The DM Giveth and the DM Taketh Away

[Riastlin]

Incidentally, these two paragraphs contradict one another. According to the first, Chris actually did just decide to take their toys away, to see where the players went with it. So there wasn't really anything more going on there.

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but there it is.

Good point. What I think he was saying is that true, he did purposefully take the ship away. However, it was never his intention that the ship was absolutely gone for good, nor was it set up so that the only way to get it back was to make a deal with a devil. In fact that entire idea was thought up by the player. What I think Chris was saying in the second paragraph was don't just take the toys away without any possible redress.

[MENTION=3820]Barastrondo[/MENTION] Excellent point. I am fully in agreement with the idea that the dice should decide the outcome. I think its fair to at times give the PCs rather long odds but you are right you don't simply say "Y'all are gonna die now." The more I think about it, the more I think its just a really bad idea to force their hands. Sure, set up a scene where there's a good chance of something bad happening, but at least give the PCs a chance to prevent it. Don't have enemy forces take over and destroy their stronghold while the PCs are off adventuring. Instead, hint or even flat out tell them, that there's a horde of orcs near their stronghold while also telling them that their current adventure is crucial to the security of the region/nation/world/whatever.

In that situation they have a choice. They can go and defend their stronghold with the risk that something bad happens due to them not finishing off the adventure. Alternatively, they go on the adventure and risk losing the stronghold. Now, this is a classic example of a putting them between a rock and a hard place, but it also gives them a chance to come up with something creative. Maybe they even think of a way to accomplish both tasks. If they don't accomplish both tasks though, then they have to deal with the consequences of their decision. Still though, if they go on the adventure and their stronghold is destroyed or captured, give them the option to reclaim it or to rebuild it somehow (without it necessarily costing them future treasure parcels).

In sum, I guess if you have Chris Perkins' reputation you may be able to get away with it regardless, but for most of us, if we haven't really developed a strong sense of trust in the social contract, we are at best, playing with fire. It may well work out really well, but as others have said it could also very likely blow up the campaign.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've been in games where the DM has done just what Chris did (not D&D - it was a long-running 7th Sea game), and it's frustrating and painful at the moment it happens, but in the long run it does make the highs that much sweeter. It's definitely the hallmark though, of a campaign when story trumps everything else. The story needs the highest of highs and the lowest of lows in order for both things to have meaning... and we players realized and recognized this... so we swallowed hard when we were forced to take our lumps. It sucked at the time... but when we then pulled things off that probably shouldn't have worked, it was such a bigger feeling.

To Barastrondo's point... I myself wouldn't agree with using just the dice as the arbiter of all the highs and lows with the game... because more often than not, relying on just the dice will produce lows of an arbitrary or undramatic nature more often than lows that are DM planned. And lows that occur for no dramatic reason are much less palatable in my mind than ones that come out of high stakes and grand action.

So Perkins setting up the loss of the ship at a dramatic juncture in their narrative (along with the deaths of almost all of the PCs) meant there was a better chance of Chris Youngs doing what he did... making broad, far-reaching character decisions after getting raised from the dead that took things in a whole new and interesting direction.

Had it been purely a dice and numbers game... the ship could have sunk just because as they were on their way towards accomplishing a major quest, some random ship-to-ship encounter against a meaningless foe just happened to go horribly wrong and the ship went down unceremoniously. Would Youngs have had his character go off the deep end like he did because of some crappy dice rolls meant a hole got blown through the ship's hull by some worthless pirate that had nothing to do with the story? Possibly not. The sinking would have been so uninspired and undramatic at such an inopportune time that he might've just been annoyed and just wouldn't care.

The dice occasionally will produce unintended but really cool dramatic situations... but the odds of them ALL being that way are much less. By stacking the deck and having the DM manually insert occasional points of massive gain and painful loss, I feel that has a better chance of resulting in a more cohesive and memorable story.

 

[jbear]

I have done this once in my current campaign, quite recently actually.

The PCs had to find a certain sword powerful enough to break the curse that held them and all the inhabitants of the castle they were trapped in (trapped in both space and time having to live the same day out over and over again). At least 3 different NPCs had tried to get them to retrieve the sword for them with differing promises of reward/aid etc.

The sword was a +3 evil Artifact. This was the first +3 weapon to appear in the game, with some pretty nifty powers attached to boot.

Every time the Barbarian who took it and wielded it killed an enemy te sword would become more pleased and whisper bloody thoughts inside his head. He got on board with it and began to play his character becoming increasingly cold, distant and cruel. This same sword had driven the Eladrin King of the castle himself to commit unspeakably cruel and evil acts. It began to work the same effect on the Barbarian.

But it was still a very cool and powerful toy.

The moment came when they broke the curse themselves using the sword to destroy the essence of these evil acts which took the shape of a dragon made from the stained glass windows depicting with pride said evil acts.

When they returned to their own time and space, causing the eladrin of the castle to crumble and turn to dust as they lived a thousand lost years in a moment, the servants of Zehir, who had held the portal to the cursed castle open so they could enter in the first place, were waiting for them. These snakemen had sent the PCs after the sword in the first place at the behest of their god as it contains a shard of the dead godess of magic's body.

My PCs had earlier made a pact with Zehir, gaining power and a gift that would come at a later price. Each PC that pacted with him would, when bid by Zehir, complete a task. One of these tasks was to retrieve this sword.

So they got to play around with a massively powerful, but evil and potentially very dangerous sword that inspired loads of neat roleplay, resolved their quest and then brought them back to a point where they were faced with the consequences of an earlier decision. The barbarian was very loathe to give up his new toy. I would have been cool with him not giving it up actually. I left it to him and the group (who pressured him) to decide what they would do with this double edged sword. They came very close to breaking their pact with Zehir, which would have opened up new inroads to epic adventure, I'm sure.

In the end they decided to give it up. Probably a wise decision.

Along the lines of giving, taking away, and then giving back, there was a second non artifact sword found in the same castle. It was powerful but a large part of its tip was snapped off. Before even going to the castle they had found the broken tip. Eventually with a very elaborate (elaborate because it was so expensive and I allowed the group to come up with a creative way to get around the GP cost using their unwanted magic items) Repair ritual turning it from a +2 flaming Greatsword into a +3 Fullblade with all its original powers but also with a daily ability to send the now repaired tip flying magically off giving a melee reach of 5 to any power, before rejoing with the sword.

The barbarian had to invest a feat to use a Fullblade, but he was pretty stoked with his alternative toy (being still the only person in the group with a +3 weapon).

It worked well. I think part of that was that the taking away was something they knew was coming, was part of the story and made sense, and in the end it was their own decision, a decision they weren't obliged to make (although it was a good decision). Giving back again sealed the deal.

 

[S'mon]

Had it been purely a dice and numbers game... the ship could have sunk just because as they were on their way towards accomplishing a major quest, some random ship-to-ship encounter against a meaningless foe just happened to go horribly wrong and the ship went down unceremoniously.

Both as player and DM I'd much rather the ship sank for a reason like that - bad choices & bad luck on the players' part - than through the heavy Hand of Plot.

I guess I'm a "dice and numbers" kinda guy. But the main thing is, as a player I don't want to feel like I'm living someone else's story. And as DM I don't want to write a story, I want to be surprised.

 

[Barastrondo]

Funny you should mention this.... If any of my players are reading this, please stop now!

[sblock]Ha! It's hilarious that you mention this. I almost added the clarification that I actually would set up a TPK, if I were to start running a game in which the PCs are einherjar. I remember reading a similar setup in a long-ago Dragon magazine, and it's been tempting.[/sblock]

Had it been purely a dice and numbers game... the ship could have sunk just because as they were on their way towards accomplishing a major quest, some random ship-to-ship encounter against a meaningless foe just happened to go horribly wrong and the ship went down unceremoniously. Would Youngs have had his character go off the deep end like he did because of some crappy dice rolls meant a hole got blown through the ship's hull by some worthless pirate that had nothing to do with the story? Possibly not. The sinking would have been so uninspired and undramatic at such an inopportune time that he might've just been annoyed and just wouldn't care.

You're right, of course; the dice do mandate nadirs, but they do so randomly. They don't have much of a sense of climax and anticlimax (or if they do, the evil little beggars are prone to deliberately thwart it as often as not).

But you use the term "stacking the deck," and I think that's the critical point. If it were me, some random worthless pirate would not have the same overall odds of sinking the flagship that a major antagonist would, especially if the PCs have emotional attachment to that antagonist. But if said random worthless pirate did pull something major off, you can bet he would immediately stop being a random worthless pirate!

So, here's my anecdote. At one point in a long-running campaign, a beloved NPC died; this guy had attracted the romantic interest of both female PCs at one point, fallen in love with the fighter/rogue and remained friends with the bard, and died in a combat against a major, but not the major, antagonist. This kicked off a spiral of anguish and rage from the fighter/rogue PC in love with him, and then a resurrection quest that involved dueling valkyries for his soul, and ultimately led the party to having to make a heist in the City of Brass.

Now, during the fight that started this, said NPC was knocked down and bleeding to death. The bard PC had one shot to make a Heal check to stabilize him, before he bled out on the very next segment.

She missed the check by 1.

Now, looking back on it, I'm glad she failed. It was a great story, and there was so much guilt on the bard's part, even as she was trying to console her grieving friend. When the NPC was finally brought back to life, it became clear that there was nothing that would separate these two lovers, as even death couldn't get it done.

But I would not have overruled that Heal check, or covertly raised the difficulty to announce "sorry, you failed" even if I'd known. Making the save might not have been quite as dramatic as the long dark night of the soul that a failure would have given, but the triumph would have been so well earned that I think we'd be talking about it today, too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I guess I'm a "dice and numbers" kinda guy. But the main thing is, as a player I don't want to feel like I'm living someone else's story. And as DM I don't want to write a story, I want to be surprised.

Whereas I'm kind of the opposite. I wouldn't see it as me living someone else's story, in that it's how I react to the incident that makes me a full contributor to it. And as a result, the DM also still gets to be surprised, because he has no idea what I will do with what has just happened to me (just like Perkins had no clue that Youngs would go off the deep end like he did.)

Believe me... I'm right there with you and Barastrondo in letting the dice fall where they may, and getting some fantastic and dramatic results from where the dice lead. I just don't want to completely close off the possibility of DM plot nudge, because I'd rather have more tools at my disposal.

(But at the same time, I definitely agree that you need the right group, who play with the right mindframe needed to accept, adapt and run with this kind of DM nudge. And that kind of group could be rather rare.)

 

[DracoSuave]

D&D (all story telling) is inherently about conflict.

Taking toys away and allowing the pcs to do something about it is a great way to initiate conflict and have the players invested in that conflict.

 

[The Human Target]

As a DM, I do this fairly often.

As a player, I wouldn't enjoy a game that doesn't have setbacks.

Currently my parties Dwarf Fighter has had his family heirloom magic shield stolen by his brother, who then fled into the world.

That character's player is still bitter over it.

But guess what?

When he finds his brother and gets that shield back, its going to be a great and memorable campaign moment.

PS- I actually sent all my players this article via email and snickered while doing it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I would never actually plan to take the players' cool stuff away, full stop. I might have antagonists plan to take it away, and then put those plans in motion and see what happens. A series of bad decisions coupled with bad dice rolls might result in stuff going away. But plan to do it? No. That's pretty much like planning to kill the PCs because you have a really great resurrection story in mind; it's not bad to have a really great resurrection story in mind in case they die, but you don't pull that trigger regardless of what they do to stay alive.

Planning to, that's something out of Warhammer FRPG's playbook, it works there. Taking them away in D&D is like a deceptive level drain with D&D character wealth and equipment functioning as a secondary XP level up system.

 

[DracoSuave]

Planning to, that's something out of Warhammer FRPG's playbook, it works there. Taking them away in D&D is like a deceptive level drain with D&D character wealth and equipment functioning as a secondary XP level up system.

Which can then be replaced once the conflict is resolved. I mean, so long as the net result is positive, amirite?