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

[robertliguori]

You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.

I said this in the thread about Shadowrun one of the reasons I love Shadowrun is that your PCs may grow in personal power but they will never be Superman invincible to the mere mortals all around them.

Why does this have to be the case? How do kings with conventional medieval armies in the tens of thousands treat each other? How do baronets from three dominions over treat the kings?

That's how kings should treat with a 10th-level magic-using party and a 20th-level magic-using party, respectively.

Actually people do behave like that. politician and lawmen often do. Why because they have the goverment and law behind them. They can get away with it because a person would have to be either stupid, insane or willing to die to kill them for behaving this way.

It is just insane the way high level DnD is written that it can't emulate the power countries and law enforcement have.

Sure it can! D&D totally emulates the scenario in which one side has an overwhelming force behind them, and as such it's not only basically suicide to fight them directly, but getting them interested in your demise is 99% fatal.

Said force is called high-level PCs. Again, discouple your mental connection between "A lot of people do what I want." and "I have power." in D&D.

In Shadowrun my PC may decide to kill a mouthy lone star officer and if I have enough resources I may be able to buy a new ID so they don't hunt me down. If I am high level corp person Lonestar may not be able to touch me outright but they can and may hire other runners to take me out or kidnap me. And there is a chance they will be able to pull it off. All with in the rules without the DM cheating.

This can lead to players cheerfully attempting to drag the setting from dystopian cyberpunk to full-on post-apocalyptic.

Really, to reiterate what has been said eariler, one should not use in-game elements to enforce personal preferences on player behavior. There should not be level 20 paladin police to ensure that the party is heroic. If you want them to be heroic, you should confer with them out of game, ensure that they want to be heroic, then send the succubus and glazebreu brigade to offer them power and shinys* to be nonheroic. Interacting with the players via characters in the world suggests that every method normally available to PCs for dealing with characters (diplomacy, avoidance, stealth, violence, mind control magic, threats and intimidation, etc.) If you don't want PCs to have the possibility of breaking the law and casually murdering the entire judicial and legal system of a kingdom to avoid a fuss, then you should tell them so out-of-game; doing so in-game simply suggests to the PCs that this is a quest encounter, to be defeated with cleverness. (Bad Things generally happen when PCs try to apply cleverness to the task of killing a lot of people at once.)

*For a given value of shiny.

 

[Imp]

If the PCs are 5th level (has that really been determined?) then the King can take them. With a fair number of casualties, but nothing the kingdom can't deal with – in any but the lowest-demographic, harshest point-of-light setting, this will be true.

If the PCs are 10th level, things get political, unless they're in the Forgotten Realms or something. But then there is absolutely nothing keeping them in the bounds of a particular kingdom (provided access to teleport)

But my god, have the PCs get into a scrap for a while, learn their lesson, and relocate to a different kingdom. How hard is this?

 

[Storm Raven]

You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.

Well, I'd say it really depends, and for the most part, until the PCs are really high level, this probably isn't true. Like I said, looking at most published settings and adventures (and not even including Forgotten Realms), until the PCs are 12th+ level (at least), they are certainly outclassed by the forces available to most of the various governmental authorities. Just looking at the powerful NPCs detailed in any number of classic published adventures that include civilized "home base" areas demonstrates this. Almost all have a number of PCs of 6th-12th level or so, all of whom have more than enough personal power to provide a significant brake on PCs run rampant, but who usually have a reason that they aren't going to be tramping off to adventure on a regular basis.

It is important to note also that even people who aren't normally allied with the local government will usually have a vested interest in preventing bands of random adventurers from engaging in murder, mayhem, and general mischief. The druid and the cleric may not have a reason to work together on a regular basis, but when someone starts murdering farmers and looting the town, they probably will set aside their differences and work to put a stop to this.

 

[billd91]

You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.

And why does any of this have to be pretend? Why are we assuming that there has to be some kind of hostility or uneasy detente between high level characters and the governments of the day? Why wouldn't there be some PCs or NPCs actually cooperating with the king because, oh, I don't know, they share the same culture, philosophical values, get on well together.
I don't really see much of a problem with there always being more powerful NPCs around a campaign than the PCs even if they haven't been seen before. It's not like they might not have other things to do with their time rather than hang out in the same area where other adventurers are bumping around. After all, someone had to come up with those 9th level spells the wizards and going to be putting in their spellbooks when they reach that level...

 

[Elf Witch]

And why does any of this have to be pretend? Why are we assuming that there has to be some kind of hostility or uneasy detente between high level characters and the governments of the day? Why wouldn't there be some PCs or NPCs actually cooperating with the king because, oh, I don't know, they share the same culture, philosophical values, get on well together.
I don't really see much of a problem with there always being more powerful NPCs around a campaign than the PCs even if they haven't been seen before. It's not like they might not have other things to do with their time rather than hang out in the same area where other adventurers are bumping around. After all, someone had to come up with those 9th level spells the wizards and going to be putting in their spellbooks when they reach that level...

Why does it have to be pretend well 13 pages of this thread is reason enough. In these pages I have read how high level PCs are like rogue nations and that there is a little a DM can do to stop them unless he brings out the big guns and then that is unfair because now you are punishing your players for their in game actions.


There are comments on how the PCs should be treated with kid gloves by NPCs and if they are not and the so called good PCs kill them then it is really the DMs fault for playing the NPCs wrong.

I am lucky that I don't play with players who share this attidue that they can do what ever they want and nothing will happen to them. We expect there to be other higher level NPCs around and we do something evil or stupid it will catch up with us.

But even though my group does not play like this I would like to find a better system than DnD one more like Shadowrun on the way it handles damage and attacks. I like the fact that in Shadowrun a punk with a gun could get lucky enough to kill a PC. I would like the same in my fantasy game that a peasant with a pitchfork might be able to hit just right and kill or main a PC or a city guard with a crossbow is a threat no matter how high level you get.

 

[Elf Witch]

Why does this have to be the case? How do kings with conventional medieval armies in the tens of thousands treat each other? How do baronets from three dominions over treat the kings?

That's how kings should treat with a 10th-level magic-using party and a 20th-level magic-using party, respectively.


Sure it can! D&D totally emulates the scenario in which one side has an overwhelming force behind them, and as such it's not only basically suicide to fight them directly, but getting them interested in your demise is 99% fatal.

Said force is called high-level PCs. Again, discouple your mental connection between "A lot of people do what I want." and "I have power." in D&D.


This can lead to players cheerfully attempting to drag the setting from dystopian cyberpunk to full-on post-apocalyptic.

Really, to reiterate what has been said eariler, one should not use in-game elements to enforce personal preferences on player behavior. There should not be level 20 paladin police to ensure that the party is heroic. If you want them to be heroic, you should confer with them out of game, ensure that they want to be heroic, then send the succubus and glazebreu brigade to offer them power and shinys* to be nonheroic. Interacting with the players via characters in the world suggests that every method normally available to PCs for dealing with characters (diplomacy, avoidance, stealth, violence, mind control magic, threats and intimidation, etc.) If you don't want PCs to have the possibility of breaking the law and casually murdering the entire judicial and legal system of a kingdom to avoid a fuss, then you should tell them so out-of-game; doing so in-game simply suggests to the PCs that this is a quest encounter, to be defeated with cleverness. (Bad Things generally happen when PCs try to apply cleverness to the task of killing a lot of people at once.)

*For a given value of shiny.

Sometimes Kings with big armies go to war. But everyone knows a 20 level group of PCs can take on a normal army and win read some story hours.

I don't enjoy the idea that four people can be the same threat as a massive army.

I enjoy more classic type fantasy one in which King Arthur weilds a might sword but he is not more powerful than other knights of the realm. And while the knights are a match for a few peasants armed with pitchforks but a mob of peasants armed with pitch forkes is a threat.

I like magic but not the high level magic of DnD where you become god like.

I am not the one who has the idea that a lot of power means I do what I want. I have said several times that excuse for what some players do is in my opinion bad role playing. Paladins for example don't go around killing fellow soldiers because said soldiers got pissed with the party wizards antic's and started a fist fight and when the pCs looked like they were going to lose they pulled weapons and killed the soldiers. And they don't kill an arbitor of the King and then mutliate the body to hide what they have done.

It makes no sense to my a group of good PCs would go around breaking the law and killing the kings men for dumb reasons like they looked at me funny or they dissed me.

If this was not an issue why are there threads popping up like this one?

 

[Storm Raven]

Sometimes Kings with big armies go to war. But everyone knows a 20 level group of PCs can take on a normal army and win read some story hours.

I don't enjoy the idea that four people can be the same threat as a massive army.

The key here is that they usually aren't unless the setting is poorly designed. Look, a soldier who is a veteran of a single summer's campaign is probably 2nd or 3rd level by the time he's done. If he's been around for a while, he's probably 4th, 5th, or 6th level - granted he's probably an NPC warrior, but he's also not a pushover, especially not when he has the rest of his squad with him. Look at various D&D towns:

Hommlet (Temple of Elemental Evil): 8th level wizard, 4th level ranger, 7th level druid, 3rd level druid, 6th level fighter, 4th level fighter, 3rd level fighter, 2nd level fighter, 6th level cleric, 3rd level cleric. This doesn't count the various leveled inn guests.

Restenford (The Secret of Bone Hill): 7th level fighter, 6th level cleric, 4th level cleric, 2 3rd level clerics, 9th level wizard, 4 3rd level wizards, 2 2nd level wizards, 5th level fighter, 2 4th level fighters, 3rd level fighter, 8 2nd level fighters, 2nd level rogue. This does not include various 1st level PC classed individuals.

Hommlet (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil): 10th level wizard, 10th level cleric, 6th level ranger, 4th level monk/3rd level ranger, 8th level fighter, 7th level wizard, 5th level wizard, 4th level sorcerer, 6th level cleric, 4th level cleric, 3rd level cleric, 4th level paladin, 2nd level barbarian/2nd level rogue, 3rd level fighter, 5th level warrior, 4th level warrior, 5th level expert. This doesn't count various sundry 1st level PC classed characters.

It makes no sense to my a group of good PCs would go around breaking the law and killing the kings men for dumb reasons like they looked at me funny or they dissed me.

If this was not an issue why are there threads popping up like this one?

Because a lot of GMs seem to think (because, IMO, they have been given bad advice to this effect and delivering consequences for actions is "railroading" somehow) that they have to let their PCs do whatever they want in order to let them have "fun". In my experience as a player campaigns like that aren't usually fun, they just turn into boring hack-fests without any decisions making a real difference. As a DM, I try to make sure that the campaign world makes sense as an ongoing affair, and that the PCs can understand what the results of their actions are likely to be - and why.

 

[WayneLigon]

Look at various D&D towns

I would count all of those as poorly designed. If there are that many high leveled characters in rinky little one-horse towns, why do you bother having adventurers?

 

[roguerouge]

I think the fact that one of the PCs is a paladin is getting lost here. It's not just enforcing DM preference or narrative plausibility. It's also enforcing the rules as written. Unless the player switches to a variant paladin class, they cannot act this way without an atonement. Even if you think that they acted in the right, they have acted extremely unlawfully.

 

[Storm Raven]

I would count all of those as poorly designed. If there are that many high leveled characters in rinky little one-horse towns, why do you bother having adventurers?

That's not even a hard to question to answer. The NPCs have other things they consider more important to deal with. They need to or would rather (for example) lead their flock, or guard the town, or engage in magical research, or they are already wealthy and don't want to risk their lives for no reason (but will to preserve their home town against miscreants wandering the streets), or they want to run their business, or any number of other pressures on their time - the threats the PCs are dealing with may be only one of many potential threats. And so on and so forth.

Just because someone is powerful doesn't mean he is going to tromp off to a dungeon at the drop of a hat - adventuring would be a dangerous, dirty, tiring business. Why do that if you can run an alchemical shop, or have a cushy job as the local chaplain, and so on. The PCs are probably willing to do these dirty, nasty jobs because they are at the bottom of the heap, have limited other options, and are seeking glory and fame (like most actual mercenaries). Usually, the reason the PCs are out adventuring is that they are considered expendable. If they get killed on some high risk errand, that's no big loss to anyone who really cares. But if they start threatening thepeace of the streets, well then, they are threatening the very safety and wealth of those individuals, and that' going to draw a reaction.

And the classed population in those adventures isn't even that big a deal - Daggerford has many more (granted that is a Forgotten Realms adventure, but still). Just about every published adventure the includes a 'civilized" area has populations of similar numbers of adventurers, and yet all of them seem to figure out how to have a reason for the PCs to be adventuring.