Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5840272" data-attributes="member: 42582">My own view is that there is a big difference between cooperating with other players, and having one's PC cooperate with adversary NPCs being played by the GM.Had it been the PC town guard or ranger coming to speak to the player about the allegations (as someone suggested upthread might have been one way to run the scenario) the situation would be completely different.Unless I missed something, the only failure by any player to cooperate with any other player was that the other players indicated that their PCs would not back their fellow PC, even though they knew that the allegations against that PC were false.He was not with the party. He was on his own (checking his horse at the stable, from memory). Being arrested isn't sticking with the party (the rest of the party was not in jail). I don't see how fleeing arrest is leaving the party any more than is being arrested.This is the disruptive bit!The GM was heavy handed. He blocked a completely reasonable response to false accusations of serious criminal behaviour, namely, mounting one's horse and riding out of town. Having another PC encounter the fleeing PC in the woods wouldn't be heavy-handed. It would be GMing - framing situations that support rather than undermine the game.Which is why I'm called them out, upthread, for not backing their fellow player. The players know the accusation is false. It would be utterly trivial for them to decide that their PCs also believe it to be false (eg because they know the accused PC to be a good and heroic person who saved the town from goblins). By deciding that their PCs believe false accusations against a fellow PC, they have opted for the game-disrupting route. This is what I called out. This is what puzzled me, and still puzzles me. What sort of player makes this sort of call? What do they think they are adding to the game?The difference in my view - and as I've indicated - is that the mercenary's decision has been forced by the GM, whereas the other players have gratuitously chosen to have their PCs shaft their fellow PC for no reason that I can see.I've explained my view of the game-disruption, namely, choosing to play your PCs as hostile to your fellow PC for no good metagame reason, and for no compelling ingame reason. I've explained my view of the railroad, also - the GM blocked a completely reasonable course of action chosen by the player whose PC was put into an adverse situation.The GM, in or about the OP, lambasts the player of the mercenary for not thinking of trying to bribe the guards coming to arrest him (which is just bizarre, by the way! - in Australia, and as far as I understand it in the US and Canada also, flight from police is utterly ubiquitous, whereas attempts to bribe them at the moment of arrest - as opposed to via some sort of organised corruption - are comparatively rare) while at the same time passing no comment on the players who decide, under no pressure and for no reason at all, to have their PCs believe the false accusations and therefore hang their fellow PC out to dry.I've read all the passage. "I'm not planning on following, and won't support you if you  go" - which is what you said - is not synonymous with "I am not willing to fight for your innocence should you flee" - which is a paraphrase of what the OP posted. The actual quote leaves open the possibility of, for example, meeting the other PC in the woods outside and speaking to him about what happened and why he fled.Assuming the other players aren't being disruptive, of course!Correct. That's why I called the behaviour of these players "game-disrupting". Because it is (i) disruptive of the game, and therefore (ii) contrary to my preference that players play their PCs in a way that won't disrupt the game.I've got nothing against PC vs PC conflict, or even the odd bit of low-key player vs player conflict. But that is not what is described in this situation. PC vs PC conflict is all about keeping both PCs in the game, both on stage, both players participating. The player behaviour that I am critical of here was a complete disregard of the imperatives of group play, namely, keep everyone engaged.TL;DR: It's not as if this was a situation that was inherently disastrous. The PCs include a religious ranger, a town guard and a heroic brigand. The brigand is wrongly accused, and flees. There are dozens of ways that this scenario can play out dramatically and well, provided that (i) the GM doesn't stop the player of the accused PC from playing his PC, and (ii) the other players play their PCs in a way which promotes cohesion rather than separation.Having the fleeing PC cross paths with the ranger PC outside of town is only the most obvious way in which a good GM might run this situation, and - provided the players aren't being dicks - have it turn into a dramatic tale of a heroic ex-brigands struggle to prove his innocence, and a religous ranger trying to help his (?) innocent friend while remaining faithful to the town and the authority structures that he is sworn to uphold.The idea that the only way, in this situation, to stop the party disintegrating is for the GM to say "Don't do X if you don't want to be rolling up a new PC" is ridiculous. That's just bad (and lazy) GMing. And, in my view (which on this particular issue overlaps pretty much with [MENTION=16086]RogueAgent[/MENTION]'s) is railroading.</blockquote>

Verification