DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[pemerton]

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 don't understand the notion of "consequences" as it is frequently used. And there is often confusion between ingame and metagame.

For example, the consequences of completely fleeing in this situation - the mercenary just riding off into the wilderness and never coming back - seems to be zero from the point of view of the fiction - the GM has no great plans afoot for redemption or karmic retribution or "To Kill a Mockingbird" with swords and goblins. But the metagame consequence - of spoiling the game and losing the PC - was enough to prompt a posting to ENworld seeking advice/commentary.

It's as if the crappy metagame consequence is somehow meant to be internalised by the participants in the game, so they can see some deep thematic resonance in surrendering oneself to authority (as a protagonist) in order to avoid being hosed (not as a protagonist, but as a player of a game).

In my book, given that it is a game, the only worthwhile metagame consequence is "I get to play more of this cool game with my friends." Whereas thematic consequences should derive from the power of the fictional events. Which, in this particular medium, derives in part from the fact that they were not pre-scripted, but the result, in part, of audience participation. Which relies upon the GM not railroading.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Loonook]

I was just discussing the mattervwithban outsidevparty... Theyvhave never sat atva table but they know the tropes of narrative and fantasy...

They pointed out some great ideas on it.

Really all three parties are at fault. The DM presented a situation that was tough for the player to try to go with the flow they had desired. The brigand was disruptive by deciding to completely flee... And his fellows were disruptive because they had no backup for the player.

Really everyone is at fault as they played up some of the worst we can be. We argue for the player, the DM, or the rest of the group.. But to be honest?

Everyone is at fault. Nobody really wins a complete victory no matter how it goes. The DM loses a PC that just started gaining traction, the brigand is ditched for another character.... and the players have some OOC problems that could lead to metagame conflict.

Rocks Fall. Everyone sucks.

I guess I owe her some credit for bringing me the old Global Thermonuclear War realization: The Only Winning Move is Not to Play.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

That's not the point. My players often don't know which are the better options when they pick one. They have best guesses, and are usually correct. But I wouldn't confront them and tell them "don't worry, it's a push-over anyways."

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).

Two things, here:

1) The mercenary PC might be forfeiting his PC by surrendering. When he announced that he was running, the GM asked his players about support if he did, and they didn't support it. He is most certainly forfeiting him if he runs.

2) We don't know their perceptions of the mercenary. They might see him as a mercenary, in it for the money, with no investment in the town. He seems not to have much, according to the original poster and player, so that perception doesn't seem unreasonable.

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,

No. That's why I called it "heavy-handed":

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.

Yeah. Heavy-handed.

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!

Hope that clears it up for you. They both are. He appears to dislike things being forced upon him. He seems, based on the original post, to be pointed in a direction he can follow, through "hints" from the GM. Not put on the spot in a heavy-handed way.

I'm being consistent here. Maybe you missed it. As always, play what you like

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.

Consequences can go both ways, of course. The PCs are perceived to do something for someone, they get rewarded. The PCs are perceived to do something against someone, they get confronted. This seems to make sense to me, unless they're too powerful to be confronted (also a possibility).

We do know, however, that the PC most likely wasn't planning on clearing his name. If he did, some interesting stuff could unfold, indeed.

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.

There's no reason this couldn't be the case. It could be heavy-handed, or it could naturally unfold from her feelings. I think it's probably somewhere in between.

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.

Saying "my character is leaving" and having the other players say "I won't support you if you leave" means, yeah, he's gone. That seems very straightforward, and I don't see the GM's being the one enforcing it upon the player.

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.

This is because of the other players, not the GM. They effectively told him that they don't support him in running, and he said he'd most likely leave the area, since he has no strong ties. GM isn't forcing it at all in this picture.

But, I would say that the woman's claim and the whole situation was pretty heavy handed. I already said that. That's my view about a lot of adventure path material, though. I think it was only exacerbated when the GM took that material and pushed it more in favor of a preferred outcome. As always, play what you like

Really all three parties are at fault.

I agree with the sentiment (if the GM wants the players to avoid this in the future). The players should have made characters that would have each other's backs from the get-go, in my opinion. That's on all of them. The GM should have made sure it was the case, in my opinion. It takes an honest effort from the GM to make it happen, but the real onus is on the players. They need to make it so that "acting in character" and "supporting the party" make sense together, at least in a grand sense.

That doesn't mean they have to always agree or get along. But it should mean that the party is a truthful place. If he says "I didn't do it," then he didn't do it, and you believe it. If he says "I'm against us going through with this," then he's against it, and there's conflict, but it's well communicated, and a compromise might need to be struck. As always, play what you like

 

[freeAgent]

I think starting the PCs off unconnected, then actively pushing them apart, while running an AP that requires they stick together, was the big mistake.

There are circumstances where a player may need to retire a PC, depending on the campaign. But that's always a tough call to make, and I think the player here certainly had a reasonable expectation his PC could act naturally without getting the chop.

Yes, perhaps a better way to begin the campaign would have been to make the PCs' meeting part of their character history. This arrest issue could have already happened and the player is on trial with the other PCs observing or something of that sort. Or simply have the entire trial and exoneration part of the character's background to be referenced later. I don't see a problem with building a fairly rich character background which explains how this motley crew of adventurers came into existence.

If you're going to have everyone roleplay meeting each other and forming a party to go adventuring, there has to be some amount of OOC cooperation going on at the table. In other words, if the GM places all the PCs in a tavern and one decides to leave before the plot hook happens, it's going to screw things up. At that point, the other PCs may get sucked into the story and introducing the wayward PC to the party afterward again takes OOC cooperation. What happened here is an example of essentially that happening. Sure, the GM can work around it, but the players and GM don't necessarily have enough time or patience to play two threads simultaneously. Assuming that's the case, OOC nudging is just fine with me.

 

[catsclaw227]

This is because of the other players, not the GM. They effectively told him that they don't support him in running, and he said he'd most likely leave the area, since he has no strong ties. GM isn't forcing it at all in this picture.

But, I would say that the woman's claim and the whole situation was pretty heavy handed. I already said that. That's my view about a lot of adventure path material, though. I think it was only exacerbated when the GM took that material and pushed it more in favor of a preferred outcome. As always, play what you like

I disagree with your first sentence in one very important respect. The DM didn't incentivize the players to build PCs that had a bond to stay together. The original poster admitted as such. (Which, admittedly, you agree with below.)

I agree with the sentiment (if the GM wants the players to avoid this in the future). The players should have made characters that would have each other's backs from the get-go, in my opinion. That's on all of them. The GM should have made sure it was the case, in my opinion. It takes an honest effort from the GM to make it happen, but the real onus is on the players. They need to make it so that "acting in character" and "supporting the party" make sense together, at least in a grand sense.

That doesn't mean they have to always agree or get along. But it should mean that the party is a truthful place. If he says "I didn't do it," then he didn't do it, and you believe it. If he says "I'm against us going through with this," then he's against it, and there's conflict, but it's well communicated, and a compromise might need to be struck. As always, play what you like

In truth, this wasn't the fault of the AP. The scenario, as well as the set-up for the scenario, was a short column and a half in a much larger adventure. It was intended to be a "get to know the community" encounter, lasting all of 20-30min of game-time. As I described earlier, there wasn't ever supposed to be a rape charge to throw the adventure into a tailspin.

The reason we don't really know who or why the situation played out the way it did, and the reason we are all pointing past each other to lay responsibility for the bad situation at the stables, is because we don't know anything about the scene that set this whole thing up.

The AP specifically said to the DM: "This encounter is not meant to be physically ruinous to the PCs..."

Take that how you will, because lots of DM's change things up, but there you go.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I disagree with your first sentence in one very important respect. The DM didn't incentivize the players to build PCs that had a bond to stay together. The original poster admitted as such. (Which, admittedly, you agree with below.)

If the original poster wants this avoided in the future, I completely agree with you.

In truth, this wasn't the fault of the AP. The scenario, as well as the set-up for the scenario, was a short column and a half in a much larger adventure. It was intended to be a "get to know the community" encounter, lasting all of 30 of game-time. As I described earlier, there wasn't ever supposed to be a rape charge to throw the adventure into a tailspin.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to blame it. I briefly mentioned him escalating the situation, too. I think he blew it up some (which is fine, depending on what you're going for). No, I was commenting on APs and heavy-handedness in general, not making a judgement on them, nor meaning to blame the AP this was modified from.

Thanks for the feedback. I found it very constructive, civil, and I basically agree to boot! As always, play what you like

 

[Janx]

The brigand's dilema is why I have the following general rules:

Never try to capture the party. While there might be some situation where a capture attempt is applicable, scripting one in almost always leads to dead NPCs, outlaw PCs and escalating attempts to capture the outlaws.

If your "story" is about PCs heading North to rescue the Princess and they are on their way, do NOT throw in trumped up charges against the PCs just for something interesting to happen.

Require your players to make PCs that would be accepted by each other. Do not allow PCs that the rest of the party of PCs would reject, but the players feel socially obligated to accept so their fellow player can join.

"I'm just roleplaying my character" should never enable being a dick to your fellow players. Most situational decision points are not black and white and the player CAN justify a decision that does not exclude their fellow player while still remaining in character.

 

[Nellisir]

Never try to capture the party. While there might be some situation where a capture attempt is applicable, scripting one in almost always leads to dead NPCs, outlaw PCs and escalating attempts to capture the outlaws.

I'm OK with trying to capture the party. I'm also OK with trying and failing. What I wouldn't do is use one-half of the party to capture the other half. Never set PCs against each other, that's my rule. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[Nellisir]

But, if you notice, the consequences are 100% in favor of whatever the DM wants to have happen and completely against the player.

Clearly you weren't there when one of my PCs went ahead of the party, tricked the BBEG, and smashed the dragon's egg that was the lynchpin of the adventure. Game over. Players win.

Or the time the verbeeg ranger (2e, reincarnation, just leave it alone) leapt off the rim of the sinkhole, successfully landed on the dragon's head, did max damage, and critted.


I've had some awesome players.

 

[Hussar]

Clearly you weren't there when one of my PCs went ahead of the party, tricked the BBEG, and smashed the dragon's egg that was the lynchpin of the adventure. Game over. Players win.

Or the time the verbeeg ranger (2e, reincarnation, just leave it alone) leapt off the rim of the sinkhole, successfully landed on the dragon's head, did max damage, and critted.


I've had some awesome players.

Funny thing about your examples Nellisir - every time it was the players being proactive, and they did things at the table that the DM couldn't mess with. You don't care if the dragon dies (presumably it's there to be killed anyway), so, again, the consequences follow along nicely with what you want.

I'm not talking about times when the players do what the DM wants anyway. Of course the Dm is going to go along with that. I'm talking about situations like this one, where if the PC runs, he loses the character, full stop, end of story.

IOW, the player makes a choice that the DM doesn't like and the flaming booger of god slams down and kills the character. The DM straight up told the player that if he runs, he'd lose his PC.

it would mean he may as well roll a new character. This was still early in the campaign and the other players were a town guard, a woman, and a religious ranger - none of whom were inclined to believe that he was innocent or try to help him if he escaped. Further, the town would see his flight as an admission of guilt, meaning he would be unwelcome in the town.

The bribery idea doesn't work because the PC is a level 1 PC - what's he going to bribe with? The automatic consequence is that flight=admission of guilt. No chance that the girl would come clean or anything else. You flee, you're guilty as charged, roll a new PC.

This is precisely what I'm talking about with "consequences" always going against the players. The idea of alternative results was never even broached. It never came up as far as we know.