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

[Zelda Themelin]

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.

I am just curious. Why "boring story". That's very reason I hate to talk in npc:s in Skyrim. Everything is so damn boring. I won't do lot of talking in games where dm bothers to invent boring stories, especially long ones. If npc doesn't answer simple question of "why you want this trade" without roll. He either a) is up to no good, b) doesn't really want to trade but is there to provoke pc:s to violence c) is only about meta-trade, which can be meta-argued.

You do sound lot like my dm, when has been playing as player too little. I mean that things that are apperant to gm are very confusing to players.

This also including "what is fun" sometimes gets counfused too. Turns out many gm:s don't really like to play the kinda games they run. At least non of mine do, it balances out then they play more.

GM's start to get easily too much into worldbuilding, game balance, challenge, realism and "everyone gets this plothook/riddle" fallacies.

When you play, perspective is different. That's why many gm:s who never play/get to be as player very little tend to run games I don't find very fun. Same for me, I become highly tacticly demanding, rules-nazi, and start to prefer horror themed plots. Some of my players like that, I'd hate to play in my own games. I like some elements in them sure, and they are ok when I get to play more too.

So my general thoughts advice is if players do something you don't get ask them "why" and if you don't get the answer you probably should be player sometimes.

 

[Lwaxy]

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?"

Yeah but the problem is when you've already decided to give them some sort of mission and everyone thinks they know what the PC will do and then suddenly we've all judged it wrong. Especially when said player misses ALL the hints at secondary options. And the eyes of the rest of the crew just grow bigger and bigger in amazement

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah but the problem is when you've already decided to give them some sort of mission and everyone thinks they know what the PC will do and then suddenly we've all judged it wrong. Especially when said player misses ALL the hints at secondary options. And the eyes of the rest of the crew just grow bigger and bigger in amazement

I keep coming up with more on the spot. As I said I don't pre-plan much so I'm reacting to Joe as quickly as he's reacting to the quests I've given him. Or well, worst comes to worse, the fail the quest. There'll be more to be sure, maybe they'll be more careful next time.

 

[haakon1]

The sphinx had a motive. The motive was as neutral as the sphinx itself and he had no intention of explaining himself to anyone...
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.

Well, he is a sphinx . . . riddle of the sphinx and all that.

If I'd thought of that as a player, I'd have been intrigued as to what "mystery wrapped in an enigma" it was up to.

Out of curiosity, what was it trying to do?

I'm thinking you're trying not to bore your players with backstory, but they might actually be into it. That stuff makes a campaign come alive for me, from either side of the table. I love NPC's with motivations the players can latch onto, or at least understand.

Of course, I keep plenty of stuff hidden, but my players know me well enough that they know I'm not pulling a "Lost". Weird stuff happens for a reason, not just so something will happen -- there's something there to unwind, if they try and pick at the right threads.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Well, he is a sphinx . . . riddle of the sphinx and all that.

If I'd thought of that as a player, I'd have been intrigued as to what "mystery wrapped in an enigma" it was up to.

Out of curiosity, what was it trying to do?

I'm thinking you're trying not to bore your players with backstory, but they might actually be into it. That stuff makes a campaign come alive for me, from either side of the table. I love NPC's with motivations the players can latch onto, or at least understand.

Of course, I keep plenty of stuff hidden, but my players know me well enough that they know I'm not pulling a "Lost". Weird stuff happens for a reason, not just so something will happen -- there's something there to unwind, if they try and pick at the right threads.

I always try to move all the events forward in a steady and quick pace. I observe how much we were able to do interesting things and fight battles during a session. I've noticed that it's generally a good idea not to explain things "too much", because that delays the session. So the PCs made no effort to ask and thus I made no effort to explain.

The sphinx had travelled from the Plains of the Paynims (Bedouin/Tuareg & Sahara-setting) to the West to learn more about their ways. He spent his time mostly with Sherpas (moderate, spiritual people, zero greediness etc.). He had accumulated considerable wealth over the decades mostly by defeating greedy creatures who had attacked him.

Cool weather gave him lung problems so it wanted to travel back home. Once there, the Sphinx thought about trying to make an alliance with some Bedouin tribe by giving them gifts, but he was thinking that a bunch of magical swords would perhaps work better than a shield. It wasn't a simple decision, but from his experience the Bedouins were hardly friends of heavy metal objects such as shields. Bedouins were weak "creatures" of course, but generally he enjoyed the presence of humans (to a certain extent).

Since the players didn't want to trade and the Sherpas couldn't help him in anyway and his lungs were killing him, he took his shield and other stuff and left back to the desert. Not the best situation but nothing critical really.

 

[hopeless]

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".

You could have just gone with if you sacrifice those 4 longswords I can use the power they give me to enchant that fifth one so its even stronger (+2) or in return for those five longswords I can enchant one item of your choice with say healing magic with the lower the power needed means the greater number of times you can call upon it (ala Wand of Cure Light Wounds but its focused in a personal item the PC chooses not that you say its become a wand mind you only that the PC who owns that item can make use of it or anyone who can cast the spell...)

Spell Resistance? I agree its far too low if they're looking to upgrade and have 5 +1 Longswords but that doesn't mean you have to give them an obvious major upgrade sometimes its the little things that help more especially if later on when they're out of spells you get to remind the PC with the Ring or Loin Cloth of Cure Light Wounds that they have that resource and later on when its power starts to fade they learn it can be recharged... so all they have to do is lay on hands on the artefact, right...?!

 

[The Red King]

You could have just gone with if you sacrifice those 4 longswords I can use the power they give me to enchant that fifth one so its even stronger (+2) or in return for those five longswords I can enchant one item of your choice with say healing magic with the lower the power needed means the greater number of times you can call upon it (ala Wand of Cure Light Wounds but its focused in a personal item the PC chooses not that you say its become a wand mind you only that the PC who owns that item can make use of it or anyone who can cast the spell...)

Spell Resistance? I agree its far too low if they're looking to upgrade and have 5 +1 Longswords but that doesn't mean you have to give them an obvious major upgrade sometimes its the little things that help more especially if later on when they're out of spells you get to remind the PC with the Ring or Loin Cloth of Cure Light Wounds that they have that resource and later on when its power starts to fade they learn it can be recharged... so all they have to do is lay on hands on the artefact, right...?!

You need to bring your wounded ove to my while I remove my loin cloth..... HA!HA! Thats funny.