One of my players is unhappy. He has described his unhappiness in the synopsis of our campaign. I think that the heart of his complaint is that he wants an urban style roleplaying campaign and he keeps getting pushed into dungeon crawls. It seems that what he's after is to use unconventional methods to overcome typical D&D encounters, but when they don't work he is saddened and then the rest of the group starts running at things with swords and finishes them off, frustrating him.
On the one hand, this is D&D and that sort of adventuring is the nature of the game. We're at heart a hack and slash game, and there are other systems in the world much better suited to the roleplaying-intensive play style. On top of that, this is a D&D adventure path whose design goals are to please the people who enjoy classic D&D. We should all expect typical D&D gaming in CotCT and not feel unhappy when it shows up.
On the other hand, he's done a lot of work establishing a network of contacts through the city and he really wants to work around these challenges. I think that in the most recent session he really had a decent shot at it, but the dice were against him.
The problem is compounded by two other players who, contrary to our conversations before the start of the campaign, made characters optimized for combat and with very few social skills. They end up with nothing to do when we do the more social roleplaying. They've both said that they're okay with doing nothing and just watching the other players, but it feels wrong to me.
I'm not sure that I can solve this. It's an inherent risk in taking a weird approach to a path, and maybe this time around it's not going to work out for us.
One thing I'd learned its that is impossible to keep'em all happy. When this kind of issue raises at my tabletop I always end up playing separately by email or short coffeeshop-sessions with the unhappy player to give him what he works for. Of course, as long as you see he's making a real effort and its not only for selfishness.
I'm the kind of GM who can't really be happy if one of the players is unhappy. The kind of aprehensive GM...
This separate session works pretty well for me. The other player don't mind the "extra credits" of other players as long as they are satisfied with the current game.
Good luck with your PC
One thing I'd learned its that is impossible to keep'em all happy. When this kind of issue raises at my tabletop I always end up playing separately by email or short coffeeshop-sessions with the unhappy player to give him what he works for.
Thanks. We're already doing a tonne of stuff away from the table. He receives twenty or so weekly reports from his agents and contacts around town. We play out the interactions at the host club via the internet rather than around the table. He's had several on-line conversations with NPCs and even other PCs. I'll keep doing this, but it's his unhappiness with the other PCs I don't know how to handle.
but it's his unhappiness with the other PCs I don't know how to handle.
Well, I think that's beyond the GMs hands. I have played with s single group for over 16 years and most of their gaming style collides with each other. What keeps them togheter its the humorous times and the big achievements, like pulling out of a certain TPK or killing the anoying villain of the campaign with a well placed critical. A trick I have (nasty trick...) is to work things around to get the unhappy player to affect the whole group in a possitive way to integrate him more and have the other players appreciate the loner PC and embrace him a bit further into the group. Its pulling the strings but keep's them happy.
Kill them all. Show them true unhappiness.
Problem solved. }; P
}:D This works too but have to do several damage control afterwards!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. We're already doing a tonne of stuff away from the table. He receives twenty or so weekly reports from his agents and contacts around town. We play out the interactions at the host club via the internet rather than around the table. He's had several on-line conversations with NPCs and even other PCs. I'll keep doing this, but it's his unhappiness with the other PCs I don't know how to handle.
Honestly, I think he's just in a bad situation. Good DM, who cares, great game and honest hard work going into making a game he would like.
And then two other players bother him. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. He probably knows that you've tried to make the game better for him. If he doesn't, then he'll never be happy. Make sure that you keep making the game bearable to him, and try to talk to the other two again. If nothing changes, you have four options:
1) Cancel the game
2) Change the game to force situations where RP is required and combat is a suicide mission
3) Tell him or the other two to leave, because they are ruining the game for someone.
4) Give out extra skills and hope the two combat machines accidentally use them.
All of those suck, but if you don't do something, he'll either quit or start hating the other two people (happened to me) for ruining the game for him. Perhaps it's just not the game for him. Perhaps it's just not the game for them.
Good luck
Ok ok. Then just turn them into frogs, lawyers or other vermin.
That sounds more reasonable, but lawyers may be a bit far too cruel!
Thanks for the ideas, everyone. I clearly need to do something, because pretty soon his unhappiness is going to affect everyone. I really like gaming with him, and there's no question that he's in line with what the group initially agreed to do. Other people have changed their minds or not conformed to the initial plan, and at this point we just need to adapt.
I'll have to sit down with him and talk about it. He has spent the last few months living outside of town and commuting every other weekend for the game, but he moves back at the beginning of September. Hopefully once he's local again we can work this out.
It's never a good problem when players have incompatible gaming styles. Whenever that has occurred with me, I find either players are just unhappy and keep up with it, or players end up breaking up the party.
The best advice I can give is to discuss this at the beginning of your next game session, and explain to them that you're concerned about this. Get everyone's opinion - how bored or unhappy are they? Then discuss how each one would have ideally preferred the last encounter to have been played out.
That will tell you whether the group is compatible or not. If they are, don't worry. Your only challenge is to somehow "make" the resolution work. If someone rolls bad, you still want them to fail - but redefine failure so that the game can still proceed the way the group wants.
For example, a character is tracking someone. Tracking check fails. But you need the track to happen for the game style you want. Instead of ruling that the track becomes cold and he finds nothing, have something terrible happen instead. A group of rioters, bandits, or unexplainable horror attacks him instead. Simple make the character "pay" instead of making him fail.
If it comes at a high enough cost, players won't think you're being easy on them. And of course, when failure doesn't mean the entire adventure goes to waste, then just have them fail.
I'll second the voice that said "talk to everyone about it".
I have read the synnopsis, including Uldeims responses. On one hand it seems very much like he is thinking in character, and that his trouble is that he no longer feels his character can/would coorperate with the course of action the others want. I admire him for sticking to his characters motives, rather than bending to the fit the intended path.
However, his own admitted joy of "wrecking the plot" does not sit well with me. I think that, even within your characters motivation, you must still think of this a group activity! Had it been a book, there would just be chapters on what Siolin went about doing... but in the end - since he plans not to be in the thick of the action - he would not be the hero of the book. Just a supporting character.
There are a few good rules for creating a character, and one of them is that you must create a character that would want to go on adventure!
So in my opinion the problem lies with the whole concept that they cooked up. The Black Fox voiced his concern from the start... It seems that with this setup, your are not going to be playing the AP, but something else. This is then compounded be the fact that appearently some of the other players would rather play a more traditional approach to the whole thing.
My guess is that some of these players did not voice their objections from the get-go, or did not see where it would lead. Now is the time to assess the situation and find out what everyone would like to do.
The best advice I can give is to discuss this. . .
That's good advice, and I'll do that.
Get everyone's opinion - how bored or unhappy are they?
I've discussed it with people individually already. Siolin's player is the most unhappy. He's the one whose post started all this. The players of Serai and Anaster both say that they're happy, but they made characters contrary to what the six of them agreed they'd make. At first I thought that this was the usual problem of beginning characters never quite having achieved the desired concept, but it turns out that they both just decided to make combat characters who are bad in social situations. (This is particularly a problem with Serai, since her player had agreed to make a character to fill the arcane role, and has since changed her mind. She's a new player, so I don't think she realizes that this is going to have repercussions.)
I think that this is boiling down to a communications problem. It will surely help once all the players live in town again and everyone can regularly attend games.
I think that, even within your characters motivation, you must still think of this a group activity!
Well said, sir! In my opinion, the job of everyone at the table (player and GM alike) is to make sure that everyone else at the table has as much fun as possible.
So in my opinion the problem lies with the whole concept that they cooked up.
They proposed quite a few different concepts, including everybody just making whatever kind of PHB character they wanted, and then they voted. This idea just barely squeaked past the all-Hellknight party. Even the all-pseudodragon party got more votes (fourth place) than just making characters out of the PHB willy-nilly (sixth place).
I routinely run weird campaigns. The best of these have been amazing roleplaying experiences. Normally if things just don't work then we're glad that we made the experiment and then move on to something else. This time around several of us really want to experience the adventure path. (Usually I just make stuff up for our home games.) If I can fix it this time then I want to.
My guess is that some of these players did not voice their objections from the get-go, or did not see where it would lead.
I think that you're right. The two players who are going against the agreed-upon theme are 1. a relatively new player and 2. someone who doesn't usually game with me. I think that maybe they aren't quite sure how to adapt to this.
So I have Siolin's player, who really, really wants to play the campaign that everyone agreed we'd play. I have two players who just aren't playing anything other than stereotypical D&D in spite of the initial agreement. Finally, I have two players who just want to have fun and go along with whatever's happening at the table. Until a couple weeks ago I had another player who was heavily invested in the initial premise, but he just moved to another city too far away for a commute.
I second the advice of "Revise some threats to be more roleplaying oriented".
Prime example: The King of Spiders. Here you're in the middle of an entire "building" of thieves and criminals; taking sword and spell to the leader just ain't a good idea. In fact, I'd say that you'd just die, given the odds.
Then there's Seven Days to the Grave. A lot there seems geared to RP, at least as far as the curing points.
Thank-you for the advice. As it turns out, I don't need to revise the bits that are already heavily roleplaying-oriented. For instance (to pick on your prime example) the players handled the King of Spiders without any combat at all. They didn't even play any knivesies. When it's a roleplaying situation then there is enough talent in the group to carry it through. The problem is that when there are bad guys then the combat characters step up and wantonly murder them, which is what's expected in D&D but is giving Siolin a moral crisis.
So I think that I'm going to talk to everyone again and see what they want. Hopefully we'll be able to come up with some concensus that will allow us to play this in a fun way. For the short term I'll definitely take the Black Fox's advice (in the campaign summary) to explain the laws in more detail.
Thanks again, everyone!
TBUG, another way to look at these situations is to use them as roleplaying situations. Who is to say that each individual in a group will all handle each situation the same way.
Some of the best roleplaying I have ever done is when I was arguing with other member of the party. Is it a way for players to showcase who their characters are so that the group will know how different people will react to situations. In the case of the combat folks, there may be certain circumstances where they need to just sit down and shut up for the good of the party.
There are other times where killing something is the best way to handle the situation, I think COTCT has plenty of both. The key is finding a balance that all can live with.
I am very curious... what was the agreement that your group had for the type of game you wanted to play? You have inferred that it is a socially oriented game with very little combat. Was there an expectation that EVERY encounter would be completable with only social skills?
I don't want to rock the boat too much, but if that is the case then I think there is someone else at the table not playing that agreement as well and that would be the DM. The Adventure Paths are not designed to be combat free. If you agreed to this type of campaign and then chose this campaign then I think you set them up for issues.
On the other hand if you can handle many situations with role-play and then have people able to step up and still beat the fights... well you are actually doing pretty well. If you have a bunch of socially oriented characters I don't think you will be able to finish a Paizo AP... they are tough. You need ALL the skills... combat, social, arcane, divine... the whole bit.
Anyway... I don't want to be too harsh on you, but I don't think you should only consider the players role in the tone and outcome of a game. It might be necessary for you to take the story from where it is and just take it in your own direction.
As an example, this party will likely not appreciate the trip out of the city to retreive a sword to hurt the BBEG. Instead you will want to take the sections that talk about starting a resistance and expand that greatly in a way to complete the campaign (in fact I could see it being fun if you had them influencing a typical group who does get sent out to get the sword and finishes things as the PCs would as written, then the players in this game take on the role of the NPCs in a typical campaign... could be a lot of fun... just not the campaign that was written by Paizo).
Anyway... I really do wish you luck and heartily agree with everyone else (including yourself) who believes the best shot you have is to talk it out with the group as a whole. Stress that it is EVERYONES job to make sure that everyone at the table is having fun.
Well, let us know how it goes!
Sean Mahoney
I think that, even within your characters motivation, you must still think of this a group activity!Well said, sir! In my opinion, the job of everyone at the table (player and GM alike) is to make sure that everyone else at the table has as much fun as possible.
Now THAT is what it's all about!
Ultradan
I am very curious... what was the agreement that your group had for the type of game you wanted to play? You have inferred that it is a socially oriented game with very little combat. Was there an expectation that EVERY encounter would be completable with only social skills?
There was an expectation that the group would try to complete the AP using social characters instead of the usual D&D archtypes. They did make a plan to have someone filling the four standard roles, but the PCs only had aristocrat levels when they began play.
They specifically told me that I'm to run the AP as written, though I can add as much stuff as I like. They're aware that this means that I won't be adjusting the written encounters so that they can all be completed using only social skills.
I don't want to rock the boat too much, but if that is the case then I think there is someone else at the table not playing that agreement as well and that would be the DM. The Adventure Paths are not designed to be combat free. If you agreed to this type of campaign and then chose this campaign then I think you set them up for issues.
I love that you called me on this. Please rock the boat when you think it appropriate.
Most of the group members are experienced D&D players, and have read lots of modules and Dungeon issues. Four of the six are experienced GMs. We decided to play Curse of the Crimson Throne and then they voted on what kind of party they'd like to play. This is what they chose.
On the other hand if you can handle many situations with role-play and then have people able to step up and still beat the fights... well you are actually doing pretty well.
I believe that this is what they want out of the AP. It's not the fact that there was any combat at all that upset one player, it's that suddenly the whole facade of civilization dropped off as a couple of players went into "hack and slash D&D mode". If there had been more examination of the legal rights of the NPCs and an attempt at taking prisoners then it would have been very similar to earlier events (such as the attack on Gaedren Lamm's fishery), and this player had no trouble with those.
If you have a bunch of socially oriented characters I don't think you will be able to finish a Paizo AP... they are tough. You need ALL the skills... combat, social, arcane, divine... the whole bit.
The players said this themselves and set about to make sure that all of the roles were filled. One player has since changed her mind and is no longer filling her role, which results in other problems. She was going to be the arcane caster and now just wants to beat things up. This is, understandably, causing some tension. She is easily the newest player, and hasn't quite found the feel of everything yet.
Anyway... I don't want to be too harsh on you, but I don't think you should only consider the players role in the tone and outcome of a game. It might be necessary for you to take the story from where it is and just take it in your own direction.
As an example, this party will likely not appreciate the trip out of the city to retreive a sword to hurt the BBEG. Instead you will want to take the sections that talk about starting a resistance and expand that greatly in a way to complete the campaign . . .
In fact, I've started a separate thread on this very topic. I don't want to railroad the party into leaving town if what they really want to do is stick around.
Anyway... I really do wish you luck and heartily agree with everyone else (including yourself) who believes the best shot you have is to talk it out with the group as a whole. Stress that it is EVERYONES job to make sure that everyone at the table is having fun.
Thank-you. I appreciate your frankness and your willingness to call me on things.
TBUG, another way to look at these situations is to use them as roleplaying situations.
Thanks, Terok. I agree. I tend to think of pretty much any situation as a role-playing situation, in fact. Try sitting at a table playing a board game with me some time and you'll see what I mean. :)
I think that where I dropped the ball this time around was in giving too little information to the people who wanted to role-play adherence to the law. They weren't sure if they were allowed to enter the mausoleum, and they weren't sure how much force they could use against the derro, and they didn't know what the legal status of the otyugh was, and so on. I didn't realize that this internal crisis was going on, so I didn't jump in to help.
My plan is to come up with some general guidelines for the players that will attempt to explain how to play D&D in the middle of a very lawful environment. I'll start a new thread for that, and I'd love any input you could give me!
My group had a very difficult time getting a handle on what was permissible in Korvosa and what was not. This can suck energy right out of the game, because it starts to feel like you can't do anything right--it's exasperating to fail in your goals because you were uneasy about breaking laws you're not sure really exist; it's equally bad to do what you thought was the societally appropriate thing and end up condemned. We had several episodes of "If it's known that the PCs did that, their names will be mud" which were unpleasant surprises to me as a player.
The PCs really need to know who is under the protection of the law and to what exent, as well as the limits of their own roles (whether as agents or vigilantes). At a minimum:
Which species are "people"?
How great is the legal superiority of aristocrats over commoners?
Under what circumstances is vigilante violence condoned?
How aggressively can/will the power structure defend itself from challenge? (Is it certain death for a commoner to inconvenience a Great House? How about a petty noble?)
What is the PCs' legal status when they are working for Kroft? In our game they were deniable extra-legal help with no status, generally speaking, but I don't think that's the module mainline.
I don't think that's your only problem--but you seem to have a pretty good handle on the party dynamics. The remaining soft spot seems to be strategic. What *is* a reasonable strategy in these situations?
It's hard, because the source material in the modules seems complex and multi-faceted at best--a less kind description would be "wildly internally inconsistent." The PCs need to change their behavior repeatedly with little apparent reason. This is going to be a hard struggle for any group that cares about motivation. (As you note elsewhere, the departure from Korvosa is very, very hard to stomach--you can force the PCs to do it, but maybe not to want to do it, which will tend to demoralize the players.)
I felt sick about the blue guys too; the motivation for that encounter was not strong enough to make invading someone's home and murdering them palatable. Our PCs hit them with saps and stun spells, then conveniently "forgot" after the battle that they ought to take prisoners, so almost all the derro escaped. But it was an uncomfortable, strained scenario none the less. It felt arbitrary and hard to believe in.
One final aspect you might look at. The intro to _Seven Days_ brags that it will make the PCs miserable by showing that no matter what they do, horrible things must happen because the PCs can't do it all. We did find it to have this flavor, and it made the player miserable as well. Is some of the violence possibly a reaction to this kind of sense of futility? It was for us.
(Our game failed. The GM wasn't able to patch enough of the deeply problematic aspects of _Seven Days_ to salvage it, and our life situations were also very uncooperative.)
Mary
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case the Paizo people are reading, I'd like to add that guidelines of this kind is needed anytime an adventure takes place in an urban, or very civilized, or highly lawful society. It's no longer frontier justice or borderland survival at that point - you have lords, sheriffs, and judges you'll answer to.
As a player and DM, I need to know what those guidelines are. If I don't like them, I can always adjust or change them. But if the adventure writer puts it in, then it saves me and many others a lot of time brainstorming these ideas up.
This is a FREQUENT question that comes up. In my own homebrew setting, I even have a little 1 page handout I gave to players so they know it beforehand.
Incidentally, this is one reason I think so much "flavor text" descriptions fail as a game resource whether it is "game fiction" or the pseudo-ecology articles. Most of the time the flavor text is just vague. It does not actually give me anything solid to use in the context of the game. Yeah, it's nice to know all of the ritual hulabalo some monster uses for his religion. But in the end, I as DM will still use almost the exact same description for my PCs. What I need instead is concrete answers I can give players when they have very basic questions like this.
|
Well having completed the adventure path i feel I can comment on some more things. Derro not really sure what the problem is here since
1. They are working for a necromancer and helping him harvest parts to create undead constructs and 2 it clearly says they ocasionaly kidinap people for torture and experimantation They are not nice they are not kind and if they got a chance they would probably gut you like a fish.
As for the judical system.....
In edge of anarchy the entire reason the Pc's are brought in is because the entire system has either broken down or has been strained to breaking point. Odds are the law system has neither the recources or the manpower to work correctly other wise they wouldent be hiring the Pc's in the first place. Same with seven days in the grave with the plague. (Is a judge really going to risk going outside and get infected just so he can sentance someone for pickpocketing)
Well having completed the adventure path i feel I can comment on some more things. Derro not really sure what the problem is here since . . .
Sure, they're bad people. The area of contention is how upstanding citizens should treat them. Some people say that wanton slaughter is justified, while others favour due process.
As for the judical system.....
Some PCs want to support the failing judicial system and help prop it up rather than circumvent it (and so possibly weakening it further). This is the root of the conflict.
I agree with everything you wrote, Kevin. This is about how the characters are reacting to what you're describing.
Some PCs want to support the failing judicial system and help prop it up rather than circumvent it (and so possibly weakening it further). This is the root of the conflict.
In the Guidebook Korvosa's society is described in a relatively stable form--which doesn't survive scene 1 of the module, and there's little description of what replaces it. I understand why the Guidebook was written that way--otherwise it would be useless for anything but CotCT, which wouldn't make much sense--but we're given all those strict laws and then left wondering if any of them apply anymore.
My GM ducked that problem by toning down the civil disorder a lot. I don't know how we'd have handled it if we'd tried to run the modules as written. *Is* there any law in Korvosa? Can the PCs murder, rob, or foment dissension with impunity, or will something still retaliate? Does that situation change over the course of the modules?
I felt that the scenarios gave mixed signals: "It's a highly lawful, urban setting with a lot of structure--act accordingly" one day and "It's complete lawless chaos, take matters into your own hands" the next. It was hard to get oriented.
It's fairly likely that the PCs kill a member of the Guard early on (though ours didn't). In the previously lawful society this should have led to a trial, self-defense or no self-defense. (The PCs may well be acquitted, but they shouldn't be ignored.) Should it now?
We had the strong impression from Kroft's boxed dialog that she would look the other way if Spider were murdered. Is this commonplace? If so, how far up the social ladder would it extend? (We didn't make it to House Arkona, so I don't know what the module proposed as consequences for destroying them.)
It's not just derro. Sometimes life is cheap, sometimes it isn't; I found this disorienting. There were plenty of humans as wicked as the derro, too--Spider was one--but to preserve any sense of law in the setting, we didn't want the PCs slaughtering them indiscriminately.
Mary
Perhaps it would help if the DM described the game as taking place in a city that goes from very lawful into a state of chaos, riots and a survival mode due to disaster. The group as a whole should be encouraged to either come up with a common attitude for this situation (we are freedom fighters who want to form our own better society from what it was or we want to prop up and restore the rightful law or we won't agree and this will create some interesting role-playing). Knowing this will be a theme of the campaign ahead of time though would set up the group to deal with this environement.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Well having completed the adventure path i feel I can comment on some more things. Derro not really sure what the problem is here since . . .Sure, they're bad people. The area of contention is how upstanding citizens should treat them. Some people say that wanton slaughter is justified, while others favour due process.
I hope no one takes offence at this since its not my intent but I feel that people sometimes think into this a bit to much. I mean how is Killing the Derro any more right or wrong than killing some random orc guard in a dungeon (For all you know he's only working there to feed his wife and kid.) If its completly okay to kill one why would it not be okay to kill another.
I hope no one takes offence at this since its not my intent but I feel that people sometimes think into this a bit to much. I mean how is Killing the Derro any more right or wrong than killing some random orc guard in a dungeon (For all you know he's only working there to feed his wife and kid.) If its completly okay to kill one why would it not be okay to kill another.
Morally, it may not be different. But legally and culturally they could be completely different things.
I hope no one takes offence at this since its not my intent but I feel that people sometimes think into this a bit to much. I mean how is Killing the Derro any more right or wrong than killing some random orc guard in a dungeon (For all you know he's only working there to feed his wife and kid.) If its completly okay to kill one why would it not be okay to kill another.
I don't think any of us are taking offense at any bits of this conversation. I certainly hope that we're not; there is absolutely none intended on my part, and I've very grateful for the opposing views to my statements that have been posted.
I agree that there's no real moral difference. I think that my players think so too. If the dungeon were inside the city limits of Korvosa then the PCs in question would have at least as many moral qualms about killing that orc guard. They want the experience of roleplaying in a civilized environment, and the Guide to Korvosa has led them to believe that this is a city of laws.
I don't think that this will harm the game. I think that if anything it will add some really great depth when they finally realize that they need to oppose the monarch. The big obstacle at this point is that I haven't figured out the laws of the city so I don't know how to guide them as to what's allowed and what isn't.
Setting the game back a year, if some Korvosan citizens approached a complex within city limits and killed the guards outside it just because they were orcs I have no doubt that Zenobia Zenderholm would have convicted them of murder. The difference between then and now is the break down in society, but my PCs are choosing to act as though everything is fine (even though it demonstrably isn't).
Thank-you for the detailed responses, Mary. I always appreciate your insights.
It's not just derro. Sometimes life is cheap, sometimes it isn't; I found this disorienting. There were plenty of humans as wicked as the derro, too--Spider was one--but to preserve any sense of law in the setting, we didn't want the PCs slaughtering them...
I agree. I think that I can fix it if I just come up with a consistent set of laws and apply them equally. The PCs are aristocracy, so they can get loopholes where needed. I just need to give them a consistent sense of setting to help with suspension of disbelief and their immersion within the game.
Creative Director
|
The thing with "Curse of the Crimson Throne" is that, while it's mostly set in a VERY lawful city, it's set in that city at a time where the law is breaking down and collapsing. Korvosa's very regimented and thick with tradition and doesn't react swiftly to drastic elements of change, so when you get a powerful leader in the mix who doesn't want to keep the status-quo, the city goes crazy fast.
I do hear you regarding the dislike of dungeon crawl elements, but at the same point, we have to make sure that our adventures appeal to a wide variety of players. And dungeon crawls remain VERY popular.
My best advice for this situation, of course, is to rely much more on the Guide to Korvosa than the adventures themselves. Stretch things out, both between adventures and between parts IN the adventures, so that your players have more time to interact with the city and its infrastructure. There are a LOT of threads on these boards about how folk have been adapting and expanding the adventures, and there's a LOT of adventure hooks begging for expansion in Guide to Korvosa to boot. Letting the PCs guide the action and decide what to do might be a good choice, and in fact, you can even toss out the Crimson Throne adventure entirely if you want (or let the events unfold in the background) while you let your PCs simply explore the city and find their own adventures. This, of course, requires a lot more impromptu stuff on the GM's part, but you can use what we've laid out in the adventures themselves to help—if the PCs get caught up in a sad merchant who's going broke because he's paying too much protection money to a Thieves' Guild, you can sneak in the Eel's End section of "Edge of Anarchy" as the guild base. And if the PCs eventually get back into the main storyline, you've got the adventure there waiting!
It occurs to me that many of the problems that some people are having with regard to the laws in Korvosa, and the lack of it in some places at certain times, come from a lack of real world experience with these kinds of situations. Perhaps its youth or simple naïveté. Or that they live in a better sheltered community. I wonder if they’ve ever had to deal with a crisis in a large community.
Here are some real world facts of life in large cities.
1. The people in power aren’t always good. Sometimes they are, sometimes they’re indifferent, but when they are bad, sometimes the law must be broken to be rid of them.
2. Law enforcement can be unreliable. They can be overwhelmed or even bad to begin with. There are always areas of large cities where they are not welcome and sometimes fear to enter.
3. A city can be governed by law and still have areas of anarchy where gangs rule the streets, people live in fear and nothing can be done about it.
4. In a time of crisis, the government can be saviors, but can sometimes be completely absent, leaving people to fend for themselves. This can manifest as looting or vigilantism.
5. Cities are infested with criminals of all stripes. Rich, poor, organized, loners. Most are money or drug oriented and don’t usually get violent. Others will kill for no better reason than the color of your clothes.
6. Law enforcement comes after the fact. When immediately confronted with crime, you are on your own for some time before help arrives. Contrary to what some people believe, you do have a right to survive, regardless of the law.
I live in a large city. There are bums (people who see them every day do not call them homeless, they are bums), gangs and barrios and ghettos. You can usually trust street cops, but never trust a detective. Fire department guys are okay, but they won’t go into some places without police escort. My job requires me to go to areas of crisis. I saw the Los Angeles riots; and I was in New Orleans after Katrina; and I tell you right now that a law abiding city can turn into chaos in a matter of minutes.
Now back to fantasy adventure…
Korvosa is a city in crisis. The powers that be are evil. The agencies that enforce the law are overwhelmed or corrupt. All sorts of unsavory types are loose in the streets (con artists, bandits, necromancers, plague cultists, undead), and this is besides the usual problems of imps, pseudodragons and otyughs.
If players have a problem with the morals of a required action, then welcome to a dynamic world where law/chaos/good/evil are not always absolutes. Right and wrong can be ambiguous. If a player feels that his character should spare someone’s life instead of killing, that player should do so. But that player should also be aware of consequences that may occur.
And the reverse is true also. A player whose character kills indiscriminately is liable to get haunted by this kind of action; especially in a setting where they dead can be heard.
As a DM, if my players aren’t happy about a something I change it, unless it’s a case that they don’t see the big picture and then I get them to tough it out until they do see it.
As a player, if I don’t care for an illogical story line or think that the DM or the adventure has some issue, I say so and either live with it or thank the DM for changing it.
-Jack
It sounds a little like some people would like hard and fast rules - laws - to hang on to, because they are unsure how to adjucate trouble in the city. This applies to players as well as GM's.
My advice is to loosen up. You are not playing Lawyers & Lawsuits, you are playing D&D. My gut instinct would be that in a lawfull fantasy city with an evil bend, then might is right! The nobility has more priviliges than the working folks, and below them are the rabble that propably have little or no rights.
So forget about terms like "Intentional Manslaughter" - this is medieval fantasy times, people get killed or not. Who cares if it was "premeditated".
If you have character that are nobles, and supposedly know the law - well just let them make some of the decisions. Give them some credit for being nobles. Their word will likely carry 10 times the weight of normal people. So unless they are caught slaughtering people in the street, the can most likely get away with anything.
The players who are asking for guidelines, should look at their character and decide what he/she would think, and worry less about what the lawtexts of Corvosa says.
If you have character that are nobles, and supposedly know the law - well just let them make some of the decisions. Give them some credit for being nobles. Their word will likely carry 10 times the weight of normal people. So unless they are caught slaughtering people in the street, the can most likely get away with anything.
The problem is that two of the nobles seem to think that killing some derro meets "community standards" and one of them disagrees. Obviously they can't both be right.
The problem is that two of the nobles seem to think that killing some derro meets "community standards" and one of them disagrees. Obviously they can't both be right.
If you have character that are nobles, and supposedly know the law - well just let them make some of the decisions. Give them some credit for being nobles. Their word will likely carry 10 times the weight of normal people. So unless they are caught slaughtering people in the street, the can most likely get away with anything.
I get that :-)
But is it the nobles... or the players?The players: Well they should just defer to the GM. And if he says the subject is uncertain, then their characters are free to continue bickering over the issue. Either of them could be right. Time will show.
The nobles: Well, maybe they just see things differently. In any case, since this happens in game, they should look for in-game solutions. They could consult a law-scribe, a judge, another noble or whatever.
The real problem lies in whether or not this issue would cause the two characters to part ways (and break up the party), and to me it sounds like they are both hoping the GM will step in as some kind of referee on this issue and declare a winner. I think that is wrong!
The truth is that no one knows if it is "okay" to kill some derro. The DM may have to rule how different people react to this, but I am sure that there is no fixed consensus on the matter in Corvosa.
Finally. Don't get me wrong. I think it is okay for a player to ask his DM out of character, "eh - I am in doubt - would killing a derro be viewed as wrong?". But if DM says "there is a number of opinions on that". Then you just have to make up your own mind.
The truth is that no one knows if it is "okay" to kill some derro. The DM may have to rule how different people react to this, but I am sure that there is no fixed consensus on the matter in Corvosa.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for my Shackled City campaign I gave my players a brief outline of what the laws of Cauldron are, what punishments are possible, what the attitude towards non-PC races is, what a trial might look like (for people of different social classes), whether vigilanteism is condoned, etc. Personally I find that sort of thing very helpful if I'm playing a character who's trying to be a law-abiding citizen. For a wilderness adventure it doesn't matter as much.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for my Shackled City campaign I gave my players a brief outline of what the laws of Cauldron are, what punishments are possible, what the attitude towards non-PC races is, what a trial might look like (for people of different social classes), whether vigilanteism is condoned, etc. Personally I find that sort of thing very helpful if I'm playing a character who's trying to be a law-abiding citizen. For a wilderness adventure it doesn't matter as much.
I think that works fine, normally.
But Corvosa is a city in turmoil, and what is the law becomes a matter of interpretation.The players should propably be in doubt as to what is what. But that is just my opinion :-)
The thing with "Curse of the Crimson Throne" is that, while it's mostly set in a VERY lawful city, it's set in that city at a time where the law is breaking down and collapsing. Korvosa's very regimented and thick with tradition and doesn't react swiftly to drastic elements of change, so when you get a powerful leader in the mix who doesn't want to keep the status-quo, the city goes crazy fast.
In retrospect, I should have anticipated the conflicts that have come up. I think that at this point what my players need from me is a feel for the way that the laws were before things started breaking down. Their reactions to social change are where the game really happens, but they'll have an easier time figuring out how their individual characters respond if I tell them how things used to be. Hopefully once I get a handout worked up it'll handle most of this.
I do hear you regarding the dislike of dungeon crawl elements, but at the same point, we have to make sure that our adventures appeal to a wide variety of players. And dungeon crawls remain VERY popular.
I actually have been looking forward to throwing my civilized characters into a dungeony setting. I think that the juxtaposition of sophisticated, cultured individuals with a situation full of traps and monsters is fodder for some great gaming. The intra-party conflict came when some players seemingly forgot that they were playing other than a "standard" D&D party and just waded into the situation with their swords.
On top of that, I'm in favour of anything that keeps Paizo's products selling well. I want you guys around for a while. If you were publicly traded I'd probably buy stock. I think that you understand what the market needs and how best to provide it, and if it sounded like I was suggesting that you shouldn't then that was bad communication on my part.
My best advice for this situation, of course, is to rely much more on the Guide to Korvosa than the adventures themselves. Stretch things out, both between adventures and between parts IN the adventures, so that your players have more time to interact with the city and its infrastructure.
That's a very good idea. I plan to let things develop a bit with their host club once Edge of Anarchy is done. I'll slowly introduce some elements of Seven Days to the Grave, but I'll give the party a chance to be young foppish nobles for a while again before throwing them into more dungeony goodness.
It occurs to me that many of the problems that some people are having with regard to the laws in Korvosa, and the lack of it in some places at certain times, come from a lack of real world experience with these kinds of situations. Perhaps its youth or simple naïveté. Or that they live in a better sheltered community.
Yes! We are too young to understand! (Sorry--I turn forty next month and I'll revel in anything that makes me sound young. :D )
It's true that we live in our happy little Canadian city that has relatively few crises. We have a pretty big homeless problem (and everyone I know here generally calls them "homeless", no matter how many times a day we encounter them), but there's no part of the city where I'm afraid to walk by myself at any time of day or night. Since we all live in the same city it mostly cancels out; it would be a bigger problem if some of us had your breadth of experience and others had only ever lived in tiny rural communities, or some such.
Here are some real world facts of life in large cities.
Thank-you. That was interesting and informative.
If players have a problem with the morals of a required action, then welcome to a dynamic world where law/chaos/good/evil are not always absolutes. Right and wrong can be ambiguous.
Ultimately, I don't think that this is an issue of us being too naive. I think that we had a couple of players forget that they had decided to play a group unfamiliar with the harshness of down and dirty city life while others were all about role-playing sheltered fops. They'll all react differently to unrealistic laws that don't necessarily apply any more, but first I have to make sure that I'm clear about what those laws are. The ambiguity will make for a good game, but only after they understand the setting a bit more.
Thanks for the comments!
It sounds a little like some people would like hard and fast rules - laws - to hang on to, because they are unsure how to adjucate trouble in the city. This applies to players as well as GM's.
The players were under the impression that the city had a lot of laws and that their privileged aristocrats knew about them and played the system. They expect that there are laws governing most situations, and one player in particular wants to know what those laws are before he decides how to react, even if he chooses to break them. Here are the relevant bits from the Guide to Korvosa:
In addition to power, Korvosans love predictability. They like to regulate their lives, creating strict regimens for themselves that they then slavishly follow. Upsetting a Korvosan’s routine can ruin his entire day and likely makes him cranky. To this end, Korvosa strictly enforces its laws (which often have harsh punishments far in excess of the law codes of other non-evil governments) and rewards those who play by the rules. . . Regulation and law dominate Korvosa and how it lives. The city’s charter, an officially sanctioned document created by Emperor Halleck IV of Cheliax in 4406, bears 247 amendments. These amendments add to the city’s unbreakable laws (those which no leader can modify, except by additional amendment) and are considered as binding and official as the charter itself. In addition, a thick, multivolume body of work spells out Korvosa’s many other laws and regulations, as well as the punishments for violating them.
So it looks to me as though a player reading this (and most of my players purchased a copy of the book in preparation for the campaign) will anticipate a lot of "hard and fast rules". This is, according to the quote above, how Korvosans act, and the players just want to role-play their characters appropriately.
My advice is to loosen up. You are not playing Lawyers & Lawsuits, you are playing D&D.
I'm not sure that I agree. I think that in our situation we might be playing a D&D adventure in a L&L game. :D
I can't speak for anyone else, but for my Shackled City campaign I gave my players a brief outline of what the laws of Cauldron are, what punishments are possible, what the attitude towards non-PC races is, what a trial might look like (for people of different social classes), whether vigilanteism is condoned, etc.
This seems to be the best route for me at this point. I've started another thread (this one without spoilers) where I'm trying to figure out what the document should say. The Black Fox and Mary Yamato both suggested this, too, and I've been rather influenced by their posts in the past. If you have any input on what this document should include I'd love to hear them; you've done this before and I haven't, after all. :D
I think that works fine, normally.
But Corvosa is a city in turmoil, and what is the law becomes a matter of interpretation.
The players should propably be in doubt as to what is what. But that is just my opinion :-)
I agree, but they should have a pretty good grasp about what was what before the crisis began. If they want to apply out-dated, inappropriate laws to a given situation then I'm going to let them. First, though, they need a way of knowing what those laws are (or at least were).
Thanks again, everyone!