Was I a RBGM?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, I did not allow a spot check as he was a decent distance away, behind the party and in heavy cover. If the party had mentioned that someone was looking around, watching, etc, I would have.

Well, you've been liberally abused by many posters here for the way you handled this ...

I guess it's time to heap some conservative abuse on the pile, as well! (OK, that was a really bad joke, even by my standards.)

I hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE DMs who do this.

Passionately.

"Yes, I know you're in a tense negotiation, where a wrong word could cause a fight you may not survive, but no one said they were doing anything other than staring at the goblin king."

... is very, very closely related to:

"Yes, I know you said you were checking the door for traps. But you didn't say you were checking the wall *around* the door for traps."

and:

"Yes, I know you said you were keeping watch. You never said you were checking the trees, however, so you automatically don't notice the giant spider sliding into the camp on its web. It grapples you!"

DMs who make up such stupid rulings should be prepared for players who start developing checklists.

PC: "Let's see, we're coming up on a door. Time to go through the standard door checklist:

If appropriate:

1. Check the floor in the hallway leading up to the door.
2. Check the handle of the door.
3. Check the wall to each side of the door.
4. Check the wall above the door.
5. Check the hinges of the door.
6. Check any writing on the door.
7. Etc.

"

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

OK, so time for something constructive: If you really wanted to be a RBDM here is my suggestion as to how you could have played it out:

- Tense negotiations continue.

- DM rolls spot check for party noticing the hunter (really tough roll due to distance, cover etc.)

Assuming party fails:
- Hunter takes a shot...and hits the monk conducting the negotiations (the hunter hates anyone who would treat filthy orcs with anything other than hatred so the party is fair game).

- Weapons are drawn, on both sides and let the party decide if they think it was treachery and attack the orcs.

If the party makes the spot check where things go next will be based upon party actions:
- a party member suddenly drawing a weapon to attack the hunter could get misinterpreted creating more tension as they try and understand what is going on and explain it to the orcs

- The monk throws the chieftain aside to protect him - again some tense moments as some orcs think he is assaulting the chief, but soon realize his heroics

- The party shouts out warnings - some suspicion of deception possible.

By letting the party make decisions other than just being forced to fight for their lives, you keep them in some control of the situation. Odds are decent you may still get what you wanted if the party reacts poorly to the situation. That in my mind is what makes a true RBDM.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

OK, so time for something constructive: If you really wanted to be a RBDM here is my suggestion as to how you could have played it out:

- Tense negotiations continue.

- DM rolls spot check for party noticing the hunter (really tough roll due to distance, cover etc.)

Assuming party fails:
- Hunter takes a shot...and hits the monk conducting the negotiations (the hunter hates anyone who would treat filthy orcs with anything other than hatred so the party is fair game).

- Weapons are drawn, on both sides and let the party decide if they think it was treachery and attack the orcs.

If the party makes the spot check where things go next will be based upon party actions:
- a party member suddenly drawing a weapon to attack the hunter could get misinterpreted creating more tension as they try and understand what is going on and explain it to the orcs

- The monk throws the chieftain aside to protect him - again some tense moments as some orcs think he is assaulting the chief, but soon realize his heroics

- The party shouts out warnings - some suspicion of deception possible.

By letting the party make decisions other than just being forced to fight for their lives, you keep them in some control of the situation. Odds are decent you may still get what you wanted if the party reacts poorly to the situation. That in my mind is what makes a true RBDM.

That is a nifty way to handle it. It tosses the ball back into the player's court. And it can even be turned to their advantage.

Squat45 - I think that most people here are trying to say 'yes, the way this was run was a bit screwed up, here is how to do it better next time.' Not just slinging stones. But it is being critisized, and with good reason.

A lot of people have been in games where they felt railroaded, goodness knows I have, and many have run railroad style games, and hopefully learned why that was a bad idea. (This one I can claim innocence on, but I was almost guilty. Fortunately I remembered being in a railroad style game before it was too late.)

I have been in a game where the third game none of the players bothered showing up. Because the GM was keeping such tight control nobody except him was having any fun at all. (He was much worse about it than what you have described. Going so far as to tell the players what their characters did rather than asking them.)

It could just be that I want to play now and again, but my sympathies tend to lie with the player, not the DM, when it comes to railroading. I also suspect that this sympathy is why I never get to play... the players have been happier with my games than the alternatives. (I am not a great DM, but some of the others have been horrible...)

The Auld Grump

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

That is a nifty way to handle it. It tosses the ball back into the player's court. And it can even be turned to their advantage.

...

A lot of people have been in games where they felt railroaded, goodness knows I have, and many have run railroad style games, and hopefully learned why that was a bad idea. (This one I can claim innocence on, but I was almost guilty. Fortunately I remembered being in a railroad style game before it was too late.)

The Auld Grump

Thanks. I am definitely guilty of railroading my group on several occasions. When my group stopped trying to figure out what they should do and waited until I told them what to do, I realized I had trained them to think that way. As a result I have been working hard at trying to not force the party down a particular path. It has been hard, but reading postings on EN World has been a huge help.

 

[squat45]

Understand but...

OK, so time for something constructive: If you really wanted to be a RBDM here is my suggestion as to how you could have played it out:

- Tense negotiations continue.

- DM rolls spot check for party noticing the hunter (really tough roll due to distance, cover etc.)

Assuming party fails:
- Hunter takes a shot...and hits the monk conducting the negotiations (the hunter hates anyone who would treat filthy orcs with anything other than hatred so the party is fair game).

- Weapons are drawn, on both sides and let the party decide if they think it was treachery and attack the orcs.

If the party makes the spot check where things go next will be based upon party actions:
- a party member suddenly drawing a weapon to attack the hunter could get misinterpreted creating more tension as they try and understand what is going on and explain it to the orcs

- The monk throws the chieftain aside to protect him - again some tense moments as some orcs think he is assaulting the chief, but soon realize his heroics

- The party shouts out warnings - some suspicion of deception possible.

By letting the party make decisions other than just being forced to fight for their lives, you keep them in some control of the situation. Odds are decent you may still get what you wanted if the party reacts poorly to the situation. That in my mind is what makes a true RBDM.

I was trying to play the villian out realistically. His goal was to kill the goblins and the best way to do that was to force the goblins and the party to fight. He was alone and would have been suicidal for him to fight the party and the goblins by himself... what better way to accomplish his goals?

That aspect did come out AFTER the party captured him and took him back to town.

And no, I would not allow a spot check at a distance of 60' to a location behind the party unless the players said that they were looking around...

What I should have done is to wait a couple of rounds to see what the goblins and the party did. Even the player of the monk was expecting the goblins to violate the "truce" and turn, but giving him a little more time would have let him feel more in control of the situation.

 

[DanMcS]

And no, I would not allow a spot check at a distance of 60' to a location behind the party unless the players said that they were looking around...

You're just wrong, there. 60' is only a -6 penalty to a spot check, and there was a whole party standing there involved in the negotiations, plus all the goblins. They should all have received a spot check opposed by the guy's hide.

Since you disallowed that, you screwed them over by DM fiat and railroading, not by clever planning or working within the rules. That takes it from RBDM to lame DM.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I was trying to play the villian out realistically. His goal was to kill the goblins and the best way to do that was to force the goblins and the party to fight. He was alone and would have been suicidal for him to fight the party and the goblins by himself... what better way to accomplish his goals?

What we're offering here should be taken as constructive criticism -- I dare say anyone who has ever DM'd has been guilty of some bad calls, and if there are impartial third parties that can help us recognize the bad calls, we get better.

A suggestion in this case would be to have the villain snipe the party from a distance, using an arrow scavenged from a dead goblin. Shoot and scoot, and trust the party to think 'WTF? This arrow has 'goblin' written all over it. Let's wipe 'em out' In this case (IMO) I wouldn't even roll the 'to hit' -- just pretend-roll the dice behind your screen and say the target takes a point or two of damage. I'd still allow the party spot checks, tracking opportunities, etc., to catch the guy.

 

[TheEvil]

At this time, the adventure is probably going to end without a fight and the mission accomplished... but all sorts of other leads that I built-into the adventure (they could even get these leads by not fighting, but they were not even sniffing up the trees, so to speak) were going to be set aside... thinking, I have one real nasty guy left over... so the RBDM in me had the leftover guy show up and shoots one of the goblins during negotiations. Goblins think treachery and attack the party.

Others have said it, but I think it should be repeated with emphasis:

You felt the PCs were not playing the scenario properly so you made an arbitrary change to make sure they when the direction you wanted them to.

I could also say nasty things about how you didn't give ANYONE (goblins included) a chance to notice the guy, how you also arbitrarily decided to have the goblins assume the party was in on it and how you basically gave them no choice but to fight the goblins. However, none of that is as important as the apparently greater concern you had for your prepared plot going forward then you did for the players' actions.

I am pretty sure that if you had let the negotiations proceed to a successful conclusion, you could have found other, gentler ways to steer the PCs back in the direction you wanted. Heck, you could have had the goblins demand the capture of the nasty guy as a requirement. Just try to remember in the future that the most direct way of steering the party is often the least fun for them.

 

[werk]

IMO applies to entire post below

I'd say the only bad thing you did was drop the missing bad guy into the mix right before resolution. Maybe if you'd had him still harvesting goblins during or between negotiations, the negotiations might not have worked as well. I figure the hunter is chaotic, so might try to ambush the summit, nothing really out of place there so long as you made all the appropriate rolls and everything is fair all around.

I'd probably have finished the meeting, everyone is happy, peace riegns, back patting all around. Lots of ways you could go with this from there. The hunter continues to hunt the goblins, all deals are off, hard work gone. Maybe the hunter is meeting with the rest of the nobles and getting good diplomacy checks, so they decide to run off the party and resume hunting. Maybe the town (employers) of the party don't like them 'meeting' with the obviously evil and dangerous goblins and expect treachery. The hunter is a member of an evil organization that sent him to 'cause trouble' in the town and exterminate some key nobles. Once the party sticks their nose in, he calls for reinforcements.

The only thing that could be wrong is your timing and the desire to stick to your game as written. No big. Tell your monk that not everything can be mediated, especially between two outside parties that are opposed on multiple levels. His mediation, at best, would delay the inevitable conflict, which it did.

 

[Ancient_Red]

Yeah, that was fairly crummy way to do it. Look, if you just have to have a fight, and the players are working that hard to avoid it, change lanes. Maybe have a dispute start up from within the tribe where a challenger steps forward and decries any effort to make peace. Perhaps he, and his mutinous faction, start declaring that the tribal leader is a coward for making deals with the party. Then let one of THEM start the fight, amongst themselves, and have the pcs in the scrum. In the midst of this misadventure, with goblin fighting goblin, and the occasional human, the PCs seek to withdraw and as the path through the fighting opens, who should they cross but the leader, and his axe is black with blood...
Simple, the players did all they can do and are not to blame. You get the opportunity to have your fight, since it meant so much to you.
NEVER NEVER punish the players for not doing what you want. Punish if and when they do something wrong, and in the appropriate manner. Remember, you're the DM. You DM for what THEY will enjoy.