|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last night I ran Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible. It went fairly well, but the last encounter gave me some trouble. For those who aren't familiar with the scenario, the players have the option of convincing the boss (a druid) to turn himself in to the Society rather than fighting. Though they succeeded in winning him over, the fighter in the group (whose alignment was NG as I recall) insisted on killing the boss's animal companion anyway. I thought this was pointless and potentially evil since the boss had already surrendered, so I talked him out of it.
Another problem arose when the lone Qadira faction member had to work out a deal with the boss. The notes for this faction mission say that the player must give a good roleplaying reason for the boss to comply, but the player simply threatened to kill him. I again objected for similar reasons. He relented and went for a more diplomatic approach.
I'm still a fairly new GM, so I want to ask if I handled the situation appropriately. Was I railroading too much by not letting the players do as they please? Should I have just started the fight and made the party face the consequences? If I had let the fighter kill the animal companion, would that warrant an alignment infraction? The players all seemed happy when I ended the scenario and handed out chronicle sheets, but I don't feel too good about my actions as a GM.
|
First, kudos to you for being a PFS GM. Extra points for all the players leaving the table happy.
Do you feel like the players should be punished for their actions; like there should be consequences for their bad behavior? Join the club :) But this game is about having fun. Handing out alignment infractions* and denying PCs their Prestige Points tends to create bad feelings, especially when players don't feel like they were clearly warned first. You did the right thing. You stopped play and basically asked the player if they really wanted to take that action, because it was going to end badly for them. They took the hint and relented. In the end they got what they wanted and were happy. If they come back to play next time, then you can reasonably believe that you're doing it right.
There are a lot of players in my area that do the same sorts of things as yours. I guess I have grown numb to the bad behavior. It can be frustrating to deal with players who don't take the game seriously and act like juveniles at the table. You probably wonder why the Pathfinder Society would let these buffoons into the Grand Lodge. But in the end it's about entertaining people. If these guys are working out their aggression on NPCs and venting through a fantasy game, you need to go with it--so long as it isn't disrupting the other players at the table.
*I wouldn't say that killing an animal companion would be an Evil Act. Certainly not a Good one, but evil? Perhaps the player was thinking he needed to drive the message home--"You see what we did to your pet? You double-cross us and imagine what we'll do to you." Cruel, but 21st Century morality aside, not evil.
|
First of all, thanks for stepping up and GMing.
I don't see anything terribly wrong with how you did things. From the bare bones of your story I probably would have warned the fighter as well, since the guide says you need to warn players who are about to take evil actions that could adversely effect their alignment.
As for the second I'm less likely to have warned there although it depends on the situation and who the players are/how much experience they have etc. Some players need/want more guidance than others.
All that said it sounds like you handled a difficult situation in a way that was within the rules and made everybody happy.
So good job and thanks for GMing.
|
|
First of all, thanks for stepping up and GMing.
I don't see anything terribly wrong with how you did things. From the bare bones of your story I probably would have warned the fighter as well, since the guide says you need to warn players who are about to take evil actions that could adversely effect their alignment.
As for the second I'm less likely to have warned there although it depends on the situation and who the players are/how much experience they have etc. Some players need/want more guidance than others.
All that said it sounds like you handled a difficult situation in a way that was within the rules and made everybody happy.
So good job and thanks for GMing.
I don't know if I made this clear before, but I didn't just warn them; I flat-out refused to let them take the actions I felt were out of line. I told them it was a bad idea since they were taking him in peacefully, they continued to press the issue, and I forced them to take a different action rather than let them face the consequences. That is why I feel uneasy about my behavior.
|
Welcome to the DM Club.
im a fairly laid back PFS GM. In fact, I will let the pc do what they want most of the time. In this case I probably would have let them go as violent as they want. This does mean I am condoning what they are doing. Its up to a player to play his character with the personality and life and alignment he has imbued them . PFS does have systems set up for when characters go bad.
One way to influence the players without really influencing is telling them either just before the game or just into the game if everyone understands whats on their character sheet. It may sound strange but if a player is using a pregen or picked up a new spell or class ability they may not fully understand it. I do this myself with faction missions, Once I hand them out I ask if people understand them. I normally dont remind people to do them during the game ( I say i wont remind people to begin with).
Sounds like you did very well though. For your next scenario you must run Mists of Mwangi and tell us how it goes!...
|
At a convention last summer, I actually attended a GM 101 class taught by a Venture-Captain. One piece of advice she gave us is to never say "No, you can't do that" to a player. Instead, say "You can do that, but..." and then give them the warning about possible negative consequences. If they still want to go through with it, then it's up to them, and things can possibly go wrong.
That doesn't just apply to possibly evil behavior or doing faction missions in a way that's not right, either. The example she gave in that class was from a game she ran with a new player who wanted to try and stop a stampede by standing in front of the wild animals and casting Burning Hands - at level 1. Her response was "You can do that, but it probably won't do enough damage to actually kill them, and then you're likely to get trampled." He went through with it anyway, and ended up at negative HP for his mistake. She warned him, he chose to ignore the warning, and he learned the hard way.
My personal example is from a game that a friend of mine and I played with that same VC as our GM. There was an enemy alchemist up a pole, tossing bombs down at us from above. My friend's gnome alchemist wanted to throw his bombs back. Her response was "You can do that, but if you miss, those bombs have to land somewhere - possibly on you or your friends." He went for it anyway. My sorcerer ended up taking the splash damage when my friend's bomb landed in my square after he missed. Luckily, I had enough HP and a good sense of humor, and my sorcerer is a gnome who thought the new experience of getting blasted by a bomb was exciting.
Moral of the story: Don't say "No, you can't do that". Instead, say "You can do that, but..." and if they do something evil, or incorrect, or just really, really risky, then that's their decision.
|
Not so sure about the forced, "You can't do that.", but I would agree with the, "You can do that, but your party has already convinced the Druid to rejoin the Pathfinder Society. If you attack his animal companion, the odds are that the Druid will attack you in return. Also, are you sure you can handle both the animal companion and the Druid on your own? I don't know about the other players here, but if I were playing, my character would probably wind up either standing there in surprise, or attempt to subdue your character."
On the Qadira player, I would, again, probably point out that, one on one, he probably couldn't carry out his death threat, and that that would apply a negative modifier to his Intimidate roll to attempt to accomplish his faction mission.
And then, if they continued in their actions, I would have let them reap the consequences that they sowed.
Then again, I am a nasty person.
