Why do they do that? PCs and their intentions...

[Zelda Themelin]

Similar to The Red King.

I also have many stories, some plots and theme. Theme is only thing that I don't change. Other things pc might meet or not, depending what they choose to do. Unless I run adventure path written by someone else, then I mostly ran that and cut and paste encounters that are important that pc:s miss.

I sometimes write npc:s lines down to remember what it knows/says/lies about but I don't read it like "box text".

I don't care who pc:s choose to listen to, trust, lie to, kill etc. Sometimes it's a pity for them but so what. I prefer players surprising me. Even when playing adventure paths where I have to get them back to "path". Usually I approach their chosen attitudes. My players rarely play hero types. And when they do it's not "stupid" heroic.

I love writing stories, but I am not so much into trying to run one as rpg. They are supposed to be games too. As shared storytelling experience.

I honesty like playing railroady games, when dm runs something I like. And I don't like much challenge in paths I don't choose. I like challenge set in when I get to choose situations. I have also strong allergy for dm-controlled-power-with-negative-traits-and unpredicbility-rule-loseness. This includes artifacts and magic items I am tricked to pick up. If your player drops some plot heavy magic item like it would be hot coals true reason might lie in dislike like this. No matter what in-game excuse is.

When player chooses to refuse and adventure (with in-game "reason"), seperete party, put on mysterious stranger act, loose plot items, dodge travel routes I always tend to read this as sorta "rebellion". This is very reason why I avoid pre-written storylines. Unless they are adventure paths written by others. Magic here is that players don't expect writer to "know them" and they tend to act more nice because they want to do the adventure. Nice bonus is I don't get personally offended then they start gripe-fest over some detail.

When I did dungeon grinds I had unwritten rule to kill soloing player first. Solo-play when there is group around is terrible annoying. I refuse to play under dm:s who do that. Yes some dm:s did that on purpose to give more time to "interesting" players (aka their better friends). Or worse yet when one had only 2 players run separate games on them when one player decided his character hated the other pc:s character and pvp was "not allowed":

 

[Jon_Dahl]

The title reminded me of an incident which has haunted me for months now... (3.5)

Midlevel PCs had collected bunch of magical weapons that were basically useless to them (mostly longswords +1). In my game there are no active markets for magical items, so they felt that they were stuck with those items.

So after a short adventure they met a riddling sphinx, who made an offer to the players: He would trade five magical weapons to a shield +1 of spell resistance (SR 13). Two of the PCs always used shields and they were both +1 (and nothing more).

My players immediately exclaimed: "That is unfair! We give you FIVE magical weapons and only get one stinking shield! No way!" There was general consensus among the players that the deal was unfair, plain and simple.

I didn't want to metagame and explain them that five longswords +1 are useless to them and the total cost is about 11k gp. Shield +1 of spell resistance is 9k gp. So yes, they would have lost in this deal, but usually you sell items for half its price, so I felt that this was a good deal.. Right? At best they could have sold the items below their full value and the money wasn't as good having a useful shield.

Baffled I let the situation go, but it still bothers me... I mean, what the heck?

 

[Dordledum]

I agree that improv is the fun part of GM-ing.

Once one of our GMs thought of a dungeon where the ancient tapestries and carpets were the bulk of the treasure. It was also dark, what did we do? toss in a lit torch. goodbye treasure, hello smoke! made the following encounter extra interesting. the miss-chances saved our party from a TPK.

Everything went totally different than the GM intended, but we had a great session nevertheless. Just roll with the flow and see where you end up.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Jon_Dahl do you play games or mostly just dm? Your confusion sound about your players "unfair" thing sound like that to me.

Players don't like semi-useful-sometimes-maybe-easy-to-forget-book-keeping-thing-remain-dm-because-he-forgets-it-too things like SR. And very low SR at that. And they already had +1 shields. It would have been more "fair" trade if ability would have been something more practical, and more often relevant, and more trustworthy to work.

I probably think there is somewhere better trade or if not, no-one at least doesn't cheat them.

Also there is also power in numbers. You can arm 5 warriors with five swords, yeh. And then 5 people more can hit "can only be harmed by magic" things.

If they were complaining something about unfair, are you sure you didn't say first "it's fair trade".

Low spell resistance, low damage resistance, low (25%) crit immunity are more annoying qualities than they are useful. Low damage resistance is ok if it's 1-2/- type, but it's still extra thing to remember (oh, wait last round, I totally forget about that DR). Despite somewhat useful, those qualities are also bit uncool.

Value is not just mathematical formula, it's also very much to do with "feeling". Why otherwise those over-priced apple products would be so popular?

 

[The Red King]

The title reminded me of an incident which has haunted me for months now... (3.5)

Midlevel PCs had collected bunch of magical weapons that were basically useless to them (mostly longswords +1). In my game there are no active markets for magical items, so they felt that they were stuck with those items.

So after a short adventure they met a riddling sphinx, who made an offer to the players: He would trade five magical weapons to a shield +1 of spell resistance (SR 13). Two of the PCs always used shields and they were both +1 (and nothing more).

My players immediately exclaimed: "That is unfair! We give you FIVE magical weapons and only get one stinking shield! No way!" There was general consensus among the players that the deal was unfair, plain and simple.

I didn't want to metagame and explain them that five longswords +1 are useless to them and the total cost is about 11k gp. Shield +1 of spell resistance is 9k gp. So yes, they would have lost in this deal, but usually you sell items for half its price, so I felt that this was a good deal.. Right? At best they could have sold the items below their full value and the money wasn't as good having a useful shield.

Baffled I let the situation go, but it still bothers me... I mean, what the heck?

Funny, my group would have killed the Sphinx and kept all o fthe treasure. They even horde mundane objects. (We have a very greedy evil group)

I agree that improv is the fun part of GM-ing.

Once one of our GMs thought of a dungeon where the ancient tapestries and carpets were the bulk of the treasure. It was also dark, what did we do? toss in a lit torch. goodbye treasure, hello smoke! made the following encounter extra interesting. the miss-chances saved our party from a TPK.

Everything went totally different than the GM intended, but we had a great session nevertheless. Just roll with the flow and see where you end up.

I could see my group doing this, but with a bunch of oil flasks and a fireball.

Jon_Dahl do you play games or mostly just dm? Your confusion sound about your players "unfair" thing sound like that to me.

Players don't like semi-useful-sometimes-maybe-easy-to-forget-book-keeping-thing-remain-dm-because-he-forgets-it-too things like SR. And very low SR at that. And they already had +1 shields. It would have been more "fair" trade if ability would have been something more practical, and more often relevant, and more trustworthy to work.

I probably think there is somewhere better trade or if not, no-one at least doesn't cheat them.

Also there is also power in numbers. You can arm 5 warriors with five swords, yeh. And then 5 people more can hit "can only be harmed by magic" things.

If they were complaining something about unfair, are you sure you didn't say first "it's fair trade".

Low spell resistance, low damage resistance, low (25%) crit immunity are more annoying qualities than they are useful. Low damage resistance is ok if it's 1-2/- type, but it's still extra thing to remember (oh, wait last round, I totally forget about that DR). Despite somewhat useful, those qualities are also bit uncool.

Value is not just mathematical formula, it's also very much to do with "feeling". Why otherwise those over-priced apple products would be so popular?

Maybe the group would have been quicker to trade if it was for something that they diddnt have at all? A ring, or other magical item, exsecially if they already had shields?

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Cat deleted my longer answer again doh. But short version.

My players might have gone for kill of sphinx or not depending.
Trade might have been viable, if item would have been more useful/tempting to them (in case of my players ring of invisibility, hat of disguise, ring of sustanace, boots of speed etc.). My players like trickery items I suppose.

Certainly not replica item with borderline uselss additional power. SR is rarely needed in low level low magic games, and SR 13 is useless around lv 6. Meaning luck is not your side that it would work when needed. Plus you have to be holding your shield. Magical assasins and charmers tend to hit using surprise advantage more often or not.

so you were basicly offering to trade 5 sorta cool (if useless) +1 swords for SR 13, and that is sub-bar. Especially if you haven't made your players face much spellcasters. If they would have been plagued by witch coven and it's cultist friends (1-3 lv) zapping them around with charms and commands and hold persons then it might have been a different story.

Sub-bar itemization can be desirable if players feel need for said ability. Otherwise it kinda feels like insult saying even within in-game it's fair and even trade.

Also there was mention about that post I was referring to about monetary value and normal half-sale value, which is kinda non-relevant if selling magic items that way can't happen. That forces players think about coolness and how much "meat there is to it" since they can't think in coins. That option was removed, so dm is arguing againt his own case by bringing it back as "proof" for equal profit.

And since players who used magical shields had +1 shields already they only heard "13 SR".

 

[Sunseeker]

I can't say there is much you can do. Honestly this is why I pre-plan only the rough outline of anything in my games, even things related to players. There really is NO reasonable way to predict player behavior or plan for it's unpredictability without railroading the party into what you think they should do. So my general approach is to "roll with it" and "plan for eventualities". As long as you have at least a few answers to every problem, you'll rarely find yourself asking "well shoot, what do I do now?"

 

[The Red King]

I can't say there is much you can do. Honestly this is why I pre-plan only the rough outline of anything in my games, even things related to players. There really is NO reasonable way to predict player behavior or plan for it's unpredictability without railroading the party into what you think they should do. So my general approach is to "roll with it" and "plan for eventualities". As long as you have at least a few answers to every problem, you'll rarely find yourself asking "well shoot, what do I do now?"

This is especially true the bigger your group gets. I sometimes have a group of 3 adults in their 30's, and a teenager, and 2 pre teens and an 8 and a 6 year old. The range of randomness that they can throw at me is astounding.


That being said I have seen the entire group turtle in a safehouse hoarding treasure like an ancient dragon for 2 to 3 sessions.

I don't hunt them down, and I don't kill them off.... (They kill eachother more often than I do! )

 

[haakon1]

after a short adventure they met a riddling sphinx, who made an offer to the players: He would trade five magical weapons to a shield +1 of spell resistance (SR 13). Two of the PCs always used shields and they were both +1 (and nothing more).

My players immediately exclaimed: "That is unfair! We give you FIVE magical weapons and only get one stinking shield! No way!" There was general consensus among the players that the deal was unfair, plain and simple.

If I was a player, I'd wonder what a sphinx wants with 5 +1 longswords. Sounds like he's up to no good.

In general, as DM, I want all the NPC's to have an in-character motives. The motivation of "I, the DM, would like to change their magic items and I'll use the sphinx as a sock puppet to achieve my goal" doesn't help make your world real -- NPC's/monsters that don't act in their own interestes leads to less serious play/more metagaming; I've definitely been in campaigns like that, where the monsters were simply "balanced encounters" and the NPC's had no discernable will or goals of their own.

If the sphinx said, "I want your swords because I'm going to give them to the Druid of the Great Wood to grind them down for magical ground iron for a special ritual to keep the rift of badness closed (using a little 4e residuum logic with your 3.5e), and I'll pay you with this cool shield that was once the property of long-dead cool hero guy", that might be interesting enough to get the PC's to do it.

And if they don't go for it, the rift opens and there's a good adventure hook . . . and if they don't go for that hook, everyone dies and you get new players who actually want to play.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

If I was a player, I'd wonder what a sphinx wants with 5 +1 longswords. Sounds like he's up to no good.

In general, as DM, I want all the NPC's to have an in-character motives. The motivation of "I, the DM, would like to change their magic items and I'll use the sphinx as a sock puppet to achieve my goal" doesn't help make your world real -- NPC's/monsters that don't act in their own interestes leads to less serious play/more metagaming; I've definitely been in campaigns like that, where the monsters were simply "balanced encounters" and the NPC's had no discernable will or goals of their own.

If the sphinx said, "I want your swords because I'm going to give them to the Druid of the Great Wood to grind them down for magical ground iron for a special ritual to keep the rift of badness closed (using a little 4e residuum logic with your 3.5e), and I'll pay you with this cool shield that was once the property of long-dead cool hero guy", that might be interesting enough to get the PC's to do it.

And if they don't go for it, the rift opens and there's a good adventure hook . . . and if they don't go for that hook, everyone dies and you get new players who actually want to play.

The sphinx had a motive. The motive was as neutral as the sphinx itself and he had no intention of explaining himself to anyone... Unless a good diplomacy roll and/or argument was made. In that case the PCs would've heard the boring but very sensible story behind sphinx's motives.

Motives are ok but generally I try to have NPCs who speak when spoken to. I've played in campaigns where things are always thoroughly explained. Maybe I want a little bit of mystery why people do things. Sometimes they can remain as a mystery too. And really, sometimes it's ok not to dwell too deeply why someone wanted to trade magic items. The PCs may ask if they wish.