DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Janx]

And any GM who sets up a wrongful arrest scene, and doesn't anticipate the possibility of an escape attempt (and perhaps counteract it by wording up the player) is, in my view, making an error as a GM.

That should be the default assumption that the PC will fight or run when an arrest attempt is made, especially when falsely accused.

TV has trained us that when the protagonist is falsely accused, he must run and find evidence to clear his name. Not surrender peacefully and be thrown into a dark cell and forgotten.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Chalk this up to a bad DM choice and a learning experience.

Don't agree with the GM trying to strong-arm him, but I do think this is true. He was presented with a situation that left little reason to stick around, and it made sense his character wanted to bolt. I could see him wanting to stay, too, but just as easily see him bolting. As always, play what you like

 

[catsclaw227]

Hm, in that case (and the rest of what's in the sblock) there seems nothing wrong with the adventure per se. It was the DM's additions, combined with his choice not to have the PCs already know and trust each other, that screwed things up. It's a pretty easy mistake to make, but you need to be aware that a world-simulationist style and a linear adventure often don't mix well.

I am guessing that the trumped up rape charge was an off-the-cuff DM reaction rather than something the DM had planned in advance, considering the way the AP was laid out.

To the OP, how did the scenario end with the girl? Did the father and the PC fight? Were the other PCs there? Did the PC run from the situation, going to the stables to get out of town in the first place? Did the PC pass a bluff or diplomacy check with the father?

I am curious about the set-up of the rape charge, (based upon what I know about the AP) from the time the girl "seduced" him to the time when he was at the stables and the sheriff was approaching with his posse. Did the player already have any indication that this had gone south?

 

[pemerton]

I also see nothing wrong with threatening a PC. This is generally speaking what combat is about. Threatening in a social situation with imprisonment/death is also fine, especially when there's plenty of room to work within the goals of the group (ie, not leaving the group)

There's nothing wrong with threatening a PC. But obliging a PC to surrender is a different thing, in my view.

Fleeing combat is generally not objectionable. Nor, as far as I can tell, is fleeing arrest.

It's just disruptive to the goals of the other players, which is why I asked why you thought they were being disruptive.

I think they're being disruptive because they're not backing their fellow player who is being confronted with adversity by the GM. Their PCs have not been put into situations of adversity. The accused PC has. To me, that's the difference. Especially because it's not the accused PC's player's fault that the GM decided to pick on him.

I think this is really poor framing. The PC was threatened with "your PC is out of the game if you leave the party members and indicating that you have no reason to stick with the other PCs."

If the player goes into hiding that is one thing from what the OP said it looked like the players was going to just take off and leave the area permanently.

One of the PCs is a ranger, another a guard, and yet the GM couldn't contrive a situation in which they help the fugitive (eg the fleeing PC comes across the ranger in the woods outside the town - and when he explains what happened, the religious ranger immedately intuits that he is telling the truth)? Knowing nothing more of the game than what's been posted on this thread, I can think of multiple ways to keep the PC in the game. (Another is that, as he flees, he spots a second group of goblins - perhaps some who hadn't heard yet that the war is over - heading towards the town, or perhaps towards a homestead on the outskirts.)

Player A: "I'm going to leave and go over this way, and I'm not going to wait around."

The player didn't say he wasn't going to wait around. As you yourself quote from the OP, he said he was most likely to leave the area. There are any number of ways that outcome can be avoided - and most of those ways are related to the ranger and the town guard PC.

Players B, C, and D: "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go."

THis is also not what was said. As you yourself quoted from the OP, the other players said that their PCs were not prepared to fight for his innocence, should he flee. This is not about supporting the departing PC. This is about giving the PC a reason not to depart. Which, given that the other PCs included a religious ranger and a town guard, should have been utterly trivial.

How does this not lead to my quote

In the ways that I have described. I also think you recharacterise what the GM said, compared to your own quote from the OP, but this is less immediately relevant to my dim view of how the other players responded to one of their fellow having his PC put into unsought adversity by the GM.

 

[JamesonCourage]

There's nothing wrong with threatening a PC. But obliging a PC to surrender is a different thing, in my view.

Fleeing combat is generally not objectionable. Nor, as far as I can tell, is fleeing arrest.

I don't think these are necessarily generally objectionable. Fleeing might be less acceptable in this situation. Much as combat is sometimes less acceptable in some situations, as it will almost certainly get you killed.

I think they're being disruptive because they're not backing their fellow player who is being confronted with adversity by the GM. Their PCs have not been put into situations of adversity. The accused PC has. To me, that's the difference. Especially because it's not the accused PC's player's fault that the GM decided to pick on him.

If all the players have an understanding that it's expected to make decisions from the perspective of "what my character would do" (exactly as the mercenary PC is doing) and not make a meta-decision to help out just because he's a PC, then it would be going against the understood social contract to do what you're proposing.

That'd be disrupting to this style of game. It's fine to do what your preference is, but to call them "game-disrupting players" because they don't follow your preference in gaming style, and are in fact making decisions with the exact same criteria as the the mercenary PC, is probably wrong.

If they're all going to be making decisions in-character, that's fair. The mercenary understandably doesn't have backup. If they're all going to be making decisions from a meta-standpoint, then the mercenary's player should cooperate, so as not to complicate relations with the town where the other players want to keep working.

Either way, I wouldn't describe the rest of the players as "game-disrupting".

One of the PCs is a ranger, another a guard, and yet the GM couldn't contrive a situation in which they help the fugitive (eg the fleeing PC comes across the ranger in the woods outside the town - and when he explains what happened, the religious ranger immedately intuits that he is telling the truth)? Knowing nothing more of the game than what's been posted on this thread, I can think of multiple ways to keep the PC in the game. (Another is that, as he flees, he spots a second group of goblins - perhaps some who hadn't heard yet that the war is over - heading towards the town, or perhaps towards a homestead on the outskirts.)

The PC indicated that he was leaving town, and would most likely leave the area. Yeah, he could notice a new threat. He may or may not want to tell the town that tried to arrest him, that he just fled from. I wouldn't bank on it, but it might work if the player cooperates. As he's currently leaving the party, and is a mercenary/brigand, I wouldn't count on it, personally.

The player didn't say he wasn't going to wait around. As you yourself quote from the OP, he said he was most likely to leave the area. There are any number of ways that outcome can be avoided - and most of those ways are related to the ranger and the town guard PC.

Both of whom said they would assume he's guilty, and I'm betting would attempt to bring him in. If the mercenary can be excused for "acting in character" and leaving, the town guard and ranger should be able to "act in character" when they run across him. My bet is on PvP as of that point, the PC letting the mercenary get away, or the mercenary voluntarily going in (and is arrested nonetheless).

If they're going to come at this from a meta-standpoint (he's a PC!), then the mercenary should have tried to keep relations with the town as smooth as possible. Locked up for a bit, while the other PCs tried to prove his innocence. This way things with the town remain smooth.

I still don't see how the other players are "game-disrupting" or how the GM is railroading.

Players B, C, and D: "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go."

THis is also not what was said.

Here's a couple quotes from the original poster about what his players said:

All I told him was this his plan to flee the town on horseback was likely to be a bad one. And I consulted the other players, none of whom were willing to fight for his innocence should he flee.

As to the players, I didn't put words in their mouth at all. I asked, "guys, what do you think, are you willing to help him? Do you think he is innocent?" I got a resounding "No!" An error on my part was not giving them enough of a reason to stick together before dividing them like this.

So, I say "Players B, C, and D: "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go."" You say: "THis is also not what was said."

I have to disagree.

As you yourself quoted from the OP, the other players said that their PCs were not prepared to fight for his innocence, should he flee. This is not about supporting the departing PC. This is about giving the PC a reason not to depart. Which, given that the other PCs included a religious ranger and a town guard, should have been utterly trivial.

Yes, it was what he said. From the situation given from the original poster (which I can quote if you'd like), the mercenary had little reason to stay. He had no "vested interest in the town or allies". The other PCs would have taken his running as a sign of guilt, and wouldn't follow him or support him if he left.

This is exactly what's been described to us. I've quoted it. You've said it hasn't been said. I can requote it, if necessary.

In the ways that I have described. I also think you recharacterise what the GM said, compared to your own quote from the OP, but this is less immediately relevant to my dim view of how the other players responded to one of their fellow having his PC put into unsought adversity by the GM.

I've paraphrased. However, I did quote every place that I drew it from. It's there, easily color-coded, for you to read.

Personally, I think you have a preference on how players should act. It doesn't match up with how this group plays. It does not make the players "game-disrupting players" (especially since the mercenary would likely do the same, if "acting in character" called for it). It does not mean that the GM is railroading the game.

Yeah, the GM could attempt a heavy-handed solution. Then again, he also had this to say when someone mentioned using a heavy-handed solution to potentially keep the mercenary in town if he had tried to flee:

Also, just a quick update - I spoke with the affected player last night and he said he had a great time, had no hard feelings. Strangely, he said that he would have felt more railroaded if I had not stopped him from getting on his horse and he rode away, only to face children in the road, a zombie attack, or some other method preventing him from getting away. Go figure.

The guy probably wouldn't have been happy to run into the ranger or town guard PCs if they planned on taking him in. As always, play what you like

 

[Libramarian]

Also, just a quick update - I spoke with the affected player last night and he said he had a great time, had no hard feelings. Strangely, he said that he would have felt more railroaded if I had not stopped him from getting on his horse and he rode away, only to face children in the road, a zombie attack, or some other method preventing him from getting away. Go figure.

Good. I was going to say, it might have been just a subtle thing.

Your instincts to inform the player about potential conflicts resulting from their plan (gate's locked, the town will probably hate you) were good.

But it depends how you say that. My thought is you said it in a way that made the player a bit embarrassed and then they lashed out a little bit.

By my standards your scenario here was pretty intense. Not bad or wrong. Just risky.

I think of the standard D&D challenge as not directly penalizing doing nothing. "You can see through the door that the walls are covered with cobwebs. What do you do?" The players get pretty much as long as they want to talk it over. That's when you can be a hardass when it comes to enforcing logical consequences.

In this situation you've got a player by themselves, and you're telling them that guards are 50 feet away and closing in whatdoyoudo??
5
4
3
2...

That's a whole different level of tension. In that kind of situation I would go with pretty much whatever plan they came up with, as long as it was in good faith and not obviously stupid.

By "go with" I mean go into improv action scene mode, where you're giving the benefit of the doubt to the PC, and just trying to beat them up a little bit on their way out of there.

 

[pemerton]

If they're all going to be making decisions in-character, that's fair. The mercenary understandably doesn't have backup. If they're all going to be making decisions from a meta-standpoint, then the mercenary's player should cooperate

My own view is that there is a big difference between cooperating with other players, and having one's PC cooperate with adversary NPCs being played by the GM.

Had it been the PC town guard or ranger coming to speak to the player about the allegations (as someone suggested upthread might have been one way to run the scenario) the situation would be completely different.

Unless I missed something, the only failure by any player to cooperate with any other player was that the other players indicated that their PCs would not back their fellow PC, even though they knew that the allegations against that PC were false.

As he's currently leaving the party

He was not with the party. He was on his own (checking his horse at the stable, from memory). Being arrested isn't sticking with the party (the rest of the party was not in jail). I don't see how fleeing arrest is leaving the party any more than is being arrested.

The other PCs would have taken his running as a sign of guilt

This is the disruptive bit!

Yeah, the GM could attempt a heavy-handed solution.

The GM was heavy handed. He blocked a completely reasonable response to false accusations of serious criminal behaviour, namely, mounting one's horse and riding out of town. Having another PC encounter the fleeing PC in the woods wouldn't be heavy-handed. It would be GMing - framing situations that support rather than undermine the game.

Both of whom said they would assume he's guilty, and I'm betting would attempt to bring him in.

<snip>

The guy probably wouldn't have been happy to run into the ranger or town guard PCs if they planned on taking him in.

Which is why I'm called them out, upthread, for not backing their fellow player. The players know the accusation is false. It would be utterly trivial for them to decide that their PCs also believe it to be false (eg because they know the accused PC to be a good and heroic person who saved the town from goblins). By deciding that their PCs believe false accusations against a fellow PC, they have opted for the game-disrupting route. This is what I called out. This is what puzzled me, and still puzzles me. What sort of player makes this sort of call? What do they think they are adding to the game?

If the mercenary can be excused for "acting in character" and leaving, the town guard and ranger should be able to "act in character" when they run across him.

The difference in my view - and as I've indicated - is that the mercenary's decision has been forced by the GM, whereas the other players have gratuitously chosen to have their PCs shaft their fellow PC for no reason that I can see.

I still don't see how the other players are "game-disrupting" or how the GM is railroading.

I've explained my view of the game-disruption, namely, choosing to play your PCs as hostile to your fellow PC for no good metagame reason, and for no compelling ingame reason. I've explained my view of the railroad, also - the GM blocked a completely reasonable course of action chosen by the player whose PC was put into an adverse situation.

The GM, in or about the OP, lambasts the player of the mercenary for not thinking of trying to bribe the guards coming to arrest him (which is just bizarre, by the way! - in Australia, and as far as I understand it in the US and Canada also, flight from police is utterly ubiquitous, whereas attempts to bribe them at the moment of arrest - as opposed to via some sort of organised corruption - are comparatively rare) while at the same time passing no comment on the players who decide, under no pressure and for no reason at all, to have their PCs believe the false accusations and therefore hang their fellow PC out to dry.

Here's a couple quotes from the original poster about what his players said

I've read all the passage. "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go" - which is what you said - is not synonymous with "I am not willing to fight for your innocence should you flee" - which is a paraphrase of what the OP posted. The actual quote leaves open the possibility of, for example, meeting the other PC in the woods outside and speaking to him about what happened and why he fled.

Assuming the other players aren't being disruptive, of course!

I think you have a preference on how players should act.

Correct. That's why I called the behaviour of these players "game-disrupting". Because it is (i) disruptive of the game, and therefore (ii) contrary to my preference that players play their PCs in a way that won't disrupt the game.

I've got nothing against PC vs PC conflict, or even the odd bit of low-key player vs player conflict. But that is not what is described in this situation. PC vs PC conflict is all about keeping both PCs in the game, both on stage, both players participating. The player behaviour that I am critical of here was a complete disregard of the imperatives of group play, namely, keep everyone engaged.

TL;DR: It's not as if this was a situation that was inherently disastrous. The PCs include a religious ranger, a town guard and a heroic brigand. The brigand is wrongly accused, and flees. There are dozens of ways that this scenario can play out dramatically and well, provided that (i) the GM doesn't stop the player of the accused PC from playing his PC, and (ii) the other players play their PCs in a way which promotes cohesion rather than separation.

Having the fleeing PC cross paths with the ranger PC outside of town is only the most obvious way in which a good GM might run this situation, and - provided the players aren't being dicks - have it turn into a dramatic tale of a heroic ex-brigands struggle to prove his innocence, and a religous ranger trying to help his (?) innocent friend while remaining faithful to the town and the authority structures that he is sworn to uphold.

The idea that the only way, in this situation, to stop the party disintegrating is for the GM to say "Don't do X if you don't want to be rolling up a new PC" is ridiculous. That's just bad (and lazy) GMing. And, in my view (which on this particular issue overlaps pretty much with [MENTION=16086]RogueAgent[/MENTION]'s) is railroading.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Unless I missed something, the only failure by any player to cooperate with any other player was that the other players indicated that their PCs would not back their fellow PC, even though they knew that the allegations against that PC were false.

The players knew. The PCs didn't. This seems to matter to this group, and seems to be part of their social contract.

I still hold that if they all act in-character, it makes sense to have it unfold the way it did. If they act with a meta view, the mercenary's player should help not burn bridges with the town, where the other players have an investment.

He was not with the party. He was on his own (checking his horse at the stable, from memory). Being arrested isn't sticking with the party (the rest of the party was not in jail). I don't see how fleeing arrest is leaving the party any more than is being arrested.

One is (if successful) completely removing himself from interacting with the PCs again (fleeing). One is probably going to be dismissed, according to the GM (cooperating), and the PC will likely interact with the other PCs afterward.

This is the disruptive bit!

How? As of this point, all players are following the same criteria when determining actions: acting based on what their characters know and believe. Including the mercenary. How are the players who are continuing to cooperate with the town (where the assumed story resides, from the sound of it) disrupting the game by sticking to the exact same style that the mercenary is, albeit without cutting ties to the town?

The mercenary can cut ties to the party and it's not disruptive, but the other PCs are disruptive? I don't get the logic.

The GM was heavy handed. He blocked a completely reasonable response to false accusations of serious criminal behaviour, namely, mounting one's horse and riding out of town.

He didn't block it. It was an option. He found out, through asking the players, that the mercenary would probably leave the area completely, and that the others wouldn't side with him. Pointing out the consequences of character actions amongst the party alone (not taking into account the town's reaction to him fleeing) is the GM saying "you realize that you're saying you're planning on leaving, and that they won't back you, because you're all doing 'what your characters would do.' "

The GM didn't block it, and it's misleading to indicate that he did.

Having another PC encounter the fleeing PC in the woods wouldn't be heavy-handed. It would be GMing - framing situations that support rather than undermine the game.

GMing in a heavy-handed way. It is heavy-handed. You're purposefully pushing a situation to attempt to achieve a particular outcome. You're forcing an event, rather than letting it unfold. This is just as heavy-handed as having zombies or children get in the path of the horse while it fled, which is something the player indicated he didn't like.

Which is why I'm called them out, upthread, for not backing their fellow player. The players know the accusation is false. It would be utterly trivial for them to decide that their PCs also believe it to be false (eg because they know the accused PC to be a good and heroic person who saved the town from goblins). By deciding that their PCs believe false accusations against a fellow PC, they have opted for the game-disrupting route. This is what I called out. This is what puzzled me, and still puzzles me. What sort of player makes this sort of call? What do they think they are adding to the game?

Not everyone has your goals when they play, pemerton. It's disrupting to your preferred style. A player who made decisions on what his character thinks in-game based on player knowledge is metagaming, and would be considered "game-disrupting" in my game. It wouldn't in yours.

Game-disrupting is going to vary from group to group. This group's social contract seems to include "acting in character" even if that doesn't include always getting along and getting each others back.

What does that add? Well, to my group, it adds interesting inter-party conflict on more than a superficial scale. I like when one player morally objects to an act that others are okay with. The compromise that is reached in-game is interesting. Even direct opposition can lead to interesting results. Back in 3.5, I had a PC Sorcerer refuse to participate in something he didn't believe in, and the rest of the party carried on without him, but it was interesting seeing it play out without Teleports and the like.

It also adds a level of realism or verisimilitude to our game. I've had the party be completely separated (4 players cut into 3 groups) for a total of two sessions. My players look on how that situation unfolded fondly.

It adds to the game. It just may take away from things that you don't want it to, like players sitting out for a bit, or conflict that can get "out of control" (this will vary group by group).

The difference in my view - and as I've indicated - is that the mercenary's decision has been forced by the GM, whereas the other players have gratuitously chosen to have their PCs shaft their fellow PC for no reason that I can see.

If they didn't see him as altruistic for helping out with the goblins (I don't think it's been indicated one way or another), or they know of his brigand history, or they can relate with the girl making the claim (or even know her and the father), or they didn't line up with the mercenary PC's values, or they'd think that him running from the law was a sign of guilt, I could see them not backing the player.

You can't. I guess we disagree here.

I've explained my view of the game-disruption, namely, choosing to play your PCs as hostile to your fellow PC for no good metagame reason, and for no compelling ingame reason. I've explained my view of the railroad, also - the GM blocked a completely reasonable course of action chosen by the player whose PC was put into an adverse situation.

The decision can easily make sense in-game. Especially running indicating guilt, since they don't know his PC well.

The GM, as I've said, didn't block him. It sounds like he would have let him. He just polled the players, and presented the consequences of their actions. That's not railroading. That's saying, "this is how you guys will affect each other with this decision, not even accounting for my place in it."

The GM, in or about the OP, lambasts the player of the mercenary for not thinking of trying to bribe the guards coming to arrest him (which is just bizarre, by the way! - in Australia, and as far as I understand it in the US and Canada also, flight from police is utterly ubiquitous, whereas attempts to bribe them at the moment of arrest - as opposed to via some sort of organised corruption - are comparatively rare)

If we're using real world examples and not fantasy examples, lets note that it's nearly always the guilty who run away.

... while at the same time passing no comment on the players who decide, under no pressure and for no reason at all, to have their PCs believe the false accusations and therefore hang their fellow PC out to dry.

Running away from accusation an indication of guilt, no strong tie to the PC, etc. You can ignore it, but it doesn't mean it's not there.

I've read all the passage. "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you go" - which is what you said - is not synonymous with "I am not willing to fight for your innocence should you flee" - which is a paraphrase of what the OP posted. The actual quote leaves open the possibility of, for example, meeting the other PC in the woods outside and speaking to him about what happened and why he fled.

I linked two quotes for a reason. The second was "are you willing to help him?" to which the GM got "a resounding 'NO!'" from the other players.

They didn't plan on helping him if he ran.

Assuming the other players aren't being disruptive, of course!

This is just baseless, in my mind, unless you judge it on a meta level. Which is fine for certain groups, but seemingly outside of this group's social contract.

Correct. That's why I called the behaviour of these players "game-disrupting". Because it is (i) disruptive of the game, and therefore (ii) contrary to my preference that players play their PCs in a way that won't disrupt the game.

Feature, not a bug, for some groups. Again, you're pushing your preferences into a group that has seemingly embraced a social contract that is in conflict with them. To me, that indicates that they shouldn't be used to judge the situation.

I've got nothing against PC vs PC conflict, or even the odd bit of low-key player vs player conflict. But that is not what is described in this situation. PC vs PC conflict is all about keeping both PCs in the game, both on stage, both players participating. The player behaviour that I am critical of here was a complete disregard of the imperatives of group play, namely, keep everyone engaged.

Yep, addressed this earlier. It leads back to "it's not worth it" for the style of play that others enjoy. What it can add doesn't make up for the loss for your play style. That's perfectly valid, but your preferences aren't a good fit to judge this group, in my opinion.

TL;DR: It's not as if this was a situation that was inherently disastrous. The PCs include a religious ranger, a town guard and a heroic brigand.

Mercenary/brigand. All I know for sure is that he's killed goblins while defending the town, that he fights for money (mercenary), and that he's willing to rob people for it (brigand). I don't know if he was compensated for defending the town, or if it was selfless. I don't know if he demanded pay (I imagine it was offered without asking, but that's an honest wild guess) to even help out.

A "heroic brigand" is jumping the gun, in my mind. It might be true, but it's still emphasizing "brigand" over "mercenary" for some reason.

The brigand is wrongly accused, and flees. There are dozens of ways that this scenario can play out dramatically and well, provided that (i) the GM doesn't stop the player of the accused PC from playing his PC, and (ii) the other players play their PCs in a way which promotes cohesion rather than separation.

Yep, that's true. However, he could aim for the same thing, and decide to have his PC be the type to trust his friends to help clear his name without alienating the town just as easily.

The PCs should have been built with a more cohesive mindset in mind. However, if one PC wants to leave the party (run into the forest, and most likely leave the area), I mean, point out what that means, but go ahead and let him, if he wants to. That's what happened here.

I'd also note that, in my mind, heavy-handedly setting up a situation that stops the mercenary PC from leaving (like having him encounter another PC) is closer to railroading than "you ride away", in my opinion.

Having the fleeing PC cross paths with the ranger PC outside of town is only the most obvious way in which a good GM might run this situation, and - provided the players aren't being dicks - have it turn into a dramatic tale of a heroic ex-brigands struggle to prove his innocence, and a religous ranger trying to help his (?) innocent friend while remaining faithful to the town and the authority structures that he is sworn to uphold.

I assumed they aren't friends, based on the "no strong ties to the town" line about the mercenary. The other PCs are invested in the town, apparently including helping it in the future. If they see the fleeing PC as guilty (as is entirely reasonable), I don't see why they'd help him, rather than bring him in.

Calling people dicks because they don't fit your play style is pretty amusing, though. Good one.

The idea that the only way, in this situation, to stop the party disintegrating is for the GM to say "Don't do X if you don't want to be rolling up a new PC" is ridiculous. That's just bad (and lazy) GMing. And, in my view (which on this particular issue overlaps pretty much with [MENTION=16086]RogueAgent[/MENTION]'s) is railroading.

No, you're right, you can try a heavy-handed follow-up encounter. Of course, the player indicated he didn't like them. Not just about the hypothetical zombies/children, but about the situation that found him originally. He doesn't seem to like the idea that these are forced upon him. Suggesting it as a solution to help solve his situation is simply silly, in my opinion. And, like I said, I personally find that closer to railroading than "you ride away, like you wanted to." As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, it's funny. People talk about "consequences" in their campaigns. "My campaign has consequences! The PC's did something and this is the consequence of that action."

But, if you notice, the consequences are 100% in favor of whatever the DM wants to have happen and completely against the player. The consequences never fall in the PC's favor. I mean, it could be just as reasonable of a consequence for the PC to flee the town, the girl to feel bad about what happened and confess to the sheriff that there was nothing to the charges. Presuming that the PC hangs around to clear his name, the problem goes away and we're all good.

Heck, the girl could catch up with the PC (being a local and knowing a nifty shortcut to the watering hole where the PC was watering his horse) and tell him that she'll confess everything if he just comes back to town with her.

But, no. The only "consequence" that is being allowed here is that if the PC doesn't go along with what the DM wants to have happen, his character gets ejected from the campaign.

And that, apparently, is not heavy handed DMing or railroading. It's just the "consequences" of the game world. This is exactly why I say it's just as easy to railroad in a sandbox as a linear game. This is a textbook example. Go here or your character effectively dies.

 

[pemerton]

One is probably going to be dismissed, according to the GM (cooperating)

But unless I missed something, this what not communicated to the PC.

I still hold that if they all act in-character, it makes sense to have it unfold the way it did. If they act with a meta view, the mercenary's player should help not burn bridges with the town, where the other players have an investment.

<snip>

The decision can easily make sense in-game. Especially running indicating guilt

I'm not denying that it can make sense. But as best I can tell, it is far from entailed. Which is the difference.

The mercenary PC, by surrendering, is potentially forfeiting his PC. It's somewhat analogous to throwing down one's weapons in a fight. Whereas the other PCs don't need to go against character at all. All they have do to is to refuse to act on an unsound inference (that flight is a sign of guilt) by drawing on what they already know (about the character of the PC who helped fight goblins).

GMing in a heavy-handed way. It is heavy-handed. You're purposefully pushing a situation to attempt to achieve a particular outcome.

Hang on. Having the PC falsely accused of a crime, and then trying to push the resolution of that scene in one or two particular directions (surrender or bribery) is a light touch, but framing a scene involving two PCs - who are, ostensibly, the protagonists of the piece - while leaving the resolution to the players of those PCs, is heavy handed!

I don't follow this notion of heavy-handed!