OMG! The PCs are murderers! Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh

[frankthedm]

we do lock them up in prison or in a mental institute.

The issue is that the PC's power outstrips the power level of the authorities in the typical campaign fairly quickly. A few petty murders are not worth getting the guard garrison massacred trying to take in a group of foes who have slaughtered twice the garrison's number in orcs.

We definitely don't keep the kid in class and tell everyone else, "Just don't upset him and you'll be fine".

The children of the rich and powerful often get preferential treatment.

 

[Mark Chance]

The children of the rich and powerful often get preferential treatment.

They also often get more severe punishments that someone more common would receive for the same infraction.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I find it a very useful story trope. The hero almost always loses at first, then there is a middle period where they train and become seriously dangerous, then they go back and reclaim their honor by beating up whoever disgraced them in chapter one.

I don't agree with this. The hero loses in act 2 of the 3 act structure.

Act 1 - Introduction
Act 2 - Setback
Act 3 - Denouement

In Act 1 we see the hero kicking ass to establish that he's the hero - a capable, admirable person. Examples - Conan killing the Kothian in the Tower of the Elephant, the scene in Paris from Team America: World Police (as a satire, TA: WP is particularly indicative of tropes), the first appearance of the eponymous hero in the movie Blade where he easily dispatches many vampires in a nightclub.

From the linked article above -

What happens in Act II (Confrontation)?

Obstacles--In the second act, the main character encounters obstacle after obstacle that prevent him from achieving his dramatic need.

First Culmination--a point just before the halfway point of the film where the main character seems close to achieving his or her goal/objective. Then, everything falls apart, leading to the midpoint.

Midpoint--a point approximately halfway through the film where the main character reaches his/her lowest point and seems farthest from fulfilling the dramatic need or objective.

 

[Janx]

I

I like your anology, it's pretty funny. But....


we do lock them up in prison or in a mental institute. Which is where a lot of PCs actually belong if we played D&D to the same standards as what society would do in real life. We definitely don't keep the kid in class and tell everyone else, "Just don't upset him and you'll be fine".

Thanks! Bear in mind, my attention to detail of what you said is probably mininmal, no offense...

[dislaimer]no offense intended to anybody with mental handicaps. Seems like folks here get the joke at that the joke is NOT targeting mentally handicapped, just stupid player behaviors. Let's let the joke be funny as is...[/diclaimer]

Continuing the saga of Slicey, the kid gets to go where the kid wants to go, because he has frickin adamantium claws. He's dangerous, well intentioned, but his choices aren't always safe. And it is not a simple matter to lock him up.

At that point, until you have a way to take out Slicey, you learn to live with Slicey. Otherwise, you'll get more dead bodies than you planned.

I'm not saying the OP's scenario played out like I said it did. Well, actually I was, but whatever, I'm just carving out generalizations. Like Slicey.

Some time ago, I would have shared the OP's view. The PCs did wrong, go nail them for it. However, it occurred to me, that the level of severity to make a Slicey incident is fully the DM's decision.

Just like real life, 2 dudes, do the same crime, one gets off, the other doesn't. One's rich and has a good lawyer, the other doesn't. A technicality gets found, or gets missed.

When Slicey happens, it can derail your campaign. I hate to use a railroad metaphor here, try to not to assume the worst. It can ruin a good thing you got going.

Say you've got a good party, on a quest to toss a ring in a volcano. They stop off in a tavern on the way. Somebody makes a short joke about hairy feet and a fight breaks out. Somebody in the party goes all Slicey on a patron. What do you do? As a DM, you could escalate matters such that the party gets dead or imprisoned, quest ruined. Or you could de-emphasize the event, such that it doesn't prevent the party from continuing the quest.

I'm sure some sandboxxers in here will say that it's not the GM's job to decide, that it's all open to what the players do, but they're missing the key point. The GM is the one deciding the severity of consequence. Not the player. The GM determines the nature of any reaction to a PC action. Not the player.

Here's a true story I heard last night over dinner with my neighbor. His house is near the corner, and his kids were playing ball in the street (that's what folks do in some places). This loud car with a teenager driving comes flying down one end, so he gets out there and stops the car. He tells the kid to slow down if he ever comes through here again, 'cuz there's kids playing."

The teenager retorts, "and what're you gonna do if I don't old man?"

My neighbor replied, "I'll grab a hammer and throw it through your windshield if you do it again."

The kid takes off, and some time later comes back the other way, just as fast.

True to his word, he grabbed a hammer and tossed it. He missed, hitting the hood of the car instead. The kid stops and gets out yelling.

The neighbor says to him, "I warned you not to speed in my neighborhood. Now, let's call the constable..." He whips out his cell phone, calls them up and says, "A kid was speeding in my neighborhood, I warned him to slow down or I'd throw a hammer through his window. I missed and hit his hood. Would you send an officer over?" A few minutes later the constable showed up, with a "Hi Jim", followed by a "Hi Bill."

The kid starts ranting about what happened, and the officer cuts him short. "Son, you were speeding around children and were warned. You best not get caught doing it again. Now get out of here." And with that, the matter was dismissed.

As a DM, you have remarkable leeway in deciding if a situation of attempted assualt (throwing a hammer at an occupied car) is going to be a serious crime or just deserts.

Since part of the PC wish-fullfilment is to take out insufferable punks and crooked cops, this is part of the trope. Since all PCs are Slicey, it's going to trend toward the lethal side.

If you take a strong consequences approach, you're going to find that your campaign always turns the PCs into outlaws against the cops.

If you turn a blind eye towards justice meted out Slicey style, your campaign will be less likely to end up with the PCs as outlaws.

There is a big difference in player intent on the campaign they'd like to experience, when they get a little Slicey on a guy who starts a fight with them, than when they start chopping down civilians at the winter festival.

 

[Rel]

Oh....wow haha
I'm just so used to hearing people around here "take the high road", I assumed you meant you let the PCs have their way. You must have some good players then if you are able to do that without them yelling at you for an hour and emailing you for 2 weeks about it.

I could probably do that with my current players...they are good players. But I don't really see them taking it to that point to begin with, so I doubt I'd have to kill their PCs for disobeying the guards.

I've cultivated my reputation as a "Rat Bastard" well enough that my players understand that actions have consequences in my games. PC's do not enjoy some sort of "plot immunity". If they back themselves into a corner of "surrender or die" like you proposed, well then they have all of their options before them.

That's not to say that I'm a jerk to them or that I'm trying to punish them. These are lifelong friends of mine (and I'm married to one of them too). When I play hardball with their characters it serves to make the world seem more "real" in the sense that action (or inaction) produces a result. If a reasonable interpretation of such actions is that a PC will be viewed as a monstrous murderer by a given community then the players know that I'll follow through on whatever consequences those actions entail.

Consistantly running games this way for 25 or so years now has made my games ones where the battles are hard won but victory tastes very very sweet.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

"I would rather have my characters die in a world where my choices mattered than survive in one where they didn't." - ExploderWizard

I am not sure how long that quote has been in your sig, but it seems relevant.

 

[Rel]

I am not sure how long that quote has been in your sig, but it seems relevant.

Several months and indeed it sums up my gaming philosophy pretty darned well.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't agree with this. The hero loses in act 2 of the 3 act structure.

Act 1 - Introduction
Act 2 - Setback
Act 3 - Denouement

This structure only applies if the story begins with the hero already a hero. This is not true of every story.

Often the story begins with the hero being somewhat ordinary, but with great potential. In this case, the story begins with a scene establishing the likeability of the hero and the justness of his cause. By the end of Act 1 the protagonist we have grown to like faces some great loss, and the middle period of the story is about the protagonist's quest to become a hero so that they can avenge themselves and (if they are not an anti-hero) save the day/world/universe in doing so.

This is the structure of movies like Star Wars, Conan, Rocky, Kickboxer, and to some extent The Chronicles of the Dragonlance (which begins in defeat), The Hobbit (which begins with Bilbo acting foolishly in a series of misadventures), etc. Often, but not necessarily, in such stories there is a wise teacher or mentor that helps the hero unlock their potential - Mr. Miyagi, Gandalf, Mikey, etc.

The protagonist doesn't always begin the story as the hero, and in D&D the story never begins with the PC's as heroes unless you 'skip part of the story' by starting at a higher level.

 

[Celebrim]

Thanks! Bear in mind, my attention to detail of what you said is probably mininmal, no offense...

[dislaimer]no offense intended to anybody with mental handicaps. Seems like folks here get the joke at that the joke is NOT targeting mentally handicapped, just stupid player behaviors. Let's let the joke be funny as is...[/diclaimer]

Continuing the saga of Slicey, the kid gets to go where the kid wants to go, because he has frickin adamantium claws. He's dangerous, well intentioned, but his choices aren't always safe. And it is not a simple matter to lock him up.

At that point, until you have a way to take out Slicey, you learn to live with Slicey. Otherwise, you'll get more dead bodies than you planned.

I'm not saying the OP's scenario played out like I said it did. Well, actually I was, but whatever, I'm just carving out generalizations. Like Slicey.

Some time ago, I would have shared the OP's view. The PCs did wrong, go nail them for it. However, it occurred to me, that the level of severity to make a Slicey incident is fully the DM's decision....

<<snip nifty story>>

I agree with you to the extent that if the PC's have developed authority within the game world, they will be treated as if they had authority and descrestion. My advice don't try to emulate the above story if you aren't on a first name basis with the chief of police or sheriff.

If the PC's have a noble title, and some drunk approaches them with intent to brawl, if the PC stands up and runs his sword through them, then the, "I was insulted by a churl!" defense will probably stand and no one will question it. In fact, depending on their authority and fame, if that happened probably the hostler (and perhaps even the major) would offer to pay them in some fashion by way of apology for the incident in the hopes that the incident wouldn't reflect badly on their establishment (or town).

If on the other hand, the drunk is a noble, and the PC is a foreigner, member of a foreign race, is a slave or other second class citizen, then the PC will be lucky to get a unfair trial.

If you take a strong consequences approach, you're going to find that your campaign always turns the PCs into outlaws against the cops.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily bad. If the players are chronic extreme lawbreakers that believe that their characters are above the law, what am I supposed to do? And if the conflict with the law is because the law is corrupt, and the characters are good, what are the players supposed to do? My job is not to 'turn a blind eye'. That's not good refereeing.

If a player wants to play someone that metes out justice with a free and cruel hand and gets away with it, they better either take some advantages that let them get away with it or else wait until they have the authority in game to do so.

There is a big difference in player intent on the campaign they'd like to experience, when they get a little Slicey on a guy who starts a fight with them, than when they start chopping down civilians at the winter festival.

True. All I'm suggesting is that which ever way you go, I hope the whole group is in on it and that you understand what you are getting into.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The module sets up a situation. The PCs explore the situation and react to it. The PCs might act noble and pure throughout. On the other hand, they might approach it as a pack of murderous thugs out for filthy lucre, willing to cut down anyone to get it. Or maybe their actions fall somewhere between those two extremes.

In any case (the PCs act like saints vs. the PCs act like murderous scum), I'm left scratching my head and going "so what?"