DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[chaochou]

Another of my players is a level 1 former mercenary from a company who occasionally turned to being brigands when times were lean.

About 50 feet away, they hailed him and said they they needed him to come with them to answer some allegations. As they closed within 30ft of him, he decided to flee on his horse.

First off I think this situation is murky and impenetrable. I don't think we have enough information - I don't think we as a forum can ever have enough information - to work out what actually happened during this exchange. So what follows are, really, questions and musings and I hope are taken in that spirit.

A brigand is approached by the town guard to 'answer some allegations'. Why wouldn't he run? Why should he believe that running and escaping isn't going to be cool and cinematic, Robin Hood style, vaulting the stable door on his horse, being chased around town, rolling under the gate as the portcullis comes crashing down. Giving the other characters a chance to get involved in this scene and unite against this awful smear.

Maybe he crosses paths with the woman as he's fleeing and she sees the terrible injustice she is unleashing. Who knows how that might have played out?

What was stopping you taking these options?

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

RPGS are a conversation. Poor communication is, imo, synonymous with poor play. It cuts two ways, but when GMing I feel a responsibility to communicate clearly and effectively and in the spirit of fun and co-operative enjoyment.

I think it's difficult to claim 'hints undermine the game', especially having told your player the following, essentially pre-playing his escape plan as a failure...

I informed him that they might be able to intercept him before he could mount his horse and ride out of the stable, that the main gate might be closed, and that even if he did make it out, it would mean he may as well roll a new character.

Why did you inform him of that? Why is a false and horrible accusation 'a challenge' but a daring escape from injustice not a challenge? Without a communication of ideas how does your player know he's starring in To Kill a Mockingbird instead of The Fugitive?

Further, the town would see his flight as an admission of guilt...

Was this a threat to the player or a challenge for the PC?

Do you believe this situation arose because of the specifics of this scene or was it a flashpoint which had been building due to an ongoing mismatch of ideas or styles or personalities?

 

[NewJeffCT]

Was this the first episode of Rise of the Runelords, by chance? As you've described this more, this scenario is sounding more and more familiar...

That's pretty clear to me that it's Burnt Offerings - the goblin raid on the town, PCs become local heroes, hot local girl puts the moves on a PC and gets blocked by angry dad. I was pretty certain of that from the OP.

I don't think it's railroading to inform the PC of the consequences of fleeing (they were asking for him to give more hints - isn't that a strong hint?) - though, I do think he could have worded the action of fleeing better than saying that he'd need to roll up a new character if he fled ("judging by how close the sheriff and the guardsmen are, you find it doubtful that you'd be able to turn and run, mount a horse and flee town without all three of them getting attacks on you. Also, having been somewhat of a rogue in the past, you know that fleeing the scene could be interpreted as an admission of guilt.")

I also think if a PC is stuck in a tough situation like that, you might want to give them another option besides give up or run away. The DM could have given him a few other options (talk his way out, tell the sheriff the girl was the one that put the moves on him - if I recall Burnt Offerings, she does have a bit of a naughty reputation...the sheriff might know that.)

 

[mwnrnc]

A brigand is approached by the town guard to 'answer some allegations'. Why wouldn't he run?

I had misunderstood how he presented his character. He told me he was a mercenary that had occasionally robbed people. He had never been arrested before. He had not previously had problems interacting with the town guard or the sheriff.

What was stopping you taking these options?

I think it's difficult to claim 'hints undermine the game', especially having told your player the following, essentially pre-playing his escape plan as a failure...

Why did you inform him of that? Why is a false and horrible accusation 'a challenge' but a daring escape from injustice not a challenge? Without a communication of ideas how does your player know he's starring in To Kill a Mockingbird instead of The Fugitive?

My goal was to warn him that, even if his plan was successful, it would not result in a desirable outcome. I'll say that my situation was presented with poor timing because he had no reason to stick around. Basically he was still 'passing through' and had not developed ties to the other players or the region. None of the other players wanted to him help out, and there was no reason for him to do anything but keep riding.

I had tried to communicate it was best for him to come along quietly by using multiple guards to confront him in a non-hostile manner and, when he suggested it, point out the problems with his escape idea. Short of pulling him aside and saying, "I'd like you to allow yourself to be arrested," I'm not sure how I could have presented it better. I think the whole thing may have been poorly timed.

Was this a threat to the player or a challenge for the PC?

Do you believe this situation arose because of the specifics of this scene or was it a flashpoint which had been building due to an ongoing mismatch of ideas or styles or personalities?

Quite honestly it was a statement of fact. With no connections to the party or to the town, and his own statement that he'd likely keep riding, there was no reason for him to come back, no reason for the town to welcome him back, and no reason for the party to try to hunt down the truth.

We've always had a bit of a mismatch, in terms of play-style and kinds of games. What I expect is kind of how I play - lots of knowledge and sense motive rolls, always asking can I do or try this, and I like darker, grittier games. He is more content to be led as long as he gets to play his character and likes games where he can be a bard that uses an axe that doubles as a guitar while riding a t-rex.

 

[mwnrnc]

That's merely one and the most severe version of railroading - toward a single destination. But there's also railroading that occurs when specific options that should be in front of the PC are made off limits. [...] You may be railroading him into a set of acceptable options instead of one, but it's still railroading.

The way I see it, limiting some of a player's options is part of creating challenge. Is it fair to give a fighter a situation he can't "win" (or at least achieve a desirable outcome) by fighting? Maybe a softer touch or a hard decision is in order. I don't see taking away some of a player's options as necessarily railroading unless there is only one viable approach and/or if reasonable courses of action are arbitrarily disallowed. I never said he couldn't flee, just that he wouldn't like the, imo wholly reasonable, consequences.

 

[the Jester]

So how would I handle your case now? I would talk the player into not running away and tell him that the guards will believe him and not proceed to arrest, and if the player doesn't want it, I'll scrap the whole incident and pretend it never happened.

IMHO this is the worst possible advice for a dm to follow, ever, under any circumstances.

NO DO-OVERS.

 

[DragonLancer]

The only problem I really see here is the old arrest/capture/detain the PC idea. This never works. Players will never allow an NPC to capture them and give up their freedom, even if they know that things will probably work out fine. Players just cannot let go of that control. It's why the capture concept fails and shouldn't be included. If it happens because of in game events (a character is knocked out and awakens in a cell) that's fine, but they won't go willingly.

 

[Nellisir]

That assumes that nobility and self-sacrifice are, in fact, acting in character. Didn't the scenario explicitly say that the character was a mercenary and sometimes brigand, though?

Sounds like it's trying to force a characterization on the character that is actually completely out of character.

It was an example.

[insert negative situation] occurs wherein character incurs [insert penalty], but player gains [insert advantage] through the role-playing of [insert character quality 1] and [insert character quality 2].

 

[kitsune9]

In my take of the OP, I have to assume many contingent possibilities:

1. The desired result--the PC stays in town, answers the allegations, bribes the guards, whatever. But he does it peacefully.

2. The optional result--the PC flees or attempts to flee. However, all is not lost here so long as the PC doesn't go around attacking anyone. I'll give the PC a chance to escape and if he makes it good, he's gone for now. If the adventure is town, then I'll have to work on some way to bring him back, but this is a contingency I would plan for.

3. The unacceptable result--the PC attacks and / or kills the local law enforcement. I won't have the NPCs do anything that would push the player in a corner and would handle it just like the OP did (the sheriff approaches the PC and asks him to face some allegations, but no weapons are drawn and the intention is clear that the player is only going to be questioned, not attacked). Combat starts, the PC will be killed more than likely. However, if the PC attacks, but doesn't manage to kill anyone before he's rendered unconscious, then I could salvage the situation from there. However, if he kills any law enforcement or bystanders, it would unrealistic to let such a lawbreaker live unless the PC is of noble birth or similar position of power.

 

[Nellisir]

He ... likes games where he can be a bard that uses an axe that doubles as a guitar while riding a t-rex.

Well, duh. Who wouldn't want to ride a T-Rex?

 

[kitsune9]

The only problem I really see here is the old arrest/capture/detain the PC idea. This never works. Players will never allow an NPC to capture them and give up their freedom, even if they know that things will probably work out fine. Players just cannot let go of that control.

With my group, if it's law enforcement, they usually go along unless the law enforcement is clearly representative of an evil group or monsters. If it's monsters, this is where it gets really tricky. They have to be completely overwhelmed and outmatched in order for them to see the writing on the wall in surrendering. For example, I wanted to have some trolls capture them so that the real story is to help a gnome prince escape their hold and get back to the safety of the gnomish city. The only way I could do this was to set up a no win encounter. First off, the PC's got ambushed (a snare trap captured their heavy hitter paladin). Their escape is cut off. Secondly, they face off against a very large number of ice trolls (3 to 1) who strike to subdue. When the group lost over half their number, they realized the fight was lost and surrendered.

This way if I had players who were "Never retreat! Never surrender!" like the paladin who was snared, they just got the crap pounded out of them like a pinata. Those who had more common sense got to remain conscious.