(as the title hints) At the end of a game a couple of weeks ago, we ended the night with he heroes being tied up and knocked out. At the beginning of the next week i looked at their character equipment and checked off a few things that they were missing.
Surprisingly, there was only one person upset about this: a caster (not the barbarian). Her argument was that I never said that they are taking their equipment. What my argument was, was that a brigade (50-200 people) aren't going to leave your armor and weapons on your person while you're in a jail cell.
thoughts? I think she was just being a little naive. I mean they're knocked out, they're not gonna know if they are missing anything unless its armor or a weapon.
You took her Arcane Bonded item, didn't you?
You took her Arcane Bonded item, didn't you?
lol surprisingly not. She's a witch and her little bid was flying around care free.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what i like to call a "complainer".
Some PC's get a sense of self-entitlement when playing a game and can't handle when something bad happens to their character.
Logically they wouldn't have anything on them except a set of clothes. If you're nice. Leave them some underwear at least :)
"It was hidden" doesn't count if they're stripping your unconcious body down and just take everything. They might not find the lockpicks in your secret pocket, but you don't have the jacket anymore.
Smart guards don't leave a backpack full of random stuff in the possession of prisoners, so that and everything in it is gone too. Certainly belt pouches and other such things as well. Definitely wouldn't let them keep armor or weapons and they'd most certainly make sure to remove all magic items they can find.
Just make it so they can get most or all of it back when they eventually excape.
Was her argument that she could have perhaps done something to prevent the taking if it had been done during the game session? Or was it just more "Stop being such a mean GM/DM, you big stupid meanie"?
Was her argument that she could have perhaps done something to prevent the taking if it had been done during the game session? Or was it just more "Stop being such a mean GM/DM, you big stupid meanie"?
From the sound of it they were unconcious, so what could she have done.
Funny enough the witch is probably one of the few classes that can work perfectly fine and do pretty much everything even completely naked (as long as her familiar stayed alive).
Was her argument that she could have perhaps done something to prevent the taking if it had been done during the game session? Or was it just more "Stop being such a mean GM/DM, you big stupid meanie"?
See that's part I'm not too sure about Lamontius. It was obvious that a Lord was hitting on her and trying to get in her pants. I gave them plenty of times to see the banners that had "evil" sign on it, they could have made a dozen Sense motive checks in order to see that he and the others were trying to get their guard down, it just didn't occur to them (they're level 9 btw.)
Perhaps I was being a little harsh, but in my defense: we've been playing for 4+ years, They had to have had some idea that something wasn't "right", and perhaps they should have seen or paid attention to such obvious signs.
could she be projecting? and blaming me for her mistake?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those things where I think you really needed to be there at the time it happened. Based on the information, it could have been anything from a simple misunderstanding/miscommunication to a GM withholding information unfairly to a player being self-entitled or anywhere in between.
I can say that were I GM in that situation, I would definitely say explicitly that some gear was taken at the time the party was tied up. It may be reasonable for that to happen, but it's the kind of thing I'd make clear just in case someone wasn't paying attention.
Doing so also does allow players to react as Lamontius says--if she had some kind of immediate action or something she could take even tied up to defend herself or her gear, it would have only been fair to make clear the timing of events so she could choose to act or not.
The problem is that they were tied up and knocked out. She didn't struggle or argue it until after realizing that gear was taken.
If it really mattered she should have done something while they were capturing them. Once your unconscious your helpless and anyone can do anything to you.
IMO it's reasonable to assume that PCs are stripped of their gear when knocked out and tied up. On the other hand it's usually not a lot a lot of fun having your character knocked out, tied up and having all of their gear taken from them.
I'm not saying this could/should never be done. I have no information regarding the circumstances leading to this situation, I'm sure there are many reasons this could be perfectly reasonable in many situations. When this comes up though, I wouldn't expect the players to be happy about it, that's all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll probably get a lot of responses that sound something like "tell that whiny whiner to shut up and get over it." This advice is not terrible. However, it's probably worth it to find out the cause of your player's frustration. For instance, if the witch normally just solves every problem in or out of combat without breaking a sweat, than you have disrupted the status quo (not necessarily a bad thing, by the way). Or, if you have made a habit of putting the PCs in awkward situations with no apparent way out, your player(s) may be getting genuinely frustrated.
Anyway, I recommend finding out the specifics before telling your player to get over it. Also, I recommend putting players in awkward positions from time to time; keep 'em on their toes. Just make sure that at the end of the day, everybody is having a good time.
Man, if I had a nickel for every time a Lord wanted to get in my pants...but I digress.
I don't see this as much of an issue, but yeah, like DeathQuaker said, it's always good to handle things like that explicitly, in-session, just in case there's something a player could possibly do in response.
Still though, as long as you don't just gleefully murder her familiar in front of her while she is helpless, I think you can chalk it up to a lesson learned all-around while they all go about their daring escape.
|
Perhaps I was being a little harsh, but in my defense: we've been playing for 4+ years, They had to have had some idea that something wasn't "right", and perhaps they should have seen or paid attention to such obvious signs.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to them. You have the benefit of knowing everything. They only know what you describe. Are you sure they even noticed what you said?
I always have trouble with Sense Motive checks. Do I tell them to roll, and give away that something is up? Or do I wait for them to ask, and risk them never asking?
Something said in the Three Clue Rule essay: "Why three? Because the PCs will probably miss the first; ignore the second; and misinterpret the third before making some incredible leap of logic that gets them where you wanted them to go all along."
This may be what happened to your group.
I have what might sound like a really stupid question: Were they knocked out first and then tied up, or were they tied up first and then knocked out?
If I were a player and somebody was trying to tie me up, I'd be using every trick in my book to prevent that from happening. Even in the face of overwhelming odds. I mean, we're adventurers damnit! We don't let the Lord and his cronies knock us out. We knock them out!
Was her argument that she could have perhaps done something to prevent the taking if it had been done during the game session? Or was it just more "Stop being such a mean GM/DM, you big stupid meanie"?
See that's part I'm not too sure about Lamontius. It was obvious that a Lord was hitting on her and trying to get in her pants. I gave them plenty of times to see the banners that had "evil" sign on it, they could have made a dozen Sense motive checks in order to see that he and the others were trying to get their guard down, it just didn't occur to them (they're level 9 btw.)
Perhaps I was being a little harsh, but in my defense: we've been playing for 4+ years, They had to have had some idea that something wasn't "right", and perhaps they should have seen or paid attention to such obvious signs.
could she be projecting? and blaming me for her mistake?
Does a man wanting to get into a womans pants make him evil? I'm guessing your glossing over the banners of with "evil" sign on it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you didn't take an item essential to the character (bonded item, spell component pouch, spellbook, holy symbol etc) I don't see an issue. And those being taken is only an issue if they aren't going to be returned. A jail break is a cool challenge for a barbarian who can punch stuff to death anyway (even with -4 and AoOs), but some characters (like a wizard) are severely crippled, feel useless, and end up bored. I guess what I'm saying is that what you did was reasonable, but it may cause some players to stop having fun.
Now as far as what you did: it was reasonable given the situation to have the PCs stripped naked (maybe give them a change of prisoner's clothes). Other than the spell component pouch, the witch doesn't need anything to use all of her class abilities. I think it may also depend on the circumstances of the capture. If it was a "this happens and you can't stop it" you need to at least talk out of game about where you're going with it and that the story to come will be worth it. If it was a situation the PCs could have avoided, you could remind them that they could be dead instead. If they couldn't avoid it, I would suggest avoiding negative railroad situations in the future as they are often a source of player dissatisfaction.
The problem is that they were tied up and knocked out.
Yes, and I am saying that were I GM I would have explicitly noted they took gear from them before taking their character sheets and crossing things off. That is all.
She didn't struggle or argue it until after realizing that gear was taken.
And we, the readers of this thread, have no idea why. Maybe she had an alarm spell active that would have gone off if they touched her beltpouch that would have alerted people nearby, which should have then subsequently changed the course of events, but not realizing a specific item was touched, she could not remind the GM of the spell. Maybe since she was a witch, her familiar was still conscious and could have grabbed an item precious to her and ran off with it before the bad guys could stop it, but because again, she didn't realize what happened, she was not given an opportunity to have her familiar attempt that. Maybe she just didn't quite realize the ramifications of what happened and was surprised and overreacted due to that surprise. Maybe she was being entitled and not accepting the consequences of their actions. I don't know.
Not knowing the exact circumstances, I am both trying to avoid jumping to conclusions about who is the "bad guy" here and instead am trying to speak to the general idea of the importance of open and clear communication in a gaming group, precisely so all circumstances as listed above and more can be dealt with quickly and fairly. (The player should also remember to communicate such contingencies when they may be relevant.)
|
|
*shrug* What did you take? I mean if it was her spell casting components you've pretty much gimped her out completely until such time as they get it back and it's kind of sort of worthless to anyone to take unless you phrase it properly.
But more importantly what kind of jailer doesn't take all of your stuff and only takes specifics?
EDIT: I'm also curious about how the players got knocked out as a precursor to this situation since if it was DM fiat hand-waving you essentially gave them no chance to do anything between the situations and if I had some applicable ability I'd be kinda annoyed.
With the right Knowledge check someone could easily determine if the witch is a spellcaster, this means that spell components will most likely be taken on purpose.
Now sometimes things may be taken without realizing it but the damage gets done regardless. Like what someone said earlier about lockpicks being in a secret pocket, doesn't matter when the whole jacket is taken.
The problem is that they were tied up and knocked out.Yes, and I am saying that were I GM I would have explicitly noted they took gear from them before taking their character sheets and crossing things off. That is all.
She didn't struggle or argue it until after realizing that gear was taken.And we, the readers of this thread, have no idea why. Maybe she had an alarm spell active that would have gone off if they touched her beltpouch that would have alerted people nearby, which should have then subsequently changed the course of events, but not realizing a specific item was touched, she could not remind the GM of the spell. Maybe since she was a witch, her familiar was still conscious and could have grabbed an item precious to her and ran off with it before the bad guys could stop it, but because again, she didn't realize what happened, she was not given an opportunity to have her familiar attempt that. Maybe she just didn't quite realize the ramifications of what happened and was surprised and overreacted due to that surprise. Maybe she was being entitled and not accepting the consequences of their actions. I don't know.
Not knowing the exact circumstances, I am both trying to avoid jumping to conclusions about who is the "bad guy" here and instead am trying to speak to the general idea of the importance of open and clear communication in a gaming group, precisely so all circumstances as listed above and more can be dealt with quickly and fairly. (The player should also remember to communicate such contingencies when they may be relevant.)
All i'm getting at based on what was said is that the player knew she was tied up, knocked out, and placed in a jail cell at the end of the session.
There was no reason to complain about not having your gear. She was incapable of stopping it from happening in game. At that point its whining.
I feel like there's a fundamental gap here, as DQ pointed out, between what we are being told and the reality of what happened.
Did the person in question leave the previous gaming session with the full knowledge that his/her character was unconscious, in the hands of enemies, and tied up/going to be locked up?
If that's the case (which is what we've been told) the complaining about your gear being taken away from you amounts to having a decided absence of common sense. When a person was/is taken to lock up throughout history, they are stripped of all earthly goods, and put in some other roughspun garment. If the player left the session knowing they were headed for that future, and yet still complained about "not having their gear." They are: extremely narrow-sighted, an idiot, or have a very crappy working knowledge of what happens when people go to prison.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.
So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.
It is the whole point. Many players will be upset that they didn't "win." After a couple of times being made helpless, most groups will come to trust their GM to give them the "out" that they need to win or escape or whatever (well, as long as you consistently do!). Once that happens, you can face them with un-winnable situations, and instead of frustrating and irritating them, you will pique their interests.
|
|
So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.It is the whole point. Many players will be upset that they didn't "win." After a couple of times being made helpless, most groups will come to trust their GM to give them the "out" that they need to win or escape or whatever (well, as long as you consistently do!). Once that happens, you can face them with un-winnable situations, and instead of frustrating and irritating them, you will pique their interests.
Ever heard of deus ex machina? It's not generally considered a good thing. This sort of stuff can make good books, but isn't usually fun in an interactive roleplaying situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You tied up and knocked out the party. Why did you let the keep ANEY equipment?"
So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.It is the whole point. Many players will be upset that they didn't "win." After a couple of times being made helpless, most groups will come to trust their GM to give them the "out" that they need to win or escape or whatever (well, as long as you consistently do!). Once that happens, you can face them with un-winnable situations, and instead of frustrating and irritating them, you will pique their interests.
Being fair with rules is one thing. Using DM Fiat to imprison or subdue PCs is kinda horrible and will frustrate players.
Having NPCs in the game fight unfair is a whole different thing. Setting up an appropriate CR encounter were the foes use poison and ambush the PCs is fair to do.
You wake up in a loincloth with no gear is a really dangerous plot device to get into. Yeah a classic module A4 used it to some good effect but in general people don't like feeling powerless and vulnerable even by proxy and taking away gear is a big no-no for many players.
In some groups you'll have the maturity level to deal with being powered down for a session in order to tell an interesting narrative but for many people being less powerful for an extended period is pretty much a recipe for intense frustration.
And for god sake never ever have their captors take advantage over prisoners unless you really want to risk losing a group.
If you really want to explore this I would suggest telling it in a more freeform narrative where the group can kinda help tell a general story about waking up without their gear and the interesting things they needed to do to get their gear back. Don't call for dice resolution except for maybe a single boss fight as they beat up the head jailer.
That way you can resolve this event quickly and to everyone's satisfaction as it's essentially being handled as a series of cutscreens and nobody has to stick around feeling violated for an extended period of time.
|
|
So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.It is the whole point. Many players will be upset that they didn't "win."
Last time I checked, Pathfinder wasn't about winning. It's a role playing game, not a competition. You use the rules and you roll the dice, that's how it is.
Throwing the trust card a little too often can get you no longer invited to groups. It basically boils down to "give me my way or I will call you a bad DM".
|
|
You wake up in a loincloth with no gear is a really dangerous plot device to get into. Yeah a classic module A4 used it to some good effect but in general people don't like feeling powerless and vulnerable even by proxy and taking away gear is a big no-no for many players.
I disagree. I would say, well from my own experience anyway, is that a lot of players do like this style because it's another challenge that they must over come. There are item destruction rules such as sundering for a reason. The game doesn't place these rules in the "mature" section of the book because there isn't one. Item destruction and theft are just another part of the "default" of the game so anyone who uses these is not in the wrong nor are they a bad DM.
Plots tend to get stupid, to be blunt, when it's obvious an enemy should have done something but they didn't because the DM didn't want to anger the players by taking away their toys. If an enemy has me then they need to finish the job in order for me to have some consistency. Don't capture me and throw me into a jail cell with all my gear on. Why do you think they make a special feat for Wizards that allow them to memorize a few spells without their spellbook?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most players hate the "you wake up bound and gagged" or "you are captured by X" scenario, and they are not necessarily wrong. It's an overused plot point, it robs the players of agency, and more often than not it turns the game from an interactive experience into "story time".
As an alternative to killing the PCs, capture/escape is great, but unless you've got some actual plot for them to accomplish while imprisoned (i.e. someone they need to meet in prison, or this being a convenient way to get them into the enemy's base), it's generally not worth the headache IMO.
|
|
Most players hate the "you wake up bound and gagged" or "you are captured by X" scenario, and they are not necessarily wrong. It's an overused plot point, it robs the players of agency, and more often than not it turns the game from an interactive experience into "story time".
As an alternative to killing the PCs, capture/escape is great, but unless you've got some actual plot for them to accomplish while imprisoned (i.e. someone they need to meet in prison, or this being a convenient way to get them into the enemy's base), it's generally not worth the headache IMO.
Where are you getting your "most" players data from? Your own experience? Okay that's cool but don't act like you speak for "most" of the gaming community.
Where are you getting your "most" players data from? Your own experience? Okay that's cool but don't act like you speak for "most" of the gaming community.Most players hate the "you wake up bound and gagged" or "you are captured by X" scenario, and they are not necessarily wrong. It's an overused plot point, it robs the players of agency, and more often than not it turns the game from an interactive experience into "story time".
As an alternative to killing the PCs, capture/escape is great, but unless you've got some actual plot for them to accomplish while imprisoned (i.e. someone they need to meet in prison, or this being a convenient way to get them into the enemy's base), it's generally not worth the headache IMO.
Please calm down. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself, and my own experience. Obviously you have some affection for the "captured/equipment removed" plot device. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means you have a different opinion. There's no reason to be defensive about this.
|
|
Most players hate the "you wake up bound and gagged" or "you are captured by X" scenario, and they are not necessarily wrong. It's an overused plot point, it robs the players of agency, and more often than not it turns the game from an interactive experience into "story time".
As an alternative to killing the PCs, capture/escape is great, but unless you've got some actual plot for them to accomplish while imprisoned (i.e. someone they need to meet in prison, or this being a convenient way to get them into the enemy's base), it's generally not worth the headache IMO.
They may not be wrong, but the point is that sometimes, people should be taken out of their comfort zones. Prisons can be escaped from. Lost gear can be replaced.
But of course, if you get a really bad vibe from the players about such scenarios, either don't attempt those, or, if it's too late, fix them as much as possible.
Being fair with rules is one thing. Using DM Fiat to imprison or subdue PCs is kinda horrible and will frustrate players.
Having NPCs in the game fight unfair is a whole different thing. Setting up an appropriate CR encounter were the foes use poison and ambush the PCs is fair to do.
Totally agreed. I don't mean to say that as a GM you should "set up" your group regularly or frivolously. All I'm saying is that you can build up a trust with your group that if you put them into a no-win situation that you have a plan for them. Ultimately, PCs want to win, and why wouldn't they? For good drama, though, sometimes a high-CR "boss" fight just won't do. When the staple challenge starts getting stale, it's time to spice things up with something new to overcome.
It's important that players make their own choices, though, even in taking away their choices. Sounds dumb? I know. What I mean is that... Say you intend for the PCs to be locked up by the BBE organization. You have them going to the castle to stop the horrible vampire sorcerer from doing...whatever horrible thing he's doing. From afar you see that the castle is teeming with those elite undead guards that only a few levels ago the PCs had a real tough time defeating. They already know that the situation is hopeless, but they storm the castle, anyway. Now, in order to add drama (and not end the campaign in a TPK), you have them all beat to an unconscious pulp, stripped, and locked up. Now obviously you're going to have to throw them some kind of bone to allow them to overcome the odds, stop the sorcerer's evildoing, and maybe even save the princess they didn't even know about.
Ok, I'm rambling. Hopefully everybody gets what I mean.
So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.It is the whole point. Many players will be upset that they didn't "win."Last time I checked, Pathfinder wasn't about winning. It's a role playing game, not a competition. You use the rules and you roll the dice, that's how it is.
Throwing the trust card a little too often can get you no longer invited to groups. It basically boils down to "give me my way or I will call you a bad DM".
I admit, I'm using "win" to describe "overcome a challenge." Of course you can't "beat the game" but being heroic generally involves, well, winning. Many campaigns are set up for the PCs to have several small wins over some kind of badness escalating up to that one final, epic fight that, once they succeed, they have won in some grand, presumably satisfying fashion.
Please calm down. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself, and my own experience. Obviously you have some affection for the "captured/equipment removed" plot device. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means you have a different opinion. There's no reason to be defensive about this.Where are you getting your "most" players data from? Your own experience? Okay that's cool but don't act like you speak for "most" of the gaming community.Most players hate the "you wake up bound and gagged" or "you are captured by X" scenario, and they are not necessarily wrong. It's an overused plot point, it robs the players of agency, and more often than not it turns the game from an interactive experience into "story time".
As an alternative to killing the PCs, capture/escape is great, but unless you've got some actual plot for them to accomplish while imprisoned (i.e. someone they need to meet in prison, or this being a convenient way to get them into the enemy's base), it's generally not worth the headache IMO.
I don't think there's much need to tell Shallowsoul to calm down, he (she) doesn't really sound all that worked up. And while you didn't claim to speak for anyone but yourself, you also didn't point out that you were just speaking for yourself. You said "most players", the word "most" carries connotation that usually imply speaking for a large group, not a single individual.
Anyway, to the point: while I agree that it can be an overused plot point if the GM is just doing it constantly for no reason, I find that if situation warrants it (no matter how frequently) it rarely gets old if done right. As you also point out, it's better than a TPK alternative. I would argue the "not worth the headache" bit. 9/10 I would rather capture (as a GM or a player) over a TPK which is by far the bigger headache.
|
|
I admit, I'm using "win" to describe "overcome a challenge." Of course you can't "beat the game" but being heroic generally involves, well, winning. Many campaigns are set up for the PCs to have several small wins over some kind of badness escalating up to that one final, epic fight that, once they succeed, they have won in some grand, presumably satisfying fashion.So i had my players captured once, by a group of corrupt soldiers. They were all at a big dinner and the food was poisoned with sleeping poison. All of the officers that sat at their table have taken a specific antidote for that poison (which granted a +10 bonus to the save, i dislike immunities). So a few minutes after the PCs start eating, four of six drop their faces into food, and the officers proceed to beat the remaining two with cudgels for nonlethal damage. And, after that, they start whining how it wasn't fair. Of course it wasn't. That's the whole point.It is the whole point. Many players will be upset that they didn't "win."Last time I checked, Pathfinder wasn't about winning. It's a role playing game, not a competition. You use the rules and you roll the dice, that's how it is.
Throwing the trust card a little too often can get you no longer invited to groups. It basically boils down to "give me my way or I will call you a bad DM".
"Hero" is a playstyle but in pathfinder a hero can and does die. Of course each player wants to finish the game intact but the way the game works that may not be so, depending on how the dice roll.
You can't go into a game of Pathfinder expecting to "win". You go in knowing that your character can die but you try your best to keep that from happening.
The worst things I have ever heard are comparing RPG's to novels and movies. Heroes win a lot of times in books and movies because they want to sell more. Think about what would happen if Drizzt dies in book 2, would suck for TSR trying to make money. Also, books and movies have a set beginning, middle, and end, Pathfinder does not. You may want the game to go a certain way but lots of times it doesn't.
I don't think there's much need to tell Shallowsoul to calm down, he (she) doesn't really sound all that worked up. And while you didn't claim to speak for anyone but yourself, you also didn't point out that you were just speaking for yourself.Please calm down. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself, and my own experience. Obviously you have some affection for the "captured/equipment removed" plot device. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means you have a different opinion. There's no reason to be defensive about this.Where are you getting your "most" players data from? Your own experience? Okay that's cool but don't act like you speak for "most" of the gaming community.Most players hate the "you wake up bound and gagged" or "you are captured by X" scenario, and they are not necessarily wrong. It's an overused plot point, it robs the players of agency, and more often than not it turns the game from an interactive experience into "story time".
As an alternative to killing the PCs, capture/escape is great, but unless you've got some actual plot for them to accomplish while imprisoned (i.e. someone they need to meet in prison, or this being a convenient way to get them into the enemy's base), it's generally not worth the headache IMO.
Why would I need to? Should I assume that you are claiming to represent all gamers whenever you post something without a disclaimer denying that you are doing so? Does that really sound reasonable to you?
"Hero" is a playstyle but in pathfinder a hero can and does die. Of course each player wants to finish the game intact but the way the game works that may not be so, depending on how the dice roll.
You can't go into a game of Pathfinder expecting to "win". You go in knowing that your character can die but you try your best to keep that from happening.
The worst things I have ever heard are comparing RPG's to novels and movies. Heroes win a lot of times in books and movies because they want to sell more. Think about what would happen if Drizzt dies in book 2, would suck...
Agreed. Walking into a game with the knowledge that poor decisions can get your character killed is a valid gameplay style, as well. My "hero" playstyle example is an example of "winning" as a valid way to play, not an assumption that everybody wants to win (though it is awfully popular with fans of dramatic stories). In truth, TPKs are often a great opportunity for players to roll that character concept that they've been thinking about while possibly feeling like their existing concept is getting stale.
Does a man wanting to get into a womans pants make him evil? I'm guessing your glossing over the banners of with "evil" sign on it.
A bit of an aside here, but, if she doesn't want it, makes that clear, and he insists on pressing the issue... yes it does. Most emphatically. Rape = evil. Always.
|
Why would I need to? Should I assume that you are claiming to represent all gamers whenever you post something without a disclaimer denying that you are doing so? Does that really sound reasonable to you?
Unfortunately you need to imo. Be very precise. I sued a exampe in another thread that was very clear yet a few posters read way too much into it.
As for the thread. Having the players wake up after having been drugged and have no equipment plot needs to be used rarely. A few times at most imo. Otherwise it comes across as a cheap plot device to remove any unwanted items that maybe causing the players headaches at the game table. In my experice as a gamer it's not a very wel;l liked tactic. Falls into the DM who keeps using disenchanters and rust monsters on a continula basis. I'm not sayingg coddle the players just don;t make them feel like crap to often at the game table.
Who are you talking to?
Hama was talking to you. It's very clear in the post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a man wanting to get into a womans pants make him evil? I'm guessing your glossing over the banners of with "evil" sign on it.A bit of an aside here, but, if she doesn't want it, makes that clear, and he insists on pressing the issue... yes it does. Most emphatically. Rape = evil. Always.
How the hell does one jump all the way to rape from this example? A dirty lech that keeps hitting on a female != rape. Ever.
Actual rape = rape.
Jesus.
Does a man wanting to get into a womans pants make him evil? I'm guessing your glossing over the banners of with "evil" sign on it.A bit of an aside here, but, if she doesn't want it, makes that clear, and he insists on pressing the issue... yes it does. Most emphatically. Rape = evil. Always.
I will agree with you Paladin of Baha-who, IMO rape = evil. When you take a look at the end of this scenerio it seems to be implied.
However Cry Jay posted "See that's part I'm not too sure about Lamontius. It was obvious that a Lord was hitting on her and trying to get in her pants. I gave them plenty of times to see the banners that had "evil" sign on it, they could have made a dozen Sense motive checks in order to see that he and the others were trying to get their guard down, it just didn't occur to them (they're level 9 btw.)" The way he posted it seemed to imply that he was using the Lord's wanting to get into the PC's pants was a major sign of him being evil (although I'm guessing there's other clues as well, but they are not mentioned).
I would also say that nothing that was posted from Cry Jay suggests that the PC was uninterested in the Lord's affection.
I have only one player in my group who would argue the point, but I don't see her griping for more than half an hour about it.
Some players just have a hard time facing adversity. She'll get over it.
She'll have to. The game is full of it.