So I'm running a campaign for a some newer (they've been in on a few of my sessions on a hit or miss basis, and have RPed at home with other family members) players. I decided to run them through the free campaign Hollow's Last Hope, just because I borrowed an old copy of the Guide to Darkmoon Vale from a buddy, and found a bunch of great ideas in it, and it really fleshed out my ability to GM a campaign in that area. (Incidentally I'll more than likely be running the Crown of the Kobold King series after this with the same group, so Hollow's Last Hope was a great intro adventure to drag them to that area of Andoran.)
So I pull the cleric into the magical glade, and have Syntira tell her that she had some of her fey agents start the blackscour fungus growing in the springs near town in order to hopefully poison and demoralize all of the people, blackscour being a rather aggressive disease. She let's the cleric know that the lumber consortium has been steadily destroying her domain, and that she's only doing what she thinks is best to protect her people. So she asks the cleric to sign a binding contract (non-magical) that her group will not finish gathering the necessary components for the cure. She also asked if they would consider working for her instead on missions to undermine the lumber consortium's stranglehold on the region, and entirely halt their devastation of the forest.
I thought this was a GREAT opportunity for some quality role-playing, especially since the lawful good cleric now has to decide which law she's going to follow. The law of the government that is now in control, or the law of the forest's natural kingdom that supersedes any man-made government.
Guess what she did? You'll never guess. She signed the contract agreeing not to gather all the components for the cure. Then asked for time to think and talk things over with her party. When she got back to the party, she told them what had transpired, and then said: "I don't know what to do, but I know I want to get some more experience points, so let's just find all the components, but then not bring them all back to town."
That's the honest truth. I was so disappointed I almost ended the session early. Really? That's what your going to do? Your going to metagame experience points, because leveling up your cleric is more important than figuring out who the rightful owner of the forest is, and aiding them in their current struggle to establish true dominance? Well, okay, guess what? Random encounter, pack of wolves lead by a Winter Wolf.
Ridiculous. Any other GMs with similar experience, or with a silver lining for me?
So I'm running a campaign for a some newer (they've been in on a few of my sessions on a hit or miss basis, and have RPed at home with other family members) players. I decided to run them through the free campaign Hollow's Last Hope, just because I borrowed an old copy of the Guide to Darkmoon Vale from a buddy, and found a bunch of great ideas in it, and it really fleshed out my ability to GM a campaign in that area. (Incidentally I'll more than likely be running the Crown of the Kobold King series after this with the same group, so Hollow's Last Hope was a great intro adventure to drag them to that area of Andoran.)
***spoiler omitted***
We don't use XP. When the GM decides it is time. We level up.
We don't use XP. When the GM decides it is time. We level up.
I seriously see the draw in that, but my players, as I said, are newer, and I don't want to do something drastic like throwing out the whole xp system right away.
|
LOL!
I've been running PCs alot during the last year and I have to admit -- we've joked in game about this: "Let's go there so we can get more XP! ... Let's do such-and-such first and then do that when we get more XP" -- but it is all jokingly.
Maybe you can just ask the Player to try to come up with a more appropriate reason.
And, incidentally, I don't give out XP either -- in 25 years of DMing only about 2 years in the mid 90s and about a year back in 2006 did I use XP -- systems I designed.
Instead I ask the Players to describe all the things they did at the end of each session and when they reach a certain point in the story or accomplish something big I tell them to level their PCs.
Talk to them about it.
Never use in-game punishments for something that should be discussed outside of it.
Its a game man most players aim for XP and Magic Items and they do what will get them the most of that
LOL!
I've been running PCs alot during the last year and I have to admit -- we've joked in game about this: "Let's go there so we can get more XP! ... Let's do such-and-such first and then do that when we get more XP" -- but it is all jokingly.
Maybe you can just ask the Player to try to come up with a more appropriate reason.
And, incidentally, I don't give out XP either -- in 25 years of DMing only about 2 years in the mid 90s and about a year back in 2006 did I use XP -- systems I designed.
Instead I ask the Players to describe all the things they did at the end of each session and when they reach a certain point in the story or accomplish something big I tell them to level their PCs.
I might seriously have to invoke this new system. Of course I'll need to clear it with them first.
@Fabes DM -- The wolf pack wasn't meant as a punishment, it was meant as a gentle reminder that many times experience can come at a great cost. Their barbarian did get knocked into negative hit points, but everyone came out of the encounter just fine in the end. I try hard never to retaliate, and I adjusted the CR of the encounter to be level appropriate. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
@Joey -- I get it. I know it's a game, but sometimes as a GM it's a little disheartening to set up such an elaborate and roleplay worthy situation only to have the eldest player at the table say "let's go get some xp."
If it were me, I would announce up front that there is no experience reward for just finding the components. It's what you do with them.
There's an experience reward for accomplishing goals that the GM decides are relevant.
I would not make a big secret of it, or try to teach the players a lesson. It's as simple as this: you want to level? Do something worth awarding XP for, and that will always be the shortest path.
"Let's go kill some boars" will never bring my PCs closer to a level.
Then again, I play without XP too. Doesn't change anything, it just cuts down on paperwork.
Players will do things that they get rewarded for. So, you must figure out how to reward what you want to see, and not reward what you don't want to see.
Too true Tri. Like other's mentioned maybe getting rid of the xp system altogether is the way to go. I'll definitely have that talk with the players coming soon. Perhaps letting them know that I'll give out huge chunks of XP for quality roleplaying is a place to start.
If it were me, I would announce up front that there is no experience reward for just finding the components. It's what you do with them.
There's an experience reward for accomplishing goals that the GM decides are relevant.
I would not make a big secret of it, or try to teach the players a lesson. It's as simple as this: you want to level? Do something worth awarding XP for, and that will always be the shortest path.
"Let's go kill some boars" will never bring my PCs closer to a level.
Then again, I play without XP too. Doesn't change anything, it just cuts down on paperwork.
Evil I know what you're saying, that's why I put metagame in the thread. I, at no point said anything either in character or out about the components being worth anything other than a few gold pieces from the lumber consortium. I believe wholeheartedly that the player in question has a copy of the campaign at home, because she mentioned something to that effect in a previous session, and she knew that gathering the components had built in monster encounters. I truly think she just wanted to move to the next encounter, which is another reason I threw the random encounter in (the adventure book calls for a random encounter roll after the PCs have spent a certain allotment of time in the woods). I hope people don't think I just threw some wolves out there, its on the random encounter table in the appendix of the Guide to Darkmoon Vale.
So far, it seems like everyone agrees the XP system is more a suggestion than a rule. I'll definitely be broaching that with my players in the next session, which will facilitate the discussion about the lack of what I see as adequate roleplaying. I'm not opposed to running a "let's move quickly from one encounter to the next" kind of game. It's not my cup of tea, but I'll GM whatever the players want the most. I wasn't trying to be, nor am I, a vindictive GM. I was disappointed, yeah, but I'm not going to bring some DM fiat Deus Ex Machina PC death march.
Actually XP rules are part of the game. People just like to ignore them.
The only issue you have is if you start to ignore XP and level whenever appropriate you may discourage some players.
The xp rules are there to give a sense of growth to players.
One work around may be to use the slow advancement but give large plot/rp/noncombat XP bonus. To encourage acheiving goals.
Side Note:
I have seen some of the most outspoken RAW Lawyers on these boards make similar comments about the XP system as written in the book. Seems kind of Hypocritical.
Just my opinion
Well, you're right, I'd never have guessed that. Oi. I've seen some metagaming in my day, but nothing like that (unless it was a joke).
I'd have a talk with the players. Make it clear that you're only going to give XP for things that are character-consistent and in line with your collective goals for the game, i.e., trying to farm XP by completing mechanical tasks isn't going to work. Ain't that kind of game.
In my own campaign, I give out XP based on what I think the party's accomplished at the end of the day. Every time they complete a story goal or subplot, that's worth something. Good roleplay is worth something. Building relationships with NPCs (or not, if that's more in keeping with their characters) is worth something.
Wasting my time trying to turn a PnP RPG into a console game, not so much. The computer can't get bored spewing out endless streams of kobolds at 10 XP a pop, but I sure can.
Anyway, this sounds like a pretty easy problem to solve: just express where you think the game went wrong and why, and listen to their responses, and you should be good to go again.
This does happen from time to time. On the one hand, adventurers are often in it for the loot, glory and adventure, which goes hand-in-hand with XP and does not cause any kind of metagaming conflict.
On the other hand, the temptation always exists to want to level up one's character, either because you're dying to get your hands on a specific ability you've had your eye on, or for some people, just because they like power.
However, none of this is the end of the world. It's really a given that at some point, everybody is going to think of this. It doesn't mean they don't like you're world or can't be brought back into the game. It's just human nature.
When it happens in our game, it is not a big deal for myself (the GM) or one of the other players to just chime in with a friendly, "but why would your character want to do this?" to remind the offending player that he's metagaming.
Usually, we even go so far as to help that player come up with a good reason, based on what we all know about his character. Something like, "well, I can see Joe being uber curious about what all those ingredients are, because his curiosity is always getting us into trouble," or "Mary loves to hoard useful things, so she probably would gather all that stuff up anyway, just in case."
As long as it's reasonable and in-character, this is an easy fix and not a big deal. It has the added benefit of reminding the player to think like the character next time.
Look at what you did and consider it.
You told the PCs they had a series of events to complete.
A-B-C-D-E
Then you introduced a force that would make it so the PCs would not complete the series.
A-B-!-C-D-E
Look at the options you gave the party.
a) Don't complete the series, go home, end game early
b) Complete the series anyways so you don't have to go home early
c) Read the DMs mind and figure out what you're supposed to do
Any PC who is given the option to stop playing the game when they still want to keep playing the game will always choose to continue playing the game.
A much, much more gentle way to not have this happen is for the nymph or whatever to immediately give them a new quest. This way the PCs don't think they're doing something wrong and are ending the game early. You left them without direction and so they chose to go in the direction posited to them by the game outline in lieu of any other directions.
EDIT: You are running a module for newer players. When I was a new player I always did whatever I could to continue the game, and we played a home written game. I had my character go along on missions with teammates he didn't like so that my character would be able to participate. Consider that the PCs might think that the module will end if they agree to stop the module. They don't really know what to do.
EDIT EDIT: If you're running a game for new players, why are you disgusted when they act like new players?
|
I really don't get that player's way of thinking.
Do they not realize that any quest they go on is likely to give them experience? There is not a finite pool of XP out there, where they can't let themselves miss a single point. They're probably getting the same XP either way.
Anyway, I know that isn't the point, but it's just another level on which the player's choice does not make sense.
I really don't get that player's way of thinking.
Do they not realize that any quest they go on is likely to give them experience?
Yes.
More than likely they are just problem solving like MMORPGs or video games taught them to: complete the objective at hand, then look for auxiliary quests. No new objective at hand? Well, I don't know what to do. Let's keep doing that.
|
Thats why we use RP or plot xp. Basically if the players know they will get rewards for doing the right thing then they won't worry about doing stuff to get xp. They know they would get a bonus for doing what they would do anyways.
Of course you have to let your players know you are going to start doing that though.
- railroad encounter where the players had to do what GM wants
- take one player to the side, leave all the others out of RP
- change plot and not even take individual characters' goals/players' interests into consideration
- So-called LG Cleric character not wanting to SMITE an obviously chaotic evil nymph queen channeling Kefka (Final Fantasy 6's BBEG) by using disease and poison on hapless commoners because of some logging company (whose masters I assume are sitting comfortably hundreds of miles away, and will go completely unscathed), instead of just TALKING to them, or using the charms and tricks that fey are famous for. Nope, disease and poison. "Nothing is sweeter than the music of a thousand voices screaming in unison" after all.
In my eyes, there is something very wrong here, and it is not the newbies wanting XP.
Oh yeah; - Reminded me of Avatar, that atrocious Cameron CG remake of Ferngully that came out a while back.
I'm going to address both Kamelguru and Ice Titan because I think your arguments are vastly similar. Your major complaints are:- railroad encounter where the players had to do what GM wants
- take one player to the side, leave all the others out of RP
- change plot and not even take individual characters' goals/players' interests into consideration
- So-called LG Cleric character not wanting to SMITE an obviously chaotic evil nymph queen channeling Kefka (Final Fantasy 6's BBEG) by using disease and poison on hapless commoners because of some logging company (whose masters I assume are sitting comfortably hundreds of miles away, and will go completely unscathed), instead of just TALKING to them, or using the charms and tricks that fey are famous for. Nope, disease and poison. "Nothing is sweeter than the music of a thousand voices screaming in unison" after all.
In my eyes, there is something very wrong here, and it is not the newbies wanting XP.
railroad encounter where the players had to do what GM wants, and -- change plot and not even take individual characters' goals/players' interests into considerationAnd:
Then you introduced a force that would make it so the PCs would not complete the series, and -- Read the DMs mind and figure out what you're supposed to do
I need to respectfully disagree with your surmising of the situation. At no point did I ever force the cleric to leave the party, nor did I force the party to allow the cleric to leave. The druid introduced himself as an agent of Syntira, and told them that she had been watching their progress and wished to parley with them. They agreed that they should, and elected the cleric as the designated spokesperson. (So there's no train here leaving any station that they have to be aboard.)
As for reading my mind or not taking into account their goals, I think your making broad assumptions based on too little information. In the parley with Syntira she was very gracious and specifically said, I'm sure you'll want to discuss this with your party, but I didn't want competing voices here in my audience chamber. Please take the information back to the party and discuss. The cleric chose to sign the contract without talking to the party. She then chose to ignore a perfect opportunity to sit and talk about what exactly the goals of the other PCs were, and whether or not anyone had any insights into the current dilemma. I'm not kidding when I say I was sitting there waiting for them to start having an in character discussion. They were all staring at each other with blank faces, nobody offering up anything, and their designated leader blurted out the whole: "I don't know what to do but I want XP so let's just get the components and not bring them back to town." She never even waited to let the discussion play out because she was too worried about, as Liane and Eric mentioned, some type of XP farming.
In addition, if you read the Guide to Darkmoon Vale, I'm pretty sure you'd see that Syntira is engaged in a war with the lumber consortium, specifically it mentions various ways and means she's been trying to undermine them over the course of time. Sometimes those tactics even include guerrilla attacks on innocent groups of lumberjacks. I didn't create this as a story stopping quest blocker. I created it based off of the Pathfinder creators own words and ideas as listed in a campaign guide. I had no preconceived notion about how the PCs would react. I also was open to them doing anything and everything. Including killing the greenfire druid, his dire panthers, and maybe even Syntira herself. I had all those NPCs "statted" up as CR appropriate encounters. So if they chose to ignore their pleas for help, and kill them I would have gone on with my day without so much as a hiccup. They could have also very easily talked about it, decided on their own moral relativism, and decided they would stop helping the town of Falcon's Hollow, and start helping the nymph queen. In that case I was ready with a completely new quest to send them on. All they had to do was talk about what they wanted to do (in character or out I don't even care) and go that route. The druid was still there and would have taken one or all of them back in to see his queen, where they could have said, "we've decided to help you, what do you want us to do?" I just wanted to see how they reacted. I mean it is a role-playing game after all. How do you play a role if all you ever want to do is follow specific lists of actions step by step, or xp farm encounter to encounter. Like I also said before, it wasn't a game breaker. It was grandly disappointing, but we still went on and had a good finish to the session. I posted here because I was looking for ideas as to how to address this with the group, and what other GMs have done in similar situations. I was not looking for a wholesale smackdown of my personal GMing skills. The title of the post was "why GMs hate metagaming", not "why you should hate MendedWall12"...
Edit: Forgot to address the very kind words and advice from Liane, Bruunwald, Celestial Healer, Eric L., and Dark Mistress. Thanks! I definitely plan on having a talk with my players before the next session.
Edit again:
EDIT EDIT: If you're running a game for new players, why are you disgusted when they act like new players?
Again you're making assumptions here you shouldn't. I said "newer" players. Not new. In fact the girl that made the decision to XP farm went through an entirely separate yearlong campaign of mine over a year ago, and games all the time at home. I'm starting to think perhaps her at home games are much like PnP versions of PC games, and that's what she's come to expect. I haven't gamed with her in over a year, but the last time we played she was not an XP farmer.
Side Note:I have seen some of the most outspoken RAW Lawyers on these boards make similar comments about the XP system as written in the book. Seems kind of Hypocritical.
Just my opinion
As an outspoken RAW DM, I totally understand this. Experience advancement is usually the first thing people alter, including myself. I only play with a couple of houserules, and my experience rules are one of those. We use the slow chart, and I halve the experience gained from each encounter, including rp and skill encounters. When players level less often, they are far more likely (IME) to concentrate on making memorable rp choices than to worry about gaining that next feat.
|
|
I really don't get that player's way of thinking.
Do they not realize that any quest they go on is likely to give them experience?
Some groups, though -- especially in a Sandbox Campaign -- have choices as to what they'll do first.
Remember the old Domato's Delvers comic where Domato says it's okay for them to enter the Lich's dungeon even though they're not cool enough to take on the Lich? Damato says that Lich's are always at the lowest level of the Dungeon and by the time they get there they'll have gotten enough experience to take out the Lich. [spoiler]Of course, the Lich opens the front door at that moment and attacks!)
Recently we PCs had a choice of what to do first, take out some Imps, Lemures and a Hell Hound or chase down a priest of Vecna making ghouls.
We chose the Cleric cuz it seemed easier and we figured -- not through metagaming -- that after we took out the Cleric and some undead we'd be ready for devils. (Our own superstions suggested devils were tougher; we knew we could fight ghouls and a human Cleric.)
I added a spoiler tag.
More than likely they are just problem solving like MMORPGs or video games taught them to: complete the objective at hand, then look for auxiliary quests. No new objective at hand? Well, I don't know what to do. Let's keep doing that.
Mopping up side quests (even irrelevant ones) for extra XP definitely sounds like a video game-y thing to do.
I'll add my voice to the chorus of suggestions to get rid of XP, or at least change the way it's given out.
I play in 2 games that essentially have given up on xp, and I have to say its dissappointing in a way. I lose that sense of accomplishment and progress I get at the end of session when the dm announces the xp total. It also removes one of the key balancing factors (in my opinion) of the game. Harder the fight, the more it adds to your progress. The dm cant throw nothing but APL+4 fights at you and expect you to level slowly. The big chunk of XP that comes at the end of a really challenging fight for me adds something to the aftermath of 'wow how did we make it through that?'.
It ends up where progress feels a lot more arbitrary to me, and alot more forced. I will always use XP in my games because to me it will always be integral to the experience.
As for the OP's dilemma, I think this is really a product of the video game era at it's worst. In a video game there actually is a finite amount of XP, if you dont do side quests you will be a lower level at the next main mission, and no one is going to change that main mission to be appropriate for your lower level. I think you should explain to the player as others have said that there is xp to be gained everywhere in the story, and that they wont 'lose out' on xp by skipping a side quest they have decided against. After all there are encounters in every direction, you can only deal with so many per gaming session, skipping a few wont change the rate at which you gain xp.
A few thoughts.
Kick the door in adventuring is nothing new and has been around for as long as D&D has been. Killing things, doing quests, for xp is nothing new and not because of video games. That is a lazy thought process to blame it on that. It also is disrespectful to the people that play video games and PnP and don't play to "harvest xp".
I think a few little words are getting way to blown out of proportion, "but I know I want to get some more experience points". Look at the statement without those words in it, "I don't know what to do, so let's just find all the components, but then not bring them all back to town." Sounds like a pretty good roleplaying statement. The character is not sure what path to take, the other characters also weren't able to decide either. Kicking the decision down the road to a later date is good roleplaying.
Lastly, sometimes GMs get ideas of how things should work out and they think, "This is a great opportunity for roleplaying." But that doesn't mean the players share the same thing. It is good to keep this in mind as a GM. The game isn't about your own personal "coolness" but for the fun of the entire party. If you cool encounter turns into a lame result, it is best to just let it slide off than to rant about how lame your players are for not being true roleplayers and just being rollplayers.
A few thoughts.
Kick the door in adventuring is nothing new and has been around for as long as D&D has been. Killing things, doing quests, for xp is nothing new and not because of video games. That is a lazy thought process to blame it on that. It also is disrespectful to the people that play video games and PnP and don't play to "harvest xp".
I think a few little words are getting way to blown out of proportion, "but I know I want to get some more experience points". Look at the statement without those words in it, "I don't know what to do, so let's just find all the components, but then not bring them all back to town." Sounds like a pretty good roleplaying statement. The character is not sure what path to take, the other characters also weren't able to decide either. Kicking the decision down the road to a later date is good roleplaying.
Lastly, sometimes GMs get ideas of how things should work out and they think, "This is a great opportunity for roleplaying." But that doesn't mean the players share the same thing. It is good to keep this in mind as a GM. The game isn't about your own personal "coolness" but for the fun of the entire party. If you cool encounter turns into a lame result, it is best to just let it slide off than to rant about how lame your players are for not being true roleplayers and just being rollplayers.
Bolding and italics are mine.
As for the bolding: Really? That sounds like good role playing? "I don't know what to do, and even though I just signed a contract that said I wouldn't provide the components for a cure, I'm going to find the components anyway?" To me that doesn't even make sense. It'd be like going out to a make your own burger joint, and having your mom asking you to put pickles, onions, and tomatoes on her burger for her. Then as you are at the burger bar your dad says, don't put pickles, or onions, or tomatoes on there, she's allergic to all three. You have conflicting points of view, and you don't know what to do so you decide to just get the pickles, onions, and tomatoes, but you don't actually put them on the burger. You're left standing there holding pickles, onions, and tomatoes that are completely useless. Why would you go through the motion of gathering the condiments if you had no intention of putting them on the burger?
As for the italics: I totally agree. Kicking the decision down the road because you want some time to think it over is good roleplaying. Making the decision to go on what might (depending on your later decision) amount to a completely useless waste of party time and energy, does not. If you don't know what to do, stop and discuss. Maybe head back to town and discuss. Maybe find other NPCs and get their ideas about the situation. Saying I want to wait until later is absolutely good roleplaying. Making the decision to go on pointless excursions for mushrooms you aren't going to give to anyone is not. At least IMHO.
As for the bolding: Really? That sounds like good role playing? "I don't know what to do, and even though I just signed a contract that said I wouldn't provide the components for a cure, I'm going to find the components anyway?" To me that doesn't even make sense. It'd be like going out to a make your own burger joint, and having your mom asking you to put pickles, onions, and tomatoes on her burger for her. Then as you are at the burger bar your dad says, don't put pickles, or onions, or tomatoes on there, she's allergic to all three. You have conflicting points of view, and you don't know what to do so you decide to just get the pickles, onions, and tomatoes, but you don't actually put them on the burger. You're left standing there holding pickles, onions, and tomatoes that are completely useless. Why would you go through the motion of gathering the condiments if you had no intention of putting them on the burger?
Actually that is a very good idea. Mom says get them, dad says don't. What you do is ask for them in another container and then take them to your mother. She can then decide if she really wants them or not. If you don't get them, then you have made a decision, mom doesn't get the items because dad said so. By getting them in a separate container you leave your options open for longer.
To your example, if she said I will not take the components to the village. Then collecting them isn't breaking that word. Now she may eventually decide to go back on her contract and that might have its own issues (oh crap we got an inevitable on our tail). But saying, let's go ahead and continue on this mission and then once we get them all together we'll decide what to do. Give them to the town or toss them in a toilet. Not getting them means you already have made the decision.
As for the italics: I totally agree. Kicking the decision down the road because you want some time to think it over is good roleplaying. Making the decision to go on what might (depending on your later decision) amount to a completely useless waste of party time and energy, does not. If you don't know what to do, stop and discuss. Maybe head back to town and discuss. Maybe find other NPCs and get their ideas about the situation. Saying I want to wait until later is absolutely good roleplaying. Making the decision to go on pointless excursions for mushrooms you aren't going to give to anyone is not. At least IMHO.
I agree, but see you have decided that they should have decide never to use the mushrooms. I am saying, maybe they haven't decided that yet. Maybe it will be impossible to find all of the components, so the choice never actually has to be made. I don't see why you have decided that it must be a wasted exercise?
I agree with prez men...remove the 'I need more exp." part and it is a excellent RPing.
You even said yourself...you forced the PCs into this meeting. By using big monsters. Than you had ( the possible villian say) "Join me...or die." Sure the die part was not involved but I could completely see that being implied by the whole meeting. So she signed the contract to get the hell out of there alive....
Though I was not there sao I don't know how it played out...but with what you wrote I can see it the other way as well.
My suggestion is talk with your players about that scene. Tell them straight out what your intent was there. And ask them how they saw it. Exp..or not you are going to have issues if you don't commincate w/ your players. I also suggest reviewing your own actions to see if you made a mistake.
Is there anyway somebody from that group can post here so we can get their side of the story.
Also, as a LG character I would NEVER work with fey (chaotic) using poison and disease against innocent workers (evil acts). That is NOT good roleplaying in my book. That is setting yourself up for needing an atonement spell. You are a cleric, the will of you god made manifest in flesh.
At best I would go "Look, my god would normally demand that I smite you for your heinous actions, even if you are defending your homes. But since we have a chance at a peaceful resolution here, I am willing to offer you a golden middle way. You stop attacking, help us find the cure for the innocent workers as a token of good will, and we will champion your cause against the logging company in a way that does not spit in the face of all that is right and good in this world."
Follower of Iomedae: It is your PURPOSE to serve justice and champion the weak.
Follower of Erastil: Live in harmony with nature, but first and foremost take care of the common working man and their families.
Follower of Sarenrae: Obligated to heal diseases.
Follower of Torag: Defend the weak. Think out strategy to help his people.
Follower of Abadar: Could not give two poops about nature and their silly "rights"
Follower of Shelyn: Could go either way. Fey are pretty.
So, unless you are playing a homebrew where LG deities are all about abandoning the weak in favor of opportunity, this player is not roleplaying really well.
Good stuff
You all offer great ideas about what she may have been thinking. I wish that were the case. I actually talked to her yesterday and she fully admitted to botching it. She said she felt put on the spot a little because the other members of the group were constantly looking to her to make all the decisions. As I mentioned previously, she has the most pencil and paper experience of the group, and her character is also the highest level. It seems she felt completely uncomfortable with the leadership role. So, we're going to address that at the next session, and possibly come up with a routine for in character dialogue, so everyone has to contribute to decision making, instead of just looking to this one character/person to do all their decision making for them. I'm guessing part of the group kowtow has to do with the fact that they themselves aren't totally comfortable in the pencil and paper arena yet, and so they felt like they didn't have the knowledge or wherewithal to contribute anything viable. I'm going to address that with the whole group next session, and let them know that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers when you're playing pencil and paper. There's no decision you can make that will be a campaign breaker. As John pointed out, more than likely the whole situation stems from my mistake. I think that mistake was not addressing the key differences between the computer/video game RPGs they're used to, and the pencil and paper style. Also, Kamelguru completely reminded me that we should spend some time actually discussing, in group, their character backgrounds. At our first session we had limited time, and I wanted to get them into the "hook" so we only did a cursory job of covering who each character was, and making character to character introductions. That was definitely my fault. I was too worried about getting them into the adventure, and I forgot building a cohesive team is a vital part of making any adventure work out in the end. Thanks to all who offered ideas and advice. Hopefully as we flesh out some details at the next session, establish a total group mentality, and address any concerns they had with how the last session played out, things will greatly improve.
Thanks again to all those that offered up constructive advice.
I hope it works out. Good luck.
|
|
Any PC who is given the option to stop playing the game when they still want to keep playing the game will always choose to continue playing the game.
On the contrary Sir Titan. I just finished playing a campaign where the correct thing to do was, in fact, to stop, which is exactly what we did. Sometimes the best thing to do is to question what you are doing and why you are being asked to do it.
Back to the case in point, the scenario the OP put forward is not justified in any way, it's metagame thinking and if the players think like that you should sit them down and have a serious conversation with them.
The fact that these players are new means nothing, it's totally irrellevant. Just because they are inexperienced doesn't excuse metagame thinking. I have known gamers who would not have done this in their first roleplaying session so there's no excuse here. It's bad gaming whether you have been playing a month or 25 years.
Rule questions I expect from new players, just like I expect to help them engage in roleplaying and IC discussions. What I don't expect is for them to break the mood by metagaming or cheating. It should be obvious to even a new player that this is not in the spirit of the game.
Also, as a LG character I would NEVER work with fey (chaotic) using poison and disease against innocent workers (evil acts). That is NOT good roleplaying in my book. That is setting yourself up for needing an atonement spell. You are a cleric, the will of you god made manifest in flesh.
At best I would go "Look, my god would normally demand that I smite you for your heinous actions, even if you are defending your homes. But since we have a chance at a peaceful resolution here, I am willing to offer you a golden middle way. You stop attacking, help us find the cure for the innocent workers as a token of good will, and we will champion your cause against the logging company in a way that does not spit in the face of all that is right and good in this world."
Follower of Iomedae: It is your PURPOSE to serve justice and champion the weak.
Follower of Erastil: Live in harmony with nature, but first and foremost take care of the common working man and their families.
Follower of Sarenrae: Obligated to heal diseases.
Follower of Torag: Defend the weak. Think out strategy to help his people.
Follower of Abadar: Could not give two poops about nature and their silly "rights"
Follower of Shelyn: Could go either way. Fey are pretty.So, unless you are playing a homebrew where LG deities are all about abandoning the weak in favor of opportunity, this player is not roleplaying really well.
I don't think it's bad roleplaying per se, I just think the character isn't in keeping with their alignment. I would call for an alignment shift, and a fairly serious one in this case. However, the situation put forth seems to be a relatively no-win one, very reminiscent of Star Wars The Clone Wars 2: The Sith Lords if you try to be either actively evil or actively good towards the beginning of the game- you really aren't going around drowning kittens and eating babies(or directly saving them) so much as you are quietly eliminating the competition on either side so that the evil or good organization you back wins.
Its a game
So is soccer. People die over it.
|
Personally I am a believer, both as a player and GM, that experience shouldn't only be earned by battle/traps (things with CR). So just explain to your players that they get XP for doing story and quests, this way they realize that by going with the story full on they get XP that way without the need for threat of their characters death.
Usually you make the XP award for story equal to a decently challenged encounter, not to powerful not to weak. You want them to want more.
Any PC who is given the option to stop playing the game when they still want to keep playing the game will always choose to continue playing the game.On the contrary Sir Titan. I just finished playing a campaign where the correct thing to do was, in fact, to stop, which is exactly what we did. Sometimes the best thing to do is to question what you are doing and why you are being asked to do it.
I don't mean 'stop and discuss' I mean like stop playing.
Like, sit down, and ten minutes later after the first goblin attack the mayor gives the party the option to walk away from the mess and let the town handle it. I don't know anyone who would say "Sounds reasonable, let's go gang" and walk away from the game, permanently removing themselves. Or, it's better to say that I wouldn't play with anyone who tried to sabotage games like that.
But, good points.
I don't think it's bad roleplaying per se, I just think the character isn't in keeping with their alignment. I would call for an alignment shift, and a fairly serious one in this case. However, the situation put forth seems to be a relatively no-win one, very reminiscent of Star Wars The Clone Wars 2: The Sith Lords if you try to be either actively evil or actively good towards the beginning of the game- you really aren't going around drowning kittens and eating babies(or directly saving them) so much as you are quietly eliminating the competition on either side so that the evil or good...Also, as a LG character I would NEVER work with fey (chaotic) using poison and disease against innocent workers (evil acts). That is NOT good roleplaying in my book. That is setting yourself up for needing an atonement spell. You are a cleric, the will of you god made manifest in flesh.
At best I would go "Look, my god would normally demand that I smite you for your heinous actions, even if you are defending your homes. But since we have a chance at a peaceful resolution here, I am willing to offer you a golden middle way. You stop attacking, help us find the cure for the innocent workers as a token of good will, and we will champion your cause against the logging company in a way that does not spit in the face of all that is right and good in this world."
Follower of Iomedae: It is your PURPOSE to serve justice and champion the weak.
Follower of Erastil: Live in harmony with nature, but first and foremost take care of the common working man and their families.
Follower of Sarenrae: Obligated to heal diseases.
Follower of Torag: Defend the weak. Think out strategy to help his people.
Follower of Abadar: Could not give two poops about nature and their silly "rights"
Follower of Shelyn: Could go either way. Fey are pretty.So, unless you are playing a homebrew where LG deities are all about abandoning the weak in favor of opportunity, this player is not roleplaying really well.
ARGH!! I mean Star Wars: KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC 2: The Sith Lords.
*sigh*
Any PC who is given the option to stop playing the game when they still want to keep playing the game will always choose to continue playing the game.On the contrary Sir Titan. I just finished playing a campaign where the correct thing to do was, in fact, to stop, which is exactly what we did. Sometimes the best thing to do is to question what you are doing and why you are being asked to do it.I don't mean 'stop and discuss' I mean like stop playing.
Like, sit down, and ten minutes later after the first goblin attack the mayor gives the party the option to walk away from the mess and let the town handle it. I don't know anyone who would say "Sounds reasonable, let's go gang" and walk away from the game, permanently removing themselves. Or, it's better to say that I wouldn't play with anyone who tried to sabotage games like that.
But, good points.
Depends on the situation. I have seen this as sabotage sometimes, and then I have seen it as a cunning diversion on the part of the main villain at other times.
|
|
I don't mean 'stop and discuss' I mean like stop playing.Any PC who is given the option to stop playing the game when they still want to keep playing the game will always choose to continue playing the game.On the contrary Sir Titan. I just finished playing a campaign where the correct thing to do was, in fact, to stop, which is exactly what we did. Sometimes the best thing to do is to question what you are doing and why you are being asked to do it.
Yup that's exactly what we did. End of Campaign.
It made sense in context.
"A strange game. The only way to win is not to play."
"A strange game. The only way to win is not to play."
All of which depends on your definition of winning, I suppose (in the context of rpgs, not Thermonuclear War or tic-tac-toe).
My general persepctive when starting a campaign as a player is not to 'win' by killing all the bad guys, building up a fortune in loot and becoming unstoppable. My win is telling a good cooperative story, whether my character survives to the end or not.
In that frame of mind, stopping the campaign is definitely not a win.
Players will do things that they get rewarded for. So, you must figure out how to reward what you want to see, and not reward what you don't want to see.
While I agree with you, some people see 'not rewarding' as punishment and the entire suggestion as manipulation.
Talk with the players. Let them know the XP thing breaks your immersion and makes the game a little less fun for you.
Point taken, CF. This is why I try to discuss the game with my players as much as they'll tolerate. :)
Truly, we are the shepherds of the One True Playstyle.
Point taken, CF. This is why I try to discuss the game with my players as much as they'll tolerate. :)Truly, we are the shepherds of the One True Playstyle.
As someone who plays a good deal more that GM's can I say that I Validiate the hell out of this. I love sitting down for a couple of hours and discussing the game. I love doing it as the game is ongoing, in between sessions.
Granted, at times my discussions get to be about subsistance strategies for populations, or the implications of a religious or political structures
Make experience more abstract, or goal oriented, versus killing creatures or object oriented. That way you can group items, NPCs, and encounters together. Don't reward until the goal is met. What helps direct players is minor or major quests on top of it. That way you provide mulitple paths to meet the same end.
Point taken, CF. This is why I try to discuss the game with my players as much as they'll tolerate. :)Truly, we are the shepherds of the One True Playstyle.As someone who plays a good deal more that GM's can I say that I Validiate the hell out of this. I love sitting down for a couple of hours and discussing the game. I love doing it as the game is ongoing, in between sessions.
Granted, at times my discussions get to be about subsistance strategies for populations, or the implications of a religious or political structures
It amuses me, therefore, that so many people show up on this forum asking for advice about their game-table issues. As though this place is somehow capable of generating anything besides further contention. Cockles: warmed.
It amuses me, therefore, that so many people show up on this forum asking for advice about their game-table issues. As though this place is somehow capable of generating anything besides further contention. Cockles: warmed.Point taken, CF. This is why I try to discuss the game with my players as much as they'll tolerate. :)Truly, we are the shepherds of the One True Playstyle.As someone who plays a good deal more that GM's can I say that I Validiate the hell out of this. I love sitting down for a couple of hours and discussing the game. I love doing it as the game is ongoing, in between sessions.
Granted, at times my discussions get to be about subsistance strategies for populations, or the implications of a religious or political structures
A smart man learns from his mistakes. A man who is truly wise learns from the mistakes of others.