Save My Game

[Anthraxus]

So there's the aforementioned "Guards come along and engage the BBEG's Mooks" plan.

A couple other ways(probably variations of what has already been offered):

1. The PCs approach the guard members asking for help fighting the BBEG. The guard member looks a bit shaken, saying "His forces already took out half of the guard. We need Your help!" But this might frighten your players even more.

2. The guard grudgingly agrees to send help, and send along a couple slightly lower level Sergeants to investigate. They help the party in the BBEG battle, and whether they live or die- they share the XP's with the party. The mid-level NPC guard members may or may not be available if the PCs come to the guard for help again, and the low level guard members won't help after hearing the Sergeant's horrifying stories of the BBEG battle.

3. The guard investigates, finds plausible evidence, and sends out a strike team of guard members and retired NPC adventurers. The BBEG is taken down in the background, and the PCs recieve 50xp for tipping the guard off and thwarting the evil guy's scheme. Kinda. That one might be a little passive-agressive, though.

 

[werk]

Guardsmith, my only question is what is the characters' alignment?

It sounds to me like you want them to be chaotic and reckless, and they want to be very lawful and planned.

If they ARE lawful, it sounds like they are doing a fairly decent job at roleplaying their characters. If they are CG or CN, then they really should be getting heafty XP penalties and/or alignment shifts IMO.

You have to let them play their characters 'correctly' but you also have say on what characters are allowed in your game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As far as the help goes. I make sure to never reveal the level of power of my NPC. For all they know, the help they get is a level 20 fighter, or a level 1 warrior.

For example in my campaign right now, they were trying to hire some sailors for their ship.

Here's what they found.

- A Level 4 fighter (a big muscly burly guy)
- a level 3 bard (a little agile fellow that was working the rigging on another ship)
- a level 1 commoner. (hahaha, and they think she's all powerful. hahahahaha, man wait til theres some sort of battle. )

I am somewhat hoping that they manage to keep the commoner alive long enough to level up. That would be a good time. She could eventually become A FEARED LEVEL 20 COMMONER
(actually she'll more than likely multi-class into whatever class the person that interacts the most with her is... til now, it seems it's going to be rogue... so i guess we'll see)

No man. Leave her as a commoner as long as possible and let the players figure it out over time. That'll be brilliant if it goes eight or ten levels before it dawns on them.

 

[Lanefan]

Guardsmith, my only question is what is the characters' alignment?

It sounds to me like you want them to be chaotic and reckless, and they want to be very lawful and planned.

I'd disagree there...reading between some broad lines it seems he more just wants the PCs to do the adventure themselves in whatever manner suits them, be it lawful, chaotic, whatever...but just get on with it.

You have to let them play their characters 'correctly' but you also have say on what characters are allowed in your game.

Various quite fine options have been presented as to how the town guard might react...but there's a problem in the bigger picture: your players, for whatever reason, are too afraid to take risks with their characters. I've had one such player in my game, and she drove the rest of us - DM and players alike - up the wall sometimes with her uber-caution. I can't begin to imagine a whole group like that.

How to fix? Well, if you can stand the boredom, you could run them through a few adventures far, far below their level...with luck, they'll eventually get bored of pushover encounters that give trivial loot and ExP rewards, and pine for something more challenging; at that point, you have them where you want them.

What's not clear yet is what expectations were set at campaign start. Me, I put in writing in my "blue book" (book of rules and setting) that sooner or later your characters will die, and go from there. If your current campaign isn't running on this basis, you might have to sink this group and start over, with this expectation clearly stated. (and, the corollary: you as DM need to have revival magic at least somewhat available in the game, at a cost)

Lanefan

 

[gizmo33]

A realistic city will respond to threats to it's existence. NPCs probably believe in magic. I think it's reasonable for NPCs (or cities) to take an active interest in their own defense. The idea that the DM should have his NPCs dismiss the PCs warning out of hand without even considering their reputations (or investigating the issue) IMO just shows what desperation can do to judgement.

In fact, all similar examples in this thread, including the WotC article, show this same basic lack of grasp on reality. Some PCs with sharp tools and 6 hours of time are cutting through doors and this is a surprise?! IMO the DM isn't really confortable with the simulation/resource-management aspects of the game.

So if you're PCs are standing in front of a wall, and they can think of a place where they can get a ladder, don't be surprise if they go get the ladder and then climb over the wall. In the same way, if they're in the middle of a city with a police force, don't be surprised if they go get the police.

If, as a DM, you expect players not to use tools to solve their problems then I think you should make that sort of thing clear to them upfront - not use vague terms like "heroic" to try to guilt them into acting different. (And is it really that "heroic" as a PC to risk the destruction of a city and it's inhabitants just so you can be challenged by the villain and get full XP?)

 

[howandwhy99]

This isn't really a problem. If the players are surrounded by the forces of law, they have every right to call on their aid when danger arises. Let the authorities take care of problems, if the players do not want to. It is not cowardly or adventure-ending; it is giving proper accountability to the environment they are in, civil society.

When the PCs do enter battle in a town or city, they will learn what authority they have in doing so.
- Are they breaking the law?
- Are they allowed to attack or kill criminals?
- Are they allowed to assist peacekeepers?
- Is the society Good, Neutral, or Evil lawful and how is this culturally conveyed?
- How do the characters' reputations and status affect influence in play?

Allow the players every possible solution plausible to the world. The adventure is not over when good NPCs take command. Besides, the Law may or may not succeed and the players may see the repercussions and decide to take action. If the characters decide never face the adventure or NPCs, they do not gain the usual XP, gold, and magic items for that adventure. It's as simple as that. Let them leave the adventure when and how they wish to. (not that it won't follow them, if it falls out that way)


EDIT: Perhaps they'd prefer hiring mercenaries or hirelings? Or maybe they choose not to work with the proper authorities, but less reputable ones in the city who'll allow the PCs to take the role they wish during the escapade. (or supposedly take that role)

 

[hexgrid]

A realistic city will respond to threats to it's existence. NPCs probably believe in magic. I think it's reasonable for NPCs (or cities) to take an active interest in their own defense. The idea that the DM should have his NPCs dismiss the PCs warning out of hand without even considering their reputations (or investigating the issue) IMO just shows what desperation can do to judgement.

In fact, all similar examples in this thread, including the WotC article, show this same basic lack of grasp on reality. Some PCs with sharp tools and 6 hours of time are cutting through doors and this is a surprise?! IMO the DM isn't really confortable with the simulation/resource-management aspects of the game.

So if you're PCs are standing in front of a wall, and they can think of a place where they can get a ladder, don't be surprise if they go get the ladder and then climb over the wall. In the same way, if they're in the middle of a city with a police force, don't be surprised if they go get the police.

If, as a DM, you expect players not to use tools to solve their problems then I think you should make that sort of thing clear to them upfront - not use vague terms like "heroic" to try to guilt them into acting different. (And is it really that "heroic" as a PC to risk the destruction of a city and it's inhabitants just so you can be challenged by the villain and get full XP?)

In a world governed by D&D rules, the PCs are the tools available to the city to deal with these threats. This is the niche filled by adventurers- without them, the city is toast.

If the city can handle threats on its own, the players might as well pack up and go home.

 

[Pbartender]

A realistic city will respond to threats to it's existence. NPCs probably believe in magic. I think it's reasonable for NPCs (or cities) to take an active interest in their own defense. The idea that the DM should have his NPCs dismiss the PCs warning out of hand without even considering their reputations (or investigating the issue) IMO just shows what desperation can do to judgement.

In fact, all similar examples in this thread, including the WotC article, show this same basic lack of grasp on reality. Some PCs with sharp tools and 6 hours of time are cutting through doors and this is a surprise?! IMO the DM isn't really confortable with the simulation/resource-management aspects of the game.

So if you're PCs are standing in front of a wall, and they can think of a place where they can get a ladder, don't be surprise if they go get the ladder and then climb over the wall. In the same way, if they're in the middle of a city with a police force, don't be surprised if they go get the police.

If, as a DM, you expect players not to use tools to solve their problems then I think you should make that sort of thing clear to them upfront - not use vague terms like "heroic" to try to guilt them into acting different. (And is it really that "heroic" as a PC to risk the destruction of a city and it's inhabitants just so you can be challenged by the villain and get full XP?)

Certainly, but think of it this way... If a terrorist squad is threatening a city with a nuclear bomb, and you are the FBI/CIA/SWAT action heroes, it's the police who are coming to you to take these guys out, not the other way around. The local police simply aren't trained or equipped to take care of that magnitude of threat.

Likewise for D&D town guards vs. a BBEG armed with an Evil Artifact. Town guards might give all the help they can, but they will admittedly be out of their league and looking to the PCs to do the dirty work.

 

[gizmo33]

In a world governed by D&D rules, the PCs are the tools available to the city to deal with these threats. This is the niche filled by adventurers- without them, the city is toast.

If the city can handle threats in its own, the players might as well pack up and go home.

There must only be one city in the DnD world, because if there were two, then the second one would be destroyed because the PCs weren't around to protect it. And destroyed by whom? Apparently the BBEG can muster a force capable of destroying a city, but no one who founded or rules the city can muster a force capable of protecting it?

If you want to talk about "a world governed by D&D rules" then I should probably bring up the demographic rules that say how many NPCs of a certain class and level live in population centers, how much wealth they have, etc. In any case, I don't see anything in the rules that suggest that NPCs/settlements are helpless - in fact I see the opposite.

It would be like a group of PCs witnessing a 10th level fighter being ambushed by monsters. The PCs intervene to help the NPC and then the NPC refuses to help the PCs fight the monsters that just ambushed him.

IMO if you want the players to find the "save the city" scenario to be plausible you have to take into account that a city (all cities) has some resources with which to defend itself. It's possible that for some reason the city has temporarily lost it's ability to defend itself, and that information could be worked into the scenario. There are decades of published adventures that attempt to deal with this situation (with various degrees of success). If the DM can't structure the scenario in such a way that makes it plausible then maybe you're right about the players packing up.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

IMO if you want the players to find the "save the city" scenario to be plausible you have to take into account that a city (all cities) has some resources with which to defend itself. It's possible that for some reason the city has temporarily lost it's ability to defend itself, and that information could be worked into the scenario. There are decades of published adventures that attempt to deal with this situation (with various degrees of success). If the DM can't structure the scenario in such a way that makes it plausible then maybe you're right about the players packing up.

OTOH, if the players' response to any sort of trouble is "we call the police and let them sort it out," they have only themselves to blame when their game is boring as all hell.