InVinoVeritas
Adventurer
Yeah, I've never understood what it is about Shadowrun or CP2020 that just brings out the stupid in players.
InVinoVeritas said:Yeah, I've never understood what it is about Shadowrun or CP2020 that just brings out the stupid in players.
Switchblade said:I swear, give someone an automatic weapon and watch their IQ half, or quater with explosives.
InVinoVeritas said:Heck, when I write adventures, I specifically design to this requirement. Always assume that the players won't take no for an answer, and will blame you if they can't do what they want to, no matter how ridiculous it is.
For example, in one adventure, the players are supposed to view a historical (nonmagical) artifact, which is then subsequently stolen. So, I can't have the PCs standing guard, because they'll die trying to prevent the theft. The local guard, therefore, tells them that they can't stick around. Fair enough. Of course, some PCs won't accept that; it's there, it'll probably get stolen, so they have to stick around to prevent it. So, I dealt with it by having the guard adamantly refuse them, and turn them away. Most (well, many) players take the hint and leave. Those that don't will typically hide, and try to sneak back in to guard the artifact. So, the adventure as written gives them the option of doing this--then seeing the artifact already stolen, the PCs caught by the guard, accused of the crime or at least breaking and entering, and being thrown in jail. Players typically won't be too upset by this. They're the sort that will have been in jail before, they can break out. But then one of the adventure's bad guys, having been placed in jail earlier, breaks himself out of jail by slaughtering the jailers and animating their corpses. The PCs, locked in a cell, denied their equipment, and under the effect of a silence spell cast by the bad guy, are unable to affect the course of action. This is where the players get the actual punishment for being stupid above; the simple denial of affecting the outcome eats away at them. However, the bad guy finished up by freeing the PCs as well before leaving. Since the PCs survive and are free again, they don't blame the DM; they blame the bad guy.
InVinoVeritas said:For example, in one adventure, the players are supposed to view a historical (nonmagical) artifact, which is then subsequently stolen. So, I can't have the PCs standing guard, because they'll die trying to prevent the theft. The local guard, therefore, tells them that they can't stick around. Fair enough. Of course, some PCs won't accept that; it's there, it'll probably get stolen, so they have to stick around to prevent it. So, I dealt with it by having the guard adamantly refuse them, and turn them away. Most (well, many) players take the hint and leave.
Numion said:How are the players supposed to know when an NPC is speaking to them in the "DM voice" and that they should take the hint, or whether the NPC is in cahoots with the baddies and wants them to fail?
I mean, if somebody tried to get my PC not to do the job I was hired to do, I would be suspicious, and would try to do my job even more. I would be pretty pissed to realize I was on the plot wagon, hired to do a job the DM had already decided would fail.
There's a reason why basically all gamemastering advice says that it's bad form to have a plot where the PCs are hired to protect something and the plot requires them to fail. It's called railroading. Better option would be to have the PCs be hired for the protection job, but have the McGuffin stolen before they get to their post.
And what was the lesson the 'stupid' players learned here? When an NPC tells you something you better do it, or be sidelined for the session? :\