How big was the bounty?
I ask because placing 2 magic items in front of PC's who have a 1000gp WBL, is extremely tempting, regardless of the law.
Was it large enough to cover the loss of 3000-5000 gp worth of magical items? If not, I hope you can see the dilema...
How big was the bounty?
I ask because placing 2 magic items in front of PC's who have a 1000gp WBL, is extremely tempting, regardless of the law.
Was it large enough to cover the loss of 3000-5000 gp worth of magical items? If not, I hope you can see the dilema...
It was 250gp for a live capture and 500gp paid by the robbery victim for the return of his property.
As a player I would say ok, now I sunder high I sunder low I sunder all the live long day on all encounters I know I will not get the loot.
One of the main reasons for not using sunder is lossing the loot. If I do not get the loot any way I would not take a risk to keep the loot in one pices.
Fighter: Mage does he have any magic on him?
Mage: (Detect Magic)Yes, Go for the cloak and then I will cast sleep on him.
Fighter: Ok, Charge, take AoO from reach weapon and then sunder the cloak.
Great Sword-->Power attack + Strx1.5 is look to be 2d6+9 or 16 points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to play in one of Xexyz' games. :)
People have mentioned "players assumptions"...
who created those assumptions? DM's.
Xexyz has challenged them. I applaud him.
"Oh, no. I'm playing with a DM who wants to create a living, breathing world. How dare he?"!!
Here are my thoughts:
The PC's now know that it is theft to keep a persons stuff, regardless of how they came about the stuff...and regardless of how they found out about that law (IC or 00C). Deal with it.
The victim (in this case, the fugitive) is a local. It stands to reason he'd have locally made stuff, with a distinctive style. The local blacksmith should know his own work.
The fugitive may have stolen the magic items from a local who now sees it/them in the possession of the PC's.
Most adventuring gear has a certain amount of unique damage (scrapes, knocks, dents, etc) that only a person intimate with that item would know about.
Fugitive: I had to repair the lining of the cloak using red thread.
It might be a law that, when asked, a person must submit themselves to a Zone Of Truth test.
If the players grumble, tell them that's the kind of campaign you're running. If they don't like it, tell 'em where to go (in the nicest possibly way)
Incidentally, of the group I play with now, I think that one of them would grumble if I sprung that on them; he could accept it or he could leave the game. (In all honesty, I wouldn't invite him to play.) If he, or anyone else, is going to fall out with me over it, he's not a true friends to begin with.
I think that everyone would agree that as DM, you get to establish the rules.
But the game is colaberative, players input is needed, and respected.
If i were to play a mercenary character (not me, the player, the character), under the way you are setting it, my character would take the contract, or hit, or job.
Find the person, kill him, keep the loot. and never say I got him.
"Dang, you know i never did find Fred. He must have skipped town with that wand. Maybe if we acted faster, we could have got him.... Hey, did I here right, is there a guy named Bob with a shiny sword, welched on a gambiling debt? Tell me more....."
Of Course, you could make the bounty much higher for a nobles favorite pair of shoes. Its not the theft, oh no, i could afford 20 of those. Its just i want to see that thief burn.......
Do you have "buy in" with the players of your game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the value of the magic items in question? Are we talking a couple of potions of cure light wounds or a +3 vorpal sword here?
1. The GM has offered a very paltry 250 gp and 500 from the victim, for risking life and limb, doing something the police can or will not do. This reward especially sucks if the players then find out that the 'villain' in question had several thousands in loot on him, or the victim's properties are also the same level of value.
2. Why would the PCs do this (bounty hunting) when there are much more profitable options?
3. Ties into #1 -- was the risk worth a simple 750gp?
Adventuring is risk management -- personally when the GM gets all "living breathing world!" on me I tend to find what he means is my character is going to get treated like crap by all the NPCs, can't loot, paltry rewards, high expectations. This is especially true if I then turn around and find that the same rules don't apply to the NPCs if my character does the sort of stuff the NPCs did.
At this point my character would be sitting down negotiating for the keystones and victims in these cases to cover my reasonable expenses on top of the reward, since I'm acting on their behalf.
I said videogame mentality because the presumption that you always get to "loot" your enemies is a videogame mechanic to me.
The monty Haul style campaign existed LONG before computers started doing some of the work for us in the form of video games. The mechanic in video games exists because of it's practice in rpgs not the other way around.
Also, whether or not PCs taking gear from the people they fight constitutes theft is dependent on the circumstances of the situation - it's an assumption that it's how that game is set up, not an implicit game design. And I really don't see it as a "change" that needs to be discussed OOC because I don't see it as a "change" - a change is something that affects the whole game, and this doesn't. If the players don't like the fact that they can't loot everyone they fight then I won't play with them since it's obvious we have incompatible gaming styles (I seriously doubt it'll come to that though, since I've been gaming with these guys for more than a decade).
Not discussing something out of character is ALWAYS a mistake. If you were not concerned about their actions, you wouldn't be on here talking about it on a message board. You want to impress upon them the laws of this land, thats great, but you shouldn't use In character as an excuse to be passive aggressive about it. That is what you are doing. If it wasn't a 'change' the players wouldn't have acted how they did. They likely (as people) do not realize they did anything wrong. You can talk to their characters via npcs, but you also need to talk to the people.
Trust me on this, I am trying to change the looting behavior in my own game, and its not a simple matter of making it less convenient to loot enemies. You need to talk to them and explain what you are trying to accomplish, and take input, or it will hurt your group. By all means design your world and the laws as you see fit. But tell the players as people that this wont be a typical kill bad guys take their stuff situation. Almost every other adventure ever written (published I mean) assumes the players will take treasure from defeated foes. It is worked into the game system. If you dont explain person to person, they will feel like they are being cheated, because like I said, in this game, wealth and character power are one in the same.
|
If they did not ask before the quest they can't really complain afterwards. They didn't (or have not yet) provide a good services or follow through with their contract. Who cares about the loot, it's a game about a fantasy world not slaughtering people.
I have had gms give the party a diamond so priceless we couldn't sell it ever and did not tell us the value. In any case it's probably going to be better then the below experience.
I have played trial of the beast where you are piss poor and I loot deprived, where your time line is so tight the GM is counting the hours. Then finally you finish and its like why are we at this castle? All of this loot and we cannot touch it? Why are we here, o hey another stupid trap, why are we still here, we are not criminals so let's not loot anything. O great our reward is blackmail money to not tell what's happening here, good thing the paladin died and we feel so guilty for breaking in, were we really here to be pointed in the direction of the plot....?
I'm flabberghasted by these replies. You guys make it sound like the only reason you even play this game is to get loot for your characters. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, I mean play how you want to play. I just don't understand that sentiment at all.
For those who asked the bounty was 250gp total for the party, 500gp total if they recovered the stolen sword.
Not discussing something out of character is ALWAYS a mistake. If you were not concerned about their actions, you wouldn't be on here talking about it on a message board. You want to impress upon them the laws of this land, thats great, but you shouldn't use In character as an excuse to be passive aggressive about it. That is what you are doing. If it wasn't a 'change' the players wouldn't have acted how they did. They likely (as people) do not realize they did anything wrong. You can talk to their characters via npcs, but you also need to talk to the people.
Trust me on this, I am trying to change the looting behavior in my own game, and its not a simple matter of making it less convenient to loot enemies. You need to talk to them and explain what you are trying to accomplish, and take input, or it will hurt your group. By all means design your world and the laws as you see fit. But tell the players as people that this wont be a typical...
Maybe I'm weird, but if a GM sat me down before a game started and told me something like this I'd feel pretty insulted. It'd be like the GM was just saying to me, "Hey Xexyz, I know you're a dumb player and all who will play pathfinder like a videogame but I just have to let you know that you'll actually have to use your brain and do some thinking in my game."
Really, I completely disagree with you on this. Let's say I wanted to run a game in which the good aligned PCs end up working with or for an evil NPC because their goals happen to coincide. To tell the players ahead of time OOC that not every evil NPC is their enemy both ruins the immersion of the game and insults the players by presuming that they're simpletons who will always kill the evil guy. The proper way to get the good aligned PCs to work with the NPC for whatever scenario the GM has planned is to use IC events to convince the PCs that they should work with the guy. It's the GMs responsiblity to craft said events in such a way that the PCs would reasonably take such a course of action; telling the players OOC isn't passive-aggressive, it's a lazy copout.
In my case, I feel like if I have to tell the players OOC that they can't always assume they'll get free claims on every magic item but not to worry because I'll make sure they get opportunities to get loot elsewhere then I've already failed as a GM.
You're flabbergasted by the notion that people adventure to make a profit?
Because that is what it boils down to. You're asking your pcs to fail to make a profit when according to the usually held standard they should be able to do so.
Given your scenario it makes perfect sense. But keep in mind you are violating the status quo. Seriously tell them. I wouldn't hint at it. I would state it out of game or I would expect dead npcs the next day and the plot to go tumbling down the wayside while I tried to work out a decent plot for fugitives from a lawful good nation.
Edit: If you're altering the rules and not telling the players then it is rather poor sportsmanship and has been previously to the invention of videogames.
I'm flabberghasted by these replies. You guys make it sound like the only reason you even play this game is to get loot for your characters. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, I mean play how you want to play. I just don't understand that sentiment at all.
For those who asked the bounty was 250gp total for the party, 500gp total if they recovered the stolen sword.
The only reason I go out of my way to hunt down a robber and return the property is a good reward (or if the stuff is actually mine). This one is crap, especially if the sword was magical, especially if the risks involved possible death.
If we are talking level 1 here and the sword is only masterwork or something then alright that's actually a nice reward, but honestly 750 gp for what seems to be (since you are spending so much time on it) a plot arch is paltry at just about any other level and there's little to justify going out of my way for it as a person especially if doing so means risking my own life for someone else's property.
What are the magical items in question?
Again you are setting new norms -- nothing wrong with that but you really need to let your group know what's up -- and then you best treat them the same if they find themselves in a similar position.
Not discussing something out of character is ALWAYS a mistake. If you were not concerned about their actions, you wouldn't be on here talking about it on a message board. You want to impress upon them the laws of this land, thats great, but you shouldn't use In character as an excuse to be passive aggressive about it. That is what you are doing. If it wasn't a 'change' the players wouldn't have acted how they did. They likely (as people) do not realize they did anything wrong. You can talk to their characters via npcs, but you also need to talk to the people.
Trust me on this, I am trying to change the looting behavior in my own game, and its not a simple matter of making it less convenient to loot enemies. You need to talk to them and explain what you are trying to accomplish, and take input, or it will hurt your group. By all means design your world and the laws as you see fit. But tell the players as people that this wont be a typical...
Maybe I'm weird, but if a GM sat me down before a game started and told me something like this I'd feel pretty insulted. It'd be like the GM was just saying to me, "Hey Xexyz, I know you're a dumb player and all who will play pathfinder like a videogame but I just have to let you know that you'll actually have to use your brain and do some thinking in my game."
I feel like if I have to tell the players OOC that they can't always assume they'll get free claims on every magic item but not to worry because I'll make sure they get opportunities to get loot elsewhere then I've already failed as a GM.
Sir:
As a DM you are free to setup your game how you want. I would love to try your game as you have descibed. I have not played in the style you are describing. I am NOT saying its wrong, just different than the styles I have played in.
Since you are describing a rather modern law abbiding world in a medevial senario, I would not be insulted to recieve a briefing of your world, how you expect it to go, and what you would want from your players.
It would reduce any feelings of "surprise". The characters should be free to accept or decline any bounty, and you should respectfully consider the feelings of the players.
VR
Me
I'm flabberghasted by these replies. You guys make it sound like the only reason you even play this game is to get loot for your characters. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, I mean play how you want to play. I just don't understand that sentiment at all.
For those who asked the bounty was 250gp total for the party, 500gp total if they recovered the stolen sword.
Xexyz, when I'm playing totally self-interested characters, usually evil ones, but sometimes neutral ones, those characters can be pretty loot-centric.
It all depends on the character...
I'm flabberghasted by these replies. You guys make it sound like the only reason you even play this game is to get loot for your characters. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, I mean play how you want to play. I just don't understand that sentiment at all.
For those who asked the bounty was 250gp total for the party, 500gp total if they recovered the stolen sword.
What level are they? What is the magic item situation? How often do they come across treasure?
What's the deal with the sword? Is it magic? If it is, then it's worth far more than 500gp and they may be feeling a bit like chumps.
As for playing the game and gathering loot, that's a given. It's part of the package.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm weird, but if a GM sat me down before a game started and told me something like this I'd feel pretty insulted. It'd be like the GM was just saying to me, "Hey Xexyz, I know you're a dumb player and all who will play pathfinder like a videogame but I just have to let you know that you'll actually have to use your brain and do some thinking in my game."
Obviously if you worded it like that, it would be insulting. But that isn't what we are talking about, and it isn't playing pathfinder like a video game. It is playing it like it was written, and how countless adventures before hand have been written. EVERY SINGLE PAIZO ADVENTURE assumes the players will take and use or re-sell the gear of vanquished opponents. Said fact is built directly into the game system. I would be shocked if paizo has ever published an adventure where the PC's run afoul of the law for this behavior.
RPGers and gamers in general are creatures of habit. If you fail to deal with the people you will cause unneccesary tension at your table, for which there is no reason. You can look down your nose at me all you like, but I am human, I get impressions, as do your players. And those impressions are often not what is intended by the people that make them. You need to set expectations for the kind of game you want, otherwise you will hurt your game and your relationship with your players. You likely wont tear the group apart over it, but you will weaken the trust between player and dm and that is never a good thing.
Really, I completely disagree with you on this. Let's say I wanted to run a game in which the good aligned PCs end up working with or for an evil NPC because their goals happen to coincide. To tell the players ahead of time OOC that not every evil NPC is their enemy both ruins the immersion of the game and insults the players by presuming that they're simpletons who will always kill the evil guy. The proper way to get the good aligned PCs to work with the NPC for whatever scenario the GM has planned is to use IC events to convince the PCs that they should work with the guy. It's the GMs responsiblity to craft said events in such a way that the PCs would reasonably take such a course of action; telling the players OOC isn't passive-aggressive, it's a lazy copout.
This isn't some secret about an npc. This isnt about plot lines. This is about General knowledge about the game world and about a stlye of play. Like it or not players are influenced by what has come before. Whether it was in your game world, in golarion, in another homebrew world, or some other world. They have impressions about appropriate behavior and consequences of certain actions. If your expectations are counter to those impressions (which they most certainly are based on your initial description), then you need to talk to them as friends and human beings about it. Because telling them in character wont have the same effect. They will assume they have to subvert or get around the law like they most likely have in every other game they have ever played in.
In my case, I feel like if I have to tell the players OOC that they can't always assume they'll get free claims on every magic item but not to worry because I'll make sure they get opportunities to get loot elsewhere then I've already failed as a GM.
No, you have succeeded in actually communicating with your players. Because again, impressions dont always reflect reality. If players are denied opportunity for advancement (for good or ill reasons) they will remember that far more vividly then they will the later opportunities they get. It is human nature, and it will cause resentment. So get over yourself and talk to your players about the kind of game you want to run.
Xexyz, when I'm playing totally self-interested characters, usually evil ones, but sometimes neutral ones, those characters can be pretty loot-centric.
It all depends on the character...
See, this is different. If your character is evil and/or greedy, I would not expect altruism. You're talking about IC motiviations. What I'm concerned with is player assumptions defining how in-game scenarios play out. I expect that players approach the events that happen in game from the perspective of their characters, and leave the metagaming aspects out of it as feasibly as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I frequently have conversations with my players about their expectations and mine in the world. How I see the society and culture and how they see it. The only view they get of the world is from what I present, and I am unable to roleplay their upbringing and all that jazz. I find having these conversations tends to make others aware of what they are going for and to set-up fun experiences. It also prevents me and my players from setting up dissonant characters. I find it to be both respectful and a pretty good time. It also gives me an idea where they think quests are going, what is going on with the world and whatnot.
Editted: To change characters to players.
See, this is different. If your character is evil and/or greedy, I would not expect altruism. You're talking about IC motiviations. What I'm concerned with is player assumptions defining how in-game scenarios play out. I expect that players approach the events that happen in game from the perspective of their characters, and leave the metagaming aspects out of it as feasibly as possible.Xexyz, when I'm playing totally self-interested characters, usually evil ones, but sometimes neutral ones, those characters can be pretty loot-centric.
It all depends on the character...
If you are concerned with player assumptions then talk to the players -- not the characters.
What your problem is you aren't wanting to meta the meta and are trying to call it a spade.
YES, and how will their characters have the correct perspective on and understanding of what YOU have imagined, unless you tell the players?
It's my job as the GM to communicate these things through the narrative of the game. As I said before, I had given hints in game that the country they're in is quite lawful - however in retrospect it would appear that I was not clear enough on the matter. The thing is I want to correct the situation through in game interaction and events so I don't jeapordize immersion. Resorting to OOC notifications means I've failed as a GM.
YES, and how will their characters have the correct perspective on and understanding of what YOU have imagined, unless you tell the players?It's my job as the GM to communicate these things through the narrative of the game. As I said before, I had given hints in game that the country they're in is quite lawful - however in retrospect it would appear that I was not clear enough on the matter. The thing is I want to correct the situation through in game interaction and events so I don't jeapordize immersion. Resorting to OOC notifications means I've failed as a GM.
FFS, no it doesnt. You cannot as a gm possibly accurately represent all of the perceptions, experiences, upbringings, and challenges the pcs have faced in their lives. You cannot remove every experience, perception, and impression your players have aquired over their gaming lives. You are setting a completely irrational standard for having 'failed as a gm'. You are mortal, they are mortal. Mortal human beings have to take short cuts sometimes to avoid conflict that is entirely preventable. You wont hurt their immersion. If anything you will increase it because they will be better equiped to get into the mindset you want.
YES, and how will their characters have the correct perspective on and understanding of what YOU have imagined, unless you tell the players?It's my job as the GM to communicate these things through the narrative of the game. As I said before, I had given hints in game that the country they're in is quite lawful - however in retrospect it would appear that I was not clear enough on the matter. The thing is I want to correct the situation through in game interaction and events so I don't jeapordize immersion. Resorting to OOC notifications means I've failed as a GM.
No
NoNO
Please dont do that.
DOnt make the players try to do that. My game time is precious, i want to game, not have to worry about what the DM is trying to say without saying it.
Lets reverse it.
What are the characters (not the players) communicating to you through the narative of the game?
YES, and how will their characters have the correct perspective on and understanding of what YOU have imagined, unless you tell the players?It's my job as the GM to communicate these things through the narrative of the game. As I said before, I had given hints in game that the country they're in is quite lawful - however in retrospect it would appear that I was not clear enough on the matter. The thing is I want to correct the situation through in game interaction and events so I don't jeapordize immersion. Resorting to OOC notifications means I've failed as a GM.
In that case you've already failed. You didn't adequately explain to them in character that this wasn't something their culture and experience is acceptable. As such you aren't at the 'succeed or fail' stage anymore you are at the 'dealing with the fall out of failure' stage. As such bite the bullet and set them straight -- as this will continue to be an issue.
If you are concerned with player assumptions then talk to the players -- not the characters.
What your problem is you aren't wanting to meta the meta and are trying to call it a spade.
That just doesn't seem realistically possible to me. I can't know what assumptions players may have about how a game's narrative is supposed to play out, and it doesn't seem possible to discuss every possible assumption that might come into play beforehand. All I can do is impress upon the players to approach in game events from an IC perspective, which to me is self-evident.
Specifically to the issue at hand, in every game I've ever played going after the PCs possessions has been fair game. Now, this is the first Pathfinder game I've run and the responses to this thread indicate to me that PC loot is somehow sacrosanct and gets its own set of rules that run contrary to logic. That is to say, taking or depriving PCs of loot in some way breaks an implicit, assumed agreement between the players and GM and therefore PC's won't have their gear threatened even if it would make perfect sense to do so in the context of an in-game scenario. I don't know if I can accept this. But because, as I've said before, in my 20 years of gaming experience going after PC loot hasn't been verboten it never occurred to me to mention it to the players as something that would be different in my game.
If you are concerned with player assumptions then talk to the players -- not the characters.
What your problem is you aren't wanting to meta the meta and are trying to call it a spade.
That just doesn't seem realistically possible to me. I can't know what assumptions players may have about how a game's narrative is supposed to play out, and it doesn't seem possible to discuss every possible assumption that might come into play beforehand. All I can do is impress upon the players to approach in game events from an IC perspective, which to me is self-evident.
Specifically to the issue at hand, in every game I've ever played going after the PCs possessions has been fair game. Now, this is the first Pathfinder game I've run and the responses to this thread indicate to me that PC loot is somehow sacrosanct and gets its own set of rules that run contrary to logic. That is to say, taking or depriving PCs of loot in some way breaks an implicit, assumed agreement between the players and GM and therefore PC's won't have their gear threatened even if it would make perfect sense to do so in the context of an in-game scenario. I don't know if I can accept this. But because, as I've said before, in my 20 years of gaming experience going after PC loot hasn't been verboten it never occurred to me to mention it to the players as something that would be different in my game.
Why did you even start this thread? You asked if would be out of line, got answers and now are arguing with alot of them. You already knew what you wanted to do.
And yes, you can never truly "KNOW" what someone is thinking, which is why us meager humans work towards communication inwhich to get a better idea of what something is about. The RPG session is a group of people engaging in a social activity. A usual norm for engaging in a social activity is to understand the rules and reasons why one is engaging. People typically like engaging in social activities with others that desire similar outcomes as their own. If there is a clash or concern that could be coming up that could cause strife around said activity, it is usually warranted to have a dialogue about it, to avoid long standing conflict and ensure that the outcomes these like minded people have come to fruitition.
IE. The Pathfinder session is a means to an end and not an end in of itself, hence the social construct takes precedence over the game construct.
(I apologize for any grammar or spelling issues, as I typed this quickly at work.)
If you are concerned with player assumptions then talk to the players -- not the characters.
What your problem is you aren't wanting to meta the meta and are trying to call it a spade.
That just doesn't seem realistically possible to me. I can't know what assumptions players may have about how a game's narrative is supposed to play out, and it doesn't seem possible to discuss every possible assumption that might come into play beforehand. All I can do is impress upon the players to approach in game events from an IC perspective, which to me is self-evident.
Specifically to the issue at hand, in every game I've ever played going after the PCs possessions has been fair game. Now, this is the first Pathfinder game I've run and the responses to this thread indicate to me that PC loot is somehow sacrosanct and gets its own set of rules that run contrary to logic. That is to say, taking or depriving PCs of loot in some way breaks an implicit, assumed agreement between the players and GM and therefore PC's won't have their gear threatened even if it would make perfect sense to do so in the context of an in-game scenario. I don't know if I can accept this. But because, as I've said before, in my 20 years of gaming experience going after PC loot hasn't been verboten it never occurred to me to mention it to the players as something that would be different in my game.
But do you have player buy-in???
If as a character, I kill the bad guy, keep the loot which is much more than the reward, and never turn him in, how will you respond?
I think that's your fundamental problem. Using OOC info dumps, especially to convey information the characters should know or to correct OOC assumptions the players have, if not failing as a GM. It's part of the GM's job. Dropping hints about things the characters should know that run counter to player assumptions is not sufficient.
I do use OOC info dumps where appropriate. For example in my game world druids are very rare and keep themselves out of sight to avoid persecution. When the players were deciding what they wanted to play I told them that druids were persecuted in my game world and therefore playing one would be very difficult.
It was 250gp for a live capture and 500gp paid by the robbery victim for the return of his property.How big was the bounty?
I ask because placing 2 magic items in front of PC's who have a 1000gp WBL, is extremely tempting, regardless of the law.
Was it large enough to cover the loss of 3000-5000 gp worth of magical items? If not, I hope you can see the dilema...
750 gp for SIX party members vs. 2,310 gp for the magic halbred and 1,000 gp for the cloak (minimum prices in the CRD for a magical halbred and cloak). Hmmmmm? That's less than one-quarter the value of the items in question.
Yeah. I'd pretty much tell you to go climb a tree or something too; no way they are handing it over, dude. Even if you are going by SELL price, that is still 1,655 gp of loot versus 750 gp of reward in value.
But, they aren't even getting that 750 gp, are they? The fugitive already fenced the sword they were trying to recover, and that was 500 gp of the reward. In this case, they aren't getting one-quarter of the value of the loot; they are getting 8%. EIGHT PERCENT! So, for fighting a 5th level fighter, each member of the party gets this whooping big reward of 41 pieces of gold, plus a few silver and copper coins.
Wow. Sign me up to fight a fighter who is more than twice my level, armed with magic, who can (if well built) kill me and my companions in a single full-attack action. That 41 gold pieces is so worth it.
Master Arminas
Now you're twisting the arguments.
Some have claimed that PCs should always be able to loot, but no one has claimed that no gear should ever be threatened for any reason.
I, and several others, have argued that it's a common assumption that PCs sent on a mission get to keep loot they find unless specifically told otherwise. you may not have been aware of that assumption, but your players appear to have applied it.
You are changing that assumption, based only on IC hints that the country was lawful. Apparently not even including what the laws were.
To the players, it seems like you're changing the terms of the deal after the fact.No you can't know all the assumptions players might make beforehand, but you can deal with them when they arise. Sometimes that can be handled IC. Sometimes it's best handled OOC.
Or with a simple Know(local) check, if you feel the need for a mechanical justification. DC<=10 can be used untrained. You want them to know, so set the DC low enough that someone gets it with a Take 10.
Preferably, apologize for the misunderstanding. Try to be clearer in the future.
Do you want to be right about this or do you want to get back to having fun gaming?
Sorry, I'm not trying to twist arguments around - I just assumed that if people felt so strongly about not being able to keep every piece of lot they found then they'd be even more upset if the loot they already possess and is unequivocally theirs was threatened.
Again, if I wasn't clear about this before, the reason I feel so strongly about handling this IC and not OOC is because the players have done nothing wrong, and my concern (and the reason I started this thread) is that if the authorities asked for the fugitive's gear back the players might think I was using in game actions to disguise OOC feelings I have as the GM. The authorities are only going to ask for the gear back because that's would they would do IC given the circumstances of the situation. My OOC concerns only come into effect if the authorities don't ask for the gear back, because then it breaks the internal consistancy I'm trying to establish.
Its not the DM's purpose to punish the players. You are there to give them a world to interact with.
Do the guards care about the possessions of the fugitive?
Does the fugitive really care about his gear this much right now? Is he fearing execution?
You've got a trained group of adventurers hunting down people that the local authorities either don't have the skill or manpower to handle. Why would the local authorities want to nickle and dime them? Call it a bonus and move on.
If OOC you are having problems with too much loot, have them chase down monsters not people.
Why did you even start this thread? You asked if would be out of line, got answers and now are arguing with alot of them. You already knew what you wanted to do.
And yes, you can never truly "KNOW" what someone is thinking, which is why us meager humans work towards communication inwhich to get a better idea of what something is about. The RPG session is a group of people engaging in a social activity. A usual norm for engaging in a social activity is to understand the rules and reasons why one is engaging. People typically like engaging in social activities with others that desire similar outcomes as their own. If there is a clash or concern that could be coming up that could cause strife around said activity, it is usually warranted to have a dialogue about it, to avoid long standing conflict and ensure that the outcomes these like minded people have come to fruitition.
IE. The Pathfinder session is a means to an end and not an end in of itself, hence the social construct takes precedence over the game construct.
(I apologize for any grammar or spelling issues, as I typed this quickly at work.)
I started this thread because I wanted to solicit the opinions of the posters here regarding the situation because I wasn't sure about the best way to handle it at the time I started the thread. You're right, I've made a decision on what I'm going to do and posted it on page two:
I have faith my players will pick up on things. Next session I'm going to have the authorities tell the PCs they need to turn in the fugitive's gear. If they cooperate, great, no harm no foul they're establishing a good reputation in the barony and it'll just be chocked up to them having never pursued a bounty before and not knowing all the laws around bounties. If they refuse, well, then they refuse and deal with the consequences of that decision.
I'm choosing this course of action with my knowing my players in mind, since I've been gaming with them for a long time. I've kept the discussion going because it's still been helpful for me because it gives me some things to think about if/when I GM for another group of players that I don't know as well (and who also don't know me).
I said videogame mentality because the presumption that you always get to "loot" your enemies is a videogame mechanic to me.
Also, whether or not PCs taking gear from the people they fight constitutes theft is dependent on the circumstances of the situation - it's an assumption that it's how that game is set up, not an implicit game design. And I really don't see it as a "change" that needs to be discussed OOC because I don't see it as a "change" - a change is something that affects the whole game, and this doesn't. If the players don't like the fact that they can't loot everyone they fight then I won't play with them since it's obvious we have incompatible gaming styles (I seriously doubt it'll come to that though, since I've been gaming with these guys for more than a decade).
We did that when we played the Original 3 volume set. Back before even Space Invaders. So, no it’s not related to videogame mentality, since we looted before videogames.
Like we said- It’s your world, and it’s cool you want to run it different. But the PCs and the players are doing nothing wrong with playing the game as it has been played since 1974. You just need to explain it to them clearly both IC and OOC. I even gave you a dialog for IC.
I am sure they will play along. But *you* are changing the status quo, so you need to make the gamechange very very clear, both IC & OOC.
Its not the DM's purpose to punish the players. You are there to give them a world to interact with.
That's the whole thing, I'm not punishing the players. Invoking negative consequences for PCs actions is not punishing the players.
Do the guards care about the possessions of the fugitive?
The captain of the guard does because it's the law.
Does the fugitive really care about his gear this much right now? Is he fearing execution?
The fugitive cares about his gear because he knows he's going to be expected to pay restitution to his victim and a fine to the barony for his crime. He can't pay restitution and the fine if his valuables have been taken from him, which is why it's so important to him. If he can't pay then he'll have to work off his debts, which he doesn't want to do.
You've got a trained group of adventurers hunting down people that the local authorities either don't have the skill or manpower to handle. Why would the local authorities want to nickle and dime them? Call it a bonus and move on.
I'm not trying to nickel and dime them; it might seem that way because of the enormous problems with this game's economics, which I'm doing my best to deal with. It's difficult.
Xexyz I think I mis understood the original problem. It seemed to me like you were wanting to punish the players because the kept random gear and failed to turn it in when the turned the fugitive in.
I must have been asleep. Yes if the whole premise of the mission was to recover the fugitive and the stolen item then yes they should be liable to turn it or account for its loss (possibly by lieing rogues, bards I am looking at you). Further you are completely justified in unleshing whatever is deemed the full extent of the law on the issue.
I got sided tracked because of legal systems and video games talk. If the mission included recovery then the reward is tied to turning it in. That is completely different for the city guard to expect you to turn paperwork detailing the random property of the law breaker, which I thought you were proposing.
YES, and how will their characters have the correct perspective on and understanding of what YOU have imagined, unless you tell the players?It's my job as the GM to communicate these things through the narrative of the game. As I said before, I had given hints in game that the country they're in is quite lawful - however in retrospect it would appear that I was not clear enough on the matter. The thing is I want to correct the situation through in game interaction and events so I don't jeapordize immersion. Resorting to OOC notifications means I've failed as a GM.
Nope. You are bringing in gamechanging new stuff that radically changes how the game has played for 30+ years. Perfectly Ok to do so, but your job as the DM is to communicate that to your players. Look, you started this thread and asked for advice. The advice has been overwhelming: “communicate with your players”. And take a look at some of the guys who have been offering that advice, guys who have been DMing the game for those 30+ years.
Maybe you should listen to the advice you asked for?
Alright as a GM here's how I would go about it then:
1. Have the players make a Knowledge(local)/(law)/(something) check to have the information for themselves before hand. The key is they pass the check. This lets them have the knowledge as a background thing.
2. Have the NPCs ask for the gear back. If it doesn't get returned have it 'frowned on' but not butt kicking bad. If they do return it offer them a small side reward for something -- it can even be 'unrelated' event association will be enough for the players.
3. If the characters offer it up on their own, then reward their good deed and role playing -- have there be a special reward for doing so or someone hands something over because of their impressive efforts, have the person mention out some 'other' bounty hunters aren't nearly as forward on following the laws and customs.
The secondary reward doesn't have to be in the form of wealth! It could be a bonus feat or hero point or something nice like that too. Heck a +1 resistance bonus on save throws could be nice (call it a 'faith in the law' trait).
I said the whole thing about punishing the players, because it was the title of the thread.
I'd give the players a wide berth, I'm betting said criminal resisted with deadly force. And in the future I would specify in the bounties that any ill gotten gains by a fugitive were bonus bounty money.
C'mon the guy was on the run obviously. Call it an incentive to turn himself in, he didn't so he looses his implements of escape.
Also it sounds like you have alot invested in this npc, my advice as a dm is let the players win some. Don't get to attatched. If you start pulling away player rewards its not going to be as fun for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said the whole thing about punishing the players, because it was the title of the thread.
Poor title for my thread in retrospect, then.
I'd give the players a wide berth, I'm betting said criminal resisted with deadly force. And in the future I would specify in the bounties that any ill gotten gains by a fugitive were bonus bounty money.
Actually he didn't; he tried to get to his horse to make a getaway and used trip attacks on the PCs. He surrendered once he was down most of his hitpoints and realized he wasn't going to be able to get away. Yes, he could've fought back with deadly force but he knew as it stood he was wanted for robbery and his punishment would be monetary. He wasn't going to add murder to his list of crimes since that would be the gallows, so he tried to get away instead of kill the PCs. It's also why I felt comfortable with him being 5th level when the PCs were only 2nd level. (That and the fact that pursuing this bounty was completely optional).
C'mon the guy was on the run obviously. Call it an incentive to turn himself in, he didn't so he looses his implements of escape.
Hmmm, I think you're on to something here. I'm going to have to give this some serious consideration.
Also it sounds like you have alot invested in this npc, my advice as a dm is let the players win some. Don't get to attatched. If you start pulling away player rewards its not going to be as fun for everyone.
Actually I really don't. Like I said it was a completely optional encounter.
Sorry, I'm not trying to twist arguments around - I just assumed that if people felt so strongly about not being able to keep every piece of lot they found then they'd be even more upset if the loot they already possess and is unequivocally theirs was threatened.
Again, if I wasn't clear about this before, the reason I feel so strongly about handling this IC and not OOC is because the players have done nothing wrong, and my concern (and the reason I started this thread) is that if the authorities asked for the fugitive's gear back the players might think I was using in game actions to disguise OOC feelings I have as the GM. The authorities are only going to ask for the gear back because that's would they would do IC given the circumstances of the situation. My OOC concerns only come into effect if the authorities don't ask for the gear back, because then it breaks the internal consistancy I'm trying to establish.
This is precisely why you should talk to them out of character. They havent done anything 'wrong', and you dont want them to misunderstand your intentions. If my dm TELLS me, hey things operate a little different then you might be used to in country x, but done worry I'll make sure its made up for elsewhere. I just want to maintain internal consistency'. I cannot as a rational human being (assuming a good relationship with the dm) misunderstand the dm's intentions when the authorities try to get the gear from me.
If however they just ask for the gear back, or try to take it, or resent/suspect the party without the above out of character ocmments, I CAN misunderstand the DM's intentions. Maybe he wants NPC's to have awesome magic toys, but never let the players have them. Maybe we werent supposed to catch this guy where we did and he is being spiteful? Maybe he doesnt want us to ever have magic items? Or maybe they will in fact correctly interpret your intentions.
The fact is untill you TELL them so, they wont be certain. And there is no certainty that they will arrive at the right conclusion. You are the dm, you think about this game often. You think about this world often. You plan, make plots, stat npcs, write storylines, maybe dialogue, or descriptions of locations. You spend alot of time thinking about your game world and your game. Your players do not spend as much time doing so. They dont think like you. They are 4 or 5 or more individuals who are different then you.
For something as important as 'If they aren't ok with this kind of thing I wouldn't want to play with them' (which you essentially stated) you shouldn't leave that understanding up to chance. You should TALK TO THEM. Please, for the sake of your group, take 5 minutes next session and explain yourself. Yes it's meta, yes its entirely possible that hte players will figure it out from in character clues. But given the risk, it simply isnt worth it, its not worth the chance of messing up your game, just to avoid having a little bit of metagame (which really isn't all that meta, since its just based on campaign information) thought on the part of your players.
Is there a reason you don't want them to have these items?
Did you give the NPC items that you don't want the characters to have? (If so, then your NPC shouldn't have it. Always assume the heroes will eventually get thier hands on your BBEG stuff...)
Is it just a personal preference?
What are the characters' alignments?
I don't see anywhere they are in the wrong. The bounty was on the perp, not his gear, and this isn't modern-day law.
(And I'm saying that as a GM, not a player.)
The law of the land is that theft is theft. Just because someone is wanted for a crime doesn't mean anyone can just take their stuff. He still has to stand trial for his crimes so he could possibly be found innocent. And if he's found guilty he's going to be required to make restitution which he can't very well do if all of his valuables have been taken from him.Depends on the law of the land. If the fugitive is an outlaw, he's probably forfeited his property as well.
Otherwise, yes, they are stealing.
If the authorities assert they have the right to confiscate his property, and then grant it to the PCs as part of their reward (a wise approach for them, since it costs them nothing...they wouldn't have the guy's property in the first place, if not for the PCs.0
What do the PCs do when the guy's starving children show up, saying they need to sell his armor to eat?