In my book, tension and disagreement between CHARACTERS in a party of adventurers is an opportunity for good stories, if the players are mature enough.
PvP and lying and hiding things from your gaming friends is a recipe for disaster.
What I would do is tell the rogue's player that he can proceed with his plan, but that there's no way you - as a DM - will help him hide his actions from the other players.
The rogue's player will have to plot and prepare for his heinous deed with the full knowledge of the other players around the table - note that I'm not talking about the other players' CHARACTERS here. At first, the other characters will have no reason to suspect the rogue of foul play. But they could smell something fishy is occuring after a while.
In my experience, this kind of "open" plotting around a table creates stimulation, trepidation and plenty of golden roleplay opportunities between players. It keeps the players in suspense, as they race and counterplot - without metagaming - to kill the NPC girl or to save the girl.
"Open plotting" allows for a cooperative approach to play - and aren't RPGS all about cooperative play ?
If your rogue's player is not comfortable with the others knowing what he's really up to around the table, well - that could let him to question what he intends to accomplish in this campaign.
Just my two cents, anyway. Good luck with your campaign - it sounds interesting and fun.
Couldn't the Rogue accidentally nab one of the Clones instead, sent to infiltrate the party?Haven't any of you actually READ any Marvel comics from the 80s and 90s? OF COURSE she's a clone! the REAL sorceress was in a stasis coocoon at the bottom of Hudson Bay or in a cryogenics lab in Hoboken the ENTIRE time!
Most players know enough not to mess with sorcerers of the Phoenix bloodline for fear of them taking on the Dark Phoenix.
Joking aside, the job of the GM is to present situations to players. The players react. The GM presents consequences to the players and the players react. So far the rogue is well within this cycle.
The major problem is what happens when the other players start looking for their friend who vanished. Does the rogue have the ability to duck their scrying etc? As long as you think it won't ruin the game for the party, let him have a crack at it.
(and all joking about comic names aside, a 16th level sorcerer ought to be able to escape a dude unless he can one hit her.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say let him do it. I am sure there are other ways to advance the story. It might even improve the story.
Everyone who hasn't already should read This thread (except the OP of course) and get the perspective of the PC in question. Both posts have information the other lacks and reading both will give a fuller view of what's going on and why.
really? all this over a sorceress who seems to attract baddies?
Death isn't the answer. she is infinitely replaceable. and the rogue has no way to trap her soul anyway. at least without a custom item or a really expensive scroll.
if she is bait for attracting baddies, the PCs (assuming a good party) should try and take out the "brain bug". not the sorceress. if you saw starship troopers, you would know what i mean.
to take out a hive, the most efficient way is to eliminate the queen of the hive for she is the central brain that all hive members rely upon to function.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player had a very good reason to want her taken out. If his assumption is correct I have to agree with him.
The player had a very good reason to want her taken out. If his assumption is correct I have to agree with him.
Standard Case of "Lets kill Marta so we can extract and destroy Ratatosk's Core."
The player had a very good reason to want her taken out. If his assumption is correct I have to agree with him.Standard Case of "Lets kill Marta so we can extract and destroy Ratatosk's Core."
You're gonna have to explain what that means. Should avoid using the phrase "standard case" when employing obscure references.
it's from tales of Symphonia 2, Knight of Ratatosk.
there is this girl named Marta who is part of the protagonist pair. she acquired the core of a powerful Deity named Ratatosk and due to circumstances within the game. it's melded into her forehead like a giant gem accessory. her former organization, the Vanguard (Cliche name) want to extract the core and destroy it, because they believe it attracts all sorts of monsters. Marta ran away because she doesn't want to die.
the whole game pretty much revolves around saving and protecting Marta until Ratatosk can be calmed and his fiendish horde suppressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure except in this care Marta is not dying. She is being put into a coma or knocked out, technically. She will be allowed to "wake up" after the danger has passed. :)
Personally I think it's irrelevant as to whether it's a good plan or not. That's not the question here.
The character, and his player, thinks this is the plan that should best be pursued. As GM, I'd give him his shot, and let the dice fall where they may.
If he fumbles up, he either fails to pull it off, or the rest of the party discovers clues that could eventually lead to him. If he doesn't he covers his tracks and the game plays out from there. I don't like the idea of sudden GM-injecting superpowers into the NPC to prevent an attack, those options REALLY don't sit well with me.
In the future I'd recommend not having plots resting so heavily on a single NPC's wellbeing. Doing so pretty much guarantees the caprice of fate will sway one or more PCs to decide to do away with him/her and lead to more situations like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is ok for a player to have a discussion away from the table with the DM in order to orchestrate something with his character without the other PCs knowing. This has happened at our gaming table before, and it has usually worked out ok. Then again the PC in question wasn't killing an NPC we were attached to. If this happens, I would expect the group to handle it in character.
That being said, and having read both threads now, I would recommend that if you haven't yet, to sit down with your player and talk it over. If you really don't want his idea to happen, drop a clue or three as to why her continued presence is vital in a way his character would understand, and how eliminating her currently would have severe negative consequences to their overall goal. Or, reward his vigilance with clues as to how he can use her to defeat the bbeg. Make her usefulness outweigh her liability.
Let us know how it turns out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read both these threads from the players perspective as well as the GMs. Below are my opinions, they may seem harsh and sarcastic, but I'm just being honest. I don't know anyone here so I'm not judging and there is always more to a tale than meets the eye. Try not to take offence, and read with an open mind.
1. Put your big girl panties on and talk it through.
2. You, the GM, have essentially created an immortal spy to be sent into the PCs party and consistently feed the enemy with all the information they need and the PCs are powerless to stop it.
Not powerless in the sense that they can't kill her, but in the sense that you, as the GM, are on here posting and looking for ideas to thwart your players attempt to remove a liability that could potentially offer up to the enemy everything they need to win. Plus, she has unlimited clones so even if they do kill her, the cat comes back the very next day.
Might as well just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies. You can't kill her, because I won't let you. Even if she dies, I had her jump on the magic koopa shell in world 3-1 right before the campaign began so she has unlimited clone lives. The guys on the forums gave me all the information I need to make sure you never succeed. So there."
3. You created the mess you're currently in. Flip the script on yourself, would you allow a person in your party to continue to be a conduit for the enemy, feeding them intel and giving away all your secrets while you're trying to save the world?
I wouldn't. I don't care if she was the hottest woman to walk the earth and we were knockin' boots from dusk til dawn and back again. Booty isn't worth the price I, and my fellow party members, will pay if they lose, and neither is love. I may not kill the Sorceress, but I'd find a quiet, dark hole to lock her up in until the threat was gone. The life of a single person is not worth the life of everyone in the world I'm trying to save. If people had an issue with that it'd be on and we could settle it with steel, a settlement that would require my GM to stand aside and let me and my party handle our business.
4. I won't even get into the issue that the NPC is enamoured to the PC being played by the GMs wife. That's a nasty can o' worms right there.
5. The PC in this case is in the right, sorry bro, that's my take on it. I'm sorry you invested a lot of time in this NPC, but you made the problem, and now you have to deal with the PCs reacting to it. Let them.
The game is about having fun, not protecting your precious NPCs or precious plots. As the GM you have to be flexible, roll with the punches and recreate opportunities for the enemies where the PC have breached through carefully laid plans.
It's not a competition. Pathfinder is not GM vs. the Players where you roll dice and try to beat their characters. You are writing, telling, and creating a story where your players are heroes. It's their story, not yours. Let them tell it and simply react to their actions within that world. Sometimes, NPCs die. It happens.
The PC doesn't seem to want to kill her (not that it would work, she has several more clones chilling in her closet. Probably with special hair dos so she can just shift her soul into the body of which hair style she wants that day) he seems to just want her 'out of the way' until your heroes can save the world. So far, he seems to the only person who's trying to solve the problem you've created, and peacefully too.
That seems pretty damn reasonable to me and if your Sorceress had a lick of sense, and her lover had a lick of sense, they'd realize that the Rogue is offering up the most viable option for victory where no one has to die. The GM and the Sorceress just seem like parts of the problem since they don't seem to contribute anything to the solution.
Just my two cents, harsh as they may sound.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players do not have the right to private plotting in a non-PVP game.
I disagree. Very very very VERY strongly. A player ALWAYS has the right and ability to come to me and say "My character does this in secret" so the others don't know, if they so choose.
If there are consequences, there are consequences. I like to think my players are mature enough to handle that, and experience has proven me correct. I'm saddened by the number of comments that seem to suggest other groups aren't.
I'm pretty sure the PC in question is reading this thread so why put in that qualifier?
No, he said in his thread that he didn't read the DM's thread, and asked that the DM wouldn't read his.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read both these threads from the players perspective as well as the GMs. Below are my opinions, they may seem harsh and sarcastic, but I'm just being honest. I don't know anyone here so I'm not judging and there is always more to a tale than meets the eye. Try not to take offence, and read with an open mind.
1. Put your big girl panties on and talk it through.
2. You, the GM, have essentially created an immortal spy to be sent into the PCs party and consistently feed the enemy with all the information they need and the PCs are powerless to stop it.
Not powerless in the sense that they can't kill her, but in the sense that you, as the GM, are on here posting and looking for ideas to thwart your players attempt to remove a liability that could potentially offer up to the enemy everything they need to win. Plus, she has unlimited clones so even if they do kill her, the cat comes back the very next day.
Might as well just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies. You can't kill her, because I won't let you. Even if she dies, I had her jump on the magic koopa shell in world 3-1 right before the campaign began so she has unlimited clone lives. The guys on the forums gave me all the information I need to make sure you never succeed. So there."
3. You created the mess you're currently in. Flip the script on yourself, would you allow a person in your party to continue to be a conduit for the enemy, feeding them intel and giving away all your secrets while you're trying to save the world?
I wouldn't. I don't care if she was the hottest woman to walk the earth and we were knockin' boots from dusk til dawn and back again. Booty isn't worth the price I, and my fellow party members, will pay if they lose, and neither is love. I may not kill the Sorceress, but I'd find a quiet, dark hole to lock her up in until the threat was gone. The life of a single person is not worth the life of everyone in the world I'm trying to save. If people had an issue with that it'd be on and we...
Yep. Agree 100%. Esp about the part where the DMPC is there to be a romantic interest for the DM’s wife, thus in effect being a Mary Sue/Marty Stu.
OP, like I said before- you have too much invested in this NPC. This is very evident as you have been withholding info that would be vital for us to know when giving advice. You left out the part about the PC in this line “the NPC (now an adult, a level 16 sorcerer, and all but married to one of the PCs) “ being your wife.
This is why I really like it when we hear both sides.
So here’s the thing. Drop the whole evil bloodline thing. Drop the clone thing. Have some Miracle or something happen so your DMPC is still there to make your wife happy but that killing the NPC won’t help save the world, and save the party too.
I would suggest talking to your players (both the rogue and your wife) about making a side quest to obtain some way of disconnecting the NPC from the BBEG.
You can ask the rogue to try to look for an alternative solution (which you can have him find out through gather information. If the party succeeds (which should happen), then the rogue should have an in character reason not be as worried of keeping the NPC around
You can also have the BBEG being boosted by "no longer being chained to the feeble mind of a mortal" or something like that, increasing the tension by giving a bittersweet moment of making your life harder because you took the high road
i support this option too.
Right, I agree.
Fellow DM. Having been in your shoes myself, you are now at a tough point. Yes, it is very fun to be able to carry on a romantic subplot with your wife. But you must now know that by doing so, you put your players in a very uncomfortable spot.
You now have the following choice to make.
1. Your plot line.
2. Your romantic in-game relationship with your wife.
3 Your friends/players
PICK TWO.
There is no having it all. You put your players here in a very bad position. Just apologize- OOC, and tell them OOC that you are going to de-villain-ize the DMPC. Tell them that you expect them to play it right IC, but you need to inform them of this OOC.
you could make the devillianization an adventure in itself. maybe there is a supernatural effect created by the villain in the form of a microscopic internal parasite that allows him to scry her thoughts and memories anywhere and a powerful wizard needs you to gather components for this elixir that will remove the effect by killing the Parasite. and by killing the parasite, you made it to where she can no longer have her brain scryed by the villain.
To all the prior posters that shared info from the Rogue's thread, that was completely disrespectful. If either the rogue or the GM reads the others thread, that is on them, but we have no right to spread info between the two.
Second, I read the rogue's thread and the stuff above. I want to be clear to the OP of this thread that the rogue's player seems to have a good deal of respect for you, so ignore some of the comments above that may indicate differently. They are being way to harsh.
Using just what I have read in this thread, I would say you have to let him try if he really wants to. I think this is a bad idea on his part, but if you tell him he just cannot do it, your adventure just jumped onto the railroad tracks. Choo choo. Please don't do that, it sounds like a really awesome campaign. Also, if he does try, be fair. No clues he didn't leave. However, what those clues might be are up to you, him and his rolls. Do this on the table, so if he does get caught, he cannot say it was predestined. I know this may lead to some heavy rewrites for you, but no NPC should ever be untouchable. It makes the PC's feel like spectators instead of players.
I will say that doing this behind the back of the rest of the gaming group is a really bad idea. Some people do not like being kept in the dark. Unless this kind of secretive stuff is common and accepted in your group, put your foot down on that point. If it is uncommon, no one is even going to make a Sense Motive when he lies. Why would they?
That's my two copper.
you could even work out a deal with the rogue in private whereas she could continue to be a villian in the end---but in the meantime since the rogue is watching her so close, she can't communicate with the enemy to pass on party weaknesses.
That way the rogue feels like he has helped the party by hampering the villians ability to gather their plans and weaknesses (have the BBEG at the end mention to the party how lucky they are that the rogue had hampered his intel gathering so many times)
the rogue is never quite sure enough to take action--but his constant vigilance hampers the BBEGs intel gathering anyhow.
If I were ina party and a NPC were constantly giving away our plans or weaknesses, I would get rid of them also. SO find a way to explain why that NPC is no longer giving away the plans or weaknesses-(the rogues vigilance--everytime she tries to communicate, she finds the rogue watching her)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having read both threads and speaking as someone who's tried both sides of the DM screen...
Let the rogue kill the obvious threat to the party. You've laid the groundwork that pretty blatantly connects your NPC to the baddies, and honestly, I'd commend the player for seeing the threads and unraveling the end of the world before things get too dangerous. Especially since it doesn't seem like they want to kill your NPC.
DMing is about improvisation. If your players throw you a curveball, roll with it, work it in. Try not to have everything hinge on the PCs going according to a script; your plans will be destroyed. And remember, NPCs are like strays - you can feed them and name them, but you'll get attached and ultimately regret it when they die or wander off.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I would break it down, sorry if I come off as harsh.
-Tell the player not to despite he's convinced "it's what my character would do"
Discussing it seriously with the player is fine. That said I don't think it's the role of the DM to tell a player how to role-play their characters, only to setup the boundaries and rules for a given setting.
From how it's been explained, I don't see how the player is "failing" to roleplay correctly.
-Let him proceed with the plan and give the party tools to find out what he's been up to so they can fix things, party turns on each other.
Metagaming, though that said having the party talk it out OOC might be an option. Really though you should probably, "remove" at least temporarily, the NPC. I think you've overstepped your grounds as a DM.
-Let him proceed and have a pivotal NPC simply vanish from the campaign.
Adjust, this is the purpose of the DM. If it becomes necessary True Resurrection exists as an option for PCs of this level, if you end up going down this road consider giving the NPC a reduced role perhaps dieing severed her ties with the BBEG.
-Give the NPC a sudden boost in power such that she can unexpectedly ward of the attack.
Railroading, plot armor, meta-gaming, overt DM NPC favoritism, and Mary-Sueism.
-Have the NPC grow wise to the threat on her life and vanish for a few sessions only to come back and make a preemptive strike against the rogue.
Railroading, meta-gaming, plot armor, overt DM NPC favoritism, and Mary-Sueism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are the options I've come up with so far and I'm not entirely happy with any of them.
-Tell the player not to despite he's convinced "it's what my character would do"
-Let him proceed with the...
Yuck to all those...where's the "Let the Rogue do what he wants, let the dice roll determine the outcome, and let the campaign continue on with the results of the action being taken into consideration" option?
I've got 2 comments and I want you to know that as a DM of 20+ years you're not alone in this...I'm as guilty as you are, even to this day of the following as well.
You are not reading a book to your players, you are writing a story that is based around THEIR actions. Your mistake here was making the story pivot around this NPC. D&D Campaigns pivot around the PLAYERS not the NPCs. They are an ongoing story with an open ending that isn't written till the ending happens. As I told your player in his own thread, this is a combined story with your players having some say in it...your pre-conceived ending, while I'm sure it's spectacular and would take the breath away from your players if only you'd be allowed to tell it (I know mine would...every time)...is IRRELEVANT.
You have 2 options right now, and I council you (thorough experience) to be careful which one you select.
* As all of your answers above indicate and lead toward, you can Deus Ex Machina a solution to the problem forcing the players to live through your pre-written story (whether they want to or not).
* Or you an let your ending go, understand your roll as FACILITATOR of the story and not as story TELLER, and get joy out of "I wonder where this is going to lead?"
I know that was very leading, but you have the option of doing either of these. Just understand when you make your choice what you're doing.
One question for you to consider: Are you certain that your pushback here isn't because your "Loose Cannon" has just found the Achilles Heel of your plot? The destruction of this NPC surely doesn't bring crashing down all of the plots and plans of their foes does it?
Your second mistake here was setting the pivotal NPC up in an anti-party light. That may have been unintentional, but the fact is, someone in your party has been given the impression that this NPC is about to get him killed...you cannot expect the PC to walk merrily into the light (the oncoming train) with a smile on his face...particularly not when he has the capability of stopping it. Again, this isn't a book, it's an ongoing story.
This sounds like an EXCELLENT time to me for an NPC "pouring her heart out" by having your NPC make a perception check just before the attack happens to realize it's coming and, though she's helpless to stop it, beg to explain herself to the Rogue before he s***cans her from your story. Her response (JUST to the Rogue) should be to pour her heart out to him about her experiences, what's happened to her and why she's not expendable. She should come to realize her life is null and void and go so far as to explain everything she could possibly know to save her life. If she's that linchpin to the story of 6 players, then you may even have to go so far as to explain the ENTIRE plot and spoil the ending to this Rogue simply to allow him to see what you see through your NPC's eyes to save her. Once the explanation is done it should STILL be left up to the rogue whether to follow through or not.
If you've painted her as a spy without her having ANY knowledge of ANYTHING happening to her, you've made your own bed.
I don't blame your rogue at all. His life is threatened, you've backed him into a corner and given him information that this NPC is the cause of at least some of his woes without giving him enough information to understand why her benefit to him is MORE than her determent.
Another question for you to consider: *IS* her benefit more than her determent to him? To the party? Or is your rogue player right in that killing her would CERTAINLY make his life a hell of a lot easier? Is there an explanation you can give him? Facts from the Campaign, Secrets yet to be revealed that you could provide that would change his mind about this NPC that will keep him from his course?
Or would your PC's be better off if he just stuck a knife in her gut now?
Do everyone a favor and end your romance with your pivotal NPC...
You can still make most or all the events you need to take place happen anyway, or alter the overall landscape to accommodate your player's agency for his character.
Tipping his hand to the party is a rotten thing to do, and is just going to make the atmosphere between you suspicious. You're in love with your story -- that's common for a good GM... and more often for bad ones.
NEVER let your attraction for how you planned things to supersede a characters ability to have an effect on the story. This isn't fudging a roll, or adjusting a key event on the fly so things go smoothly. You have a chain of events in mind, you don't like the course of action a player is choosing to take, and you are engineering to castrate his ability to effect the story as the player would like and as he feels the character must.
Try to put aside your personal bias and be a good referee. I figure you probably won't, but you can't give him a dummy pill and take away his ability to be the hero in a scenario you've sewn where he is already the friggin' hero.
Here are some ideas you could consider to try to smooth things... but failing something like these you should allow him to TRY to do what his character wants to do. If it was essential to you that this NPC continue to exist, you shouldn't have flashed your badge as you did -- or rather the big bad shouldn't have. It's silly and unfair to force the heroes to allow the enemy to suckle at their breasts and then disempower them to do anything about it. Anyway, the ideas:
1) Let him stumble upon and item or information that suddenly makes it tactically advantageous for him NOT to kill the NPC. For example, a crystal that if broken at a critical moment (like the final battle you'd allow her to be revealed and wrecked as a betrayer) will cataclysmically disrupt the link between this important NPC and the big bad(dies) ... he might consider this edge at a critical moment more tactically valuable than the info the "little bird" NPCs would telegraph to the enemy, and he still gets to be a hero that through careful planning ahead and calculation pulled off the kill when it was most beneficial to do so. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush -- so the idea of giving him a means to hurt the NPC *AND* the Big Bad in the finale might trump Killing the NPC now to control the threat they pose at the moment. I think this is the best option, and if he doesn't bite naturally, consider for the sake of the story and everyone's enjoyment (IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS IS THE REASON YOU ARE BULLPROOFING YOUR NPC AND NOT FOR THE *BAD* EXCUSE THAT IT IS YOUR PET NPC AND YOU "NEED" THEM IN THE STORY... Because honestly, you don't. Man up and get creative) if he'd be willing to compromise and take this course (perhaps it'll come with a trait or feat award that has a name relating to the story. So offer it in the story, and if he doesn't bite, talk it OOC and see if he'll compromise. otherwise look at this stuff:
2) Offer to "buy him in" to the whole double-agent thing. Have the big bad or the master dragon or the hive-mind or whatever commune with him, have a sit down, trade messages... it acknowledges the threat that this PC assassin guy poses -- and wants him on the payroll. Offer them strong incentives for doing so -- a special trait or feat or something that he can keep even if the big bad is killed at some point later, something to remember everything by. The downside
being he shares the same link with the NPC he wants to kill (he needn't know this in advance) -- so it of course THEN gives you a perfectly good reason to know and share his future designs if they are inconvenient. He SHOULD learn that killing the NPC who shares his link will kill or otherwise maim him as well. Give the player material advantages, the feat/trait advantage, or even -- the link being two-way the incentive of having his own insight into the threat to use in the final battle. Also let him know that by his force of will or strength of character he can be confident to mitigate the extent to which the big bad can use the link with him... but the big bad doesn't necessarily know this.
3) like 2 above, but he discovers a means to wire-tap the connection with the NPC he wants to kill. By engaging in the process by which he taps into the connection, the big baddie gets some of the shared connection reflected onto him, making the murder of the NPC lethal to him as well -- shattering the link will kill him, at least for now. That'll give him something else to worry about, but before he gets into the mess he may not be able to resist listening to the "wire-tap"... on the other hand, the way you talk it, he sounds suspicious and smart.. he may not bite.
4) Really... honestly, I implore you not to tie a players hands like this. You may have something cool planned, but it also sounds like the cat is out of the bag. You might enjoy things coming out like you envisioned, but at least one player at your table, who seems like he deserves better -- is going to be seriously frosted and feel like his ideas don't matter if you go forward without giving HIM reason to turn his course.
We're going to know what you decide in the end -- and we hope you do the right thing.
Illidyth is totally right -- this is NOT a book. And as a GM of decades also I'll tell you -- I've had my endings inexorably altered too -- and it's a challenge a good GM must rise to meet, otherwise we should be writing stories and not running campaigns.
You're completely s++!-canning your credibility as a GM if you do this. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than you're letting on, and you have to balance concerns that are OOC as well... most notably establishing somebody dear to you (for whom you may not or cannot {easily or at all} be truly objective towards) having a strong story connection to the NPC that ALSO your story seems to pivot on... so alongside your attachment to the NPC, you have to crap where you eat in relation to the storyline of somebody else at the table you'll have to deal with even after the session and campaign are called.
My bet is that you'll roll and tie your players hands, and for that you should be ashamed. I'll be ECSTATIC to find out now or down the line if you do otherwise though.
Firstly- why does he not want the other players told? If they're good roleplayers, they can handle it, and that info won't be transferred to the characters. Sounds like he knows he's making trouble...He doesn't want the other players to know because he obviously doesn't trust them not to meta-game and screw up his plan. He can't even trust his *GM* from meta-gaming and screwing up his plan, now can he?
The DM's wife is IN LOVE with this NPC... this whole mess is NOT the player's fault, and for him to be expected to sit on his hands when the very spirit of the game is for the players NOT TO is unconscionable to ask. It's the worst Quantum Ogre of all time. Seeing how I began this paragraph the DM has every reason story and non-story wise to abuse his authority as a GM to remove agency from a good and devoted player who is probably already upset at being put in this situation.
This is a time for eating serious crow and taking responsibility for the game one runs. It's NOT a book. the players have freedom of choice.
The entire disparity from the amount of information in either of the threads (In my opinion the GM is being intentionally vague and STILL not making a convincing argument to tie the heroes hands) ... The interpersonal aspects of the problem at the table are NOT being overtly discussed in the player thread, but anybody with a brain can infer "Wife of the GM" and what all that can entail. Next time have the troublesome clever player fall in love with the pivotal NPC... somebody being your wife is not a balm for removing the agency of a player in game.
Who's married to whom should strictly be OOC business. But we know where your bread is buttered. At least, I think I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following both these threads and frankly I feel the PC Rogue is being a jerk.
Still, he's trying, I think, to play 'in character' (a coment that, as we all know, covers a multitude of sins).
Still, what you all have to consider is that PC Rogue is doing this behind the party's back. This implies that the rest of the group, not just Mrs GM, like and want the NPC around. That they don't see the same threat PC Rogue does.
So, let PC Rogue's plan go off without a hitch. What happens then?
1: The group believes she's betrayed them and run off with the big bad. Lots of RP potential there, obviously. Until the end, when they find out, during the final fight, from big bad "Why no, she never came to me. In fact, my spies saw Rogue here kill her. Want to see?' Magic showing past event plays on every wall in final dungeon. Doesn't even have to be a DM gotcha. It's the logical thing for the big bad to do to weaken the party.
2: Big bad doesn't do that as GM feels its too much a gotcha, instead, after end of campaign, NPC is released to ask 'Why?' and explain to the rest of the party just where she's been.
3: NPC is freed and party, believing Rogue's original 'she betrayed us' slays her before he can clear things up.
4: Rogue dies in game. NPC is trapped forever.
There are so many ways this sort of thing can go bad, even without NPC being pivotal to the story.
And as for Mrs GM? Why shouldn't her character be the one making out with the NPC? Do you want to play such a situation in front of the other spouse? Don't you think that's jsut a tad icky?
And as for Mrs GM? Why shouldn't her character be the one making out with the NPC? Do you want to play such a situation in front of the other spouse? Don't you think that's jsut a tad icky?
You've inserted an underlying assumption that the GM absolutely must have his own special DMPC that absolutely must be married to one of the PCs. Somehow that's never become necessary in any campaign I've played.
And as for Mrs GM? Why shouldn't her character be the one making out with the NPC? Do you want to play such a situation in front of the other spouse? Don't you think that's jsut a tad icky?You've inserted an underlying assumption that the GM absolutely must have his own special DMPC that absolutely must be married to one of the PCs. Somehow that's never become necessary in any campaign I've played.
I'm sorry it came out that way. That wasn't what I intended to say. How I meant it was that if there's going to be a lover-style NPC relationship in a face-to-face game, it's slightly less weird for the pairing to be DM & Spouse than DM and random player. And yes, I'm in a Jade Regent game. PbP, with my spouse not running or playing.
Suppose we remove that aspect, though. Even if there was no love interest involved, I still think the Rogue is wrong in this, especially as he seems to be going aganst the rest of the party.
And as for Mrs GM? Why shouldn't her character be the one making out with the NPC? Do you want to play such a situation in front of the other spouse? Don't you think that's jsut a tad icky?You've inserted an underlying assumption that the GM absolutely must have his own special DMPC that absolutely must be married to one of the PCs. Somehow that's never become necessary in any campaign I've played.
It can be a fun way for the two to get in a little romance during game time. But there needs to be limits.
OP, I think I have come across as too harsh here. You guys seem to be at least in the same chapter if not on the same page. You seem to be a very good DM with a great imagination.
Work with your player OOC. Come to a reasonable compromise you both can live with and will work IC.
I think leaving the NPC in but turning her from the Dark Side might be a compromise. Any DM with your imagination should be able to work that into your story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the npc is essential, you're going very close to the line to DMPC territory. Do not fall into this trap. Let the dice fall where they may.
So my question is what reason does the rogue have not too kill her if there is none give him a reason. The most obvious reason is that she is the only one who can open a door or trigger a device.
The best way for a evil to survive is too make the PC think its more helpful alive then dead.
Aaaaaaaaaand I'm back...
When I last perused this thread (about 70 posts ago) I got some good suggestions (and some bad ones), discussed with my player a whole lot, read up on spells, and figured out some ways of playing this. Then got talking to an important Kobold and failed to notice the thread growth entirely. Thanks everyone for your interest so far :)
A few general comments before I respond to some individual points)
A) My player is a rock star, he's not a jerk and he very respectfully told me his intentions and let me plan around them accordingly. If this was too much of a wrench in my plans I trust that I could tell him not to and he would respect that (not necessarily happily but he would) We have been having productive and respectful phone discussions about this on an ongoing basis and I don't think I'll need to play that card.
B) The fact that the NPC is involved with my Wife's character was withheld but not for the purpose of a conflict of interest on my part (at least any that I'm aware of). I come from a background where two female characters in a romance can be... controversial and wanted to sidestep a potentially useless tangent discussion, now that the cat's out of the bag I'm very glad to see it's been a non-issue.
C) This character is important to the plot line, but she's not immortal or all powerful. I have pet NPCs, she's crucial to the plot, and I make no apologies for this. I consider myself a storyteller first and a ref second and storytellers need key characters. This doesn't mean the rogue can't succeed but his success or failure will have a *profound* effect on the campaign world I've been building for over a decade. I feel this power is best put in the hands of all the PCs not just one.
D) I'm on here looking for options not allies, as such criticism of my approach falls on deaf ears. If you like my style that's awesome, if you don't like my style I respect your opinion but I don't much care. I don't need strangers on the internet to validate my DMing skills, I just want you to show me new avenues of awesome.
E) I'd like to lay my cards on the table but with the second thread going there's too large a chance of more information leaking (Intentionally or accidentally) I'll need to continue to be somewhat coy. If anyone's paying attention a few months from now I'll post a behind the scenes look at what eventually went down.
Now on to some specific comments...
And as for Mrs GM? Why shouldn't her character be the one making out with the NPC? Do you want to play such a situation in front of the other spouse? Don't you think that's jsut a tad icky?
I'm not sure I understand the question but I'll try to answer.
I cater to the desires of my players, some players want a bit of romance on the side. There can be an ick factor but it can often ramp up the drama.
Lets name some folks:
The rogue (Taylar) has an NPC (sarah) wife with class levels.
My wife's character (Tammarack) the Fighter has this pivotal NPC (Named Kianna) as a squeeze.
And if memory serves prior to these relationships the Tayar and Tammarack had a brief fling.
The key NPC is not just crucial plot element but also something of a mulligan for my wife's character and we're getting some quality dramatic mileage out of "rescue the princess" plots so far.
May I also point out is there a way too remove or get rid of the problem that your player has with your npc so she isn't considered a problem anymore.
Illidyth is totally right -- this is NOT a book. And as a GM of decades also I'll tell you -- I've had my endings inexorably altered too -- and it's a challenge a good GM must rise to meet, otherwise we should be writing stories and not running campaigns.
I agree fully. As it happens I'm horrible at writing stand alone fiction :P
I want everyone at the table to have fun. However respecting the agency of a single player (who is far more rules savvy and powergamey) than the others shouldn't ruin the agency of everyone else at the table.
Let the dice fall where they may.
Two campaigns back ,my absolute favorite pet NPC of all time tried to recruit a like minded PC to help him attain evil godhood. PC pretended to go along with it and stole the godhood out from under him at the last second, killing another PC in the process. (Betrayed NPC, betrayed the party, became a the god of Death) It was very much an "empire strikes back" ending to that campaign and the in game repercussions are being felt to this day. Respecting the agency of that player made for some awesome ending but it also lead to some hurt feelings IRL. Looking to improve things this time around.
Right, I agree.
You now have the following choice to make.
1. Your plot line.
2. Your romantic in-game relationship with your wife.
3 Your friends/players
PICK TWO.
From my perspective I think the situation is a bit more fluid. framed this way honestly I could see this going down as any of these outcomes.
1 2 & 3
1 & 3
or just 3 on it's own.
IC Relationship is a non-issue, I'm not about to ruin anyone's fun for the sake of preserving imaginary relations between a fictional characters. In truth killing, abducting or tormenting Kianna has proven to provide high drama situations that the wife quite enjoys. I see a PC driven abduction of Kianna as no exception to this trend.
I would frame this issue more along the lines of:
1) Satisfying agency of PC (Taylar) who has desires that conflict with group.
2) Satisfying agency of other players who ALL like this NPC(Kianna) (even against some suspicion OOC)
3) Having room to do something awesome with plot.
Right now I can pick 1&3 or 2&3. I want all three.
NEVER let your attraction for how you planned things to supersede a characters ability to have an effect on the story.
I'm actually in the nice position of not having one firm plan for the end of this campaign.
The campaign has the players sandwiched between two big bads who are at war. Agents of death and magebred monstrosities, BOTH big bads are bent on world domination. At the end of the campaign the players will make some choices that will decide the outcome of this conflict for better or for ill. Infact some of the choices they make may reshape the world.
The player's (Taylar's) actions don't run off the rails, I'm still comfortably within the scope of the plot as I foresaw it. The unfortunate aspect of this is that if not handled correctly his imprisonment of a key NPC (Kianna) may limit the choices the party can make that affect the campaign outcome.
I want the party to make these big choices not one player. Given that the taylar could take the rest of the party (NPC included) out in combat and has superior command of the rules to let the dice fall where they may favorers the powergamer over the others at the table (myself included)
A lot of good advice here, but I would be absolutely sure of the player's motivations before carrying through the more extreme parts. After all, the player did tell you beforehand what his plans were, instead of just carrying through with it before you have any chance of reacting or planning stuff, so I'm guessing he's not doing it to break the campaign.
There are several possibilities:
1. The player has misunderstood something essential about the whole situation.
2. The character has misunderstood something essential about the whole situation, and the player wants to roleplay that.
3. The player is tired of having a Mary Sue DMPC with the group, and just wants her out of the game.
4. ??
I would probably let the player try what he wants to, without making it superficially hard to do so. Maybe the sorceress has a Contingency spell, maybe not. But making it extra hard because he warned you in advance is not a good idea. Let him try, let the other PCs have a chance to find out. Maybe he will need to explain his actions to the other PC, maybe he will be the next BBEG - at this level it's not much to lose anyway, he's had an almost full career already.
Thanks Friend of Dork, I found this really useful.
3 is a non issue, this character isn't a DMPC. any time she joins the party she is controlled by the players (unless I need her as a mouthpiece for knowledge checks).
If I were to poll the other players they would say it's 1 and 2.
The four other players AND characters in the group as of the last game came out with radically different conclusion they said:
"Wow our NPC/Cohort friend was just captured by the Big Bad, refused to join the BBEG's ranks, was subsequently Tortured extensively, we thought she had turned on us but the real her never wavered." In light of this all the other characters think she's now beyond reproach
The lone PC (Taylar) seems to be saying
"Kianna's clone made a mockery of our defenses, stole our loot, kidnapped our guard chimeras and mutated them horribly. If the real thing ever turned on us we'd screwed even if she won't turn she's too much of a liability but I can't convince the others so I'm taking matters into my own hands."
Now I'm not going to say who's right here, I do love my plot twists. I will say that all my players don't have all the information yet and some characters aren't reacting rationally to the information they have available.
2. You, the GM, have essentially created an immortal spy to be sent into the PCs party and consistently feed the enemy with all the information they need and the PCs are powerless to stop it.
Thanks for your comments, no offense taken.
ONE of my players sees it this way. He may be correct that the NPC is evil but the Kianna is neither omnipotent nor immortal.
As I'm not yet reading the other thread (pending my player's permission) I can only speculate on what perspective he's putting forward but he might be a tad cross at how the clone in the last adventure screwed up the party's stuff.
The players (particularly the rogue PC Taylar) are constantly telling me "We're building a fortress city, We have elaborate magical traps, we have a vault of our unused treasure safe from prying eyes, we have guardian creatures"
no-one has ever given me any specific details on these defenses save for some lines representing curtian walls and a few half baked plans regarding trapsmithing magic items from advanced race guide.
In a vacuum of hard defensive info I presumed that a clone with the NPCs knowledge (supported by an epic level lich) could perform an inside job, steal, kidnap, sabotage etc. It was very much a case of hitting the party where they live to drive home the villany/power of the BBEG.
Taylar's player was a bit irked saying "we wouldn't be caught with our pants down like this" but went along with the adventure anyways. He seems to mis-ascribe the godlike ability to mess up the party's stuff to the lower level NPC rather than the epic level big bad.
The same NPC lich has proven the ability to clone other party members also.
Anyways I don't agree with the Players logic or the character's logic but I can't disuade him from this course without vetoing it so we'll see where this road leads.
Dotted for future curiosity. :)
"Kianna" *IS* immortal if you forbid any reasonable and plausible means to kill her by fiat. That's what I gathered hartbaine meant.