DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Mallus]

It seems to me there was a mix of poor DMing and possibly poor design on the Adventure Path.

I'd add "poor play on the part of the other players".

If it's wrong for the accused PC to consider running because it would break up the party/remove him from the adventure, then the other PCs were wrong for not sticking up for him in the first place.

Had they done that, they would have pushed the scenario into a much more playable configuration.

 

[billd91]

Exactly!

Don't push someone out the door, lock it, then blame them for not fighting hard enough to stay inside!

It seems to me there was a mix of poor DMing and possibly poor design on the Adventure Path. The first AP adventure should be working hard at pulling PCs together, not pushing them apart.

I wouldn't say there's anything in the AP pushing the PCs apart at this point. Promiscuous daughter of a merchant seduces PC, couple gets caught, father over-reacts. Why aren't the PCs, who have already worked together to fight off the goblin raid, giving the accused PC the benefit of the doubt or even standing up for him? There are plenty of groups who would react just like that.

 

[catsclaw227]

Frankly, if you're going to call the first 6 years of D&D "old school", and lump the next 32 years (or more!) into "new school", I think your bias is showing.

I agree. I place the old-school / new school divide at 1999/2000 when 2e "died" and 3e rose from the ashes.

I think a lot of people look at design decisions from the early days of the hobby and assume, usually unconciously, that the design parameters and choices we make today sprang, full-fledged, onto the earth when Gygax first conceived of D&D. Many people (and I'm sorry, I'm treading on sacred ground here), also presume that Gygax is unsurpassed and unequalled as a master of game design, which begs the question why more people don't play Dangerous Journeys or Lejendary Adventures.

I love the Gygaxian prose, his quirky rule subsets and the imagination that went into spells and the magic items, but I far from believe that he was a great "game designer". Dangerous Journeys was a 3-month long frustrating slog through weird, unexplained holes and seemingly contradictory rules. Every day we were trying to figure it out had more moments of "huh... what are we supposed to do about this situation..." and not enough awesome. The idea was neat, the Gygaxian style was cool, but the game itself sucked hard.


EDIT: Sorry PirateCat. Didn't see the fork and subsequent closing of such. My bad.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because his PC is innocent of the crime he's accused of?

Because the other players know this?

Because even though the other players know this, they all decide to proceed as if the accused PC is guilty? Even though, at that point, there's been no corroborating evidence either way.

The players seem to think advocating for the accused PC would be metagaming. All players, including the accused PC, are making decisions based on "what their characters would do." This seems to be within the social contract of the group.

With that in mind, it seems like they're not being "game-disrupting players."

One falsely-accused PC against an accuser, the law, and the rest of his party isn't going to end will.

This seems to be framing it pretty badly. The original poster said that the accused PC was well-liked by the town. He had gotten along with the other PCs previously. The original poster also noted he would very likely get cleared.

I think the PCs indicated that they wouldn't support him if he ran, as they'd see it as a sign of guilt, and not that they didn't support him now. They didn't say that they wouldn't support him if he stayed. So, I think he'd probably have them on his side, and the town wanting to be on his side. As always, play what you like

 

[catsclaw227]

As I said before, the guy is trying to run Runelords not Cops or the First 48.

Which is an AP and by definition going to have some railroady elements that might cause problems if a player decides his PC is going to jump off the train and leave everyone else on it.

Because his PC is innocent of the crime he's accused of?

Because the other players know this?

Because even though the other players know this, they all decide to proceed as if the accused PC is guilty? Even though, at that point, there's been no corroborating evidence either way.

The accused PC is falsely accused of crime, and then finds the rest of the group siding with the NPCs. I'm not sure how anything he does at this point could be considered "disruptive", once the deck's been stacked against his favor like that.

This set-up could have worked --though I'm not a big fan of the false accusation being of rape-- if it was clear from of the start the PC was innocent. Or if the DM made it clear when the rest of the party was deciding to side with the townsfolk. Or even a few of players stepped up (with a little constructive metagaming) and sided with the falsely-accused PC.

I am not a fan of the "false accusation of rape" plot point either. Even if people agree that they can handle adult themes, this one can charge subconscious emotions in ways that players can't really anticipate.

In my opinion the game set-up was messed up from the beginning before this encounter even happened.

First, the players and PCs didn't all know each other or have ties to each other so that in the event of a difficult situation they would have incentive to band together and work as a team. The OP admitted this himself a few pages back.

Second, since it is an AP, I am guessing that either the players weren't told in advance that it was an AP or that they didn't understand that they were getting into a game that had a relatively linear narrative structure by nature. If they did, in fact, know and understand this, and agreed (which is a totally fine playstyle -- APs are VERY popular), then they weren't truly committed to the social contract they accepted when the game started.

Yes, it's metagamey, but it's an important distinction to understand if a group of players want to have an enjoyable table experience.

I never, ever downplay the importance of establishing the social contract between players and DM before starting a campaign, whether it's defining house rules or having a thorough playstyle discussion beforehand.

I wouldn't say there's anything in the AP pushing the PCs apart at this point. Promiscuous daughter of a merchant seduces PC, couple gets caught, father over-reacts. Why aren't the PCs, who have already worked together to fight off the goblin raid, giving the accused PC the benefit of the doubt or even standing up for him? There are plenty of groups who would react just like that.

I agree with this, but as I stated above, it sounds like a lot was left on the table (so to speak) when it came to setting the game up in the first place.

 

[Loonook]

Because his PC is innocent of the crime he's accused of?

Because the other players know this?

Because even though the other players know this, they all decide to proceed as if the accused PC is guilty? Even though, at that point, there's been no corroborating evidence either way.

The accused PC is falsely accused of crime, and then finds the rest of the group siding with the NPCs. I'm not sure how anything he does at this point could be considered "disruptive", once the deck's been stacked against his favor like that.

This set-up could have worked --though I'm not a big fan of the false accusation being of rape-- if it was clear from of the start the PC was innocent. Or if the DM made it clear when the rest of the party was deciding to side with the townsfolk. Or even a few of players stepped up (with a little constructive metagaming) and sided with the falsely-accused PC.

One falsely-accused PC against an accuser, the law, and the rest of his party isn't going to end will.

If it were the entire party trying to prove the PC innocence -- perhaps with the added challenge of not destroying his accuser's life (the smart thing to do would be to make the accuser at least partially sympathetic. The only thing worse than a scenario w/a false accusation of rape is one where the false accuser did for no good reason, or merely for the lulz).

Hrmm... Someone of a lower social standing, considered below the accuser due to happenstance, is accused of grievous sexual harm when the deed is found out..

(Hotlinked)

Yes, that would never work.

And a group of PCs, wanting to eschew the fun of a trial sequence (roll initiative, ready your motions!) at the beginning of an AP decide to ditch the idiot who decided to try earning XP through some 'dungeon delving' on the side? At this point I just don't care, but it seems silly. Why should the party be expected to support someone whom they don't know from a hole in the ground who apparently is just a'rapin about?

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Mallus]

Yes, that would never work.

Note that in To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus Finch gives Tom Robinson the benefit of the doubt and defends him to the best of his abilities, even though it earns him the disapproval of his neighbors.

That's kinda central to the story.

Had Atticus acted like the accused PC's party and said, "I really don't know this guy Tom. Yeah, he probably raped the girl" then To Kill A Mockingbird would have been a somewhat different novel...

... at the beginning of an AP decide to ditch the idiot who decided to try earning XP through some 'dungeon delving' on the side?

Where do you get the "idiot trying to earn extra XP from?". The DM had the NPC girl seduce the (later described as somewhat passive) PC?

At this point I just don't care, but it seems silly.

Well, your TKaM analogy was a tad silly.

Why should the party be expected to support someone whom they don't know from a hole in the ground who apparently is just a'rapin about?

Answer #1 - because he's a PC.

Answer #2 (in the form of a question) - Why would the DM create a scenario in which one PC is tricked into becoming an antagonist? Especially near the beginning of the campaign.

 

[Loonook]

Note that in To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus Finch gives Tom Robinson the benefit of the doubt and defends him to the best of his abilities, even though it earns him the disapproval of his neighbors.

That's kinda central to the story.

Had Atticus acted like the accused PC's party and said, "I really don't know this guy Tom. Yeah, he probably raped the girl" then To Kill A Mockingbird would have been a somewhat different novel...


Where do you get the "idiot trying to earn extra XP from?". The DM had the NPC girl seduce the (later described as somewhat passive) PC?

I make one veiled reference...

Atticus defends Tom in a trial that takes pretty much the rest of the novel to resolve. While I understand that it would be just awesome to spend a couple of sessions in the trial phase, again the AP is set and doesn't include COPS.

It has a seduction in it. You have the option to opt out. You didn't and you decided to run rather than just take a hit and argue it out.

Well, your TKaM analogy was a tad silly.


Answer #1 - because he's a PC.

Answer #2 (in the form of a question) - Why would the DM create a scenario in which one PC is tricked into becoming an antagonist? Especially near the beginning of the campaign.

Just being a PC doesn't provide plot immunity.

And the DM didn't create the scenario... The AP creates it, and the player took it to a conclusion.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[catsclaw227]

Well, your TKaM analogy was a tad silly.

Answer #1 - because he's a PC.

Answer #2 (in the form of a question) - Why would the DM create a scenario in which one PC is tricked into becoming an antagonist? Especially near the beginning of the campaign.

I'm with Mallus on this one. The TKaM reference was a strawman and not terribly relevant. And answers #1 and #2 above support my statements earlier about the whole of the campaign not being set up properly to start and therefore destined to topple at the slightest hint of unexpected PC/player action.

 

[catsclaw227]

Just being a PC doesn't provide plot immunity.

No, it doesn't, but the DM is responsible for making sure that the beginning of a campaign doesn't fall apart so easily.

And the DM didn't create the scenario... The AP creates it, and the player took it to a conclusion.

The DM has to run the scenario, though. And there were a number of ways that this scenario could have been set up, with good examples throughout this thread. Rise of the Runelords has been played by a large number of DMs and players and I doubt that this particular situation caved in very often. The DM didn't write the scenario, but that doesn't relieve him from fault for not adequately setting it up or via roleplaying let the player feel like his acts of heroism in the previous scenario were moot.