Point taken about them having fun, but I have to disagree they were railroaded. His actions had reasonable and dramatically interesting consequences. True I put him in a tough spot, but he had options beyond go quietly or roll a new character. Any of the things I suggested - trying to bribe them, perhaps talking them off with a Diplomacy check, escaping on foot and hiding until he could investigate on his own - all would have potentially worked with high enough rolls. 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.
DM - Adversarial or Permissive?
Point taken about them having fun, but I have to disagree they were railroaded. His actions had reasonable and dramatically interesting consequences. True I put him in a tough spot, but he had options beyond go quietly or roll a new character. Any of the things I suggested - trying to bribe them, perhaps talking them off with a Diplomacy check, escaping on foot and hiding until he could investigate on his own - all would have potentially worked with high enough rolls. 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.
Living Legend
First Post
This is a tough one, because I am a fervent defender of DM's that don't baby their players, but challenge them instead... but in this case particular case, as you described it, I think your players had a bit of a point.
The guy is a local hero, so it seems to me like the sheriff might have approached him in a more inquisitive manor. And if this all boils down to the player not understanding all the options available to him, I'm with Hussar: take him aside and walk him through it just a bit. It's not a perfect world and sometimes players don't get it or DM's don't fully translate the ideas in their head to the table. Doing something like that will also earn you some good faith if the players ever make a stupid mistake and you force them to deal with the harsh consequences.
Or just maybe explain to the character why you have written this scenario. Since you had the girl seduce him and then had the guys walk in, then had her claim rape, you obviously had a reason for this, it must serve some purpose in your campaign, so maybe help him understand that this tough situation serves some long term purpose.
The guy is a local hero, so it seems to me like the sheriff might have approached him in a more inquisitive manor. And if this all boils down to the player not understanding all the options available to him, I'm with Hussar: take him aside and walk him through it just a bit. It's not a perfect world and sometimes players don't get it or DM's don't fully translate the ideas in their head to the table. Doing something like that will also earn you some good faith if the players ever make a stupid mistake and you force them to deal with the harsh consequences.
Or just maybe explain to the character why you have written this scenario. Since you had the girl seduce him and then had the guys walk in, then had her claim rape, you obviously had a reason for this, it must serve some purpose in your campaign, so maybe help him understand that this tough situation serves some long term purpose.
catsclaw227
First Post
I can be a tough DM at times, but I have learned over the years that starting the game out with players that aren't already together as a party just creates too much of a chance for the game to never get off the ground. There will be PLENTY of time to create situations that may cause conflict between ideologies of the different PCs.
But in this case, in your own words, "none of whom were willing to fight for his innocence should he flee." Yet, you presented him with a situation where many players would try to flee.
Also, quick question and I don't mean this in any judgmental way. Buy, why would you tell the player what would likely happen based upon his actions, instead of just letting him take his actions and rolling with it. He might have surprised you with something interesting, maybe leaping off the horse when he saw the gate closing and disappearing into a crowd or something. Unfortunately, you didn't give him the chance, you basically took away his choice.
I'm beginning to get there. It's too much extra work trying to get them to RP when they have no natural connections and I keep counting on the camaraderie of battle to join them together, but it never seems to work out.
It was more that I wanted him to be aware that if he were successful with his current plan, it would not have positive results. Yes, he would temporarily avoid being imprisoned, but with no allies and outlaw status, I didn't see a way to work him back into the campaign in any kind of timely fashion. Basically it would have resulted in him surviving out in the woods and (according to him) most likely leaving the area while the rest of the party continued on with the quest. If he'd had a vested interest in the town or allies there, I would have certainly been open to him striking out on his own. As it stood, if he escaped, he would have left the campaign.
I felt like I gave this due consideration. I explained that they approached him non-threateningly, spoke to him, and stated their reasons for approaching him. Even if he was a local hero, it was only his first week in town - the sheriff had every reason to be cautious. Maybe (as the player proved) he might try to run, in which case bring a few guys.
The Shaman
First Post
If your players aren't having fun, you may be playing with the wrong players.
The Shaman
First Post
Telling the player that, if his character flees, he may as well roll a new character, is not how I would handle it myself. Let the player make his choice, let the other players make theirs, then assess the outcome.
Other than that, I agree that giving the player hints is not a style of play that I enjoy and I won't do it.
Iosue
Legend
I think maybe a teeny bit wrong. Or at least sub-optimally.
I see a few problems: one is that you created the "confront the guards or leave the campaign" scenario. You didn't leave the character any outs. Sure, there's stuff he could have done upon confronting the guards, but you've limited his options to just that: deal with the guards without escaping. This might have actually been workable, except for the next problem:
The worst thing you can do in improvisation (which is why RPGs essentially are) is to shut down the idea someone else came up with. In the player's head, he imagined the scenario as one where he could flee on his horse, and you not only shut that down, you shut down the whole concept of fleeing the town, in metagaming fashion. That's frustrating for a player. I would have simply said, "You can try, but it looks dicey." Then, some rolls to see if he succeeded. If he did, then he could find out for himself if the town gate is closed. Then he could try other options from there. You could have created a situation where escape from the town was impossible, but let the player(s) find that out through play, rather than just shutting down their idea.
Also, you don't have to give players information they wouldn't know, but you can give them information beforehand that would help them find their own decision that fits the scenario. In this case, you wanted the character to stay in town, so you have to give him the information that lets him come to that conclusion on his own. You could have said, "The Sheriff and two guardsmen approach you, clad in their armor and with their weapons, though none are drawn. They approach you purposefully, but not aggressively. Your horse looks a bit too far away to get to in time, and you recall seeing the gate closed earlier today. You might be able to run and hide in the crowd, if you want." Now you have the same situation, but the player connects the dots themselves, and feel immersed in the world, rather than shut down by the Dungeon Master.
I see a few problems: one is that you created the "confront the guards or leave the campaign" scenario. You didn't leave the character any outs. Sure, there's stuff he could have done upon confronting the guards, but you've limited his options to just that: deal with the guards without escaping. This might have actually been workable, except for the next problem:
The worst thing you can do in improvisation (which is why RPGs essentially are) is to shut down the idea someone else came up with. In the player's head, he imagined the scenario as one where he could flee on his horse, and you not only shut that down, you shut down the whole concept of fleeing the town, in metagaming fashion. That's frustrating for a player. I would have simply said, "You can try, but it looks dicey." Then, some rolls to see if he succeeded. If he did, then he could find out for himself if the town gate is closed. Then he could try other options from there. You could have created a situation where escape from the town was impossible, but let the player(s) find that out through play, rather than just shutting down their idea.
Also, you don't have to give players information they wouldn't know, but you can give them information beforehand that would help them find their own decision that fits the scenario. In this case, you wanted the character to stay in town, so you have to give him the information that lets him come to that conclusion on his own. You could have said, "The Sheriff and two guardsmen approach you, clad in their armor and with their weapons, though none are drawn. They approach you purposefully, but not aggressively. Your horse looks a bit too far away to get to in time, and you recall seeing the gate closed earlier today. You might be able to run and hide in the crowd, if you want." Now you have the same situation, but the player connects the dots themselves, and feel immersed in the world, rather than shut down by the Dungeon Master.
Desdichado
Hero
The situation had every reason to go off the reservation and few reasons to come together as you envisioned. I actually tend to go the opposite direction and make sure that my characters already have connections with each other before the game starts.
Well, maybe then you shouldn't have put the PC in a situation in which a fairly likely result was going to be that he wouldn't be able to play his character. The more you describe the situation, the more I sympathize with his point of view.mwnrnc said:
After due consideration, the situation was perhaps sub-optimal. Quite honestly, I hadn't seriously expected he would try to flee. My understanding of his character was that he had been a mercenary and occasional brigand, but I didn't think he would flee under those circumstances.
Also, confronting him at the stables was probably a mistake. I had wanted to have the guards confront him the first place he went in the morning (either alone or with the group) and that was where he went first, alone. There again, had I anticipated that he would flee, I would have reconsidered their approach.
Also, confronting him at the stables was probably a mistake. I had wanted to have the guards confront him the first place he went in the morning (either alone or with the group) and that was where he went first, alone. There again, had I anticipated that he would flee, I would have reconsidered their approach.
Similar Threads
