DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Hussar]

On the group connections issue:

Always, always have a group template. The "random band of strangers" schtick is just asking for trouble. Insist at chargen that every character have at least one meaningful connection to two other characters. That nips all sorts of problems in the bud.

Now as far as the issue at hand is concerned, the thing is, while you might think there are fifteen different options available, never underestimate the obstinancy of the players. For example, you've brought up bribing the guards twice. Is that really an option? One, does the character actually have the funds/means to actually accomplish that, and two, how likely is that plan to work rather than just land him in hotter water? Bribing the sherriff off on a rape charge is not the easiest thing in the world, and, quite honestly, would never occur to me personally.

Talking my way out of it? Again, not likely. This isn't a traffic ticket. This is a major crime. A diplomacy check isn't likely to get me out of this IMO. Again, I likely wouldn't even consider it a valid option. And, since the player is new to the setting, he doesn't really know how honest the sheriff is either. After all, he's being arrested despite being a hero on the say so of a local. How likely is it that I'm going to get a fair trial? And, more importantly, does the player actually have any idea on the answer to that question?

This is a pretty heavy handed situation. I'm not going to call it railroading, but, it is very heavy handed. And, because it deals with capturing the PC and it's heavy handed, I can see why the player balked.

 

[Elf Witch]

The only thing I think you did wrong was tell him that if he fled that it would mean a new character. If he just kept going maybe but just fleeing at that moment should not have meant end of character. He could have fled and then went into hiding to investigate the charges. He could have met with the party and pled his innocence.

I know some DMs feel that it is wrong to ever arrested the PCs but I don't. I just had one of my PCs arrested last session. He fit the description of someone going around killing town folks with exotic weapons. He is being framed.

The player stepped out of character to ask me a few questions like what did he know about the clerics of St Cuthbert who handle law and order. Are they known to be trust worthy what is their reputation like. Then he let himself get arrested and waited for see what would happen.

The party came to his aid and on the word of the paladin he was released with stipulation that one of their men joins the party.

This accomplished two things one it brought a new character into the party and moved the one character's backstory some more.

As for making a party have motivations to be together I gave up the model of a bunch of strangers come together a long time ago. I have found that causes more issues then almost any other.

In the game I am running Bahmut called them together except for the newest guy and while they are strangers they serve the same god.

In other games I make them the players work out ahead of time how they know each other. If they are from the same town, family , church what ever something that gives them some reason to trust each other right from the start.

 

[Rogue Agent]

The way I see it, a DM's job is to create situations that challenge the players and it is up to them to overcome those challenges with their skills and abilities. In the above encounter, for example, there are multiple ways the player could have handled the confrontation...

Sure. And one of the ways to respond to this situation is "running away". But apparently that completely viable option isn't on your Pre-Approved List of Acceptable Ways to Deal With This Challenge and the penalty for that is "you don't get to play your character any more".

IOW, he's completely accurate when he says that you're forcing him to choose between playing the game and being true to his character.

I feel that by giving the players "hints" like my friend wants, I undermine the nature of the game.

(1) You wouldn't need to give hints about what they're "supposed" to do if you weren't predetermining it. Either stop railroading or let them see the tracks so that they can follow them. (The latter won't necessarily fix your problem if your players don't like being railroaded, but it's the only way railroads work.)

(And don't try to tell me you weren't railroading him. Your response to his proposed course of action was, "You can't do that. You will do what I want you to do or I will do everything in my power to force you to do what I want you to do. And if for some reason I can't force you to do it, then you'll have to roll up a new character any way." If I had to write up a textbook example of what railroading is, this would be the example.)

(2) It seems odd to be so virulently opposed to the idea of "hints" when your initial response was to give him all sorts of hints about the railroad enforcement tools you were going to be using if he didn't get back in line.

 

[mwnrnc]

This is a pretty heavy handed situation. I'm not going to call it railroading, but, it is very heavy handed. And, because it deals with capturing the PC and it's heavy handed, I can see why the player balked.

Fair enough, it was a tough situation that I put him in. My aim was to make him feel pressured to go along with them because escape was unlikely and serious injury or death very possible if he tried to fight. My point about the bribes, diplomacy, etc. was to suggest that there were options a clever player or a bit of luck could have exploited. While there were definitely flaws in this scenario, I have to wonder how a good DM presents a player with a situation in which his options are quite limited without it seeming heavy handed. Or is that just bad form - it's just best not to try to arrest PCs?

 

[Nellisir]

I'll say what others haven't. He's right. You're wrong. You STOPPED the game.

But let's back up.

The DM's role is not binary. You are not either "adversarial" or "permissive". What you should be is "challenging" and "supportive".

Players have two jobs to do: 1) to control their characters in a manner consistent with their perception of the character, and 2) to control their characters in a manner consistent with the nature of the game (which postulates a certain level of group activity & cooperation between the characters).

The DM's job is to present the players with scenarios that don't bring the two into conflict. You didn't do that.

You say he had options " - trying to bribe them, perhaps talking them off with a Diplomacy check, escaping on foot and hiding until he could investigate on his own", but seem reluctant to make the character aware of these before he made a choice. Essentially, you gave him a clear field, and then penalized him for taking a track you didn't forsee. A mercenary newcomer to town is accused of rape by a local citizen, and then approached to be arrested by characters "none of whom were inclined to believe he was innocent"? I would have run too. There are other towns, and the player had no way of knowing that the entire campaign hinged on his (mercenary, brigand) character quietly handing over his weapons and walking to what might be his death.

Frankly, it is railroadish. He deviated from your storyline, and you "killed" his character. I imagine he felt frustrated; that he was supposed to read your mind; and that it wasn't much use making decisions in character, because your storyline overrode his sense of his character.

I think you can put parameters on characters before the game starts*, but when the dice start rolling, the player is in charge of their character. They might make suboptimal choices, but they aren't the "wrong" choice. Your job is to figure out how to work those choices into the storyline. Sometimes the character does die. Sometimes the character does leave the game. But that should be a clear and conscious decision on the part of the player, not the result of choosing to run by horse instead of choosing to run on foot.

So what should you have done? Let him ride. You're the DM, you control the entire world, he gets one lousy character. You can have the horse trip when it jumps a ditch, or the gates close, without forcing him to break character. Maybe a wild boar attacks just then, or the zombie rise up, or a group of children suddenly run out into the street (does the character ride down them down to save his skin, or stop and get captured? Defining moment!).

The goal is for everyone to have fun. Support their character concept. Help them develop it in game. Give them opportunities to shine.

*I have two rules for new characters. No evil characters, and characters must be willing to work in a group with other characters.

Good luck!

 

[Nellisir]

I have to wonder how a good DM presents a player with a situation in which his options are quite limited without it seeming heavy handed.

You tell them before they have to make a choice. Seriously. If you don't want him to ride, then make it clear riding is a bad choice, but do it without breaking character. Telling him the gate is too far and they will close it before he gets there isn't heavy-handed, it's telling him what any experienced mercenary would know.

The real world is full of subtlies that we use to make decisions. We use five senses to constantly evaluate our surroundings. Players in an rpg only know what you tell them; it's an extremely limited viewpoint. You can't present all options as equal unless they seem to be that way, and you can't penalize the players for acting on that information.

Or is that just bad form - it's just best not to try to arrest PCs?

The situation was fine; your response needed work.

Cheers!

 

[mwnrnc]

And don't try to tell me you weren't railroading him. Your response to his proposed course of action was, "You can't do that. You will do what I want you to do or I will do everything in my power to force you to do what I want you to do. And if for some reason I can't force you to do it, then you'll have to roll up a new character any way." If I had to write up a textbook example of what railroading is, this would be the example

Sorry, I just don't see it that way. His proposed choice of action - flee from town after being accused of a major crime - was going to result in him being out of the adventure for the foreseeable future. As I previously mentioned, I polled the party - none of them were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt or try to help him clear his name because they had no connection with him. Had he left the village, he would be unwelcome there, which was bad news because the party was doing its thing in the village. So does he sit out for the rest of the session? Get an NPC to play while his character sits in the woods and sulks?

I'll admit it was heavy handed and perhaps ill-timed given the circumstances of the new game, but I contend it played out in a reasonable, non-railroad way. And then I have to ask, how do you arrest a player? Send one guard at them so they can kill or escape them if they want because hey, I have to make sure every option is open to him? How are the town guards a credible threat if they do that?

 

[Thunderfoot]

You've received some great advice on this situation so I'll leave that be.

But I can help you out a bit on assumptions as a DM. I have, unfortunately, a metric butt ton of experience with that.

Rule 1) Never assume your players will do anything, even if they normally do it one way doesn't mean they won't do it differently today.

Rule 2) When going over a situation in your head, always think of the absolute worst case scenario you think your players can put themselves in and then multiply that by 10 and extrapolate.

Rule 3) If you get to a point where you have either painted yourself into a corner or they have gone so far off course that you are beyond lost. Stop the game, admit what happened and if possible take a few minutes to fix it or wrap for the night, give some bonus XP for their ingenuity and drive on next session.

I have three examples of my own play that prove my experience -
1) as a very young DM a player was playing a paladin who (in 1st ed) used his Detect Evil to peg a group of oncoming enemy and helped set up an ambush to even the odds. They used lantern oil and a canopy from a bed (along with the wizard's Burning Hands spell) to create fiery death for a large war party of orcs.

2) An Ogre fighter (2nd ed) pulled the a barn door off of an out building and used it as an arrow shield to move the party from point A to point B while under attack from a large group of archers.

3) A wizard bypassed an entire planned wilderness encounter when he remembered he had a Teleportation scroll in his possession. He concentrated on the party's base, cast the spell and seven days of overland travel were pitched into the garbage (3rd ed)

In every situation, I gave the player's the benefit of the doubt because frankly, every solution was damned clever and well within the character's standard actions. In the first it literally saved their bacon. In the second it gave them a tactical advantage as they were able to get under cover and then take out the archer groups one at a time. In the third it was a mixed blessing, they missed three re-occurring bad guys, but also missed meeting a very helpful NPC. (whom they never did run into.)

 

[mwnrnc]

So what should you have done? Let him ride. You're the DM, you control the entire world, he gets one lousy character. You can have the horse trip when it jumps a ditch, or the gates close, without forcing him to break character. Maybe a wild boar attacks just then, or the zombie rise up, or a group of children suddenly run out into the street (does the character ride down them down to save his skin, or stop and get captured? Defining moment!).

Thanks, that's honestly the best advice I've had tonight.

 

[catsclaw227]

Thanks, that's honestly the best advice I've had tonight.

No. no. nononononononono! NO! You are not allowed to accept criticism and concede that you might have made a mistake. You are supposed to be adversarial, indignant and possibly childish.

DON'T YOU KNOW THIS IS THE INTERNET?!?!!!?1111??!11

(I should quit this place. EnWorld is way to civil.)