Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8824827" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Thanks for the example!&nbsp; A few thoughts, not to say anything you are doing is wrong, just that it might could be handled differently and that doing so might have a significant impact on your game.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The first encounter with the bandits was a no win scenario.&nbsp; Those generally go over badly.&nbsp; This one didn't, though it did incite the players to 'revenge' play which should have been fairly predictable.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The second encounter which happened to be player initiated, I understand the players desire to fight to the death before allowing that agency ending surrender to occur.&nbsp; One thing that might help is telegraphing what surrendering entails before asking the players to make that choice, (though there's really not any fictionally suitable options for bandits to do to adventurers that attack them - kill them, torture them, sell them to slavery, ???).&nbsp; A different option might have been allowing the players to escape while taking a hit to their reputation and establishing the bandit gang as wanting them dead might have been more player friendly setbacks that leave more room for the players to fall forward.&nbsp; This would also establish the bandits as a force to be avoided for the PC's at least until the PC's get more powerful.</li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Misread this at first.&nbsp; I'm actually rather excited to see that some players value the NPC's life over their own PC's life.&nbsp; That's refreshing IMO.&nbsp; Great play here IMO.&nbsp; Only possible advice might be that having an NPC trying to kidnap a companion NPC is establishing the players either keep the status quo or take a loss.&nbsp; It can sometimes help play if such scenarios of status quo or lose scenarios aren't forced on players except as a clear consequence of something they chose to do or failed to do.</li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">This is a scenario where you are forcing a significant loss on the players.&nbsp; You set it up such that they couldn't realistically achieve both goals.&nbsp; If such a scenario had been part of a previous setback that would have been great!&nbsp; But setting it up outside a setback - i understand the response you received as you gave the players no good options.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8824827, member: 6795602"] Thanks for the example! A few thoughts, not to say anything you are doing is wrong, just that it might could be handled differently and that doing so might have a significant impact on your game. [LIST] [*]The first encounter with the bandits was a no win scenario. Those generally go over badly. This one didn't, though it did incite the players to 'revenge' play which should have been fairly predictable. [*]The second encounter which happened to be player initiated, I understand the players desire to fight to the death before allowing that agency ending surrender to occur. One thing that might help is telegraphing what surrendering entails before asking the players to make that choice, (though there's really not any fictionally suitable options for bandits to do to adventurers that attack them - kill them, torture them, sell them to slavery, ???). A different option might have been allowing the players to escape while taking a hit to their reputation and establishing the bandit gang as wanting them dead might have been more player friendly setbacks that leave more room for the players to fall forward. This would also establish the bandits as a force to be avoided for the PC's at least until the PC's get more powerful. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]Misread this at first. I'm actually rather excited to see that some players value the NPC's life over their own PC's life. That's refreshing IMO. Great play here IMO. Only possible advice might be that having an NPC trying to kidnap a companion NPC is establishing the players either keep the status quo or take a loss. It can sometimes help play if such scenarios of status quo or lose scenarios aren't forced on players except as a clear consequence of something they chose to do or failed to do. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]This is a scenario where you are forcing a significant loss on the players. You set it up such that they couldn't realistically achieve both goals. If such a scenario had been part of a previous setback that would have been great! But setting it up outside a setback - i understand the response you received as you gave the players no good options. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification