DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Elf Witch]

To OP: Nice that things went well.

Generally speaking I don't like situations where players are imprisoned/threatened with political stuff/get to court for judgement. They are usually bit boring, and many DM:s I've played with kinda get negative reaction from players. They are not bad plot ideas, but most players like "freedom".

As what some other posters said when to loose your character, I don't think you ever should. It's basicly same as kicked out of game. You can loose your character because of death and sometimes because of some nasty corruption (that equals death as far as game is concerned). And if game allows resurrection so should it allows to "cure corruption" if remaining pc:s are ready to use the money/put up the fight for their lost partner. Especially if situations where unwilling. If player willingly chose to do something "evil" might be party doesn't that traitor back, but if they want why not.

When you say "if you don't play my adventure the way I planned your character is out" can sound very different how you say. When everyone is aware that you are playing "some pre-planned adventure" and "dm is not just making it up we go along" players should respect that. If situation is unclear/unwanted to players, all kinda blaming and crying will occur.

If you made it clear at beginning "going evil" is not allowed, you should not put players to face situation where "evil choice" is actually better one. Especially if you are apprahended by some workers for (not-so-trusted-by-pc) nobility etc. Violence does seem easily more sensible. PC:s are not reading your mind, it's all about impressions. And don't try to corrupt pc:s on purpose if going non-good is end to their character. Not every player likes such an unfair social manipulation.

A DM has the right to say I don't want to DM a game with evil PCs. A DM should not be forced to do it if is something they really dislike. And if the players know this going into the game then as I said before if they still make the choice to be evil then they know the consequences.

As a DM I set up encounters and I set them up in a way that the players have several choices on how to proceeded. I would never set up an encounter where the only way out is for the PCs to do an unspeakable act.

But I see nothing wrong with making the evil choice the easier choice instead of the good one. Part of being a hero is to make those choices.

In my game the party knows that the bad guys are looking for a baby girl. She is part of a prophecy and is needed to open the way to allow Tiamat back into the world. But she has to be sacrificed at certain time for this to work.

The party knows who the child is and they just protected her from the evil guys kidnapping her. They know that certain orders thinks it would be better to kill the baby now.

It certainly would be the easiest thing to do and it would be cold blooded murder and an evil act. There are other ways of stopping Tiamat besides killing the baby.

There is a big difference between magical corruption and mind control and a PC deciding that evil is an easier path to walk or more rewarding.

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about this a bit more.

I think I can identify the big sticking point between the OP DM and his player. The player was presented with nothing but stick, and no carrot in sight. Think about it from the player's POV. What is the absolute best that's going to come out of this situation? He gets arrested, spends some time in jail, goes before the magistrate, things get sorted out and he's a free man again.

Which is exactly the same place that he started. He gets to spend the next bit of game time for what? How is it advancing his character goals, group goals or campaign goals? Is there any upside to this at all? Heck, is he even going to get XP out of the deal? And, does he know if he is or not?

So, from the player's point of view, there's nothing but stick. Why would he go along with this? He didn't do anything wrong, he didn't initiate this chain of events - all of it is being foist upon him.

And this gets back to the trust issue. If the player doesn't know the DM very well, he probably has no reason to trust that there is a carrot in there somewhere, even if it's not readily apparent. So, he has no real reason to go along with what the DM wants - there's no incentive.

Expecting people to roleplay for the sake of roleplaying can work. But, it's something that can be quite tricky. If there's no incentive to engage in a particular event, don't be surprised if your players have no interest in engaging.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

A DM has the right to say I don't want to DM a game with evil PCs. A DM should not be forced to do it if is something they really dislike. And if the players know this going into the game then as I said before if they still make the choice to be evil then they know the consequences.

As a DM I set up encounters and I set them up in a way that the players have several choices on how to proceeded. I would never set up an encounter where the only way out is for the PCs to do an unspeakable act.

But I see nothing wrong with making the evil choice the easier choice instead of the good one. Part of being a hero is to make those choices.

In my game the party knows that the bad guys are looking for a baby girl. She is part of a prophecy and is needed to open the way to allow Tiamat back into the world. But she has to be sacrificed at certain time for this to work.

The party knows who the child is and they just protected her from the evil guys kidnapping her. They know that certain orders thinks it would be better to kill the baby now.

It certainly would be the easiest thing to do and it would be cold blooded murder and an evil act. There are other ways of stopping Tiamat besides killing the baby.

There is a big difference between magical corruption and mind control and a PC deciding that evil is an easier path to walk or more rewarding.

That totally depends in dm/pc:s. Some dm styles cause players to rebel very easily because it always seem world is against them, every npc is jerk, traitors, and if there is some nicer one, that npc always dies. In horrible way that players can't stop.

Your story would sound very different what kinda dm is running it and to what kinda players.

You didn't answer my post really. But told this story. But I answer that one.

I was trying to say, that dm can't at the same time say "game for you ends if you go evil" and constantly build "traps" to corrupt pc:s. Unless that replaces "death" in game, and that has been told. Otherwise it is bad behavior.and seems dm likes to play "evil" stuff way too much and wants just pc:s to be good guys so they are easier/more gullible/ready to accept quests without rewards and high chance of failure.

I despise these "always be good so I can laugh at and abuse your pc:s" dm:s.
They are often same guys who think CN = insane, does random actions, pretty much same as CE (and you see that the way npc:s of said alignment).

However I add it was rather common back in a day to say if you go evil you become npc. Still so in some games we play. Player actively go for "evil" choices. Without constant dm manipulation that is. This is probably same player who likes player vr player fights and likes to talk how "my character would so kill your chracter". Based on my experiences naturally.

Protecting child from evil can be fun adventure unless run by these dm:s. I mean when you aren't set for failure. I woudn't like that kinda plots when I am new in group.

Killing the kid is not really "corruption" plot-line. It is too simple and easy choice to protect kiddie until their evil ritual date has passed. And kick some badguy ass. It would get old soon, if it would be constant thing and we could do nothing else for fear it would happen again. Boring. Plus I hate being reactive all the time. If I feel I am two steps behind baddies I will start doing things so that they would react to me instad.

What you told earlier about rings/choosing who will die I would hate. Well maybe it was pc idea and your players liked it, for me it would be just two wrong choices. Unless it would make sense, like party's allys would be targeted by assassins and we would be awere of clear and present danger, then we would try to arrange our friend's some pretected area etc. and some of them would just refuse to leave their lives. Which happens in real life too, some people rather risk dying than abandon all they know.

Unless it is like that it smels like relationship thingies when asked to "choose me or that friend of yours, or I leave you, show me which you love best".

Ok, if there is no in-game caring involted and protection is merely political/alliance thing where certain risks are acceptable.

Based on what little I know about your games, I'm pretty sure, that even if there is some things I really like there are some serious style-clashes. Also, I run games to evilsih pc:s (mosty greedy, powerhungry, ruthless sector rather than psychotic demonworshipper peasant-slayer). I don't think D&D is all about heroic game. I love rather many styles.

 

[S'mon]

The "Is it railroading?" discussion is really not helpful IMO. There can be DMing mistakes - poor DMing - that do not involve railroading.

 

[Loonook]

The "Is it railroading?" discussion is really not helpful IMO. There can be DMing mistakes - poor DMing - that do not involve railroading.

It's not really poor DMing; it is just interpretations of the DMing as the player sees it, and then taking it from there. I think both parties are culpable, and that we got off on the discussion because people interpret railroading in so many different ways... And so the thread moved in a different direction.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Jhaelen]

But to each their own. Which is why I think it is a mistake to tell a DM on the boards that he shouldn't do something in his game just because you would not like it in yours.

I think, for a DM it's easiest to decide if she 'did something wrong' by observing the players' reactions and asking them for feedback.

If a DM's and the players' preferences or expectations clash, you'll usually run into problems pretty soon.

Pointing out that a situation as described in the OP wouldn't fly well in my game with my players may or may not be useful for the OP; that's for him to decide.

As a player, if my character were to be put in a similar situation, I'd probably be quite annoyed, too, unless I have a lot of trust in the DM and know him and his DMing style for a long time (and generally enjoy playing in her game).

 

[DragonLancer]

Why do people say things like this. You do realize that this maybe true in the games you play in with the people you play with but it is far from being a universal truth.

I have seen it used in a lot of games I have played in I use it as a DM.

I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game. It is just that in my 25 years of GMing I have never known players to like this style of play. That includes the various players I have had or players I have joined when travelling and meeting new folks. If your players like it, and by sounds of it one doesn't, then fine. Whatever works for you.

In answer to the OP's question though I believe that a DM needs to be in the middle between adversarial and permissive. Either end of the spectrum tends (in my experience) to lead to the death of a game.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

The whole being taken prisoner scenario can work. I've used it. Had it used against me. If it meshes with the story and characters it's fine. Also, if it's the natural reaction of the game world to some crazy PC then I don't see anything wrong with it then either.

It all depends on who's playing the game.

Regarding the OP: Put me in the camp that the GM should have given the player more room to make his own (possibly fatal) decisions. But it has all come good in the end since the player in question is happy.

cheers.

 

[Desdichado]

That is not railroading you can try and say it is because I am not allowing the character to stay a PC but the player agreed to my rules and so it is not like it is a surprise.

Sure, it's not a surprise. And sure, they agreed to it up front. It's still railroading. I'm curious why you think it's not.

Lots of games are railroads, and contrary to popular belief on online forums like this, a lot of players like them. In fact, a lot of players want them. They want direction. They don't want to flail around trying to "find the game" and prefer that the GM just tell them where it is.

Granted, a lot of them prefer the GM do so with at least a little bit of subtlety, but that's a little beside the point. Railroads as games work for a lot of players. It's not for nothing that a lot of GMing advice in print treats it as a valid playstyle, if done with enough subtlety that the players don't really have anything to object to.

Although they also tend to call them "linear games" rather than railroads.

 

[Alzrius]

We're getting off topic, but what you call "vanilla" I call "heroic" & "high fantasy". As a general rule, I expect the PCs to not steal from the poor, take advantage of the helpless, or put the well-being of innocents behind their own. I want them to put it on the line, haul out the big guns, and kick ass or die to stop the monstrous horde and save the baby.

This is a completely legitimate style of play, and a lot of people enjoy it - in fact, I think that this is a central theme of the "new school" style of role-playing games.

On the other hand, one of the differences between this and the old school style of play is that, in the old school, PCs are often rogues on the make. That is, they're not necessarily evil, but they're not altruistic crusaders, either. They're largely in it for themselves, coupled with the fact that they little real desire to harm anyone who isn't crossing them.

I should also mention that despite the "old" and "new" labels, these aren't play-styles that are divided by when people began the game. I see old school attitudes in people who've never played RPGs before, and new school styles of play in people who've been gaming longer than I've been alive.