Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1879882" data-attributes="member: 18280">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)</blockquote>

Verification