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

[Mallus]

It seems that you think that alignment choice should be a consequenceless issue.

I think every alignment should be more-or-less equally playable. Alignment, if used, should describe the tone of the game, not it's relative level of difficultly. If the DM has decreed that certain alignments should be unplayable, or markedly less playable, then it's their responsibility to inform the players up-front, otherwise they're being a prick.

You are just fundamentally wrong.

So being deliberately unfair and unbalanced increases player enjoyment (the only meaningful metric for campaign success)? Do tell...

 

[Storm Raven]

I think every alignment should be more-or-less equally playable. Alignment, if used, should describe the tone of the game, not it's relative level of difficultly. If the DM has decreed that certain alignments should be unplayable, or markedly less playable, then it's their responsibility to inform the players up-front, otherwise they're being a prick.

Many alignments are by their very nature far less playable for PCs who want to survive. Society almost universally reacts to threats to its peace and security rather harshly. If you become one of those threats, expect the typical response. Expecting something different is assuming that alignment choice is of no consequence, its just "more of the same, just now with rape, murder, and mayhem added!" In other words, you don't appear to believe player choice has any meaning, because the campaign reacts the same way regardless.

So being deliberately unfair and unbalanced increases player enjoyment (the only meaningful metric for campaign success)? Do tell...

If you wake the sleeping ogre, he's likely to kill you.

 

[billd91]

Absolutely. Is this a trick question?

What? Does everything in the campaign have to be level-appropriate? I wouldn't think so. Player actions can certainly trigger encounters and events that aren't balanced as level-appropriate encounters.

Granted, there's a difference in play styles here. But it's usually not a good idea to answer "Absolutely" in any discussion about role playing games and campaigns.

 

[billd91]

I think every alignment should be more-or-less equally playable. Alignment, if used, should describe the tone of the game, not it's relative level of difficultly. If the DM has decreed that certain alignments should be unplayable, or markedly less playable, then it's their responsibility to inform the players up-front, otherwise they're being a prick.

You know, you can be evil and not kill the king's man or be party to the kidnapping of his child. Having the king's other forces crack down on the PCs for that doesn't make any alignment unplayable at all.

 

[Kraydak]

That's a flawed assumption on your part. No one said there weren't other heroes in the world. They are just usually busy dealing with other problems. if the PCs become a problem, then they will probably draw the attention of one of these groups. If they go about killing agents of the government, then the government will probably hire one of these groups to deal with them.

So, in other words, every PC adventure is a desperate race against time. Not because of the villain's plans. Those were never a real threat. Rather, against high level kill-stealing NPC heroes. Right? Because, unless NPCs react very differently to "evil" (and I am *not* calling the OP's case one of evil PCs) PCs and NPCs, that *is* what you are suggesting.

Except, of course, you are simply wrong. The campaign world should appear to have a life seperate from the PCs. And that includes having competing groups of heroes. Who are normally potential allies, or mentors, or simply nonhostle rivals. But who will turn against the PCs if they become what the other heroes normally fight against.

Of course the campaign world should have a life outside the PCs. It includes good NPCs *not* spontaneously teleporting to problematic PCs. That includes NPCs behaving as if they had 2 brain cells to rub together. It includes NPC authorities *not* getting to call themselves "good" if they behave otherwise if PCs don't get to. It includes NPCs (unless much higher level) treating PCs with respect. Etc...

In short, it includes the world behaving fairly towards the PCs, rather than freaking out either when the players call the DM out on his bending the rules, or going somewhat rogue.

 

[billd91]

So being deliberately unfair and unbalanced increases player enjoyment (the only meaningful metric for campaign success)? Do tell...

I think you're really misunderstanding part of the definition of fair... which can mean that you get the treatment coming to you without favoritism. If the PCs get away with murder, in a setting where murder is not appropriate, then aren't you showing favoritism... in which case you are being unfair?

 

[Mallus]

What? Does everything in the campaign have to be level-appropriate?

No, but encounters shouldn't be deliberately campaign-ending either, as SR's example was. If you want end the game you're running, just say so, don't try and obscure that with a lot of talk about the fundamental Rousseauvian goodness of D&D societies and their efficiency at eliminating miscreants.

Then go with your players for drinks.

Player actions can certainly trigger encounters and events that aren't balanced as level-appropriate encounters.

Sure, but what SR was advocating was a more systematic stamping out of evil PC's, not a specific player-triggered encounter that exceeds normal EL.

But it's usually not a good idea to answer "Absolutely" in any discussion about role playing games and campaigns.

Maybe.

 

[Mallus]

Many alignments are by their very nature far less playable for PCs who want to survive.

Nonsense.

The people playing the game determines how playable a given alignment is.

Society almost universally reacts to threats to its peace and security rather harshly.

Society is whatever the DM says it is. Games can be set anywhere; say like a war zone or a state where civil society has broken down.

 

[Storm Raven]

So, in other words, every PC adventure is a desperate race against time.

Every PC should realize that they have potential competition, yes.

if you think this is somehow out of bounds for D&D, I suggest you go and look at materials written about Gygax's D&D campaigns, and the competitive nature of the various characters. I just figure it should be the same with NPC heroes as well.

Of course the campaign world should have a life outside the PCs. It includes good NPCs *not* spontaneously teleporting to problematic PCs.

No one said they would. They probably will show up eventually though.

In short, it includes the world behaving fairly towards the PCs, rather than freaking out either when the players call the DM out on his bending the rules, or going somewhat rogue.

Having the local authorities hire the fantasy equivalent of the Pinkertons is not "freaking out". It is behaving very much fairly.

 

[Storm Raven]

Nonsense.

The people playing the game determines how playable a given alignment is.

Well, yes. People can play a D&D game in which there are no real consequences for the choices the PCs make. If you want to run a game in which murder, rape and assorted mayhem draw no appropriate consequences, then do so. It would be seriously flawed, in my opinion, because society has pretty much universally defended itself against that sort of behaviour with harsh penalties, so leaving those harsh penalties out basically means you are playing "consequencless, choiceless D&D"..

Society is whatever the DM says it is. Games can be set anywhere; say like a war zone or a state where civil society has broken down.

Even in frontier societies and war zones society society defends itself against criminality and vile behaviour. In many cases, the penalties for behaving evilly are worse in those areas, because there is no countervailing push for mercy as opposed to simple justice.