D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[FrozenNorth]

Talk to the DM. A lot of the proposed solutions have major consequences for the world state, and it seems unfair not to include them in the changes. The DM also probably knows the players and the situation best, and can provide some additional insight.

 

[Oofta]

Talk to the DM. A lot of the proposed solutions have major consequences for the world state, and it seems unfair not to include them in the changes. The DM also probably knows the players and the situation best, and can provide some additional insight.

Since this isn't the OP's campaign I'm not sure they should be the one to discuss options with the group. That's the normal DM's job.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since this isn't the OP's campaign I'm not sure they should be the one to discuss options with the group. That's the normal DM's job.

I think that's what @FrozenNorth was saying... talk to the original DM since it's his game, and he may know the players best.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why?

What if that's the logical consequence of their actions?

Assume your PCs murder the nephew of the local Lord, or a powerful Priest of Bane, or the head of a local crime family, or a member of a very wealthy merchant family, or even just a number of random commoners in Baldurs Gate. Surely, they could expect the Lord, Church, Family or the Flaming Fist hunting them down with all forces at their disposal as a consequence.

Really? That MIGHT happen. There could be all sorts of logical reasons why other outcomes might exist in a world with a realistic degree of complexity. Every powerful group has enemies and/or people who benefit from whatever happened. Groups have limited jurisdiction for a vast array of reasons which generally boil down to some other group is opposed to them or sees their exercise of power as a threat, etc. Any GM with an ounce of creativity should be able to come up with half a dozen of these. All of them could throw up useful possibilities. This is a game of imagination, use it a bit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really? That MIGHT happen. There could be all sorts of logical reasons why other outcomes might exist in a world with a realistic degree of complexity. Every powerful group has enemies and/or people who benefit from whatever happened. Groups have limited jurisdiction for a vast array of reasons which generally boil down to some other group is opposed to them or sees their exercise of power as a threat, etc. Any GM with an ounce of creativity should be able to come up with half a dozen of these. All of them could throw up useful possibilities. This is a game of imagination, use it a bit.

Sure, but all of those things have the agenda of getting the PCs out of the consequences of their actions plausibly. To me, that makes the motivation for them not what I would want.

 

[CleverNickName]

For all the talk about the sanctity of Player Agency, some folks in this thread seem to want their DM to violate it--just as long as it's in the party's favor. "So what if we murdered a bunch of guards in a scripted encounter--the DM should have also scripted it so that we don't get punished for it," or something along those lines.

I think we all agree that it's the DM's job to present meaningful choices for your character. So with that in mind:

• Do you expect your DM to only give your character choices that will have good consequences?
• Do you expect your DM to reduce/eliminate the bad consequences of your actions so that your character is never truly punished?

It's okay to answer "yes" to the above questions. Just understand that doing so is a forfeiture of your "player agency," and a lot of folks around here consider that to be the worst thing a DM could do.

 

[Raiztt]

The real moral of the story is that 'prison break' scenarios are very difficult to pull off well and require a lot more thought on the part of the DM. The assumption should be that the PCs will escape, the question should be how will they escape.

The DM needs to bend over backwards to create and make the PCs aware of how many options they have and what those options entail. I would go so far as to say that the DM needs to be able to image/envision five-ish or more completely different paths for the PCs to successfully escape a situation.

Put yourself into the shoes of the PCs. What are they going to see from their perspective as ways to resolve this conflict?

You REALLY need to stop and question any plot point that 100% absolutely must occur. The fact that the PCs needed an NPC to free them in the first place, and that was apparently the only way to escape, smacks of bad DMing. I don't mean that as an insult, or a sleight, I just think it's a fact.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For all the talk about the sanctity of Player Agency, some folks in this thread seem to want their DM to violate it--just as long as it's in the party's favor. "So what if we murdered a bunch of guards in a scripted encounter--the DM should have also scripted it so that we don't get punished for it," or something along those lines.

I think we all agree that it's the DM's job to present meaningful choices for your character. So with that in mind:

• Do you expect your DM to only give your character choices that will have good consequences?
• Do you expect your DM to reduce/eliminate the bad consequences of your actions so that your character is never truly punished?

It's okay to answer "yes" to the above questions. Just understand that doing so is a forfeiture of your "player agency," and a lot of folks around here consider that to be the worst thing a DM could do.

I choose, as GM, to take a third option:
Frame situations such that, within reason, I am comfortable with anything they are likely to choose, and telling my players the kinds of things that make me deeply uncomfortable and thus essentially guaranteed to not be able to run a game for them that they would be able to enjoy. For instance, I love redemption arcs, so a character trying to redeem herself from legitimately awful deeds is fine. But an unrepentant evil character? I cannot honestly say I would be comfortable with that. Morally grey is fine; doing one bad thing "because I had to" or only after heartbreakingly fervent efforts to find a better solution, sure, that's the stuff good stories are made of right there.

But just blatantly, "sure I'd murder someone if it was to my advantage" evil? I just can't do that. I would not have fun, and I would be very likely to run the game more poorly because I wouldn't be able to keep my personal disapproval/discomfort separate from my adjudications as GM. I recognize that limitation in myself, and explicitly call it out, so my players know what they're getting into. Their agency is respected; they can choose to be anything they like, except absolutely unrepentant evil.

Both groups I have run games for have found this situation perfectly acceptable.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For all the talk about the sanctity of Player Agency, some folks in this thread seem to want their DM to violate it--just as long as it's in the party's favor. "So what if we murdered a bunch of guards in a scripted encounter--the DM should have also scripted it so that we don't get punished for it," or something along those lines.

I think we all agree that it's the DM's job to present meaningful choices for your character. So with that in mind:

• Do you expect your DM to only give your character choices that will have good consequences?
• Do you expect your DM to reduce/eliminate the bad consequences of your actions so that your character is never truly punished?

It's okay to answer "yes" to the above questions. Just understand that doing so is a forfeiture of your "player agency," and a lot of folks around here consider that to be the worst thing a DM could do.

I would say that if we're going to speak of agency, and there are outcomes that are unwanted, then why arrange the situation to put the players in the exact situation that you don't want?

I don't think that anyone is objecting to negative consequences for player choices, I think it's more about the players being painted into a situation with increasingly narrow choices, and then acting as if they did something wrong.

So go back to the party when the NPC is found dead, and they are accused of the crime. They can surrender... or what? Commence the slaughtering then? The players opted for the peaceful choice. But they just as easily could have tried to fight their way free. If that outcome is no wanted, then making it possible seems like a misstep on the DM's part, no?

Go back to the jail cell. They can sit and wait for the judge, who they've been told won't be available for some time. The mention of that implies to me that they're meant to do something beforehand, otherwise, why mention it? It has the feeling of a deadline, the way it's presented. So they try to escape. They fail, and remain trapped in the cell. Not really much choice here.

Go back to the mysterious stranger showing up in the jail and offering them an escape at a cost... they accept. They then have to sneak out of the jail. What are the possible outcomes here? They escape and go do the stranger's quest, or they fail to escape and... what?

If they get caught by the guards, what do you think is going to happen? They agree to go back to their cell and await the countdown to the judge? The more time in that cell, the more the game feels like it's spinning its wheels. So they decide to take action... and as is often the case in D&D, that means fighting.

If this result is not wanted (and by not wanted, I'm going off of the DM's desires here) then why arrange for it to be possible? They've been slowly pushed into this situation with very little choice about it. Deciding to fight their way out is the only active choice they had. Everything else is things hapenning to them... they're passive participants in the events. Finally, they chose to act. And now they need to be punished for it?

That's absurd.

The problem is in viewing this as if everything that happened was the choice of the players, and so the consequences are all on them. Clearly, a lot of what happened... most, I'd say... was because of the DM's choices... so it's at least as much on the DM as the players. I expect, based on the surprise of the original DM, that going on a slaughtering spree was unlikely for this group of players, and that they only did so out of frustration and confusion about what they were "supposed" to do.

To insist that the players are fully responsible and so the consequences need to be as severe as possible is mistaken. The DM created this situation, and if it's unsatisfactory to them, then they need to own that.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would say that if we're going to speak of agency, and there are outcomes that are unwanted, then why arrange the situation to put the players in the exact situation that you don't want?

I don't think that anyone is objecting to negative consequences for player choices, I think it's more about the players being painted into a situation with increasingly narrow choices, and then acting as if they did something wrong.

So go back to the party when the NPC is found dead, and they are accused of the crime. They can surrender... or what? Commence the slaughtering then? The players opted for the peaceful choice. But they just as easily could have tried to fight their way free. If that outcome is no wanted, then making it possible seems like a misstep on the DM's part, no?

Go back to the jail cell. They can sit and wait for the judge, who they've been told won't be available for some time. The mention of that implies to me that they're meant to do something beforehand, otherwise, why mention it? It has the feeling of a deadline, the way it's presented. So they try to escape. They fail, and remain trapped in the cell. Not really much choice here.

Go back to the mysterious stranger showing up in the jail and offering them an escape at a cost... they accept. They then have to sneak out of the jail. What are the possible outcomes here? They escape and go do the stranger's quest, or they fail to escape and... what?

If they get caught by the guards, what do you think is going to happen? They agree to go back to their cell and await the countdown to the judge? The more time in that cell, the more the game feels like it's spinning its wheels. So they decide to take action... and as is often the case in D&D, that means fighting.

If this result is not wanted (and by not wanted, I'm going off of the DM's desires here) then why arrange for it to be possible? They've been slowly pushed into this situation with very little choice about it. Deciding to fight their way out is the only active choice they had. Everything else is things hapenning to them... they're passive participants in the events. Finally, they chose to act. And now they need to be punished for it?

That's absurd.

The problem is in viewing this as if everything that happened was the choice of the players, and so the consequences are all on them. Clearly, a lot of what happened... most, I'd say... was because of the DM's choices... so it's at least as much on the DM as the players. I expect, based on the surprise of the original DM, that going on a slaughtering spree was unlikely for this group of players, and that they only did so out of frustration and confusion about what they were "supposed" to do.

To insist that the players are fully responsible and so the consequences need to be as severe as possible is mistaken. The DM created this situation, and if it's unsatisfactory to them, then they need to own that.

This echoes my recent thoughts, that I had not got around to articulate. If the players were supposed to escape then why did they encounter the guards?