Were they told, at THAT time, they would not be allowed to loot the felon of his wealth? If not, then, I'm sorry, but you screwed up.
Master Arminas
No I didn't, which was the mistake I admitted in a previous post. However it's an easily correctable mistake and will be corrected in the form of the authorities asking for the felon's gear back, so that's what's going to happen. Whether or not the PCs return the gear is up to them, but whatever they do will have in game ramifications.
I'd say the main concern should be making damn sure that the players don't end up thinking of it as either:
(a) the dm rapping them on the knuckles for annoying him,
(b) a sloppy correction of an oversight ("he gave the npc the gear to beef up the fight, but didn't think we'd take it, so now he's actually going to come confiscate it??")
(c)the dm (who they've played with for a decade?) 'teaching' them how to play the game 'properly'.
I've read your reasoning and I'm not criticizing that, but I could see the above interpretations becoming the unintended consequences of how you're going to handle it. Those would be my main concerns, in any case.
|
I'd say the main concern should be making damn sure that the players don't end up thinking of it as either:
(a) the dm rapping them on the knuckles for annoying him,
(b) a sloppy correction of an oversight ("he gave the npc the gear to beef up the fight, but didn't think we'd take it, so now he's actually going to come confiscate it??")
(c)the dm (who they've played with for a decade?) 'teaching' them how to play the game 'properly'.
I've read your reasoning and I'm not criticizing that, but I could see the above interpretations becoming the unintended consequences of how you're going to handle it. Those would be my main concerns, in any case.
Players need to be careful when trying to go that route. DM's need to stand firm in some of their decisions or the players will start using this to get their way. There is nothing more annoying than players using the "don't be a dick DM" excuse to get what they want.
Quick question to the DM:
Can you explain how you are approaching this?
Are their bounties on people? OR are you having the players issued leders of Marque (sp)?DO the characters have the right to negotiate for expenses?
The players saw the wanted poster when they were going about their business in town. Since two rewards were being offered they spoke with the victim, who was offering a reward for the return of the stolen sword, and the authorities, who were offering a bounty on the fugitive since he fled. When the PCs spoke to the authorities (in this case the captain of the city guard and one of the baron's castle officers) they were given a writ of arrest and told to make sure they had that with them when they pursued the fugitive so that authorities in other towns knew the capture of the fugitive was legitimate. Writs of arrest are specific to each bounty; they're definitely NOT letters of marque. For the most part the bounties aren't negotiable - at least for small fry like this guy - but individual rewards of course are.
Thanks for the response.
I admit, i feel a little disconnect with the senario. I dont know if i expressing this well.
First off, it just seems like somthing is missing with an elaborate legal system without an inhouse enforcement mechanism.
Example:
As part of the capture mecahnism, the party accidnently sets a house on fire. THe fire destroys the building.
Woud the party be immune from civil damages?
The party is interrogating a barkeep. The barkeep lies. Did he break the law?
Finally lets say the party looses 2 members, as they were "on duty" will the legal authority that send the people on the job pay for reserection? Why or why not?
The connection between the civil authority and the party seems to be......missing something.
Thanks for the response.
I admit, i feel a little disconnect with the senario. I dont know if i expressing this well.
First off, it just seems like somthing is missing with an elaborate legal system without an inhouse enforcement mechanism.
Example:
As part of the capture mecahnism, the party accidnently sets a house on fire. THe fire destroys the building.
Woud the party be immune from civil damages?The party is interrogating a barkeep. The barkeep lies. Did he break the law?
Finally lets say the party looses 2 members, as they were "on duty" will the legal authority that send the people on the job pay for reserection? Why or why not?
The connection between the civil authority and the party seems to be......missing something.
Those are great questions! I'm going to have to think about that and come up with something.
|
Players need to be careful when trying to go that route. DM's need to stand firm in some of their decisions or the players will start using this to get their way. There is nothing more annoying than players using the "don't be a dick DM" excuse to get what they want.
Indeed, I shut down my last campaign for just such a reason.
And anyone who doesn't play like this is having BADWRONGFUN?It's not a fallacy, it's history.It doesn't have to say it, D&D culture has been predicated on 'kill the guy and take his stuff' for quite a long time. (e.g. The Orc and The Pie)That's a Fallacy I'm afraid.
All fun is good fun. The best way to ensure everyone has fun is to warn them when you're potentially going to screw them for doing what they've come to expect as standard practice. Give them a heads up.
Players need to be careful when trying to go that route. DM's need to stand firm in some of their decisions or the players will start using this to get their way. There is nothing more annoying than players using the "don't be a dick DM" excuse to get what they want.
While that is annoying, the one thing more annoying is a dick GM.
|
|
The funny thing about lawful societies is that they take the time to explain the laws to anyone within their borders.
When our party crossed into the lawful gnomish kingdom, the border guards made sure we understood that any violence we used had better be provably self-defense, unless we wanted our body parts used in their flesh golem labor. (This is also where we encountered the Mugger's Guild, where you could pay for your monthly mugging ahead of time at their office, and the thugs politely tap you on the shoulder with their sap when you get caught unaware.)
It only takes a few 'I didn't know' defenses wasting court time for them to wise up and start ensuring no one enters without knowing the laws.
Thanks TOZ, glad my RP of the LG Gnomes was spot on for you. :)
The issue is not the GM trying to be a dick, as people insist. It's simply the GM not being clear (IC or OOC) about what things are like where the PCs are.
I find nothing wrong with the OPs scenario, just his failure to properly inform the players and characters ahead of time.
Thanks TOZ, glad my RP of the LG Gnomes was spot on for you. :)As long as you realize I'm cribbing some of it for my own setting. ;)
No problem at all, just don't publish it as your own and we're golden. :)
|
|
Thanks TOZ, glad my RP of the LG Gnomes was spot on for you. :)
The issue is not the GM trying to be a dick, as people insist. It's simply the GM not being clear (IC or OOC) about what things are like where the PCs are.
I find nothing wrong with the OPs scenario, just his failure to properly inform the players and characters ahead of time.
The OP didn't fail at anything, the player's failed to actually use Knowledge Local and find out the laws of the city.
The OP didn't fail at anything, the player's failed to actually use Knowledge Local and find out the laws of the city.Thanks TOZ, glad my RP of the LG Gnomes was spot on for you. :)
The issue is not the GM trying to be a dick, as people insist. It's simply the GM not being clear (IC or OOC) about what things are like where the PCs are.
I find nothing wrong with the OPs scenario, just his failure to properly inform the players and characters ahead of time.
Let's call it a 'mutual fault' situation. Yes, they should have asked about the local laws. However, given how widely accepted it is to 'loot much and prosper', right down to APs and such, it's entirely appropriate for the GM to mention it. It's especially appropriate for the GM to have an NPC mention it before he starts giving the PCs issues in game.
|
|
Shallowsoul seems to think players need to ask the DM about everything, and that the DM shouldn't have to volunteer information.
There is a reason why certain skills are available for certain types of information. If you're used to having everything handed to you then I can see why you have the attitude that you do.
|
|
mdt, do you have to hand everything to me? I haven't noticed, but my Perception is pretty low.
In any event, no I do not expect the DM to hand everything to me. Do you expect your players to ask you everything shallowsoul? If my previous observation was in error, say so! Don't let me continue to be wrong!
Because I believe the correct answer is a mix of both player inquiries and DM volunteering. You know, good communication without one or both sides being stone faced about information.
Nope,
I generally put things out in character. If you miss them, that's your problem. So far, I'd say the group is batting about 850. You've missed some clues, but not a lot.
There's a difference between handing you the little folder with the clues in it so you can say who/with what/where Dr. Black was killed, and telling you what the building you're wandering around looking for clues looks like.
|
There is a reason why certain skills are available for certain types of information.
If the PCs are new to the area, I agree, they need to request this kind of thing. If they've lived there their whole lives(which is the impression I was getting) this is the kind of thing the characters should just know, and thus that the GM should info-dump to them.
Common knowledge stuff that violates player expectations (like "Iron is rare and valuable in this world, weapons are all made out of bronze." or "This is a matriarchal society, expect your male characters to be the victims of some sexism.") shouldn't need to be requested, as that violates both suspension of disbelief and fun.
I mean, not giving PCs that kind of info on societies they've lived in their whole lives is as stupid and immersion breaking as saying they piss themselves when they say they 'take a piss' without first specifying that they walk to the outhouse and remove their pants. It's the kind of thing that can only happen in a game, never reality.
Yeah,
In my current game that TOZ is in, the characters are, in no particular order :
A wandering human druid from the badlands
A dwarf exile cleric/fighter from the isolationist Dwarven kingdoms
A half-elf cavalier from the Halfling lands
A catfolk witch from the jungles
A human rogue from the renegade desert kingdom
When they entered the Halfling lands, I simply turned to the player of the Half-Elf and gave her a brief breakdown, told her what part of it was from, and gave her a general economic breakdown and what she could expect to encounter being a half-elf in the halfling lands.
When they enter, eventually, the renegade kingdom, I'll turn to the human rogue's player and give her a brief rundown of what they can expect, how they need to operate, etc.
If they ever get to the jungles, I'll give the catfolk's player a rundown on what they can expect, so he can tell the rest of the table. Same with the dwarf's player. The druid comes from where they started out from, so he's already had his country's information given to everyone.
|
|
I mean, not giving PCs that kind of info on societies they've lived in their whole lives is as stupid and immersion breaking as saying they piss themselves when they say they 'take a piss' without first specifying that they walk to the outhouse and remove their pants. It's the kind of thing that can only happen in a game, never reality.
This.
Personally when I'm GMing if I think something might come up that a player might have a knowledge skill that covers it I'll suggest they roll it or roll it myself and tell that player what he is aware of (depending on our current play style this might be in a note or off in private so he can dispense his knowledge as he sees fit).
I think requiring a player to ask all the time if this or that knowledge would be useful is like asking the person playing the rogue how he's looking for traps and how he is going to disarm them. It slows down play and leads to turtling as players constantly worry that they might have known something if only they asked first (apparently thinking the GM is just waiting for a chance to play "gotcha!" on them).
|
|
Personally when I'm GMing if I think something might come up that a player might have a knowledge skill that covers it I'll suggest they roll it or roll it myself and tell that player what he is aware of (depending on our current play style this might be in a note or off in private so he can dispense his knowledge as he sees fit).
I think requiring a player to ask all the time if this or that knowledge would be useful is like asking the person playing the rogue how he's looking for traps and how he is going to disarm them. It slows down play and leads to turtling as players constantly worry that they might have known something if only they asked first (apparently thinking the GM is just waiting for a chance to play "gotcha!" on them).
Asking questions about certain things is all part of the game. I think the problem is some players get their information a little too easy so they get used to being told and then think that's part of the norm because they are used to it.
Local city information is covered by a skill which comes with a game mechanic. If handing out certain information on a regular basis makes that skill useless then you have crossed over into homebrew territory but it is up to the DM what information he finds should be given out for free or actually searched for.
Knowledge:Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws,
customs, traditions, humanoids)
It's right there.
|
|
mdt, do you have to hand everything to me? I haven't noticed, but my Perception is pretty low.
In any event, no I do not expect the DM to hand everything to me. Do you expect your players to ask you everything shallowsoul? If my previous observation was in error, say so! Don't let me continue to be wrong!
Because I believe the correct answer is a mix of both player inquiries and DM volunteering. You know, good communication without one or both sides being stone faced about information.
It's wonderful that you claim one thing but your posts say another.
Personally when I'm GMing if I think something might come up that a player might have a knowledge skill that covers it I'll suggest they roll it or roll it myself and tell that player what he is aware of (depending on our current play style this might be in a note or off in private so he can dispense his knowledge as he sees fit).
I think requiring a player to ask all the time if this or that knowledge would be useful is like asking the person playing the rogue how he's looking for traps and how he is going to disarm them. It slows down play and leads to turtling as players constantly worry that they might have known something if only they asked first (apparently thinking the GM is just waiting for a chance to play "gotcha!" on them).
This is what I usually do too, but no one in the group has any ranks in Knowledge: Local and it's a trained only skill. So they would've had to specifically ask IC about the laws around bounty hunting, and they didn't.
This is what I usually do too, but no one in the group has any ranks in Knowledge: Local and it's a trained only skill. So they would've had to specifically ask IC about the laws around bounty hunting, and they didn't.Personally when I'm GMing if I think something might come up that a player might have a knowledge skill that covers it I'll suggest they roll it or roll it myself and tell that player what he is aware of (depending on our current play style this might be in a note or off in private so he can dispense his knowledge as he sees fit).
I think requiring a player to ask all the time if this or that knowledge would be useful is like asking the person playing the rogue how he's looking for traps and how he is going to disarm them. It slows down play and leads to turtling as players constantly worry that they might have known something if only they asked first (apparently thinking the GM is just waiting for a chance to play "gotcha!" on them).
I would imagine that if this a lawful society with a more modern look at how laws were enforced. There would be a contract of some kind that bounty hunters would have to sign. Either as a per bounty basis or to be licensed. This way no one could claim ignorance as a defence and allow them to prosecute those who willingly engaged in such a contract.
ETA: Saw someone else who said this earlier and it is a good idea.
|
|
This is what I usually do too, but no one in the group has any ranks in Knowledge: Local and it's a trained only skill. So they would've had to specifically ask IC about the laws around bounty hunting, and they didn't.
Knowledge skills can be used untrained on DC 10 or less checks, and you can take 10 on it.
This doesn't sound like a bounty hunting specific law they'd need to know, but something far more general ("Prisoners' belongings are held by the state.") and the kind of thing everyone should know, and thus DC 10 or lower. I mean, knowing about Goblins is DC 5 or 6, is this more obscure than that?
It's a pretty simple case really. They captured a fugitive, they stole his stuff. they committed a crime. But who's going to do anything about it other than the fugitive they stole the gear from or his companions.
Making consequences for PC actions is not being a jerk it's being a GM. I highly doubt any constable or authority that was looking for this fugitive would give a crap about his gear unless as stated before it was part of the case and required for evidence.
However a good plot hook for this situation would involve this fugitive's friends hunting down the PCs for the items or even having this fugitive escape authorities once again only to round up his crew and go after the PCs and his stolen gear.
I've had players be forced to roll new characters after they went too far in a bar brawl and people ended up dead. The rest of the party were not willing to wait for the person to do time so they had to amke a new character.
The point is you should never feel like a jerk for providing your players with consequences to thier actions no matter how harsh those consequences end up having to be.
This is what I usually do too, but no one in the group has any ranks in Knowledge: Local and it's a trained only skill. So they would've had to specifically ask IC about the laws around bounty hunting, and they didn't.
Why didn't the people that put up the bounty inform them?
Come on guy, we have told you that this is a deviation from std D&D. Now, sure, it's a reasonable deviation, we are all behind you in this. But you still have to tell it to your players OOC and to the PC's IC. Why are you being stubborn? What's wrong with a little communication?
The question for me is who gets the job of spying on every outlaw in the game world with a bounty to see what gear they have? I mean when the PCs bring the fugitive in and he exclaims "They stole my sword and armor!!" does some clerk take out a piece of paper and go "Ah yes according to our most recent records the fugitive in question does indeed own a magical long sword and studded leather we require this poor soul's equipment returned to him immediately!" More than likely the fugitive will be abused the PCs will be thanked paid and left to thier own devices.
@Mergy: Yeah I used to GM using a machine that projected a giant floating green head over the gaming table, and then that damn dog moved the curtain!
It breaks immersion if you ever talk to any of your players outside the game. I make a point when I GM to do so from behind a two-way mirror so that the players never get to see my face.
Are you a wizard?
Do you inform your players of this game changing XP reward process before the game starts or just surprise them later?
You mean giving out story or quest rewards? I wasn't aware this was a change and I don't see how it would be game changing even if it was.
This is what I usually do too, but no one in the group has any ranks in Knowledge: Local and it's a trained only skill. So they would've had to specifically ask IC about the laws around bounty hunting, and they didn't.
Why didn't the people that put up the bounty inform them?
Come on guy, we have told you that this is a deviation from std D&D. Now, sure, it's a reasonable deviation, we are all behind you in this. But you still have to tell it to your players OOC and to the PC's IC. Why are you being stubborn? What's wrong with a little communication?
So every time something is going to happen that the PCs may not expect the GM should tell them ahead of time OOC?
I realize this is probably not what you mean, but if it's OK that the guards want the PCs to return the stuff, why is not OK for the guards to tell them this IC? Why must the GM do it OOC?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it might go something like this Quantum Steve:
GUARD 1: Well done! You captured the fugitive alive--did you recover the stolen sword by any chance?
FIGHTER: Nay, good guard. We questioned him about it, but he insists that he fenced it before we could apprehend him.
FUGITIVE: Guard! Guard! They stole my stuff; I need my stuff to pay off the fines!
ROGUE: Shut up about your stuff already. Geez. You think we're going to let you walk around in manacles wearing armor and carrying a weapon?
GUARD 2: Wait, you guys took his stuff?
CLERIC: We defeated him in accordance with your warrant. Of course we did.
GUARD 1: Well, now. You see that is against the law here. His property is to be sold off to pay those who suffered for his misdeeds.
ROGUE: Wait, what? Oh, no, Sir. You mean we went through all this trouble to recover a 250 gold piece bounty--divided amongst the six of us?
GUARD 2: The law is the law. Hand his gear over or we will be forced to arrest you.
FIGHTER: Look, we don't any trouble, mate but you didn't tell us that ahead of time.
ROGUE: Oh, I get it. Fellows, these aren't the lawful good guards we were led to believe; they are the secretly corrupt guards in league with this criminal. We give them his stuff back and he'll escape and we'll be blamed.
GUARD 1: Wait, what?!?
CLERIC: 'Tis a sad day when the Watch is infested with corruption--corruption that must be purged with flame and steel. BLESS
GUARD 2: Oh, we are so screwed.
Followed by a quick and bloody battle. Yeah, that is how it would go in game in my experience. HINT: Major changes to player expections should always be talked out beforehand and out of game, otherwise you won't have a game.
Master Arminas
This is what I usually do too, but no one in the group has any ranks in Knowledge: Local and it's a trained only skill. So they would've had to specifically ask IC about the laws around bounty hunting, and they didn't.
Why didn't the people that put up the bounty inform them?
Come on guy, we have told you that this is a deviation from std D&D. Now, sure, it's a reasonable deviation, we are all behind you in this. But you still have to tell it to your players OOC and to the PC's IC. Why are you being stubborn? What's wrong with a little communication?
So every time something is going to happen that the PCs may not expect the GM should tell them ahead of time OOC?
I realize this is probably not what you mean, but if it's OK that the guards want the PCs to return the stuff, why is not OK for the guards to tell them this IC? Why must the GM do it OOC?
No, that's not what I mean. Like I said, if a Game is going to deviate sharply from the norm, the players need to be warned. A very-low magic game is a great example. Not that those can;t be OK, but the players need to be told about it beforehand. A game where the PC's can only be human, or where they start as NPC classes, or at zero level- all those are unusual and the players have to be told.
Certainly the game must remain a mystery and there must be things behind the screen. But the players have the right to certain assumptions- like for example, no saying "Hey guys, I said Pathfinder, but instead we're playing Bunnies & Burrows!"
Well, it might go something like this Quantum Steve:
GUARD 1: Well done! You captured the fugitive alive--did you recover the stolen sword by any chance?
FIGHTER: Nay, good guard. We questioned him about it, but he insists that he fenced it before we could apprehend him.
FUGITIVE: Guard! Guard! They stole my stuff; I need my stuff to pay off the fines!
ROGUE: Shut up about your stuff already. Geez. You think we're going to let you walk around in manacles wearing armor and carrying a weapon?
GUARD 2: Wait, you guys took his stuff?
CLERIC: We defeated him in accordance with your warrant. Of course we did.
GUARD 1: Well, now. You see that is against the law here. His property is to be sold off to pay those who suffered for his misdeeds.
ROGUE: Wait, what? Oh, no, Sir. You mean we went through all this trouble to recover a 250 gold piece bounty--divided amongst the six of us?
GUARD 2: The law is the law. Hand his gear over or we will be forced to arrest you.
FIGHTER: Look, we don't any trouble, mate but you didn't tell us that ahead of time.
ROGUE: Oh, I get it. Fellows, these aren't the lawful good guards we were led to believe; they are the secretly corrupt guards in league with this criminal. We give them his stuff back and he'll escape and we'll be blamed.
GUARD 1: Wait, what?!?
CLERIC: 'Tis a sad day when the Watch is infested with corruption--corruption that must be purged with flame and steel. BLESS
GUARD 2: Oh, we are so screwed.
Followed by a quick and bloody battle. Yeah, that is how it would go in game in my experience. HINT: Major changes to player expections should always be talked out beforehand and out of game, otherwise you won't have a game.
Master Arminas
And you know, why not? I mean, if the players are in the dark then this seems like a logical conclusion. Corrupt guards are more common, both game-wise and historically speaking, then socities that would screw over thief-takers like this. It goes against common sense- why would they expect anyone to consider risking their lives for such a small reward? So, either the guards are corrupt or stupid.
"Well, now that combat has started, I'll reveal the surprise. This campaign will involve a house rule where your weapons break if you don't roll above a 10!"
(Gomer Pyle voice) Surprise, surprise, surprise!
....followed by sounds of players leaving, doors slamming, cars starting....
"Well, now that combat has started, I'll reveal the surprise. This campaign will involve a house rule where your weapons break if you don't roll above a 10!"
"But Jim, does my Monk's fist break if I roll a 9?"
Why didn't the people that put up the bounty inform them?
Come on guy, we have told you that this is a deviation from std D&D. Now, sure, it's a reasonable deviation, we are all behind you in this. But you still have to tell it to your players OOC and to the PC's IC. Why are you being stubborn? What's wrong with a little communication?
I already answered this: For important changes to the structure of the game that would affect things like what classes, races, and feats people would select I of course inform my players in advance.
In this case, we have the issue of being able to assume PCs can automatically keep gear from a bounty in a particular country. That's not a big enough contradiction to whatever assumptions players may have about looting defeated foes, so an IC explanation will suffice.
Here's another big reason why I am so insistant on an IC resolution: It creates role-playing opportunities. For example, several posters have questioned why the authorities didn't tell the PCs that they wouldn't be allowed to keep his equipment before the accepted the bounty. Well, that's a reasonable question and something the PCs can ask the authorities if they're so inclined. Furthermore, everything that's transpired can be addressed IC, so there's no reason to ruin the immersion eliminating role-playing and talking about it OOC.
So long as it is reasonable that the characters would not have known, I see nothing wrong with this. If the characters should have known, it's a problem. Everything else boils down to that.
|
|
OP:
Just have the local law enforcement approach the PC's ask for the gear to be returned because it must be sold to pay for what the thief stole and sold off. The thief already gave up what he had on him so the they will have a description of the stuff.
You as the DM need to handle the situation as you see fit without the fear of being called a dick or being called a bad DM. "Your" world evolves and functions how you see fit, some DMs have their world to only function around the PCs and some DMs have the world function with or without the PC's.
At the end of the day it's all up to you.