Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brown Jenkin" data-source="post: 849932" data-attributes="member: 2572">I will second this. I don't know Ted and he may be an idiot, but if my character was captured and treated that way I would lash out too. This is just me and the types of games I enjoy playing and this is not one of them.   So let me rephrase this to see if I understand correctly. In campaign 1 you set up an NPC that no-one likes but the party is forced to work for, and unable to do anything about it. By your own words you then set up Campaign 2 to allow the characters to fight the NPC from campaign 1. So far so good, not a bad idea. Here's where I start getting a little confused. You then set up a situation that involves capture and torture to inform the characters what type of person Shaaladel is despite his position as sub-ruler to a cruel emperor and for Ted's character a lifetime of growing up listening to nursery rhymes about killing this person. As you said you set up this champaign to allow Ted to get back at this NPC, but then you put Ted in a position that he was in before and hated in champaign 1 where his character was at the mercy of Shaaladel and couldn't do anything about it. moreover you singled Ted's character out for extra torture. You say you had a plan for them to escape but as players we don't know what the DM has instore for us. Ted might not have understood what you were planning. and as Erithtotl said "Players HATE having their characters captured". Without knowing that the DM had a plan to free the characters I can see Ted being exceeding frustrated in this situation since it is a rehash of the part of champaign 1 that he hated. I can easily see why Ted might react the way he did, and I am not sure if I might not have done something similar. I would additionally add "Players HATE having thier characters railroaded" and this is what it seemed that you were doing. Even though you may think it is ok for the sake of character development, players still won't like it. In this case I also think it was entirely unneccecary since the players were already "hooked" for the champaign. All that was realy needed was a requirement for character backgrounds to include a little something as to why there characters have an issue with Shaaladel. Now maybe I am wrong here, and if I am could you please clarify why the characters were captured, and if they had a resonable possibility of not being captured. Also how long was captivity supposed to last before you gave them oppertunities to escape and did they know some sort of opportunities would be arising.</blockquote>

Verification