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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1890640" data-attributes="member: 14140">We wont agree, so just a few points to makeAnd as such, if you argument is that the PCs should not have trusted what their skills use told them in this REALLY HUGE  circumstance, then we agree after all. This gets back to something i said in the first post...We agree that the sense motive could have been more informative, if the gnomes had knowledge that they were cutting a deal that they themselves could not actually assure would happen.For this to have been the case tho, the Gm would have to have known ahead of time that the two different gnome groups (one group is all the other gnomes who actually have power and one group all the gnomes talking to the party) were of differing opinions and he would have had to have known ahead of time that the group negotiating were not absolutely certain they had enough clout to pull this agreement off.One of two things happened here...1. The "winging it" style GM did not know "ahead of time" the other gnomes planned to betray the PCs. he played the good-gnomes straight up because thats where he thought at that moment the session was running. But, when the players "messed up" and presented him, the GM, with such an opening, he threw in the curve. The reason all the gnomes working with the PCs never gave off a hint of suspicion and never gave off the whiff of doubt about "can we actually do this" was because that only came in after the fact in the Gm's mind. This fits with the "winging it, make it up as i go along" style of GMing expressed by this GM as his style better than the "baited trap."2. The "planned ahead" style GM set these "ignorant of what we can and cannot do and incorrectly believe totally that we can pull off anything we ahree to sincerely" gnomes in as a sort of "baited trap", which effectively use the PCs' skills against them.Back to my earlier post, a major reversal like this in a game deserves much thought and planning, to make it come off right. if it plays out so as to leave the PLAYERS melancholy, the PLAYERS ticked off, and even some of the PLAYERS ticked off or feeling they are fighting THE GM, then it was not well executed, it was not "good job", it was bad GMing.Notice the word PLAYERS used repeatedly. Its fine and dandy for the CHARACTERS to be melancholy, for the CHARACTERS to be pissed at the NPCs, and so forth, as long as the players, in contrast, are having fun and are seeing it as IN CHARACTER and the NPCs  not "the GM."   When the GM made the decision that the helpful gnomes had no idea that they actually did not have any ability to make the plan work like they agreed to, that was perhaps a duplictous act. After all, if these "helpful" or even "friendly" gnomes had told the party "you know, before we get you all in crates and you hand over the artifact, we ought to tell you that we are not in charge and our bosses might decide to hose you. Now, who's in the crate first?!" The difference is that, taking raiders for instance, when the sub showed up and the nazis too the ark, it was nothing Jones did. His capabilites were not "turned against him." He had not spent time working up deals with the nazis, getting to trust them, etc. He simply had a case of "man, those nazis are outgunning me". There is a big difference in a story arc between having the PCs badly lose and having the PCs badly lose at something they are really good at. You can play the "fish out of water" losses to even comedic effect, by putting say am uncouth fighter in a formal social event and have it play off well and enjoyable for most everyone. But, if you do the same sort of "you lose badly" scenario in the fighter's "thing i am good at", aka fighting, you should expect a different response. The absense of the artifact seems to me at least to be some evidence of unreliability among the PCs social skills. More to the point, if the PLAYERS believe the Gm is making it up as they go along and if the PLAYERS buy his "the gnomes with you had no clues", then why in the world would they not at least worry that this sort of "accidentally ignorant NPCs" thing wont happen next time, or the time after that? Any this HUGE? I'm sorry, but it sounds like on one hand, you think the PCS were not suspicious and untrusting ENOUGH for this scenario and thus set themselves up for a fall, but at the same time, you seem to want to argue that they should NOT take from this a lesson telling them that, next time they interact and make deals with NPCs, they should not rely on those same skills which failed them this time!!! next time, they should trust these skills, as they did this time, and what??? hope for the best?The PCs trusted their skills, used their abilities, and paid the price.As a GM, if that was the lesson plan for this scenario, i would HOPE they learned it.No, my argument is that if the PCs skills are effectively used against them, if the PCs good-at-them skills lead them astray on such a crucial moment, the players should learn not to trust those skills to lead them in the future. The players have just been taught how "not smart" it is to rely on those skills and to act on that info gained from those skills. Thats a lesson that should stick with them.its not a case at all of whwther they should or should not trust other NPCs... its a case of whether they should expect their characters' skills and aptitudes (as opposed to their characters' lacks and weaknesses) to serve them well or simply be another means of tricki9ng them.getting led astray by you weakness, by your failings, by your worse aspects... thats usual and typical and fine storeytelling. Thats good character, IMO.getting led astray by your strengths, by things you are good at, etc is a wholly different animal to me.Of course, not everyone will agree and thats fine. As i stated in my original post, the issue of what I think is ireelevent as is anyone else on this board who is not in the game. The only opinions that matter are the players and if they leave seeing the :GM as the enemy", if they leave feeling "cheated" as opposed to...well, its already been said. No need to go on again.YMMV and clearly does.</blockquote>

Verification