DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[Storm Raven]

Feudalism is all nice and good, but power tops it everytime.

Sure, which is why those in power in a D&D world will be those who can grab it and hold it. Assuming that the government is somehow lacking in this power seriously undermines the setting.

Unless, of course, the King has his own high-level adventurers able to handle such threats, but then - what the heck were the PCs doing then until now, and where have those guys been during the last three crisises?

Probably dealing with other threats that were more pressing until the PCs started killing government officials. The adventures the PCs are on are most likely not the only problems facing the city, kingdom, empire, or whatever the local power structure is. In point of fact, I usually try to drag many more adventure possibilities across a party's path than they could ever hope to follow up on - the ones they let drop will either (a) fester and get worse, or (b) get solved by another group, who will get the associated fame and rewards.

 

[Storm Raven]

IThe people who advocate the "send in 2xparty level NPC adventurers" response need to consider the ramifications of this - if that's the usual consequence in the campaign, why have the adventurers been fighting CR-appropriate foes, and were not sent to battle foes half their level as well? If that's not the usual response, why does it happen now, and not back 2 levels when the adventurers were hard pressed to get help against overwhelming numbers of orcs attacking the kingdom?

Simulationism is all nice and well, but you have to consider that whenever you bring in those killer NPCs to squash evil PCs, the Players are allowed to ask where those NPCs were when it was just the PCs and the demon horde.

So, if you go the simulation route, and all "consequences!", be fair. Set the ressources of the kingdom beforehand, and use them logically all the time, not just when the PCs come up against the kingdom.
You may very well discover that a kingdowm that has the resosurces to squash a mid-level PC party like bugs has a limited number of adventuring opportunities for low-level and mid-level PCs.

This is basically completely wrong, and can be shown by referencing a handful of classic D&D adventures, that don't seem to have any trouble providing plenty of opportunity for low-level PCs to adventure while also having various powerful characters also around.

For example, look at the classic T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil. Hommlet has several higher level characters - Jaroo, Terjon, Rufus, Burne, Elmo, and others. But they all have ongoing commitments (well, other than Elmo) that prevent them from adventuring on a regular basis. They can't run off and plunder dungeons because they have an obligation to their followers, or to keep the pirates of Nulb on their guard, and so on. But if the PCs were to decide to wander in to the Inn of the Welcome Wench and kill off Gundigoot and his family, they would certainly respond.

One could reel off numerous other examples - Daggerford, Restenford, and Garroten for example - that show it is pretty easy to come up with a campaign background (and adventure possibilities) where there are both other individuals with personal power around and PCs with stuff to do.

 

[Slife]

Your 0-level maid delivers his wine, then hits him in the stomach and holds him under water. No spellcasting, no holding his breath; three rounds of missing his dump-stat CON saves and he's dead no matter how many hit points he has. I'm sure there's some weird-ass Feat that lets you conjure without speaking but most people aren't going to have all the weird-ass feats that let you do something like that.

I think he'd win the grapple check. And the initiative check, for that matter. And I suspect he'd still be wearing his magic rings (one of which is probably the obligatory ring of freedom of movement) and amulet, as well as have a silent dimension door prepared (because no wizard in his right mind doesn't).

Aside from that, all that can be accomplished by this is the death of a single character (who most likely then gets true resurrected by his cleric buddy), and an increase in the players' paranoid preparations. Possibly taking up a lot of time in each game, since they're going to be rattling off the million-and-one things they have as defenses. And if they forget it once, taking advantage of the omission seems more of a jerk move than an actual challenge.

Still, if your players like the type of challenge, go ahead. It can be fun to set up ridiculously intricate defenses, and using a list of "standard operating procedures" can speed up the game. And GM gets four lists of defenses he can crib from for his villains. Just make sure the game doesn't unintentionally become adversarial.

 

[Fenes]

This is basically completely wrong, and can be shown by referencing a handful of classic D&D adventures, that don't seem to have any trouble providing plenty of opportunity for low-level PCs to adventure while also having various powerful characters also around.

For example, look at the classic T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil. Hommlet has several higher level characters - Jaroo, Terjon, Rufus, Burne, Elmo, and others. But they all have ongoing commitments (well, other than Elmo) that prevent them from adventuring on a regular basis. They can't run off and plunder dungeons because they have an obligation to their followers, or to keep the pirates of Nulb on their guard, and so on. But if the PCs were to decide to wander in to the Inn of the Welcome Wench and kill off Gundigoot and his family, they would certainly respond.

One could reel off numerous other examples - Daggerford, Restenford, and Garroten for example - that show it is pretty easy to come up with a campaign background (and adventure possibilities) where there are both other individuals with personal power around and PCs with stuff to do.

One could also ask oursleves if those NPCs really would back up idiots who start trouble for personal reasons.

Mighty strange, that a king backs up every stupid brainless idiot that doesn't even know how to handle adventurers without getting killed. Even stranger that such a stupid inept arbiter even made it to that post.

I mean, if the king has those high levle NPCs on call, why on earth does he let an idiot without sense motive, intelligence, or diplomacy run around as an arbiter, an idiot who just manages to get himself killed by a bunch of adventurers? Better to send in the high-levle bard who can talk to the bunch without making them mad.

 

[Fenes]

But you're forgetting other powers the king has at his disposal. He's got networks of justice enforcement and other government officials providing him with information, he's got the deep pocket power of a taxed populace, and if the PCs have been big enough jerks, better relations with the masses than the PCs have.

The PCs just got the money in their pockets and swords/spells at their sides... and they have to sleep sometime.

If he has idiots like that arbiter on the payroll, who don't even know how to handle PCs without getting killed, then no, he'll probably be hated by the population ("That despot! He sent us this disrespectful clout, who tried to order our good duke around, and when we defended ourselves, he had the duke hung! To Arms!")

 

[Storm Raven]

One could also ask oursleves if those NPCs really would back up idiots who start trouble for personal reasons.

My guess: probably, if the alternative were to assume that being rude to a bunch of andering vagabonds was tantamount permission for murder. I doubt, for example, that Jaroo and Terjon would have any credibility with their followers if they allowed that sort of thing to happen without some sort of response.

Mighty strange, that a king backs up every stupid brainless idiot that doesn't even know how to handle adventurers without getting killed. Even stranger that such a stupid inept arbiter even made it to that post.

Yeah, it sure is strange that the king (or other government) responds badly when their officials get killed. I mean, after all, if an LAPD cop can't handle a band of gang members without getting killed, then it isn't worth finding those responsible and punishing them.

Really now, the "logic" of your comment is just about as silly as anything I've seen this month.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is the problem with high level DnD unless your players are willing to get into character and not use the power they have to run roughshod over the world then there is little a DM can do other than throw higher level NPCs at them.

That of course leaves a bad tatse in everyone's mouth.

I have talked this over with my players and I told them that unless we made some house rules for certain situations I would not be interested in running the game to high level.

For one thing we are working on house rules on how to handle it if the pCs are high level and dealing with an army or a large group of city guards that have htem surronded.

My players agree thet they don't like the idea that they could not be touched by a group of city guards who had crossbow aimed at them. It takes away from the fantasy of the game.

But part of it part of it isrole playing. Good role players have a reason for what they do. A reason above I do it because I am 12 level and the guard is only 3 that is metagaming. How would a person know something like that.

Why would a group of good adventures want to destroy a good king's power base? Why would a paladin choose to kill the king's lawman?

I have played in an evil game and we found out that to really succeed you need to be smart and try and stay under the radar. If you blantly commit evil acts that can be traced to you, you draw uneanted attention to youself and your plans.

 

[Fenes]

(Which is what bugs me the most: Does no one else thinks that a smart king would not have inept arbiters, or he'd have lots of troubles with his nobles, and anyone else such clouts made mad by acting without diplomacy, or respect for personal power?)

 

[Mallus]

Actually, it can be incredibly hard to get a campaign back on track after its been trashed, either by an undesired TPK or by players who take the feat Resist Common Sense.

Actually, I was thinking it's easier for a group to reboot a new version of a 'trashed' setting than, say, reboot a trashed living room and smashed plasma TV. But is it that difficult to get an on-going campaign back on track? If there's consensus and DM interest/player buy-in I don't think it should be. I mean, what's a setting made of if not consensus and buy-in?

My suspicion is that campaigns which prove to be difficult to 'right' are ones in which some participants aren't really interested in or committed to fixing.

That's the point of this thread, isn't it? That the OP is having trouble dealing with a narrative that he feels has been trashed?

I didn't get the sense he felt it was 'trashed'. My take was that the OP didn't like the direction the campaign was moving in, and was thinking about how he could keep running the campaign, and if he even wanted to do so.

 

[Fenes]

My guess: probably, if the alternative were to assume that being rude to a bunch of andering vagabonds was tantamount permission for murder. I doubt, for example, that Jaroo and Terjon would have any credibility with their followers if they allowed that sort of thing to happen without some sort of response.



Yeah, it sure is strange that the king (or other government) responds badly when their officials get killed. I mean, after all, if an LAPD cop can't handle a band of gang members without getting killed, then it isn't worth finding those responsible and punishing them.

Really now, the "logic" of your comment is just about as silly as anything I've seen this month.

Uh... again, we're not talking gang members and cops, we are more talking stuff like "ok, our cop just made the ambassador of russia so mad he tried to kill him? What did possess that fool?"