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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 1880330" data-attributes="member: 16285">Let's see - I don't script everything.  I do script major attitudes events (ambushes, betrayals {as in when it's likely and what is apt to prompt the event}, etc.)  I do script or at least have a general concept laid out on how an NPC will initially react to the PCs, this of course gets modified by how persuasive their arguments are. I don't always ask for a dice roll, in fact I prefer to weigh the merits of the plan presented to the NPCs and have them react accordingly.  I in general hate having an NPCs reaction determined by a dice roll.What I gleemed out of the posts was that the fact there was a disagreement between the gnomes was the "winging".  This is a purely NPC interaction with NPC and should be more planned since it cannot be affected by anything the players do and is behind the curtain so to speak.Things that could have (and probably should have) been scripted would be, IMO:1. The location of the ship (a possible escape route).2.  Other possible escape routes.  A DM needs to have more than one way out of a trap since players will more often than not avoid doing what the DM had planned so other possibilities need to be available.3.  The presence of the gnomes and their general attitude/motivations - prior to the PCs showing up.4.  Any internal conflict in motivations for the gnomes (e.g., more than 1 sect present).5.  The boxes themselves. A means for hiding the PCs and artifact onto the ship.6.  How the gnomes would initially react if confronted by the PCs.7.  To what extremes are the gnomes willing to go to achieve their goals and exactly how far apart are those goals from those of the PCs.8.  What happens if the PCs lose?  This one is extrememly important since many times DMs fail to have a contingency plot/story in case the PCs fail to accomplish a specific task.If you look at what I have listed you can readily see that there is a whole lot of room to maneuver about in reaction/response to the PCs' actions and yet some essential plot line devices are prebuilt into the scenario.In the case presented most of the storyline progressed without any PC interaction and that is what is wrong about it.  Decisions that adverse affect the PCs were made without them having any way of knowing what was going on.  It is way different for them to have been successfully deceived but when all indications given to them were that they were doing something right then there is a game fault here and the players have a very legitimate right to be upset.  They will most likely get over it once you have given something to go on but until then they feel betrayed (at least that is what I'm getting out of this). Ambrus, if you were so convinced that what you had done was correct then why bother to post it as a question in the first place?  I mean you must have thought it possible that you had been unfair to the players or else you wouldn't ahve bothered posting it for discussion. It really seems that you have been spending your time trying to justify your decisions/actions instead of listening to what others see as right or wrong about them.</blockquote>

Verification