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

[ACreepierFolklaw]

it sounds great! but then i love to be tricked .

perhaps in terms of pacing you could have stopped the game the instant the sword was plunged, seconds before she was revived, then calmly explain that if they liked that adventure you have planned it to be part of a series...
the second episode starts with the result of the sword plunge... it would be a great beggining, a classic myth: the hero's start out on a quest to put right the mistake they have made...

 

[Piratecat]

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.

I see your point, but it's not an issue in this case. We have a long-standing tradition that the world works in mysterious ways, and that there are lots of mysteries and magic in the world that the PCs might not understand or have access to. I actually did give them an arcana check and a perception check when they entered the room, but both of them were quite difficult, and no one made them.

That said, it's a good lesson. Don't pull stuff out of your butt without foreshadowing or being fair about it. If you are, it's all good.

 

[Rel]

I have personally met either all or nearly all of the players in this game. These are not by nature whiny or entitled players who expect things will naturally go in favor of their PC's. If anything, they probably expect the opposite. And therefore, if you're getting a disgruntled vibe from them, you were very right to take it to heart.

I think that there is a stylistic consideration here based on what the player expectations of the GM are. Personally I have evolved into a GM who is willing to alter a game situation against the PC's if I think it will make the game more fun for everybody. And I'll alter the game situation in favor of the PC's if I think it will make the game more fun for everybody.

I think you ultimately made the correct call.

 

[Piratecat]

I think I was considering MnM, where villains escape all the time and it's just fine to toss heroes an action point every time you purposely screw 'em for the sake of cool plot. The way we play D&D has a different feel and expectation!

 

[Kraydak]

Just to add to the original post:

Piratecat has a forum reputation for being a good DM (understatement). The situation he described is about as close as you can come to a railroad without actually being one. Probably. From his description, it seems likely that he at least shaded events, descrptions and DC settings etc... to get to the more "dramatic, good story" ending. Still, it does not seem that he actively pushed the players into using the sword.

I think this makes a good case study of just where the boundaries between railroad and non-railroad, or adequate player information and inadequate player-information actually lie. Definitely worth careful contemplation. Piratecat certainly seems to think so: he wouldn't have posted otherwise.

 

[Agamon]

I like to think that the moral of this post is not the situation itself, but how the communication with non-plussed players was handeled.

As to the former, my players understand that what happenes to them in the game is usually a result of their own actions, whether by not thinking things through, or sometimes just dumb luck, but it's not me being unfair.

That said, if I do something that is unfair, and it happens accidentially once in a while, I make sure I admit to making a mistake and do whatever makes sense in the game to fix it.

Communication doesn't mean the GM caves to the players every time they protest, but listens to what they players have to say and makes sure everyone understands what's going on, as Kevin did.

 

[Agamon]

Just to add to the original post:

Piratecat has a forum reputation for being a good DM (understatement). The situation he described is about as close as you can come to a railroad without actually being one. Probably. From his description, it seems likely that he at least shaded events, descrptions and DC settings etc... to get to the more "dramatic, good story" ending. Still, it does not seem that he actively pushed the players into using the sword.

Thinking about what might happen in the future isn't railroading. Considering a possible scenario is a long way from forcing the players into such a scenario. You can have a sandbox game where if A and B ever happen, then C will happen. A and B may never happen, but if they do, it can't all of a sudden be called a railroad.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Right now in my Tweens 'n' Teens Pathfinder game I have a minor problem with the PCs, including the paladin, sympathizing with a lich magus villain.

The reason? He turned a bunch of them to stone, paralyzed others, and knocked the last of them unconscious. Before leaving he bandaged the unconscious PCs, and left them a note, thanking them for the wonderful time, along with two wands, one to cure the paralysis, the other of Stone to Flesh....

I expected the players to decide that he was their arch enemy. Instead they have decided that since he brought the treatments along then he planned ahead to do as little harm as possible.

What can I say? They're right. I just didn't expect the kids to realize that.... Now they are digging for information on his background, about two adventures too early. I love my players. I just wish that the grownups had as much on the ball as the kids.

The Auld Grump, yeah, he's evil, he just isn't EVIL!.