RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Despite what the title looks like, I'm not just talking about bad dice rolls here. I'm talking about player (and thus, character) decisions to do unwise, often suicidal things. If a player does something that is going to get himself and/or other people killed or at least utterly shamed and discredited, do you tell them "That's a really bad idea" or do you let them carry on and reap the consequences? If they do manage to do something that is going to get people killed or otherwise fail the mission, do you come up with something that 'conveniently' saves them or do you let them eat their just desserts? I dealt with this recently and a player got into a rather lengthy discussion with me over what he thought was 'right' and how 'things shouldn't have gone that way.' He had some valid points, but my stance on the matter was just as valid as his was. Eventually, I decided to change my mind and let the PCs survive but I was just wondering if any other GMs out there have run into the dilemma before and how they handled it. Do you give the PCs the benefit of the doubt to preserve the story or do you kill them off for their lack of foresight?
It bears mentioning that this was a White Wolf game that this happened in, so death was the permanent loss of a beloved character instead of the D&D situation of "Oh darn, I'm dead again. Time to shell out another 2000gp for a ressurection."
|
I talk a mean game, but...(looks around) I don't like wasting characters unless I'm playing Cyberpunk where it is almost requisite to the spirit and mood of the game itsself.
Otherwise, if someone gets wasted, it's usually accidental, either on my count or theirs. I usually end up blaming myself.
Which is ironic, because I sometimes play my characters with a wild abandon and don't really cry over a TPK unless I didn't go out with style. But I try not to if anyone else in the room might get upset.
|
|
Gotta agree 100% with Heathansson on this. Especially in the case of my own campaigns where I make the PCs develop their characters a lot. They tend to get very attached to them. My personal feeling about MOST roleplaying games is that you're telling a story. Kind of hard to do that if you waste all the main heroes.
Plus I've had times where players are just frustrated/tired/had a bad day at work/etc. where I certainly wouldn't kill them for a bad mistake. In that case I definitely give them the "Are you sure you want to do that?"
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I guess it depends on the nature of the mistake. If the player is not understanding a concept that the character certainly would, I'm likely to explain the likely consequences of the action to the player to make sure they understand what will happen. If they come back with a counter argument about how that's not the way things would happen, I shrug my shoulders and say "okay, roll the dice." At that point, you've told the player the likely results of their actions and they have chosen to pursue that path despite your warning. They understood the nature of the risk and willingly undertook it. The real world punishes people who make mistakes like that, and so does any game world I run.
Here's my example, please let me know if it is similar to your situation. A group of players stayed behind to lie about the whereabouts of the rest of the party. The person they were talking to was a dangerous enemy and would likely cause their deaths if he learned what was going on. The player doing the talking misunderstood something the NPC said and decided to spill the beans on the mission. I stopped and explained that doing so would most likely end in dire consequences and asked if he wanted to continue with that action. At that point, I realized that he misunderstood both the consequences of his action and the fact that he had other options. We backed things up and ran it from the point where the mistake occurred. No harm, no foul.
Now, if after explaining things to the player, he had said, "ok, sure, I tell him everything," yeah, I would completely unload the asswhupping on him and his buds. And I wouldn't feel guilty doing so.
If my player had said to me "that's not what would happen, the NPC would be totally grateful to me for spilling the beans and wouldn't attack," I would inform him that while he may believe it, I am a lot closer to the source, and happen to know what will really happen. Its his choice as to whether he wants to test that fact.
I envision it this way:
The characters actually live in the world and have the full impact of the environment, their experiences, the smells and feelings and input that just cannot be conveyed accurately at the gaming table by any DM.
The players just "guide" the characters through some situations. The character actually "lives the life" (healthy suspension of disbelief here, but I'm talking to a gamer crowd, so you know what I mean).
Therefore, I'm very liberal about allowing players to "backtrack" and make "retro decisions" about what their characters "would have done" or "would have bought" while in town, especially for minutia or such things as mundane spell components, replenishing arrows, etc.
Having said that, I also allow players to have their characters make DC10 Wisdom checks if they are about to have their characters do something really stupid, assuming that's a path the player wouldn't choose if he/she actually remembered all the things that had been told to them or interpreted the environment correctly.
I don't always allow this, but I've found over the years that players often make bad decisions because they don't understand the description you've given them, or the don't interpret the information correctly or have false assumptions about what they thought I said. Battlemats and 3-D props help a lot, but aren't perfect. I'm not going to have a player kill a character because they made a mistake about what they thought I had said or because they don't "see" what they would be able to see clear as day if they were actually looking at things from their character's standpoint, with all their character's actual memory and knowledge of the world.
Sorry for the long post--maybe this is cheating or making it too easy for the players, but it helps everyone at my gaming table, including me, enjoy the story more.
I've played in games that were totally cutthroat and totally the opposite of my DMing style and found that the players become paranoid, taking notes about everything and fretting about every minute detail of the campaign world. Those games were not that much fun.
|
Sometimes we don't see something in our heads that a character would. Our imaginations vary from person to person. If I as a DM see a player making an idiotic and suicidal decision, I have them give me a DC5-15 intelligence/wisdom check. If they make it I let them have the lightbulb suddenly flicker on and tell them "hey, listen you will die if you ----insert horrible, awful death here-----". I don't know the best way to do things like talk someone out of killing a hostage...my character might. Sometimes we need someone to spell out the consequences of an action in our imagination. We use our int/wis in real life, the characters should get that opportunity also.
FH
my 2
|
|
What I hate is when the characters' rationality and/or intelligence works in direct opposition to what the adventure calls for. A great example of this was in a Rifts game I was playing.
There was an adventure involving a certain "star dragon of insanity" from Palladium crashing to earth and wreaking havoc; the pc's being close by to the action would investigate and save the day. So they're driving along in the woodlands of post-apocalyptic British Columbia, in the evening, when a fiery meteor streaks across the sky and lands in a massive forest fire-provoking explosion 50 miles away.
One character says,"what direction was that in?" I say northnortheast. He responds, "I get on my hoverbike and high tail it southsouthwest." Which makes 150% total sense.
D'oh!
Luckily, the other guy saves the day and says, "naw, man. We need to IN-VES-TUH-GATE."
So...gamemaster flubs up, plot hook gets bait stripped, other player saves game from logjam, and saves one of my fave adventures from not happening. I can't really reciprocate by wasting this guy's character too nonchalantly, it would be unsporting.
I've alwasy tried to be the GM who delivers the kind of game that players want to play. I'm usually pretty flexible as to play options and moods, lighthearted versus dark and gritty for example. If my players would get upset if they lost a character, I'm pretty forgiving as a GM. After all, GMing isn't about me lording over the players enforcing my ideal of "reality" on them, its about all the players leaving my table having enjoyed themselves. So I guess what I am saying is I think its best to ask the players what level of lethality the enjoy and play on from there.
I've run games for guys who prefer low body count games, however my current group hates it when I pull my punches. So I generaly go after them with guns a' blazin.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What I hate is when the characters' rationality and/or intelligence works in direct opposition to what the adventure calls for. A great example of this was in a Rifts game I was playing.
There was an adventure involving a certain "star dragon of insanity" from Palladium crashing to earth and wreaking havoc; the pc's being close by to the action would investigate and save the day. So they're driving along in the woodlands of post-apocalyptic British Columbia, in the evening, when a fiery meteor streaks across the sky and lands in a massive forest fire-provoking explosion 50 miles away.
One character says,"what direction was that in?" I say northnortheast. He responds, "I get on my hoverbike and high tail it southsouthwest." Which makes 150% total sense.
D'oh!
Luckily, the other guy saves the day and says, "naw, man. We need to IN-VES-TUH-GATE."
So...gamemaster flubs up, plot hook gets bait stripped, other player saves game from logjam, and saves one of my fave adventures from not happening. I can't really reciprocate by wasting this guy's character too nonchalantly, it would be unsporting.
I have a player who responds to every single adventure hook that way. The rest of the PCs have to berate him into going. He's like a hobbit.
I constantly have to remind my players that they don't have to follow any adventure hints that I drop, but they sit there like puppy dogs, waiting for me to throw them a treat so they can go running off barking. I hate that--I wish they would get involved in the world more (they are involved in a rebellion and are role-playing their characters well, but...).
They're totally passive when it comes to "doing something on their own." I can't play my characters that way when I play, but I guess I can't expect that from everyone else.
When I play, my characters tend to be very proactive in getting involved in the world, following up on their own leads, deciding what they're going to get into. I think it's a "control" issue for me--I don't even mind if we don't have any combat during a gaming session if I feel that my character has "free will" and is able to strike out on his own (within limits) when possible. Even if all I do is have my PC poke around a little bit on his own and learn stuff that the rest of the party may or may not know, I'm generally pretty happy.
I had a DM once who rewarded such play and then I also had a DM who wouldn't give you XP except for stuff you killed. The latter campaign was frustrating, and I ended up dropping out because it was so railroady and combat heavy...fun for a while but if it just seems like a series of wargame scenarios then the game loses its appeal.
I don't mind following obvious adventure hooks, but if the DM can pull off an adventure hook that I think my PC came up with on his own, then I'm a very happy player.
As others wrote before, if the players make obvious mistakes that they wouldn´t make if they had all the information they characters can be safely assumed to have, then I give them the chance to correct these mistakes.
If they make a mistake if they know better, then I let them suffer the consequences. If they get into a fight that is too difficult for them, I usually leave an escape route open. If they don´t get it, too bad. But to date my players realized it every time they were in over their heads.
With trivial things like buying provisions and restocking cheap spell components, I just want to hear hat they think of it and do it. For me it would be a waste of time to play that in detail.
Character motivation: In the last campaign, I had my NPC cleric save their asses right at start, and he demanded their help afterwards. They complied.
But it can be difficult to motivate PCs if their background story interferes. If you just have a peasant defending his home (and getting class levels in the process), then it can get difficult to motivate him further. This is more a problem in RPGs set in the real world (or something near the real world) than in fantasy settings in my experience, but can happen in every game.
Stefan
|
|
I have a player who responds to every single adventure hook that way. The rest of the PCs have to berate him into going. He's like a hobbit.What I hate is when the characters' rationality and/or intelligence works in direct opposition to what the adventure calls for. A great example of this was in a Rifts game I was playing.
There was an adventure involving a certain "star dragon of insanity" from Palladium crashing to earth and wreaking havoc; the pc's being close by to the action would investigate and save the day. So they're driving along in the woodlands of post-apocalyptic British Columbia, in the evening, when a fiery meteor streaks across the sky and lands in a massive forest fire-provoking explosion 50 miles away.
One character says,"what direction was that in?" I say northnortheast. He responds, "I get on my hoverbike and high tail it southsouthwest." Which makes 150% total sense.
D'oh!
Luckily, the other guy saves the day and says, "naw, man. We need to IN-VES-TUH-GATE."
So...gamemaster flubs up, plot hook gets bait stripped, other player saves game from logjam, and saves one of my fave adventures from not happening. I can't really reciprocate by wasting this guy's character too nonchalantly, it would be unsporting.
It's like recess, the kid who doesn't want to play hide-and-seek, and who grudgingly agrees, as long as he's not "it" first.
When I play, my characters tend to be very proactive in getting involved in the world, following up on their own leads, deciding what they're going to get into.
Couldn't agree with you more. I find that campaigns that me or my players have a personal stake in are the most rewarding.
Not to mention proactive characters make it WAY eaiser for me as a GM.|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'll give you the details on my situation. The game I'm running is Trinity. For those of you that don't know this one, its kinda like Shadowrun but all the PCs are psychics (telekinetics, pyrokinetics, mind-readers, etc.) and each type of psychic has a different type of psychic power. Trinity is an organization, much like the Illuminati, that plays power games and sponsors all sorts of activities in secret.
My game has 7 players in it, only 2 of them have the same psychic 'skill' and all the others are unique. Trinity wanted them to go into an underwater city and investigate a biochemical weapons plant that they believed was operating there. If they located it, they were to shut it down. They discovered that the place was indeed there and that they were mass-manufacturing a deadly virus that had no known cure. Dozens of canisters of this stuff were ready to go and could be released into the air at any time which would certainly spell death for the entire city. The leader of the group, the player that I had the discussion with after the fact, decided that this was 'too much for them' and called the SWAT team in to deal with it. I told him "A SWAT team is going to spook the bad guys and they're going to release the virus and kill everyone. They're terrorists, they don't care if they die too." His reply was "But I told them what they were going up against. The SWAT guys are professionals, they should have no problem dealing with a situation like this." Finally, I answered "If SWAT could handle this, why would Trinity have bothered recruiting a team of psychics to do it?" He told me that they had done their job of finding out where the place was and was now taking action towards shutting the place down. Bear in mind that I'm using the term 'SWAT' to give a general impression. The team that he called was actually an elite anti-terrorism group (like Rainbow Six) who were very skilled at dealing with biological and chemical weapons. It made sense that they COULD handle the situation, but I was a bit peeved that he was calling in a powerful, obvious, NPC force to do the PCs dirty work. The operation was supposed to be quiet so that the city's inhabitants wouldn't start freaking out about a bioweapons laboratory near their homes. Originally, I was going to have the virus get released and wipe out a huge portion of the city and possibly several PCs, but after a long debate I decided that the elite team would know what they were up against and take action accordingly so that they succeed without casualties.
That was the whole deal. My biggest issue was that he called in NPCs (which his character did indeed have the RIGHT to do) to do the high-action, intense part of the game, leaving the entire party utterly out of the scene. I was trying to coerce him into handling it himself, but he seemed convinced that this was the best course of action and there was no reason to deny it so I let it go with the threat that taking the operation out of his control literally meant just that... anything that happened would be OUT OF HIS CONTROL. Maybe I'm getting soft since I let them off easy...
|
|
When I play, my characters tend to be very proactive in getting involved in the world, following up on their own leads, deciding what they're going to get into.Couldn't agree with you more. I find that campaigns that me or my players have a personal stake in are the most rewarding.
Not to mention proactive characters make it WAY eaiser for me as a GM.
Here, here. If someone wants to be proactive, it makes it easier to put the spotlight on them than if they are all sitting around, saying, "what...was that tavern guy's name? Where are we again? Does anybody know what we were doing?"
Yet, I've gotten this from people who want me to do a dissertation on their character's backgrounds.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Fatespinner - Did you roleplay the actual call for the SWAT team? How did that go?
For what it's worth, here's how I tend to handle calvary calls like that. First, I make it clear that the cavalry doesn't want to be called. They make the PCs feel like idiots for asking for help, particularly if the PCs were called in to the job for which they are calling calvary. Second, I make sure they understand that as good as the cavalry is, there's a chance of failure once things get out of control. If that still doesn't do the job, I pull in the old "the cavalry is busy doing something else, they don't have time for this" trick.
Now, all that being said, I think the problem is a failure to suspend disbelief on the part of the player. The truth is that to the extent the CIA has an elite anti-terorrism unit, it's not just Jack Bauer running around doing everything. It's a whole organizational entity. Jack Bauer would need to call the home office doing his crazy CIA stuff, the CIA would investigate his crazy CIA stuff, they'd mobolize the troops and react in the way that real organizations react. After he got done doing crazy stuff, they'd investigate him, hold congressional hearings about whether CIA agents should be allowed to do such crazy CIA stuff, and they'd hire some extra people who aren't traitors/dead/etc. And all of this would make an incredibly dull television show.
Your player needs to realize that even if the SWAT team could, should, or would handle it, the whole point of playing the game is for the PC's to handle it.
Edit: At the very least, I would have the persons in charge suspend that character from his leadership post. Maybe introduce a rival group of psychics that are the new hot thing and get all the cool missinos because the PC group has shown they can't handle things. Have the other pyschics make fun of them for having to call in non-psychic back-up. Basically, use a lot of peer pressure to get them to start acting like heroes.
The reaction fatespinner had from one of his players is something that happens not seldom in real word (or near-real-world) RPG settings. There is some kind of government and organisation, however shoddy and corrupt it may be, and if the characters are somewhat close to "normal" citizens, they probably call the cops if things get out of hands. You can´t even blame them. Most often this happens in games like Call of Cthulhu, where normal men and women are drawn into "adventure". You could even say that they are playing their character good, as this would probably be a normal reaction very in character.
So you have to give them reasons not to call the cops, without being heavy-handed ("hey guys, that way is the action."). Are they wanted by the police ? Better not to call them. Do they investigate supernatural matter, and nobody would believe them (Hunter: The Reckoning works great that way)? Is the "evil" corporation they investigate in league with the police, and the PCs know this ? (Is the local SWAT leader perhaps bought by them to counter any such move?) Does the operation need to be conducted stealthily, for whatever reason ?
If you build in any of these safety catches from the start, the players won´t have an excuse to call in NPCs to do the dirty work.
In a pinch, you can always scramble their means of communications and make the operation time critical. It´s heavy-handed, but it works.
Stefan
P.S. I just played Trinity once, but I liked it. Great game!
|
|
Next time they try to call SWAT, have a federal judge refuse to sign off on the papers. They usually need a court order to enter private premises for search and seizure.
And...what do you know. The federal judge is a mind-controlled stooge of evil.
I've heard a lot of complaints through the media that it's way too hard for police officers to serve search warrants as it is; the legal system keeps tieing their hands, and (as far as I know) the factors in the legal system aren't the puppets of an evil mastermind.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Next time they try to call SWAT, have a federal judge refuse to sign off on the papers. They usually need a court order to enter private premises for search and seizure.
And...what do you know. The federal judge is a mind-controlled stooge of evil.
I've heard a lot of complaints through the media that it's way too hard for police officers to serve search warrants as it is; the legal system keeps tieing their hands, and (as far as I know) the factors in the legal system aren't the puppets of an evil mastermind.
I can't tell you how many times I pull jurisdiction on my players. I'm sure it drives them crazy, but I think it's fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Fatespinner - Did you roleplay the actual call for the SWAT team? How did that go?
Yes, we did roleplay out the call. The SWAT team in question works for the organization that the player's character is a commander in. Technically, he is a superior officer in a very military-esque organization. The SWAT team would not question their superior officer. The PC's superiors, however, WILL be questioning him after the fact. That'll get resolved next game session. ;)
For what it's worth, here's how I tend to handle calvary calls like that. First, I make it clear that the cavalry doesn't want to be called. They make the PCs feel like idiots for asking for help, particularly if the PCs were called in to the job for which they are calling calvary. Second, I make sure they understand that as good as the cavalry is, there's a chance of failure once things get out of control. If that still doesn't do the job, I pull in the old "the cavalry is busy doing something else, they don't have time for this" trick.
The SWAT team in question was supposed to be on standby for this particular operation in case things got 'out of hand.' By 'out of hand' they really meant 'the case has been blown wide open and you just need someone to kill all the witnesses.' In this scenario, the case had barely even been opened. The PC jumped the gun and there will be repercussions, just not the TPK that it probably SHOULD have blossomed into if I hadn't decided to be nice.
Your player needs to realize that even if the SWAT team could, should, or would handle it, the whole point of playing the game is for the PC's to handle it.
I know, and that was mainly the reason for this post. Should I have wiped them out for calling on aid that wasn't necessary or should I just let the SWAT team succeed and make the character pay later?
Edit: At the very least, I would have the persons in charge suspend that character from his leadership post. Maybe introduce a rival group of psychics that are the new hot thing and get all the cool missinos because the PC group has shown they can't handle things. Have the other pyschics make fun of them for having to call in non-psychic back-up. Basically, use a lot of peer pressure to get them to start acting like heroes.
While this is certainly a very amusing concept, I don't think it is warranted in this situation. The organization he works for is very secretive and it is unlikely that other groups will even know of his part in it. His superiors certainly will, however, and that should be all the scolding he needs for this one. Their next assignment will not have a backup team assigned to them because of their misuse of direct force. They'll have to do it all by themselves next time. Hopefully they'll learn to use what they have at their disposal more efficiently this time. :)
Director of Sales
|
...I told him "A SWAT team is going to spook the bad guys and they're going to release the virus and kill everyone. They're terrorists, they don't care if they die too." ... taking the operation out of his control literally meant just that... anything that happened would be OUT OF HIS CONTROL.
I had something very similar to this happen in a Shadowrun game I was in. The player (I won't name names) wanted to call the authorities. The DM (and a couple of the other players) obviously didn't think much of the idea, but we ended up calling the authorities anyway. However, while we were waiting for the authorities to arrive:
DM: Your pocket secretary rings. It's your sister.
Player: I have a sister?
DM: Yup.
Player: Ok... I answer.
DM (as heretofore unknown sister): "Surprise! I'm at your apartment (which we know to be in the affected area if the bomb goes off)! I decided to drop by for a surprise visit! Are you surprised?!?"
Player: $%&*!!!
All of a sudden, we couldn't trust the authorities not to screw it up. It was a pretty blatant tactic by the DM (well, GM actually), but it was a pretty effective way of raising the stakes and communicating that this was OUR job. We went in, and now we had the added fun of a timeline to get in and out before the authorities arrived.
It was awesome.
And, yes, we saved the sister... who actually went on to become an integral NPC for the rest of the campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Cosmo, that is quite possibly the most awesome save ever. Kudos to that GM.
In my situation, however, the characters had never been to this city before, they didn't know anyone there, and the organization they worked for had done a very good job of coming up with alternate identities for them while they were on assignment.
Still, I'll keep that tactic in mind. I may need it in the future.
|
|
I can't tell you how many times I pull jurisdiction on my players. I'm sure it drives them crazy, but I think it's fun.
That must suck. I can only make up a probably mistake-riddled approximation of a judicial system hassle that a cunning pc can shoot holes in by attacking my lack of authoritative knowledge.
You, on the other hand, can make an iron-clad 100% completely accurate case.Hmm...I see the inklings of an article...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't tell you how many times I pull jurisdiction on my players. I'm sure it drives them crazy, but I think it's fun.That must suck. I can only make up a probably mistake-riddled approximation of a judicial system hassle that a cunning pc can shoot holes in by attacking my lack of authoritative knowledge.
You, on the other hand, can make an iron-clad 100% completely accurate case.
Hmm...I see the inklings of an article...
I keep telling them that they should document the relationship between their characters with a partnership agreement of some sort, but they always ignore me. Just wait until tax time, that's all I've got to say...
What's the article inkling?
My AoW campaign has involved legal wranglings. The PCs had this expectation that due to magic, the courts would use truth spells and divinations to determine guilt/innocence. However, based on various procedural elements of our own court system such as hearsay, it occurred to me that magic would not be any more reliable than technology in a court of law. If O.J. can get off when scientific DNA evidence proves he was guilty, I figure the same logic applies to the D&D courts and magical evidence. Thus, magic is not only not conclusive proof of guilt, it's generally frowned upon during the judicial process.
SPOILERS
Currently, Balabar Smenk has signed a confession which guarantees his own death and that of the characters. Because it is a voluntary confession made against his interest, it carries a lot of weight against the PCs. Of course, the truth is that Balabar is actually a doppleganger, and the whole plot is to lure the PCs into Greyhawk and from there into the Hall of Harsh Reflections...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Fatespinner - I think you handled the situation well, and I wouldn't call it a fudge. You allowed things to play out in the favor of the players, but I think the important thing is to make sure to set up future encounters so that there isn't such an easy backdoor out. Taking away their backup sounds like a great way of doing so.
Cosmo - Shadowrun has always been the game of sibling jeapordy when I play. For some reason, I struck upon the idea of kidnapping a rival runner's brother in order to get him to back off a run. It took the GM completely by surprise and removed a powerful opponent from the game. I haven't had karma visit one of my characters yet, but it sounds like maybe it visited you instead.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was just thinking, if there was to be an article on legal systems in roleplaying for Dragon, you could be the guy to pull it off. Just a brainstorm.
I've entertained the idea, but I'm not sure if A) anyone would be interested in it except me, B) I could do the topic justice (no pun intended) or C) I'd have time. I'm hoping someone else will write something, and then I'll tear it apart here. ;-) Being a critic is so much easier than actually producing quality work.
In response to the original question, I think the best solution is a variation of the "your sister calls" tactic. It also is prevalent in the "Jack Bauer" model mentioned above. Most of the time Bauer pulls of his wacky shenanigans because he doesn't have TIME to call the real authorities (or he doesn't trust them, which is another time-honored plot device). It might have been easier to tell the PCs, "Okay, you call the SWAT team, and their commander says he'll be here in 25 minutes. Meanwhile, it looks like the terrorists are loading some of their toxin onto some submersibles. If they get those out of here before SWAT arrives, they could destroy an entire city/province/continent." This allows the PCs to follow the "reasonable" course of contacting the cavalry but still forces the heroes to be, well, heroic, and all without stepping out of character and having an argument with the player about what the PCs "should" do.
On a related, but different, topic is the "secret door problem." In the course of the adventure, the PCs need to find the secret door to the hidden complex/gather information from NPCs/make a knowledge roll to get to the next stage of the adventure. It doesn't really matter what the obstacle is, as long as it's not combat. Finally, it's an opportunity for the rogue/face-man/scholar to step forward and let his skills shine! Unfortunately, he blows the roll. You, as the GM, of course provide another opportunity somewhere along the line (move the door/provide another NPC/point to the library). You continue to do something like this, because your certainly not going to send everyone home and say, "Well, you missed the secret door, so the world was destroyed in a ball of napalm-filled cheez whiz." So, ultimately, the PCs WILL succeed, no matter what (i.e, no matter how low the skill is), because they have to in order for everyone to have fun.
Now, the logical progression from this is the total lack of motivation of the players to even have rogues/face-men/scholars in their party. Eventually, someone in the party of combat mongers and wizards will find the door (or some similar plot device) just so the adventure will continue, and the players know this. How do we, as GMs, motivate the players to play the A-Team model of a well-rounded party, when they know they don't need to?
O
I've heard a lot of complaints through the media that it's way too hard for police officers to serve search warrants as it is
Not really hard if you have solid probable cause that you can articulate, prove and isn't the fruit of a poisonous tree (Sebastian knows what I'm talking about). Basically if you got evidence illegally or information illegally, you can't use it to articulate the probable cause for a search warrant, even if the information is true.
I personally wouldn't want it to be any easier--it forces the cops to pay attention to the Bill of Rights. Do bad guys sometimes get away with stuff? Of course, but it's a price I'm willing to pay to live in a free society. I'm defintely lawful neutral on this issue and I'd rather sacrifice a few so that the fabric of society doesn't get unravelled.
I don't want to threadjack this topic, so I'd like to add that the cavalry in my game tends to be busy doing other things and that the PCs are center stage. In games set in a modern or futuristic setting, the authorities are usually too distracted by major events unfolding around them to help out the PCs much.
|
|
I was just thinking, if there was to be an article on legal systems in roleplaying for Dragon, you could be the guy to pull it off. Just a brainstorm.I've entertained the idea, but I'm not sure if A) anyone would be interested in it except me, B) I could do the topic justice (no pun intended) or C) I'd have time. I'm hoping someone else will write something, and then I'll tear it apart here. ;-) Being a critic is so much easier than actually producing quality work.
Right on. I guess the subject interests me because, having lived in a BAD place for a while (I've heard it referred to as bandit zoning) I've had a little firsthand exposure to the legal system.
I never had any trouble with the law personally, just the kinds of people who had trouble with the law.It's like walking into the Roman colusseum with a soup spoon. After a while, you learn how to use the soup spoon.
|
|
I was just thinking, if there was to be an article on legal systems in roleplaying for Dragon, you could be the guy to pull it off. Just a brainstorm.I've entertained the idea, but I'm not sure if A) anyone would be interested in it except me, B) I could do the topic justice (no pun intended) or C) I'd have time. I'm hoping someone else will write something, and then I'll tear it apart here. ;-) Being a critic is so much easier than actually producing quality work.Right on. I guess the subject interests me because, having lived in a BAD place for a while (I've heard it referred to as bandit zoning) I've had a little firsthand exposure to the legal system.
I never had any trouble with the law personally, just the kinds of people who had trouble with the law.
It's like walking into the Roman colusseum with a soup spoon. After a while, you learn how to use the soup spoon.
What I would love to see is listing of several countries' laws from around 500-1000 years ago and how they could be used in a campaign setting. Modern laws are far too complex to translate over to D&D imo.
BTW I did a small amount of time(3 months-14years ago) and found jail to be rather restful. Not much of a punishment. I had TV, meals, recreation, drugs (if I wanted), magazines, candy, alot of stuff that I don't think criminals should have. Jail should have been hard. The only thing hard was the lack of female companionship (I was used to having alot back then).I classify myself then as Chaotic/Neutral. I have moved on to Neutral/Good at present. I will help anyone in physical danger without any thought to my safety, if my kids are around I will consider thier safety first though.
Anyway, on the Fudge or Fail thing.....Depends on the situation and the description. If I as a DM fail to describe something with enough detail to ellicit a well informed and appropriate response, then my player(s) shouldn't be made to suffer.
FH
|
|
I'm not even going to go into any of the dumb crap I did 14+ years ago.
I've been thinking more on the thread subject, and it reminds me of something from the Book of Five Rings by Musashi.
Musashi talks about knowing the mind of others, and as an example uses a criminal holed up in a house surrounded by the authorities. The authorities think of him as being well fortified. The criminal thinks of himself as trapped, and yearns for nothing but escape.
The player character is in that trap after a manner of speaking. The dungeon master has the weight of the whole wide world to bring to bear upon the poor p.c. if he wishes. So the p.c. has to be in a mode of caution, for one wrong move and he is food for the crows. It is the easier thing to be the dungeon master, in that respect anyway. The difficult thing is to remember what the p.c. feels like. To understand the p.c.'s mindset, that is the key.
Right on, F2K. I stand corrected.
I think the issue I heard discussed was about serving warrants and having to wait "x" amount of time before moving in, and how officers had to be in harm's way inordinately because of the new wait time rule. I guess confused the issue.
Yeah, you were thinking about "no knock" warrants, which are much harder to get, since you have to show probable cause not only for the warrant, but also for the reason there is a specific danger to the officers--just saying "drug dealers usually have guns" doesn't cut it, you have to specify and have articulable probable cause.
Back on topic--I liked the law system presented in the old "Waterdeep and the North" 2e FR supplement--a simple chart for punishment and offense. I think a legal system where "detect thoughts" and "zones of truth" were in effect would be much simpler and justice much swifter, when backed up by divination magic.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Right on, F2K. I stand corrected.
I think the issue I heard discussed was about serving warrants and having to wait "x" amount of time before moving in, and how officers had to be in harm's way inordinately because of the new wait time rule. I guess confused the issue.
Quick threadjack for Criminal Procedure 101.
My guess is that you're thinking of the knock and announce rule. Your suppose to knock, wait a reasonable amount of time, and then bust down the door. You can dispose of the knock if there are certain circumstances that justify such an action (e.g., you believe someone is hurt inside, or that evidence will be destroyed, or that the person will escape). I don't know about no-knock warrants, so I defer to F2K. I bet those are generally harder to get.
Quick aside: the common remedy for a violation of 4th amendment rights (the right to be free from search and seizure) is the exclusion of the evidence. If you've seen Se7en, that's the argument made by Kevin Spacey's character with respect to the evidence seized by Brad Pitt w/o a warrant. Because Brad Pitt lacked a warrant or exception from the warrant requirement, the evidence would be excluded from Kevin Spacey's trial (barring the application of one of the numerous exceptions to the above general statement). This remedy is called the exclusionary rule. The theory is that it deters cops from violating your rights because any evidence they find is inadmissible in court. The downside of this rule is that only the guilty benefit from its effect.
The reason that knock and announce has been discussed is because the Supreme Court recently ruled that if an officer failed to knock and announce, the exclusionary rule would not apply. This makes it easier for police officers to execute a warrant, not harder (Heathhanson, no offense, but I hope you aren't relying on a particularly partisan brand of news for your information - what you said is one of the arguments made for the ruling I am describing, not an actual rule of law or, necessarily, a matter of fact). The conservative justices suggested that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated altogether and that some other remedy should be put in its place (e.g., bringing a civil action against the police officers).
Opinions differ on whether this is a good idea. The exclusionary rule has been in effect since the turn of the century. However, it is not required by the Constitution, and other remedies could work as well, if not better. The biggest danger that I see is that there are currently no other remedies available. Suing the police is extremely difficult, despite the frequency with which it occurs in LA. So, while the exclusionary rule is not perfect, it's a bit dangerous to mess with it until and unless a replacement is ready.
I defer to F2K in terms of how this all plays out on the beat, I just know the legal arguments behind the various positions. As he said though, warrants are relatively easy to obtain. I didn't realize no-knock warrants existed, but what he says makes sense.
Ultimate point: it's easier to get admissible evidence when you fail to knock and announce, not harder.
it's easier to get admissible evidence when you fail to knock and announce, not harder.
So i'm better off if a cop is knocking on my door as opposed to busting it down then?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
it's easier to get admissible evidence when you fail to knock and announce, not harder.So i'm better off if a cop is knocking on my door as opposed to busting it down then?
I could have said that better. It's easier now to get admissible evidence when you fail to knock and announce than it used to be. It's not easier to get admissible evidence when you fail to knock and announce than it is if you do knock and announce.
Your screwed either way, really. It's just that it used to be the case that if the cop busted down your door for the hell of it, the chances of the evidence being excluded were better than they are now.
Not every jurisdiction or state requires that officers specify that they are requesting a "no knock" warrant--mine doesn't as far as I know, but I never had to do one, never having worked narcotics. I just thought that's what Heathansson was thinking of when he mentioned search warrants.
My search warrants were all very tame and calm affairs, mostly for business records when I worked white collar crime.
After my initial stint in patrol I realized I didn't care to see human misery or deal with the dregs of the earth all that much, so I gravitated towards property crime investigation--made detective in '93 worked Auto Theft investigation for 5 years and white collar crime for 7 years after that--now I'm in administration and working on an accreditation project (which is about as much fun as it sounds, but it's good for my career)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not every jurisdiction or state requires that officers specify that they are requesting a "no knock" warrant--mine doesn't as far as I know, but I never had to do one, never having worked narcotics. I just thought that's what Heathansson was thinking of when he mentioned search warrants.
My search warrants were all very tame and calm affairs, mostly for business records when I worked white collar crime.
That could be what he meant - the Supreme Court case was in the news a month or two ago, so I figured that's what he was talking about. I agree that no-knock warrants are probably a jurisdictional thing. Any warrant can (Constitutionally) be a no-knock warrant.
Back on topic--tonight I ran my SCAP game. The PCs are going through "Test of the Smoking Eye" which I was going to skip, but then realized I couldn't because they'd be way behind the power curve.
*SCAP SPOILER WARNING*
I fudged to get the adventure going faster and move them up a level faster and put two bebiliths into the first test in the cathedral on Occipitus instead of one. They blew through those two CR10 monsters with ease, thanks to good teamwork and spellcasting.
I was tempted to put a third bebilith in there just for the hell of it, but I restrained myself lest I end up with a TPK caused by my "unfairness."
Later in the gaming session, a random encounter brought three CR7 spectres, which ended up giving the party a harder time than the bebiliths did, causing about 20 combined negative levels before they were destroyed.
I used to "fudge" with confidence in 1e/2e, but I'm still not comfortable with 3.5 enough yet, it seems.
... I sometimes play my characters with a wild abandon and don't really cry over a TPK unless I didn't go out with style. ...
"Better to burn out than fade away..." -unsure
I always want my characters to go down in style, "Although in real death I just want to go to sleep and fade away.
...players often make bad decisions because they don't understand the description you've given them, ...
Create point really gets me thinking and even revising my own approach to Dming.
... Our imaginations vary from person to person. ...
FHmy 2
Thats why everyone at the table experiences a different story at the same game. anyway
I have for many years aspired to be hard ass DM no warmings and let the dice fall where they may? But after reading these posts, I now know why I have yet to met that aspiration. Because like all things with out some balance in a Dms decision making a game goes amok. A DM that never gives warningings for doing stupid stuff, will have very timid players, not good for heroic gaming and story telling. Second Dming like that will lead to arguements, because players just do not see the situation as the Dm, nor the pitfalls in thier decisions. These two points I have experienced more than once in a game.
So I do back track to some degree if players are confused as to the situation they face. I try to let players know the consequences of thier decisions. Knowing that I once had a very anti authoritarian player, I let him know that back talking and picking a fight with the nobles of the town they were going to meet could easily lead to TPK, it would be wise to show respect to those in authority. He got the hint and dropped the obnaxious rebel ruitine and we had a great roleplaying session without a single dice roll.
As far as dice roll. I never reroll. IF you fail you fail. You die you die. I will warn you, let you know the odds, if you decide on not heeding my warnings, then so be it. On the other end, defy the odds and gain extra xp. Why? Because defying the odds and accomplish something stupid (What can snub fighters do against that thing), is so very dramatic.
As far as dice roll. I never reroll. IF you fail you fail. You die you die. I will warn you, let you know the odds, if you decide on not heeding my warnings, then so be it. On the other end, defy the odds and gain extra xp. Why? Because defying the odds and accomplish something stupid (What can snub fighters do against that thing), is so very dramatic.
Ok so I have to back track and say that there are rerolls if a player does not understand the situation. This will be a change from the way I normally try to play, so be it. But if they decide to go forward and not heed my warning than so be it let the dice fall where they may.
As far as fudging the dice, I never fudge the dice. I always roll in front of my players. This also gives observant players an idea of the oppositions capabilities. If they can figure out a NPCs attack bonus from the die roll and adjust accordingly then that is just good tactics on thier part.
That was the whole deal. My biggest issue was that he called in NPCs (which his character did indeed have the RIGHT to do) to do the high-action, intense part of the game, leaving the entire party utterly out of the scene. I was trying to coerce him into handling it himself, but he seemed convinced that this was the best course of action and there was no reason to deny it so I let it go with the threat that taking the operation out of his control literally meant just that... anything that happened would be OUT OF HIS CONTROL. Maybe I'm getting soft since I let them off easy...
This is why I like D&D - there is an automatic penalty for calling in outside help - no experience points for you!
I really can't imagine any player not wanting to actually, you know, play the game. Why does this guy even bother with a character if they never do any of the exciting stuff? If i was playing I wouldn't have gone along with this as a DM I never would have let a player have access to this kind of 'free ride'.
I have never fudged die rolls either, but just as Sir K. stated, if something bad happened because the players didn't have all the information their characters would have had, I do allow a very occasional "do-over."
I know that 3-D maps are just an occasional treat in Dungeon, but for the complex rooms and areas, they are so necessary to ensure that the players don't make bad decisions based on false assumptions. I use 3-D props whenever possible to help fill the gaps in my descriptive abilities. I think the recent thread of Tealpeck's Flood's problems are a perfect example. Even some DMs couldn't visualize the rooms until the author responded and gave a link to his website where he had the room maps posted in 3-D (nice job, btw)
Well, I don't like to kill characters when I gm, but if there are no consequences for stupid or extremelly unwise actions; than what is the point? Before I begin running a game I poll my players and see what kind of game they want to play, I have a list so is bit hard to explain in a few short sentences. If you players wanted to play in a crazy Dave the Barbarian theme world then consequences of unwise actions wouldnt fit the theme; but, in a serious game of dark plots and shady happenings; cause, effect and consequences with fallout or very very important.
That said; I dont fudge rolls for players over 10th level (or during a fight with a boss type); after that time the kid gloves are off and you should have enough knowledge of how to play your character and have such good teamwork that no one or two die rolls on my part will make much difference. If I have a day whereas I am rolling like a madman and most my rolls are 17+ during combats; well, that is abnormal; but it happens, and I will tone down my rolls or fudge a little as the story is more important than the random chance favoring my dice which is evident after the first 3 pc's are down after one or two rounds; I never want the dice luck factor to be the biggest factor in my game.
that said; there are some games that are particularly bloody; two of which are rolemaster and warhammer fantasy rpg; coming into those games you must know your character could die at anytime during a fight, warhammer in fact is so deadly the game itself recommends that you roll of three characters before starting; the crit charts in rolemaster are so vicious that even a minor bleeding wound will kill anyone as healing is so difficult and varied that no one healer can heal every type of wound that you WILL be exposed to; sadly, rolemaster takes a very long time to create a character, especially if you need to advance them a few levels. In these games, even if you dont do something stupid; you might get killed; well, thats the game and we dont fudge this at all.
Also, I never roll in front of my players as they players have no idea what I am rolling for; ie; checks for my mobs or things that the players do that npc may or may not notice; attacks; chances of wandering monsters or whatnot. I feel it inhibits the game as whenever I used to pick up the wandering monster die and roll it everyone would shout out how they have whatever readied and are looking around in paranoia. Behind a screen ;they dont know if my rolls are real or not or what they signify; the intent is not to hide my scores and if players want to watch a critical roll, then so be it; but if my mob then kills you too bad.