DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Nellisir]

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.

Never, ever, count on bringing the characters to the adventure. It's much less stressful to bring the adventure to them.

And yeah, sometimes it is easier to be heavy handed. Prophetic dreams. Bahamut says so. Baphomet says so. What are gods for, anyways, if not to mess around with mortals and make their lives interesting?

You control the entire world; just twist the road a little under their feet...they never need to know....


* If a character in my game does something particularly mind-numbingly stupid, a giant flaming haycart falls from the sky and crushes them. If it's REALLY stupid, there are oxen attached to the haycart.**

** OK, that's never really happened. But I like to tell them it could.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Never, ever, count on bringing the characters to the adventure. It's much less stressful to bring the adventure to them.

And yeah, sometimes it is easier to be heavy handed. Prophetic dreams. Bahamut says so. Baphomet says so. What are gods for, anyways, if not to mess around with mortals and make their lives interesting?

You control the entire world; just twist the road a little under their feet...they never need to know....


* If a character in my game does something particularly mind-numbingly stupid, a giant flaming haycart falls from the sky and crushes them. If it's REALLY stupid, there are oxen attached to the haycart.**

** OK, that's never really happened. But I like to tell them it could.

Under the old rules (1st & 2nd editions) I used to say "You have offended the gods, you are struck by 1 million 1millionth hp lightning bolts. You only take 1 hp of damage but you now have to make 1 million saving throws for each piece of your gear."

 

[Nellisir]

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

A bitter pill (does not escape) goes down easier with sugar (choses to be captured; displays nobility and self-sacrifice). Players should be rewarded for acting in character. (And before someone brings it up, sometimes the reward is a glorious death for the character. That's cool.)

And there is nothing wrong with explaining how the townsfolk will see his actions. You have a much better understanding of the culture and character of the townspeople than he (the player) does. It's your vision. You're allowed to translate.

Edit: Actually, I want to point out an important distinction. You are rewarding the player, not the character. Players generally want fun and attention. I am in no way, shape, or form saying you must shower the characters with gold pieces and magical geegaws.

 

[Ringlerun]

I apologize for this length of this post, but I had an interesting discussion today with one of my players regarding my DM style. First, the situation:

Another of my players is a level 1 former mercenary from a company who occasionally turned to being brigands when times were lean. After joining with the party and helping to save a village from being overrun by Goblins, he is considered a local hero. A local girl seduces him, only for them to be discovered by her father who flies into a rage and throws him out of the house. The next day, he approaches the town watch to arrest the player as, according to the daughter, he forced himself on her. The sheriff and two guardsmen (one of which is a fellow player) set out to bring him in. Here's where it gets tricky.

I have some questions about this. Was the player in the game from the start or was he added later on? Was it the players idea to make his character a mercenary/brigand or yours?

Why have the local girl seduce the mercenary/brigand? Why not the ranger or the guard. So the only player with a criminal background is seduced by a local girl and discovered by the father. Then you have the Sheriff and 2 guards (1 being a player) come to talk to him about allegations. Then tell the player if he runs he might as well make a new character?

I declare shenanigans.

From what you described you just railroaded that player into a no win situation.

Why have the Sheriff and 2 guards. Why not just have the player character guard talk to him discretely about the allegations and then as a group they could formulate a plan to exonerate the player of the crime. Or at least the ranger might now of a hidy hole in the woods were the player could hide out until everything gets solved.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

I feel that by giving the players "hints" like my friend wants, I undermine the nature of the game. It places undue burden on me to anticipate where they may get stuck without the benefit of feedback in the form of knowledge or gather information rolls to know where they are confused. Further, it makes them more likely to rely on my "hints" than to think creatively and overcome challenges on their own.

Do any venerable DMs or players have any suggestions about how to get past this conflict? Am I "doing it wrong?"

I don't think this is a case that can be judged as an example of "right" or "wrong" GMing style. Rather, there seems to be a mismatch between what some of your players expect and what you expect. Rather than worrying about placing blame, it will be all of your responsibility to resolve the conflict. On the one hand, the one or two players are saying they don't have the meaningful information they need to make decisions that work. OTOH, you're stating that this particular player has not been trying hard enough to find those solutions. So it seems the mismatch on expectations lies in the difficulty of the in-game decision making context.

Looking at your anecdote, I can see some causes for disagreements. In the player's defense, a few of the contextual clues seem to be mixed. The father was angry, but why did he let the offender get away in the first place? If he was a local hero, the accusations were full of holes, and he had worked with the other PCs to help the town, why would they be obliged not to help him? The player could have seen this as a plot by his enemies to take him out without a fair trial- and the sheriff and his men could be in on the take, for example- especially if they were trying to seem friendly. In a case of immediate arrest for a heinous crime like this- time is of the essence and may not allow for a lot of questions.

OTOH, in your defense, demanding that you give away too much is certainly objectionable. "Hint" is a vague term- it could be an OOC DM warnings like "Are you sure?" or it could mean that he might like more contextual clues. Speak with your players on what exactly they mean by this; perhaps you all have more in common than you think.

Another thing that seems to be going on is that, in your anecdote, you were explicitly on explaining to the players what not to do. The player was told his action would likely fail, and it sounded like you might have spoke for the other players' PCs not being inclined to support him (correct me if I misunderstood you and the players reached this decision themselves). The player may have gotten defensive at having his idea shot down (rather than seeing your efforts to clarify things)- and then perceived that he "had no other choice". In this case, he might have thought he was being proactive only to be arbitrarily shot down. In this case, there might have been a miscommunication of intentions- a perceived context of ideas of what would not work is not always the same as providing them a context of ideas of what could or might work.

 

[The Shaman]

Quite honestly, I hadn't seriously expected . . .

Don't expect. React.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Sorry, I just don't see it that way.

Then you aren't willing to see or fix the problem.

If you came here expecting a kumbaya celebrating your puissance as a GM, I'm afraid you're not going to get it from me: Your player was right. You were railroading him.

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?

You don't get to play the "if you do this, then you have to roll up a new character" card and then claim that it's all logical from the perspective of the game world.

You want the guards to be a credible threat? Then make them a credible threat. Backing them up with a metagame threat doesn't make them credible. It just makes the railroading blatant.

Not much else that can be said about this until you're willing to admit you have a problem.

 

[Loonook]

Personally from the player standpoint I would have thought that to be a horrid situation to run from... I don't wanna be part of Ye Old Cops Episode when I have the possibility of moving forward and possibly gaining something from the whole escapade... The fun of the trial and making the DM twist on it would be worth it .

As a DM? I've had PCs arrested, even had one time when two were executed. Led to a crowning moment of awesome when the executed PC, an evil little piece of work, made an excellent "You all know who I am and what I do" vengeance speech outing the villain he had been working for off-screen in side-sessions... The PCs patron/main villain. That player held out for almost a year pulling shenanigans, and helped to start a war that had ripples through the rest of the campaign... Not a lot of characters who die in the first cycle who make waves into the next 6.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Elf Witch]

You don't get to play the "if you do this, then you have to roll up a new character" card and then claim that it's all logical from the perspective of the game world.

You want the guards to be a credible threat? Then make them a credible threat. Backing them up with a metagame threat doesn't make them credible. It just makes the railroading blatant.

Not much else that can be said about this until you're willing to admit you have a problem.

You are very wrong there are times when a DM can say if you do this, you will have to roll up a new character and it is not railroading.

In my game going evil means handing me your character sheet and rolling up a new one because your PC just became an NPC.

I think the DM was a little heavy handed in his approach but I don't see it as classic railroading. The DM already has said that there were other options like bribery, diplomacy, running off and hiding or allowing himself to be arrested.

What he seemed to be worried about was the PC just taking off and leaving and not coming back which in truth could lead to having to roll up a new character. If the PC is not going to be involved in the adventure because he has run off and the rest of the party don't want to leave then you have an issue. What are you going to do run two different games.

 

[Li Shenron]

Do any venerable DMs or players have any suggestions about how to get past this conflict? Am I "doing it wrong?"

I am far from venerable, but here's my 2cp

What you did wrong was to have this scenario in your game. Do not try to put a case like arresting an innocent PC (if I understand right, he's being setup and did not commit any crime) in the game unless you're confident that the players will be fine with it.

IMXP there'a lot of people who hate when their PCs become victims of injustice because this unfortunately is one of the most heart-breaking, hope-draining and enraging thing that can happen in real life. Let the evil guys in the story have the exclusive on being unjust, because many players will not just submit to the accusations if they think their PCs are innocent, and some may even attack the guards.

How did you honestly expect the story to continue, had the player played "correctly"? Did you expect him to surrender to the guards, face the accusations, probably go to jail and wait to be saved by his pals? Were you going to put some trial into the story? This may actually be interesting for some gaming groups, but personally I wouldn't like that at all, I would find it boring (I rarely enjoy trials in movies and TV-series). Also for me D&D is actually a game where I want to see the BBEG get caught, killed, and possibly worse, and if the good guys are caught into something like that, I want it to be the evil guys' work (which obviously should then be caught, killed, and possibly worse), not the regular, legitimate law.

I understand that perhaps I am a simpleton. I admit that the game for me is an evasion. I see innocent people being punished in real life for crimes they didn't commit, and I hate it. At least let me have some confort from our fantasy stories.

Oh and one more thing... unless your players are actually your friends and you're sure they're fine with it, avoid any reference to sexual harassment and violence against children in your games. I went even as far as consciously deciding to stop mentioning children and offspring in my campaigns (except of course in harmless situations) to prevent any chance of having to deal with sensitive issues: no baby orcs in my game = no trite paladin dilemmas about what to do with them.

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.