they (with a 30+ check) would eventually win them over as long as they were polite and reasonable. In hindsight, this easygoing roll-playing of the characters skills at the time may have, in part, led to the development of the situation.

Finally, the gnomes convinced the party that the only way to safely get on the ship and out of the city was to have all the party members (along with the artifact) placed into wooden crates and carried onto the ship. It is unclear as to whether this was originally a PC’s idea or a gnome’s; posts vary on this detail.

The idea was first proposed by the gnome PC. I don't believe any of the players contradicted me in their posts. If I'm wrong please let me know.

(Although the NPCs are apparently sincere at this time, one wonders why a larger crate cannot be loaded onto the ship.)

It was a logistics issue. The freighter itself was relatively small with limited cargo space, with small hatches through which to move the cargo and no crane nearby with which to move bigger crates. All the crates had to be carried aboard by hand. Also, since the cargo hold itself is small and somewhat rounded (because of the hull shape) larger crates mean more wasted space, which means less money for the merchant owner of the ship.

(Apparently, this faction had some means of determining which crates contained gnomes, which contained PCs, and which contained the artifact without having to check, and without thereby alerting the PCs.)

For proper shipping, all of the crates were branded with serial numbers by the guild and registered on the ship's bill of lading. The faction simply noted the numbers on the crates that everyone occupied and later separated the crates by referencing the numbers.

Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy, though a few (plural) of the players were quite upset.

Actually, I overstated the number of people who were openly upset at the table after the game when I originally posted. One person was upset (Noelani), one person voiced support for my actions (Esmé, who is a DM himself) while both Jebeddo and Ketharian kept their opinions mostly to themselves. Sorry about the confusion.

Also, I believe a while back Raven asked the question why the PCs didn't simply bring the artifact to their church allies in the city. Honestly I can't claim to fully answer this on behalf of the players. I believe the main reason is that the PCs were worried about the members of the church above the cardinal (a pontifex and some inquisitors) that they hadn't met and their unknown opinions concerning their quest. I think they feared coming into conflict with church officials while carrying a sacred relic and preferred to simply avoid any potential problems.

Since there's also been some conjecture about the party's current level, I'll reveal that they are all currently ECL 11. And although this particular story arc has taken up 35+ sessions, the campaign has actually been running for 58+ sessions.

 

[Darkness]

Hey everybody,


This endless back-and-forth between a few dedicated posters doesn't seem to be going anywhere but it's certainly not getting any nicer right now.

While sarcasm and nit-picking aren't bad per se, throwing barbed comments around and overgeneralizing others' positions into the ridiculous (among other things) is neither nice nor polite. I don't want to see any more of that, nor other assorted crap. Thanks.


On a different note...

I can be dissatisfied with a game because nobody performed oral sex on me during the session ...

Don't upset Morrus' grannie, please. Using a family-friendly example would have been just as easy.

 

[fusangite]

Thanks Raven. Great work on producing the summary. It's very convenient to have all the data available in one place now.

Darkness, I apologize for my colourful metaphor above. Also, as per your suggestion, I shall cease corresponding with Hong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Phew. Nice summary Raven.

Thanks.

There were a number of...somewhat argumentative...posts which seemed to be drifting away from what had actually happened. After ten pages, a refresher as to the circumstances seemed appropriate. It was also possible, now, to include later clarifications by both you and your players, to give the reader a fuller idea as to what happened.

I still conclude that both of the PC/NPC encounters we are privy to include the general idea that NPC A is the front man while NPC B (whom the party does not get to interact with fully) makes the decisions. While this is a pretty good way to foil Sense Motive checks, and is realistic (as anyone who has ever negotiated anything with an organization can attest), it really does increase the chances that these PCs will not trust other NPCs.

There are also some questions about the mechanics of what happened that the summary raises (such as how the deciding gnomes knew which crate was which), but the PCs do not know everything. It's okay to have some questions unanswered.

It amazes me that some people require an "all or nothing" answer to how good a DM is. Ambrus sounds as though he's a pretty good DM. Like all of us, he has strengths and weaknesses. No matter how prepared you are, or how quick a thinker you are, there are limitations to how "perfect" anyone's game can be. Ambrus is clearly within normal tolerance.

As far as Darkness' comments go, there are methods of argument that try anyone's ability to respond politely. It amazes me that those who use these methods regularly, even to the point of having some of their posts removed in some threads, have not received warning points. Far be it from me to tell the moderators of this excellent site how to run their business, but it seems to me that when the same individuals repeatedly hijack threads to the general detriment of all, taking some small action would add to the general good. There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about what lessons the DM teaches the players by his or her actions. I believe that the same principle applies here.

Now, if the above comments merit a warning of my own, I will happily accept it.


RC

 

[tec-9-7]

As far as Darkness' comments go, there are methods of argument that try anyone's ability to respond politely. It amazes me that those who use these methods regularly, even to the point of having some of their posts removed in some threads, have not received warning points. Far be it from me to tell the moderators of this excellent site how to run their business, but it seems to me that when the same individuals repeatedly hijack threads to the general detriment of all, taking some small action would add to the general good.

I too wonder why several individuals seem so wrapped up in each other's disfunction. There is a great button available in the Profiles - "Add X to Your Ignore List" - I've already made excellent use of that one!

 

[Berandor]

Now, if the above comments merit a warning of my own, I will happily accept it.

You are warned.

Also, I didn't really see that many posts by diaglo...

(Note: I am no moderator. Make of that what you will)

 

[Darkness]

As far as Darkness' comments go, there are methods of argument that try anyone's ability to respond politely.

Yep. Feel free to use the handy Report Post button (and your Ignore List, if warranted) as needed. You can also directly e-mail or PM a moderator when you need a heated debate defused.

If you decide to take matters into your own hands instead, don't hope for much understanding from a moderator if you escalate the situation by descending to a troublemaker's level yourself and we have to clean up after you as well. Sorry. If we encouraged such vigilantism, the boards would rapidly degenerate to a very un-nice place.

If anyone wants to comment more on this topic, PM or e-mail me (i.e., let's not hijack this thread). Thanks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay, then, back to Ambrus.

Should a session never end on a downer?

I don't think ending on a downer is a serious problem. I do understand, though, that some downers may seem so overwhelming as to demoralize the entire group.

Is it always the DM's fault when a player gets upset?

Well, obviously not. However, it is almost always worth the DM's time to consider whether or not it is his fault. When the game ends with all the players upset (even if some get over it later) enough to make the DM feel like the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, then it seems pretty clear that the DM in question should at least feel partly responsible.

A lot of the argument on this last point seems to be of the "DM's always responsible" vs. "What about player responsibility?" type. Granted, a lot of people out there never feel responsible for their actions, which can make people polarize on this issue. The fact is that when a game degenerates, it is rarely (if ever) entirely the fault of one party. Very likely, both the DM and the players bear responsibility.

A quick read-through of the summary I provided (which is all from posts by the DM or players involved, with some scant editting) demonstrates that the players did not make use of all the information that the DM provided. It also demonstrates that the DM did not provide as much information as he could have. In the latter case, there is sufficient grounds to believe that the DM intentionally withheld information....but there is also sufficient grounds to believe that the players should have known that this was the case.

From reading through these posts, I honestly believe that most of the posters actually hold a more moderate, less polarized, view than the last couple of pages would suggest.

Granting that Ambrus could have handled the reversal better, do we really believe that he handled it so badly that he should stop DMing or reverse the decision, as some suggested near the begining? Or is this reaction merely the result of not having all of the information together at the same time?


RC

 

[drnuncheon]

Here are my questions, and a bit of backseat DMing:

Did the crated PCs have any chance to notice the betrayal? It would seem to me that they'd be able to notice the other crates being loaded, people walking around the warehouse, etc - and when they weren't loaded it should have been obvious fairly quickly. Now, would they do anything in time? That's a different question - they'd have to weigh the possible consequences of getting caught popping out too early with those of being possibly betrayed.

Was this turnaround 'out of the blue'? Well, clearly the DM thought it made sense. It's not like the LG church suddenly turned around and betrayed them - that would have been out of the blue, rather than a group of people that they have had problems with in the past. Whatever hong or tac-9-7 or swrushing or fusangite or I says, we don't have all the data, and this is purely an opinion question.

Was it bad DMing? Apparently Hong thinks that Indiana Jones should have been able to pull the ark up out of the Well of Souls and take it back, because the 'climax' - finding the ark - had already happened. Except that finding the ark wasn't the climax, no matter how much you expected it to be. You can't identify the climax until you've seen the whole thing, and we and the players haven't seen the whole thing.

This could just be the scene where Marion and Indy have to break out of the Well of Souls after Belloq takes the ark, or where Indy goes after the Nazi convoy on horseback, or where he dives off of the freighter and lashes himself to the periscope with his whip. Would Raiders of the Lost Ark have been nearly as good a film without any of that? So, suspend judgement here until it really is over.

Now, what should you do? I disagree with tec-9-7 that you should reset - that never goes well and it just opens the door for everyone thinking about it as an option every time something goes wrong. On the other hand, it behooves you to bring a quick end to this storyline if the players aren't having fun - I'd tell them out of game that that is what you are going to do. It's a lot easier to live with something for 3 sessions than it is to know it's going to last for an indefinite time.

I would say it's time to (spoilers cos the players read this thread)

Spoiler

bust out/'borrow'/buy/whatever some carpets of flying (or similar - they've got to have some way of getting to and from this floating city) and take off after the gnomish ship (which is slowed by the artifact enough that they can catch up).

While on the ship - or maybe even before going there - they discover that the head gnomes of the expedition are being secretly controlled by the infernal faction, who was behind the betrayal all along! They are forced to try to defeat the gnomes without harming them unduly, breaking the infernal control, and then they can go on with their original plan.

At somepoint, though, you need to reach payoff, which ought to be the Macguffin being used for whatever it's going to be used for, by somebody. Preferably not the demons. I don't know what the dwarven prophecy is, or how it relates to the aims of the LG church, but if the two can coincide that might be a good path to work towards.

After this, definitely run a lighthearted, non-serious adventure to cool down. No fate of the world, no dark plots - if you think you can pull off something comic, do it. If not, give the players an easy opponent so they can feel good about their abilities - maybe somebody out of their past who gave them trouble the first time they met that they can now beat handily, showing how much they've improved and grown.

J

 

[Ambrus]

Since Raven Crowking went to so much trouble to collect the entire story together in one place, the least I can do is volunteer some clarifications and answers to his questions. I've edited my post following his summary with my comments so that they'll all be together for easy reference. Hopefully this'll help people's understanding of the situation.

Since there's also been some conjecture about the party's current level, I'll reveal that they are all currently ECL 11. And although this particular story arc has taken up 35+ sessions, the campaign has actually been running for 58+ sessions.