Don't love your villains (or "How I screwed up, and how I fixed it")

[ender_wiggin]

I think that in almost all ways, this was a perfectly executed scenario, and that Tanis's plan makes for a realistic gambit.

The flaw that I see isn't the timing of the twist, nor the disputed lack of clues, but the fact that in "sophisticated" games, we want to reward players for finding meaning in the game, for substantiating themes, for creating metaphors, and in this case, finding dramatic irony. When the PCs connect the dots in the way that they did, adding depth to the game, they shouldn't have that turned on them. If that kind of play is negatively reinforced, players stop doing it. In this case, had the PCs used any other weapon, had Tanis died - I daresay the game would have been far less memorable.

At the same time, villains _should_ get the best of the PCs (at least recurring ones), and at times the PCs should feel like they were bested. In that way, I would say that the way things turned out here were awkward, but if these were the kinds of problems I was having in my game, I'd be pretty damn proud.

I think that the best next step is to make Tanis a worthy villain. Give her dimension, have her recur, make her important. Most importantly, reward the PCs with awesome roleplaying every time they encounter her from now on. Even if they hate her, make it fun hating her, and if that's what they want to do, don't give her any redeeming qualities.

 

[Piratecat]

I think it is a shame that you had to make it come to nothing in the end because the players (sorry beloved players!) had come to the meta-game conclusion that it was all over.

Not sure what you mean here. I didn't neuter the resulting fight based on their reaction. Quite the reverse; we'd worked out the issue by the time we gamed again, the players had good plans, and they beat her for good fair and square.

The conversation did ensure that I'd thought through Tanis's awakening, though. I think this was more fun as a result.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not sure what you mean here. I didn't neuter the resulting fight based on their reaction. Quite the reverse; we'd worked out the issue by the time we gamed again, the players had good plans, and they beat her for good fair and square.

The conversation did ensure that I'd thought through Tanis's awakening, though. I think this was more fun as a result.

OK, I think I misread your overall resolution of the situation then (which is good, right?)

I guess the bottom line is that sometimes situations which the players would love to hate you for might be responded to differently purely because of circumstances somewhat external to the game and end up accidentally causing bad feeling. In which case good communication is important to getting everything ironed out properly and getting the fun back on track.

Heck, I had that situation at PegCon a couple of years back when one of the gaming groups came up with a solution which was a local optimisation which led to reconciliation of tribes and economic benefits all round at the end of the game, but which unfortunately led to the death of the planet 15 years down the road... A final outcome which was the logical and necessary result of their decisions, but which still proved very unsatisfying to several of them. We had quite a chat about it afterwards, and I decided how I could have handled things differently. Happily everyone wanted to play in my game next year (phew!)

Cheers

 

[Kraydak]

I'd say the biggest problem is that you blind-sided the players with a NPC that had powers outside the normal range. Would I worry about stabbing her through the heart? No. Because disenchanting magic items into residuum and using that to create a different item is time consuming and not exactly subtle. If you could make mockery of FIghters by turning their magic weapons against them, people would, um, do it. This was be a trap that, from the basic rule books, simply could not exist. If you want such abilities to exist in your world, that's fine, even probably good with enough limitation. *BUT* the players have the right to know, especially if any of them have Arcana trained.

 

[S'mon]

I'd say the biggest problem is that you blind-sided the players with a NPC that had powers outside the normal range. Would I worry about stabbing her through the heart? No. Because disenchanting magic items into residuum and using that to create a different item is time consuming and not exactly subtle. If you could make mockery of FIghters by turning their magic weapons against them, people would, um, do it. This was be a trap that, from the basic rule books, simply could not exist.

Eh, no. There's a specific line in the 4e DMG that says villain NPCs can have powerful magical rituals the PCs can't access. You seem to be confusing 4e with 3e.

 

[Kraydak]

Eh, no. There's a specific line in the 4e DMG that says villain NPCs can have powerful magical rituals the PCs can't access. You seem to be confusing 4e with 3e.

You're missing the point. NPCs can have access to powerful magical rituals (although overusing such can lead to problems). However, introducing such into the world without giving the *players* knowledge about the possibilities that the *PCs* should have is bad DMing. In this case, a modest DC Arcana check would be called for. The outcome would likely be anticlimactic, but that is better than "haha, you fell for a trap which, to the best of your knowledge, wasn't even possible in the game world", which this comes perilously close to.

 

[S'mon]

You're missing the point. NPCs can have access to powerful magical rituals (although overusing such can lead to problems). However, introducing such into the world without giving the *players* knowledge about the possibilities that the *PCs* should have is bad DMing. In this case, a modest DC Arcana check would be called for. The outcome would likely be anticlimactic, but that is better than "haha, you fell for a trap which, to the best of your knowledge, wasn't even possible in the game world", which this comes perilously close to.

You're missing the point. Piratecat had told the players (& PCs) that the sword was to be used in a golem-powering ritual. No arcana check necessary. They had the info already.

Anyway, it definitely sounds to me that you're bringing in a lot of baggage from 3e. This whole "wasn't even possible in the game world" language is something I never heard before 3e, and I hoped never to hear again.

 

[IronWolf]

Anyway, it definitely sounds to me that you're bringing in a lot of baggage from 3e. This whole "wasn't even possible in the game world" language is something I never heard before 3e, and I hoped never to hear again.

I don't think that was a 3e-ism as much as new DMs that came to the game during 3e. You certainly could have pulled off a golem powering ritual in 3.x as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

To be clear, the problem wasn't that it happened. The problem was that due to pacing they were way less cautious than they would have been.

Had they stabbed the heart with any other weapon, it would have been dead Tanis.

You didn't do anything wrong. Players need to be aware and pay attention to whats going on. Why should you change the universe just because they mistakenly thought it was Miller time?

Just asking if they want to do anything right now or pick it up next session would have been fine. Impulse decisions have consequences.

 

[billd91]

You're missing the point. Piratecat had told the players (& PCs) that the sword was to be used in a golem-powering ritual. No arcana check necessary. They had the info already.

Anyway, it definitely sounds to me that you're bringing in a lot of baggage from 3e. This whole "wasn't even possible in the game world" language is something I never heard before 3e, and I hoped never to hear again.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's really a 3e-ism either. I think it's more of a question of determining how much info a character should know vs how much a player should know bound up in challenging the PC vs challenging the player. The situation, as I see it, was really a player challenging situation. Could they see through the DM's bluff and use any other weapon at their disposal to destroy the villain's heart or would they fall into the trap of using the sword that would power the golem-awakening, the option that would be appealing most to their wicked senses of irony? Passing the info that this could happen to a knowledgeable character, which could occur in any edition, would immediately negate the challenge of the encounter.

In this case, I believe challenging the players was the correct call and made for a better game.