Crashing the game: When the DM doesn't expect resistance

[wingsandsword]

I'm with everyone else on this last bit though. What happened next? How did the other players react? Did the DM recover well after his initial shock?

It crashed the game. Hence the title.

The players were ready, willing and able to fight. Some wanted to talk some more before engaging, but nobody was willing to surrender. The DM said he didn't have stats written up for them, didn't really even know what kind of stats to give them (other than knowing that they are all Paladins, and thus immune to fear), and really wasn't wanting to continue the game.

The DM decided to call it a night and we didn't game more after that, he literally had no idea how to proceed without us surrendering peacefully. I didn't want to kill the game, but surrendering seemed nonsensical from an in-character point of view (then again, a large squad of heavily armed men appearing in the middle of an empty no-mans land out of nowhere with no warning was also nonsensical).

Unfortunately for him, my PC derailed all those plans by saying something along the lines of, "Well, they are duly appointed representatives of legitimate authority and I trust the legal system to ensure that justice will be done. We surrender and go along quietly."

It appears that the DM (who was not one of my regular gaming group) had no idea that this was the way I usually play paladins.

I've gone this way with regards to being captured before too, under the right circumstances.

In a Star Wars campaign (Rebellion Era), the Empire had sent an agent to discredit my up-and-coming Jedi who was starting to get Imperial attention and being a minor celebrity in the Rebellion (behind that famous show-off Skywalker ). So, an Emperor's Hand had gone undercover on our ship, and managed to kill our commanding officer with a lightsaber and managed to have my PC be the first one there to discover the body right as the MP's arrived.

So, the GM was expecting my character to fight his way out, or use mind tricks or something. Instead. . .he quietly surrendered (but proclaiming his innocence) and sat in a brig cell using Farseeing to gather clues which he passed on to the other PCs as they visited him and investigated the crime.

For a Jedi in the middle of the Rebel Alliance, surrendering when falsely accused of a crime and using the Force and your allies to clear your name was perfectly reasonable. For a sorcerer in a D&D setting where arcane magic is outlawed and simply being a mage is punished with death, surrendering to a death squad of inquisitor Paladins is way less reasonable. (Using Paladins as medieval-style inquisitors engaged in genocidal slaughter of entire sorcerer bloodlines is another issue entirely)

 

[pawsplay]

You should've followed the GM's plot.

How do you know what that is? What if surrendering to the paladins seemed bloody stupid? And once you've said you won't, how do you take it back without damaging the tone of the game?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Or were you being sarcastic?

No.

Sure, it's crappy GMing, the PCs shouldn't be in that situation but, given that they are, what then? There's a burden on GMs to be good GMs and there's a burden on players to be good players.

It raises quite fundamental questions about what a player's duty is, and should players, or GMs, adapt their playing style in certain situations. If you're a player that strongly dislikes railroads, and this was definitely a railroad, what do you do when faced with one? I would say stay on the tracks, because it makes for a better game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

How do you know what that is?

I think an experienced player should have some sort of feeling for this kind of thing. After all, if the tracks *aren't* obvious then it's not a railroad. But when in doubt, you can always ask. "GM, please tell me where the plot is." Sometimes it's the least bad option.

And once you've said you won't, how do you take it back without damaging the tone of the game?

I think making the game work is more important.

 

[vagabundo]

Obviously you need to give a noob DM a break and be flexible, but not to the point where you just roll along with the plot - no fun in that folks.

Maybe when you broke your DM it would have been wise to suggest a break; give the DM a breather and let him come up with some way of salvaging the plot and getting some stats together for the Inquisitors.

In to the deep end; it's the only way to truly learn.

 

[Mesh Hong]

It crashed the game. Hence the title.

The DM said he didn't have stats written up for them, didn't really even know what kind of stats to give them (other than knowing that they are all Paladins, and thus immune to fear), and really wasn't wanting to continue the game.

The DM decided to call it a night and we didn't game more after that, he literally had no idea how to proceed without us surrendering peacefully. I didn't want to kill the game, but surrendering seemed nonsensical from an in-character point of view (then again, a large squad of heavily armed men appearing in the middle of an empty no-mans land out of nowhere with no warning was also nonsensical).

Sorry for the dramatic highlighting but look at what you achieved from your stated initial situation:

A group of soldiers, gamers all, on weekend pass, first time off post in months, decide to hit the local game store and have a marathon D&D session off post and relax. For me it's the first time in way too long that I've actually had a chance to play. One wants to take his first shot at DMing and his first time tabletop RPGing (he's only played computer games beforehand).

Really in all fairness I think you should have realised that this was a classic mistake from an inexperienced DM, grumbled a little (to highlight the point) then surrendered and got on with it. You said this was your first chance to play in months then you are directly responsible for ending the game not only for yourself but for everyone else too.

Having said that I understand your point of view, and if this was a normal situation I would be more sympathetic. But this doesn't sound like a normal situation, from the sounds of it you might not get another chance to play for another couple of months. Any game time is better than no game time, and an inexperiened DM needs as much game time as he can get in order to improve. What you did didn't help him at all, you just taught him that if he makes a mistake the game ends and noone is happy.

I also understand that the DMs choice of adventure and setting seems to be highly inappropriate. Soldiers in down time time (real life) don't really need to be playing a highly political totalitarian state style drama, I would reckon that they would want high fantasy dungeon crawling fun. (I know its a bit of a generalisation but as a marathon session, once every couple of months this would really seem like the best form of game and would allow everyone to relax, blow off steam and have a good time kicking monster butt).

 

[TheClone]

Since this entirely an outgame problem (ingame nobody has done nothing wrong), it should have been solved outgame. If you see such a DM mishap once, you usually are able to recognize it instantly again. At that point this matter should be solved outgame. Just have a small discussion, explaining that in character you can't surrender, but out character you see his idea. Tell him, it doesn't work this way and some other blabla how to handle that and where to get more information. With an experienced DM I would have blown his plot, too. I would have done it intentionally, because railroading makes me really angry. I absolutely hate it. But an newby DM is granted at least one capital mistake.

But I guess you've been quite stressed and maybe you didn't realize what situation you were in. Maybe later you should have and blowing up the session is no solution anyway. I wanna play and if that needs some compromise in roleplay or even metagame, who cares? Talk it through after the DM said, the game is broken and find a solution together with the whole group, how the rest of the game can be saved without having the DM prepare it all over again and with as much respect to your characters motives as possible and get back to the dice. It's just one damn scene. Don't let it ruin a totally great night of gaming! And let a newby DM get into the game, even if he is doing bad and worse.

And PC games, movies, TV series, book and all the like are the most evil poison if not handled really properly. Their plots are just total crap for rpg.

 

[Nagol]

No.

Sure, it's crappy GMing, the PCs shouldn't be in that situation but, given that they are, what then? There's a burden on GMs to be good GMs and there's a burden on players to be good players.

It raises quite fundamental questions about what a player's duty is, and should players, or GMs, adapt their playing style in certain situations. If you're a player that strongly dislikes railroads, and this was definitely a railroad, what do you do when faced with one? I would say stay on the tracks, because it makes for a better game.

For whom? Certainly not for the player who strongly dislikes railroads. It's nice you place other's feeling ahead of your own, but in my case my enjoyment is worth as much as another player.

When these (thankfully few) situations arise, I've tried stayig in the game and having a lousy time for the rest of the game, "crashing" the game and everyone having a lousy time for a short period, and gracefully withdrawing from the game -- which usually results in a crash.

So I've come to the conclusion that if the amount of pain is about the same regardless of my choice, my decision to crash depends on how I read the rest of the group.

If I'm the only one rolling my eyes, I'll play along and re-evaluate in a little while. If others are having difficult6y, we might as well crash the game since few are enjoying it (usually through discussion -- occasionally through action).

 

[Dausuul]

For whom? Certainly not for the player who strongly dislikes railroads. It's nice you place other's feeling ahead of your own, but in my case my enjoyment is worth as much as another player.

[snip]

If I'm the only one rolling my eyes, I'll play along and re-evaluate in a little while. If others are having difficult6y, we might as well crash the game since few are enjoying it (usually through discussion -- occasionally through action).

I'd give you XP if you hadn't disabled it.

A heavy-handed railroading DM is no fun for anybody except the DM. I've played in such games, and my experience is that going along with the railroad means all the players are bored and frustrated. That's not a good answer.

The best solution, as I said above, is to call time-out, sit the DM down, and explain the basics. But blowing up the session is often better than continuing.

 

[IronWolf]

The best solution, as I said above, is to call time-out, sit the DM down, and explain the basics. But blowing up the session is often better than continuing.

I think the key thing to remember is this was a novice DM, new to this. "Crashing" the game is quite likely to deter this person from wanting to DM again.

I think your initial solution, calling a time-out, talking to the DM and suggesting alternatives as a group of people playing the game to have fun is the better path than resorting to "crashing" the game. As others have suggested, maybe talking it out and giving the DM a chance to use some basic stats for the paladins or pointing him to a template he could use for it would be much more helpful than "crashing" the session. Then the DM gets to learn and possibly get over this hurdle and become a great DM in the future.

I rarely think it is a good idea to cause a game session to fail. If you don't like a DM's style, talk about it with the DM and see if you can come to an understanding. If not, finish the session out and the politely drop out of the gaming group.