Unfortunate Plot Hole needs fixing

[Lwaxy]

Yes, that's how most adventures are, but the daemons are too powerful for the party to fight/control so they need an incentive to realise that if they agree to the Wizard's plan then the campaign will end with "their bloody deaths at the hands of an out-of-control former ally"...

like I said it is a plot hole I hadn't expected mostly when I design the adventures I have several possible endings, good, bad and neutral but I have already completed our next adventure which requires they are good/neutral...

Why does it have to end with their deaths? There are always NPCs...

Enter Fubby, the demon hunter. She's some levels above the PCS, and she can smell a demon from leagues away. She arrives in time to save their butts and give them a good berating about the foolishness of letting them out the first place. Plus, maybe she's of an authority to give them another quest to make up for their error in judgement.

 

[Omegaxicor]

Will there always be an NPC to teach them a lesson?

if there is always a Demon Hunter then there is no real consequences (beyond the dead innocents on their hands) and the decision becomes much easier "yea we can allow the daemons to run free, the demon hunters will come and clean up the mess"

Though I do like the idea of the Demon Hunter cursing them for their choice and making them repent for the cure...

 

[the Jester]

Instead of "this must end with their deaths", you could think of the potential situation as "this will be have ramifications and effects on the campaign world that the pcs will still be feeling a long time from now".

A depopulated kingdom? Awesome, lots of adventure sites!

Demons gradually overrunning the countryside? Great, when they're high level the pcs can try to right the wrongs that they committed! Meanwhile, where do they run to?

Etc.

 

[James the Newbie]

Will there always be an NPC to teach them a lesson?

if there is always a Demon Hunter then there is no real consequences (beyond the dead innocents on their hands) and the decision becomes much easier "yea we can allow the daemons to run free, the demon hunters will come and clean up the mess"

Though I do like the idea of the Demon Hunter cursing them for their choice and making them repent for the cure...

A point I've seen a lot, and it took me a while to get to grips with is 'that sits well at the logical table' and a lot of things sit well at the 'logical table.'

But mechanically and fun wise, how will your PC's feel about 'yeah sorry, they are way to powerful for you, and now your in trouble' from you.

Compared to [MENTION=53286]Lwaxy[/MENTION] fubby the demon hunter who could punish the PC's for their miss deeds, and could set the PC's about having fun making up for it.

Now the PC's owe fubby a favour, and demon hunters arn't the sort of people to give out easy tasks.

 

[Omegaxicor]

Instead of "this must end with their deaths", you could think of the potential situation as "this will be have ramifications and effects on the campaign world that the pcs will still be feeling a long time from now".

A depopulated kingdom? Awesome, lots of adventure sites!

Demons gradually overrunning the countryside? Great, when they're high level the pcs can try to right the wrongs that they committed! Meanwhile, where do they run to?

Etc.

I hadn't thought to destroy the entire kingdom...but that might not be a bad idea actually (damn now I WANT them to pick the evil route but maybe that is why I couldn't think of a solution because I wanted to stick to the few adventures I had already thought up.

A point I've seen a lot, and it took me a while to get to grips with is 'that sits well at the logical table' and a lot of things sit well at the 'logical table.'

But mechanically and fun wise, how will your PC's feel about 'yeah sorry, they are way to powerful for you, and now you're in trouble' from you.

Compared to [MENTION=53286]Lwaxy[/MENTION] fubby the demon hunter who could punish the PC's for their miss deeds, and could set the PC's about having fun making up for it.

Now the PC's owe fubby a favour, and demon hunters arn't the sort of people to give out easy tasks.

I am never THAT bad at grammar

Seriously though, that is a good point and it spawns good adventures out of a small misstep which is always better than following the path...even if the path is the best way.

Thanks for your input everyone, I will write up a few points in my notes about the PCs choosing to help the Wizard and what follows and see what the party do on Thursday.

 

[the Jester]

A point I've seen a lot, and it took me a while to get to grips with is 'that sits well at the logical table' and a lot of things sit well at the 'logical table.'

But mechanically and fun wise, how will your PC's feel about 'yeah sorry, they are way to powerful for you, and now your in trouble' from you.

Compared to [MENTION=53286]Lwaxy[/MENTION] fubby the demon hunter who could punish the PC's for their miss deeds, and could set the PC's about having fun making up for it.

Now the PC's owe fubby a favour, and demon hunters arn't the sort of people to give out easy tasks.

Ugh. No pc wants to be saved by the npcs. Nor is the dm's job to make sure the players feel good about having made terrible choices.

Again, this is a playstyle issue, but having "big NPC guy saves the pcs from their bad choices!" moments is one of those things that will likely cause me to lose interest in a campaign. The pcs should not always have things their way. If one of them chops off his foot, he should have a limp thereafter.

EDIT: And as for "aren't the sort of people to give out easy tasks", once they've demonstrated that they're there to save the party's bacon, EVERY TASK IS EASY. Because the argument that the pcs have to do it themselves is already out the window- "Oh no, we're in trouble! Where's Fubby to save us!?"

 

[Lwaxy]

Yes, it is a playstyle issue, and as such "no PC wants to be saved" is simply not true.

Also, Fubby wouldn't go save THEIR beacon but the town's/kingdom's - or at least try. No one says a demon hunter would be totally successful. And he'd not give them anything to do which could threaten anyone else but themselves thereafter. If Fubby has a bitter streak (as he's likely encountered this all too often) he might even give them what he considers a suicide task just to rid the world of more un-thinking wannabe do-gooders. If they prove him wrong, well, he might've jobs for them later but I bet he'd make it clear he won't babysit them

 

[Omegaxicor]

Ugh. No pc wants to be saved by the npcs. Nor is the dm's job to make sure the players feel good about having made terrible choices.

Again, this is a playstyle issue, but having "big NPC guy saves the pcs from their bad choices!" moments is one of those things that will likely cause me to lose interest in a campaign. The pcs should not always have things their way. If one of them chops off his foot, he should have a limp thereafter.

EDIT: And as for "aren't the sort of people to give out easy tasks", once they've demonstrated that they're there to save the party's bacon, EVERY TASK IS EASY. Because the argument that the pcs have to do it themselves is already out the window- "Oh no, we're in trouble! Where's Fubby to save us!?"

This is kinda where I am, the answer "The land is filled with idiots like you and he is busy saving another bunch of them from their own mistakes" works out nice in most situations

But as it says in the DMs Guide, "don't let the players think you will save them from everything or they will start expecting it and get annoyed if they feel you are singling their character because you aren't saving them from as much as they think you should"

but no party likes to start again or lose characters they like because one of the party made a stupid mistake and got them all killed...

 

[the Jester]

Yes, it is a playstyle issue, and as such "no PC wants to be saved" is simply not true.

You are, of course, correct.

but no party likes to start again or lose characters they like because one of the party made a stupid mistake and got them all killed...

I know that I, and most of the players in most of my groups, would rather die/tpk due to their own mistakes than have Supernpc save them time and again.

 

[Omegaxicor]

I know that I, and most of the players in most of my groups, would rather die/tpk due to their own mistakes than have Supernpc save them time and again.

We have different groups...my party would need a long break from each other if one party member did something stupid and got the whole party killed so they needed to remake characters they like.

Although I agree that the party would rather die than be saved several times, if that's what you meant (I'm not completely sure)