Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agback" data-source="post: 629885" data-attributes="member: 5328">"One move and the idiots get it!"G'dayYou have been the subject of a gambit that I call "One move and the idiot gets it!" (Well, actually I call it something unprintable, which you will be able to guess if you have seen the movie Blazing Saddles. But we have to take care of Eric's grandmother's delicate sensibilities.) And you have responded correctly.When things get sticky, some players in effect take their own characters hostage. Rather back down when they face certain defeat, they push on, hoping that faced with the choice between killing the characters and wimping out, their DM will wimp out. I have noticed that players tend to do this more often when they are trying to deny the stupidity of a previous decision on their part, so that fits.Nothing kills your campaigns deader than teaching players that this works. If this gambit works, they will learn to use it, and that destroys the challenge of your game (gamist appeal), the plausibility of your world (simulationist appeal), and the consistency of your scenarios (dramatist appeal). And I have learned the hard way that retraining players out of this mindset is a long and upsetting process. You have done the right thing in showing your players that playing on your sympathy does not work. And you have been lucky that you have been able to inflict this lesson after an explicit attempt to force your hand by meta-gaming.Everyone is really pissed off at Bob now. And you can get away with sacking him. But at twenty, Bob is not too old to change (people in general don't become absolutely set in their ways until thirty). You might be able to salvage him if you try. Do you think it would be worth the effort?On the other hand, if Bob offers to quit you must make absolutely no concessions to keep him in, because if you do he'll try it again. By all means reassure the players that you are not a killer GM, that you do not set out to kill their characters, and that you sincerely hope that nothing like that will ever happen again. But point out patiently that although the disaster was a result of a series of avoidable mistakes on their part, that it was not irrecoverable until the players decided to take their characters hostage. But don't retcon a single incident, and don't promise to make any changes that will protect players who try to twist your arm like that.If you want to have some sort of discussion about things, your best line is not to be conciliatory or apologetic, but to feign irritation. Your line ought to be that the players attempted to cheat, and that in doing so they forced you to make a choice between killing your storyline to save your world and letting your world die and take the storyline with it.Explain, if you like, that you will provide support for players who like to test their wits by pitting their characters' specified abilities against set obstacles, and that you will provide support for players who like to take on the roles of fictitious characters in fantasy worlds, and that you will provide support for players who like to take part in the collaborative, extemporary weaving of a story; but that you do not provide automatic gratification for lamers aiming to rack up a tally of meaningless victories over paper tigers.And finish up by saying "At some stages during the last adventure, after things had started to go wrong, I underplayed the opposition to give your characters a chance to escape with their lives. But I cannot see my way clear to doing so ever again. From now on, the NPCs will act strictly in accordance with their motivations and abilities, and let the chips lie where they fall. Treat my world as real and you will have a better-than-fair chance. Otherwise not."Regards,Agback</blockquote>

Verification