Anyone in my Tuesday Campaign in Cohoes, please do not read this thread - it contains spoilers.
The group is level 1, and they were on a mission to discover why travelers along a trade route have been disappearing. The answer is Vegepygmies. One such Vegepygmy (the chieftain, actually – 2nd level Druid) reveals itself to the group while on the trail. A couple PC’s roll Knowledge Nature and know that Vegepygmies can be dangerous, but aren’t evil creatures. The Vegepygmy holds its hand out to one of the PC’s to take it. The PC does, and the Vegepygmy leads the group into the forest.
Let me, at this point, lay out the grand scheme: These Vegepygmies have learned that it’s easier to get hosts into their cave to be blessed with the gift of Vegepygmy-ness if they don’t attack first, but instead simply invite them inside. This Vegepygmy is leading the PC’s to the Russet Mold. The group consists of a Human Swashbuckler, a Catfolk Ranger, a Catfolk Magus, a Ratfolk Investigator, and a Halfling Cleric (NPC).
The group reaches the cave entrance, where three more Vegepygmies are waiting with spears in their hands. At this point, I’m trying to drop as many hints as I can that they should probably stop and think. Every minute or so, or after every new description of the forest or cave or new Vegepygmies, I keep asking if the first PC is still letting the Vegepygmy lead him, and what the other PC’s are doing. No one stops it, and they walk straight into the cave. The lead PC stops to try to light a torch, but the lead Vegepygmie freaks out and doesn’t let him. He shrugs, and is led into frakking darkness with the rest of the group behind him. Only the Ratfolk has Darkvision, so 4 characters are bumping around in the darkness.
At this point, I have the Halfling cast Light, which makes the Vegepygmy freak out again, and the lead Catfolk yells at her to turn the spell off. The Halfling retorts that she’s not going to die in a dark cave and turns around to leave. Only one other PC follows her, and they’re both stopped by the 3 Vegepygmies, who now have their spears up and ready to fight. The lead Vegepygmy casts Entangle and retreats deeper into the cave. The Ratfolk follows it alone. The rest of the group fights the 3 Vegepygmies and eventually win.
That’s where the session ended. So again, should I have laid this encounter out differently? Obviously, I introduced the first Vegepygmy in a way that was misleading, but I expected the group to at least question the Pygmy’s intentions at the cave. And what of the Ratfolk? He split from the group during combat in an environment that they have difficulty seeing in. Should there be repercussions? I want this to be a campaign that forces the players to play smart, and from what I saw so far, they’re doing the exact opposite. It’s honestly got me at a loss with how they handled the situation, and has me worried about putting them in any situations with more danger in the future. And this isn’t a matter of talking to the group; I discussed with them that this is going to be that kind of campaign, and they need to be careful. Any advice would be much appreciated!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the whole scenario and how it played out hilarious and perhaps just what you needed to get your players into the proper mindset. Once they get burned here for just following some random dude into a dark cave (the equivalent of getting into the van marked "free candy") they'll never trust anyone ever again, at least not without rolling a Sense Motive. Think of it like a learning experience, for them, not you.
As for the ratfolk, I'd let him walk right into whatever encounter you had planned next. Leave it to him to know it is time to back off once he sees what is waiting for him, whatever it is. Perhaps drop a hint or two that his course of action was a bad plan. If he persists and his lack of caution demands to be paid in blood, at least new level 1 characters aren't hard to make.
A couple PC’s roll Knowledge Nature and know that Vegepygmies can be dangerous
This should have been the clue, especially if you included any details on how vegepygmies make more vegepygmies (via. yellow russet mold). They may have fallen into the "neutral ~= good" trap of thinking.
They may also be just following along and thinking you want them to go into the cave, which all signs point to. Our group has probably made this mistake more than once: "its late, we're being lazy, and the GM looks like he's leading us into a cave ...".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did they ever try to use sense motive on the leader? Did you ever just give them a freebie sense motive to realize things are not on the up and up? If its super important to the game that they dont go in the cave you probably need more roadblocks and hints to going in. Otherwise if this is how the vegepgymies lure and kill their prey then let it happen.
I think you did alright, knowledge checks and dark caves full of angry armed creatures are clear signs.
Maybe have some more substantial clues once they get further in, show corpses of ambushed prey littering the cave. When they come to the mold have it be placed in a special alter area with chains or bonds set up to show it is something dangerous. Have the room around the rust (with glowbugs or glowing lichen to provide dim light maybe?), filled with soon to be vegepygmy commoners. When they try knowledge checks let them know they CANNOT survive an encounter with the rust and that it is immune to most things they throw out.
I would also have your NPC mention that they do not feel right leaving the party split up and suggest going back to rescue the ratfolk.
Honestly, it sounds like the players are just not getting that this is hard mode, some experienced players see level 1 as mere tutorial mode where no danger can happen, they don't use caution until they reach 3-5 levels when they can take a few hits.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I feel like you're trying to lead your group into becoming murder hobos. I don't know the players that well, but they could just be going along with the story. Do you really want to set a precedent where they attack NPCs before they actually threaten the PCs?
As a player, I don't want to derail whatever the GM has planned and will try and go with the story as much as possible. This includes not murdering people just because they took me into their home. I would assume that the vegemites were peaceful and probably be the givers of the next quest (perhaps their hunting grounds have been taken away from suburban sprawl and the only way they can feed their people is by attacking people along the paths).
If I was a player through this game I would no longer trust any of your NPCs. Fool me once... And this could be the game you want, but the players aren't there yet. I just think it's difficult to plan adventures when the players aren't going to follow any NPCs lead,and that's why I tend trust NPCs until they prove themselves hostile. And don't you do this in real life too? Assume the people you pass by on the streets aren't going to rob you until they do?
You did fine gave them plenty of chances to reconsider there actions.
Sounds like they are assuming that you won't kill them at first level
And you know what they say about assumption?
It's the mother of all f~#@ ups
So I feel like you're trying to lead your group into becoming murder hobos. I don't know the players that well, but they could just be going along with the story. Do you really want to set a precedent where they attack NPCs before they actually threaten the PCs?
As a player, I don't want to derail whatever the GM has planned and will try and go with the story as much as possible. This includes not murdering people just because they took me into their home. I would assume that the vegemites were peaceful and probably be the givers of the next quest (perhaps their hunting grounds have been taken away from suburban sprawl and the only way they can feed their people is by attacking people along the paths).
If I was a player through this game I would no longer trust any of your NPCs. Fool me once... And this could be the game you want, but the players aren't there yet. I just think it's difficult to plan adventures when the players aren't going to follow any NPCs lead,and that's why I tend trust NPCs until they prove themselves hostile. And don't you do this in real life too? Assume the people you pass by on the streets aren't going to rob you until they do?
The vegepygmies with spears and not letting them use lights or leave the cave is the part where the PCs are threatened. Knowledge checks should have revealed that vegepygmies lure people back to their mold source to make more vegepygmies, which unless the players want to be vegepygmies they should be threatened by that too. I think there is plenty of threatening going on here ...
I agree with StFrancisss, you are setting a dangerous precedent. You have just encouraged your PC's to distrust you, and that could bring the game to a grinding halt as they may now assume everything is a trap.
I would also like to point out something no one else has yet. When you tell them to 'play smart' you are assuming they understand your exact context of 'play smart' and not their own ideas about it. You are going to end up with different ideas about smart-not to mention fun.
In addition, don't drop clues, drop certainties. When you leave clues you leave room for the player to misinterpret your meaning. No matter how obvious you think it is...you think its obvious because you wrote the encounter. Its not obvious, never underestimate the imagination of your players...whatever you think your clues mean, you're wrong. Tell them directly what you want them to understand. "The pygmy attempts to lead you into a dark cave where you believe you may be ambushed and killed." If the player tries to argue and say he has interpreted the clues somehow differently, kindly inform him that he is wrong, and he in fact believes he may be ambushed and killed.
Too often 'hard-mode' ends up being players vs DM and not actually hard mode. You must take great care to craft your game in such a way that your players understand you aren't trying to f*** them.
Encounters can still be very difficult, suprising, dangerous and edge of your seat without the DM deceiving the players...NPC's can deceive characters, but the DM SHOULD NOT DECEIVE THE PLAYERS. There is a big difference, make sure you are on the right side of that line.
A Sense Motive check might be all you need.
It's not always a bad thing to kill off careless PCs at level 1. It teaches players to be cautious. It's better than doing it at level 4, when they've got too attached to their characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, don't drop clues, drop certainties. When you leave clues you leave room for the player to misinterpret your meaning. No matter how obvious you think it is...you think its obvious because you wrote the encounter. Its not obvious, never underestimate the imagination of your players...whatever you think your clues mean, you're wrong. Tell them directly what you want them to understand. "The pygmy attempts to lead you into a dark cave where you believe you may be ambushed and killed." If the player tries to argue and say he has interpreted the clues somehow differently, kindly inform him that he is wrong, and he in fact believes he may be ambushed and killed.
I can understand your point in general, but not in this scenario. They essentially met a wild eyed man in a trench coat who offered them free candy if they got into his van, and not only did they get in, they yelled at the person who tried to get out once it was clear there never had been any candy in the first place.
"Chillax bro, don't be rude. He's probably driving us to the store to buy it right now."
The only way it could have been more ominous is if there was literal ominous chanting coming from the cave.
In addition, don't drop clues, drop certainties. When you leave clues you leave room for the player to misinterpret your meaning. No matter how obvious you think it is...you think its obvious because you wrote the encounter. Its not obvious, never underestimate the imagination of your players...whatever you think your clues mean, you're wrong. Tell them directly what you want them to understand. "The pygmy attempts to lead you into a dark cave where you believe you may be ambushed and killed." If the player tries to argue and say he has interpreted the clues somehow differently, kindly inform him that he is wrong, and he in fact believes he may be ambushed and killed.I can understand your point in general, but not in this scenario. They essentially met a wild eyed man in a trench coat who offered them free candy if they got into his van, and not only did they get in, they yelled at the person who tried to get out once it was clear there never had been any candy in the first place.
"Chillax bro, don't be rude. He's probably driving us to the store to buy it right now."
The only way it could have been more ominous is if there was literal ominous chanting coming from the cave.
Yes, in this scenario too.
Remember this first part of my post was to agree with StFrancisss expressed that the players were playing along with the GM, which meant that sort of unconsciously, the characters were playing along with the NPC. Sometimes its necessary to remind the players of which dynamic you would like them to be aligning themselves with at the moment. GMs who don't will eventually find players and characters who are resistant to virtually every adventure hook and dungeon crawl they offer. Giving your players a headsup isn't going to spoil the fun (or more likely non-fun) they were going to have by "being punished for being stupid".
This doesn't mean the DM needs to spoil every mystery btw, but just make sure that your intentions are well communicated. Assume players will not get the meaning of your clues, or that they will somehow follow along into the ambush anyway because they are playing along with you. Make sure they know when to differentiate between the two by providing clear communication, not hints.
EDIT: Also, remember the power of peer pressure and the desire to not be left out. Even players that think its a bad idea to follow along will probably go along with it for a long time before turning around due to the power of peer pressure and the fear of being left out of an encounter.
Remember this first part of my post was to agree with StFrancisss expressed that the players were playing along with the GM, which meant that sort of unconsciously, the characters were playing along with the NPC. Sometimes its necessary to remind the players of which dynamic you would like them to be aligning themselves with at the moment.
Also, remember the power of peer pressure and the desire to not be left out. Even players that think its a bad idea to follow along will probably go along with it for a long time before turning around due to the power of peer pressure and the fear of being left out of an encounter.
Fair enough. It is easy for players to put logic aside because they know it's an obvious plot hook and if they don't then the DM will be at a loss. Perhaps the TC does need to remind his players that though he isn't trying to kill the PCs, some NPCs most definitely are. Sense Motive checks are handy for that. The TC should have called for them upon the party being led to the super sketchy cave.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like your players want to play vegepygmys and are making all the correct decisions to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the feedback. To answer a few questions: One PC made a Sense Motive check on the 3 Vegepygmy guards as they were entering. I knew this would be my big break...and he got a 4. I was prepared to make the DC low, but I couldn't give him anything with that. I hoped that the other PC's would follow his lead, but no other Sense Motive rolls were made. Also, I see now that a Knowledge Nature check should have given a bit more info. I should have explained the nature of Russet Mold and its connection to Vegepygmies. This probably would have left them more alert.
@Detoxifier: Sorry, but I don't agree with your philosophy on clues vs. certainties. Pathfinder is a Roleplaying game. It's not my job to tell the PC's what conclusions they make from information they find. That's not Roleplaying, that's King's Quest. If I leave a bad hint, that's my fault, but that's the nature of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. It is easy for players to put logic aside because they know it's an obvious plot hook and if they don't then the DM will be at a loss. Perhaps the TC does need to remind his players that though he isn't trying to kill the PCs, some NPCs most definitely are. Sense Motive checks are handy for that. The TC should have called for them upon the party being led to the super sketchy cave.Remember this first part of my post was to agree with StFrancisss expressed that the players were playing along with the GM, which meant that sort of unconsciously, the characters were playing along with the NPC. Sometimes its necessary to remind the players of which dynamic you would like them to be aligning themselves with at the moment.
Also, remember the power of peer pressure and the desire to not be left out. Even players that think its a bad idea to follow along will probably go along with it for a long time before turning around due to the power of peer pressure and the fear of being left out of an encounter.
Exactly. It can be as simple as setting up a 'safety phrase'. Such as "Hey guys, I'd like to go 'on rails' for a while so we can set the stage for X, so I'd appreciate it if you play along." or "Tonight we are going 'off rails' so just remember, anything goes, and playing along with the NPC's is not guaranteed to yield good or interesting results."
If they do end up being vegepygmies, you could have some cleansing ritual-type thing. Granted, you would have to make it up, but I think if you're up to that you should let them play along with becoming vegepygmies. This won't make them think "whatever stupid decisions I make can be reversed" if you play it so there seems to be a real chance of death/something going wrong.
It sounds like your players want to play vegepygmys and are making all the correct decisions to do so.
"You are all now vegepygmyies... just as planned."
@Detoxifier: Sorry, but I don't agree with your philosophy on clues vs. certainties. Pathfinder is a Roleplaying game. It's not my job to tell the PC's what conclusions they make from information they find. That's not Roleplaying, that's King's Quest. If I leave a bad hint, that's my fault, but that's the nature of the game.
You do what you deem appropriate, I'm not at your table, I don't know you or your players. I'm just here to offer advice that has seen me through many years of success.
There are multiple ways of approaching this issue, I'd suggest running a few ideas past your players to see which they prefer. Even as the DM you are only 20% of the perspective at the table. Just make sure you at least get the psychology right, you might think your meaning is crystal clear, but if you don't know what their frame of mind is you could be making a mistake.
In regards to the drop certainties and not clues, I'm not sure you grasped my meaning. Unless you are running a mystery of some kind in which the PC's figuring out the meaning of the clues (riddle) theres no harm in communicating your intention behind the clues, especially if you are hoping for or invested in a certain outcome, or just want to avoid frustrating your players who may think you are not being clear enough.
Final point, all I'm really advocating for is clear communication with your players about their expectations. Just make sure they know beforehand what they are getting into. Like Chaoseffect said, it may benefit you to advise them they can trust you, just not the NPC's.
I wouldn't call your session a flop. Just always remember that PCs are free roaming creatures and will almost never go about things in the way you imagine. I try to leave several avenues open for my PCs and they usually find ones that I didn't think of.
Just roll with what they have done, although their choices strike me as odd too. But you can drop more clues; like wagons or bodies from the previous merchant trains. There should be plenty of skeletons around as I always thought vegepygmies were born kind of like alien facehuggers bursting out from the bodies. Or give them another nature check when faced with russet mold for a connection between the two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Detoxifier: Sorry, but I don't agree with your philosophy on clues vs. certainties. Pathfinder is a Roleplaying game. It's not my job to tell the PC's what conclusions they make from information they find. That's not Roleplaying, that's King's Quest. If I leave a bad hint, that's my fault, but that's the nature of the game.You do what you deem appropriate, I'm not at your table, I don't know you or your players. I'm just here to offer advice that has seen me through many years of success.
There are multiple ways of approaching this issue, I'd suggest running a few ideas past your players to see which they prefer. Even as the DM you are only 20% of the perspective at the table. Just make sure you at least get the psychology right, you might think your meaning is crystal clear, but if you don't know what their frame of mind is you could be making a mistake.
In regards to the drop certainties and not clues, I'm not sure you grasped my meaning. Unless you are running a mystery of some kind in which the PC's figuring out the meaning of the clues (riddle) theres no harm in communicating your intention behind the clues, especially if you are hoping for or invested in a certain outcome, or just want to avoid frustrating your players who may think you are not being clear enough.
Final point, all I'm really advocating for is clear communication with your players about their expectations. Just make sure they know beforehand what they are getting into. Like Chaoseffect said, it may benefit you to advise them they can trust you, just not the NPC's.
Hmm, I swear I feel a tickle in my ear while reading this...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were a player in your group. I don't think I would be considering that first session a flop at all. Sounds like a good time to me.
|
Actually, vegepygmy PCs isn't a bad idea, depending on how the players feel about changing their character concepts a bit.
The vegepygmies with spears and not letting them use lights or leave the cave is the part where the PCs are threatened. Knowledge checks should have revealed that vegepygmies lure people back to their mold source to make more vegepygmies, which unless the players want to be vegepygmies they should be threatened by that too. I think there is plenty of threatening going on here ...
Simply having weapons - even, in some situations, having weapons in hand - is not enough to convey hostile intent. After all, the PCs will certainly have weapons and frequently walk around with them drawn in the wilderness. Guards on duty will hold spears. If you want these vegepygmy to seem threatening, you could describe them tightening their grip on the weapons nervously as the PCs approach - which suggests that they are considering actually using them on the PCs.
Not letting them use light is definitely suspicious, and at that point I'd be asking for a Sense Motive check as a player (a second time in this case). But it wouldn't necessarily stop me in my tracks. Like StFrancis said, many players have a conscious or unconscious drive to follow along with the GM, and there could be a good reason why light wasn't allowed - without a shared language, it's hard to tell. The free candy analogy is misleading because it suggests that a blatantly false pretense has been given, and it hasn't.
If the knowledge checks included information on russet mold, and the fact it tends to grow in caves, that would probably be enough to warn the players. Saying vegepygmy "can be dangerous" is not terribly informative. Large dogs can be dangerous, but I think most people would follow one to see if Timmy was stuck down a well.
This entire situation is why Sense Motive exists - it's intended to tell whether the scruffy guy who wants you to follow him is leading you to an ambush or an injured friend. It's good that they rolled at least one, but in this situation it probably would have been sensible for multiple characters to roll. The entire party is presumably suspicious and likely at least one of them will roll high enough to get a bad feeling about this. The ranger, cleric, and investigator should all have good modifiers (the first two because of wisdom bonuses; the latter should have it trained).
It's also generally a bad idea to let an important clue hinge on a single check. Try the Three Clue Rule. In this case, you might have a Sense Motive, a Knowledge check to know about Russet Mold, and a Perception or Survival check to notice signs of other non-vegepygmy going into the cave and not coming out.
Also note that it's appropriate to make these checks passively if you think there's something the character might pick up on but the player wouldn't necessarily know something suspicious is going on. For example, if the designs on someone's jewelry resemble religious iconography the players haven't encountered yet, you can roll Knowledge (Religion) to see if they recognize it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule of thumb: if you want the players to get something, give them three clues. That way at least one of them ought to pick up on one of them. A single chance to pick up on the obvious will usually be missed -- and remember that what's obvious to you is NOT obvious to them. You have the whole background of the story in your head; they do not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To continue with the communicating clearly thing. When a DM says to me, "Hey, play smart." I don't interpret that as to be mistrusting of NPCs. I interpret it as, "Use smart tactics in battles. Be sure to have equipment to handle many different situations. Etc."
It may not be a GMs job to tell the players what conclusion to make, but be aware of the ramifications of how things play out. There are some GMs in Pathfinder who get frustrated when their players act as murder-hobos and just kill every NPC that even remotely looks suspicious. And, in my opinion, it is because many GMs set them up to act like that by punishing non-murder-hobo play. Furthermore, I also feel that story arcs such as this reinforce the murder-hobo play-style. That may or may not be a bad thing, but I think it makes games go much smoother when players are more willing to go along with the story-line than to fight it every step of the way because they feel like they can't trust anything.
These players seem to have eschewed the straight murder-hobo path and are willing to see how things play out diplomatically first. If things turn on them, they probably expect to fight but aren't as concerned with, "Look! An NPC! Kill him!"
The operative word is "flop." Something went wrong. A reasonable conclusion for the PC's would be to eliminate any NPC that is close to a threat from now on. If that's the way you want your campaign to go, enjoy. The problem of mixing a trap with social interaction lasts forever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I play a character, I try not to metagame, but instead play the character based on the character's personality, and what they know. So, my character would have gone along for the ride, similar to how the other characters acted. Also, good aligned characters shouldn't be killing everything on sight, especially creatures that present themselves as friendly.
As a rule, I don't play characters without darkvision, so the lack of light wouldn't have been a problem, although I can see why the night blind characters would want to turn back.
I'm not sure why you are calling your adventure a 'flop'. It sounds like it would have been fun.
I'm not really seeing how what you described was a flop. It seemed like a fun encounter where the PCs are learning some good lessons at level 1. Did it seem like the players were having fun?
Always always be prepared for PCs to choose the thing that you don't think they will or don't want them to choose. I'll repeat what others have said, what is obvious to you is not obvious to them. Don't plan things based off of really hoping the PCs will play things out the way you want. If you don't want the PCs to go in a cave, then don't let them go in there.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody seem to be saying the only alternative to "Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead them along in a forest where they're investigating disappearances" MUST be "Kill everything in sight".
I posit that the far more logical alternative for most intelligent beings is simply "DON'T Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead you along in a forest where you're investigating disappearances" or at least "show caution while doing the above".
"Not automatically assuming everything that doesn't try to gank them immediately is friendly" is not the same as "Being a murderhobo".
Bad lesson: Kill everything on sight.
Good lesson: Don't split the group.
Anyone in my Tuesday Campaign in Cohoes, please do not read this thread - it contains spoilers.** spoiler omitted **...
What hints did you drop and how did you lay out that it would be "this" type of campaign to the players. Maybe they did not get it. As a GM there were times when I thought I was being absolutely clear, but the players did not get it. Also how much of a departure from your normal GM'ing style is this? Maybe you said this would be a dangerous campaign, but sometimes players don't understand something until the experience it.
With the GM's I have had I never would have followed some random creature anywhere without asking questions first, but they not have had the experiences I have had.
Everybody seem to be saying the only alternative to "Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead them along in a forest where they're investigating disappearances" MUST be "Kill everything in sight".
I posit that the far more logical alternative for most intelligent beings is simply "DON'T Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead you along in a forest where you're investigating disappearances" or at least "show caution while doing the above".
"Not automatically assuming everything that doesn't try to gank them immediately is friendly" is not the same as "Being a murderhobo".
True, but often thats worse than being a murder-hobo. They don't follow the quest hook, they don't murder the npc...in fact, nothing much happens at all except a lot of arguing about whether they should trust the NPC or not.
For many years before I became a DM I saw a lot of this kind of behavior. The Cleric doesn't trust the NPC, the Fighter and Barbarian want to kill it on the spot but the Paladin keeps arguing with them about his code while the Rogue and the Ranger sneak off following the NPC's tracks back to the dark cave where they loot and murder the whole place by themselves.
Of course the Rogue and the Ranger catch flak from the rest of the group for going off to get all the treasure and XP while the rest of the group stood around doing a dress rehearsal for ethics 101, save for the paladin who simply threatens to lock them up for drawing their weapons. Later that night the Ranger murders the Paladin in his sleep and runs off into the night while the Wizard, who hasn't said a word the whole time, turns out to be the Paladins best friend, starts raining down flame strikes in the darkness. The Rogue takes advantage of the distraction to slip the Paladins big magic sword into his bag so he can hock it later when they get back to town.
Sigh...when I started to DM I very carefully examined what was at the root of these kinds of dynamics, and it usually boiled down the DM being unclear, or just a lack of communication between the DM and the players overall. Thats one reason I say drop certainties, not hints.
It's a good exercise for a GM to try to anticipate all the possible player responses:
Trust the NPC.
Spy on the NPC.
Murder the NPC.
Avoid the NPC.
Argue about the NPC.
Then you come up with a plan for each possibility and try to ensure that none of them leads to a dead end. If you can't do that, find a way to stop the players from wanting to take that option in the first place.
Or you could just wing it.
I would assume that the vegemites were peaceful and probably be the givers of the next quest (perhaps their hunting grounds have been taken away from suburban sprawl and the only way they can feed their people is by attacking people along the paths).
Like StFrancisss, since this was the first night in a new campaign, I likely would have done the same thing, assuming that this encounter was setting me up for the story, not to kill me.
I appreciate the vegepygmie strategy! "You catch more flies with honey..."
Everybody seem to be saying the only alternative to "Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead them along in a forest where they're investigating disappearances" MUST be "Kill everything in sight".
I posit that the far more logical alternative for most intelligent beings is simply "DON'T Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead you along in a forest where you're investigating disappearances" or at least "show caution while doing the above".
"Not automatically assuming everything that doesn't try to gank them immediately is friendly" is not the same as "Being a murderhobo".
This.
Of course my plan wasn't for the PC's to kill the first Vegepygmy on sight. In fact, my plan was for them to do exactly what they did - follow the Vegepygmy to the cave. If they did attack it, I had a plan for that. My expectation was for them to question the creature's motives when it brought them to a dark cave with its friends guarding the entrance, and not allowing them to use torches. If they hesitated to go into the cave, the Vegepygmies would have begun acting much more hostile, and the true nature of the situation would have revealed itself organically. While the last thing I expected was for them to follow their new best friend into a dark cave with bells on their toes, I also planned for that.My concern on this thread is whether or not I gave them enough information to suspect something was wrong. I do like the suggestions that I should have left some evidence outside the cave (there's plenty inside). Leaving dozens of trails of footprints from others doing exactly what the PC's did was a good idea too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part, if the players arent picking up on the tone you want for the game, the only way to fix it without risking blowing up your game is to talk to them about it. As if you were trying to play a game, meant to be fun, with your friends.
There are lots of impressions players bring to games. What seems obvious to you might not seem obvious to them. I've played games where things like kobolds are murderous pyschopaths, trusted allies, harmless tricksters, or dangerous but reasonable enemies. That means its not a simple matter for me when encountering a kobold in the first session of a game in a setting/campaign im not sure of to judge how to take a kobold offering what appears to be a peaceful alternative to open violence.
Talk to the players about how you envision the game going. Maybe try to come up with a hint system. Something as simple as letting players mvoe skills around to up sense motive, bluff, and knowledges might do the trick. For instance a good knowledge role might have given the players information on how vegepygmies are formed via russetmold, and that following them to their lair, is probably not a good idea.
Players are not trained investigators (unless they are ofcourse), picking up subtle cluse without prompting may not be something they are easily able to pick up, and doing so with years of playstyle baggage from other games could make things even harder.
Wanting players to 'play smart' is fine. But just remember, you probably dont want them to turn into insane paranoid murderers. If they feel like they can never trust the impression they get from you, the game will cease to function smoothly. I cant tell you how many games have simply stopped, because hte party literally felt like they had to search every 5ft of a dungeon for traps or risk horrible death.
Consider in the future, prompting skill checks, letting them take 10 on simple checks. That sense motive was important, why not let him take 10, and give some minor description. Important details players need to figure out the course of action you expect (like the cheif probably has an alterior motive) isnt something that should be left to chance, or to players recognition skills for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody seem to be saying the only alternative to "Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead them along in a forest where they're investigating disappearances" MUST be "Kill everything in sight".
I posit that the far more logical alternative for most intelligent beings is simply "DON'T Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead you along in a forest where you're investigating disappearances" or at least "show caution while doing the above".
"Not automatically assuming everything that doesn't try to gank them immediately is friendly" is not the same as "Being a murderhobo".
This.
Of course my plan wasn't for the PC's to kill the first Vegepygmy on sight. In fact, my plan was for them to do exactly what they did - follow the Vegepygmy to the cave. If they did attack it, I had a plan for that. My expectation was for them to question the creature's motives when it brought them to a dark cave with its friends guarding the entrance, and not allowing them to use torches. If they hesitated to go into the cave, the Vegepygmies would have begun acting much more hostile, and the true nature of the situation would have revealed itself organically. While the last thing I expected was for them to follow their new best friend into a dark cave with bells on their toes, I also planned for that.
My concern on this thread is whether or not I gave them enough information to suspect something was wrong. I do like the suggestions that I should have left some evidence outside the cave (there's plenty inside). Leaving dozens of trails of footprints from others doing exactly what the PC's did was a good idea too.
All you told them was that the vegepygmies dont like light, and that they guard their home. That isnt threatening. There are dozens of light sensative creatures that are completely civilized. And living in caves is hardly an odd thing in a fantasy world. Dwarves live in caves.
If you want there to be evidence of something sinister there has to be actual evidence of something sinister.
Edit: Remember you are the dm. Your perspective is basically useless to figuring out how much is enough evidence for players to figure something out. You already know the solution, theres no way for you to know what clues players will notice and which they will shrug off. Its why mystery type adventures are extremely hard to pull off in any kind of non-mechanical (skill check) way. Again unless one of your players is ACTUALLY a detective, or some other kind of investigator, theres no telling how good they actually are at that sort of thing.
I hate to say it Cuup...but I don't think you came on here looking for advice. You are displaying a lot of what is called confirmation bias. Which means you came here looking to have others confirm what you already believed.
I encourage you to expand your horizons a bit and consider the possiblity that it wasn't just the amount of hints that may have gone wrong, or that you could have done better.
Most DM's never really examine what makes a good DM, they just sit down with some books and dice and follow in the footsteps of whoever it was they have seen run games before, without critical examination of the best possible methods to employ. Often, improving your game means doing something that is counter to what you have been exposed to in the past, or doing something that may not be so obvious.
Just some food for thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your food for thought is that I don't DM the way you do. I absolutely came here looking for advice. Here are two pieces of advice - directly related to my question - that I specifically pointed out and agreed that my problem may have fixed itself had I done them:I hate to say it Cuup...but I don't think you came on here looking for advice. You are displaying a lot of what is called confirmation bias. Which means you came here looking to have others confirm what you already believed.
I encourage you to expand your horizons a bit and consider the possiblity that it wasn't just the amount of hints that may have gone wrong, or that you could have done better.
Most DM's never really examine what makes a good DM, they just sit down with some books and dice and follow in the footsteps of whoever it was they have seen run games before, without critical examination of the best possible methods to employ. Often, improving your game means doing something that is counter to what you have been exposed to in the past, or doing something that may not be so obvious.
Just some food for thought.
Also, I see now that a Knowledge Nature check should have given a bit more info. I should have explained the nature of Russet Mold and its connection to Vegepygmies. This probably would have left them more alert.
I do like the suggestions that I should have left some evidence outside the cave (there's plenty inside). Leaving dozens of trails of footprints from others doing exactly what the PC's did was a good idea too.
I came here convinced that I did everything right, but eager to learn if I was wrong. Many people's advice I found helpful (on both the I-was-right side of the equation, and the I-was-wrong side), and others', I found either misguided, or I just disagreed with them. Your style of DM'ing is very different from mine, and I take no issues with how you do it, so please don't try to tell me I'm ignorantly stroking my own ego and just looking to be told I'm right. My original post outlined ONE part of ONE session from ONE campaign I've run, so you really don't have the right to decide what level of competence my DM'ing is. I appreciate your advice, but I don't need you judging me while I'm (just as you said I'm not) trying to improve myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It never ceases to amaze me. Why is it that every player expects their first level 1 adventure to be nothing more provocative than 4 goblins ambushing a caravan? In my experience it doesn't matter if they're seasoned players or not. Its like we GMs are expected to provide a refresher course in the absolute basics of straight up combat and nothing else for the first adventure.
Recently I had a new campaign start. I warned of dragons, gave dragon details in the backstory, and even worked a dragon attack into one guy's backstory with his permission. I also let everyone know there'd be kobolds who've existed here for centuries.
First off the PCs meet their new contact in town: Rowana Thrune, a mousy human female wizard on the small size for her race. She invites them in, casual get-to-know-you in the parlor, then she continues into her hall. Said chamber is bedecked to the nines with all manner of food, wine, beer, etc.
Rowana goes as nuts as the barbarian. We chat, crack some jokes but the players seemed to want to gloss over it so I just narrated. Not a one stopped to quetion how a woman, 98 pounds wet and looking to be in her early 40's was able to put away half a honeyed ham, a loin of lamb, and several other foodstuffs washing it down with an entire cask of beer.
So then on to the adventure. They head to the site, find shriekers lining the shore of a murky bog from the middle of which rises a cliff-lined islet. Theres a narrow landing and a steep rise between the cliffs atop which is the ruin they need to explore. Again, they've been warned of kobolds with lots of history in the area.
What follows was a tactical nightmare for the PCs. Sparing you the details the end result was that three kobold warrior 2 snipers are behind some boulders peppering the party with ranged fire while an adept 3 supports/buffs them. 2 guys not built for range attacking from the shrieker shore, one guy dies getting to the islet, and the last 2 PCs finally make it into melee where the kobolds die like kobolds should.
I gave the kobolds the levels, gear and position I did because the party includes 2 animal companions and are good at melee/short range spells. The particular tactics employed by the party left both ACs, a melee guy and the arcane caster all tactically out of the fight on the shrieker shore.
Later it's revealed to me that the expectation was that, for the opening salvo, the party was expecting 4 kobold warrior 1 on the islet (that's 60' away mind you) pelting the PCs with sling bullets. So 5 PCs, 2 animal companions, and one of the PCs is a druid focused on summoning natures' allies, and I'm supposed to drop in 4 5 HP mooks that can't hit the broad side of a barn from this range? Oh, and even if they do, they're doing an average of... ONE point of lethal damage?
Basically 1st level, 1st adventure, players don't want to think, use skills or do anything overly hard. They want the combat intro, they want to explode into violence and see what their party is made of in a softball encounter so they can gauge how well their powers work together.
Your food for thought is that I don't DM the way you do. I absolutely came here looking for advice. Here are two pieces of advice - directly related to my question - that I specifically pointed out and agreed that my problem may have fixed itself had I done them:I hate to say it Cuup...but I don't think you came on here looking for advice. You are displaying a lot of what is called confirmation bias. Which means you came here looking to have others confirm what you already believed.
I encourage you to expand your horizons a bit and consider the possiblity that it wasn't just the amount of hints that may have gone wrong, or that you could have done better.
Most DM's never really examine what makes a good DM, they just sit down with some books and dice and follow in the footsteps of whoever it was they have seen run games before, without critical examination of the best possible methods to employ. Often, improving your game means doing something that is counter to what you have been exposed to in the past, or doing something that may not be so obvious.
Just some food for thought.
Also, I see now that a Knowledge Nature check should have given a bit more info. I should have explained the nature of Russet Mold and its connection to Vegepygmies. This probably would have left them more alert.I do like the suggestions that I should have left some evidence outside the cave (there's plenty inside). Leaving dozens of trails of footprints from others doing exactly what the PC's did was a good idea too.I came here convinced that I did everything right, but eager to learn if I was wrong. Many people's advice I found helpful (on both the I-was-right side of the equation, and the I-was-wrong side), and others', I found either misguided, or I just disagreed with them. Your style of DM'ing is very different from mine, and I take no issues with how you do it, so please don't try to tell me I'm ignorantly stroking my own ego and just looking...
Sigh, I'm not being rude, you're just missing the point, and now you are missing the point about missing the point. You've misinterpreted each of my posts you've responded to so far, which ironically makes my point about ensuring clear communication.
When you read my posts, assume that I am being as polite as possible and my intent is to be genuinely helpful. There is no angry, arrogant, or impolite tone here.
I haven't made any allusions to your competence or 'level' of dming, whatever that means.
So I'll try to be as clear as possible. The narrow question you are posing here is only a symptom of why your game 'flopped' as you put it, and is not addressing the cause. Personally I wouldn't say your game went that badly, seemed fine for the most part, but if you want to know why your players did not pick up on or react in the manner you expected it is because you did not provide clear guidance, not necessarily because of a lack of hints or skill checks. Now I'd say in the circumstance you outlined it was a fairly minor communication gap that would be pretty easy to fix, but you have to understand the principles at work in order to do that, which could save you from bungling something big later. I'm not the only one trying to point this out to you either, there are at least 3 others who have echoed the same sentiments.
Best of luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but often thats worse than being a murder-hobo. They don't follow the quest hook, they don't murder the npc...in fact, nothing much happens at all except a lot of arguing about whether they should trust the NPC or not.
For many years before I became a DM I saw a lot of this kind of behavior. The Cleric doesn't trust the NPC, the Fighter and Barbarian want to kill it on the spot but the Paladin keeps arguing with them about his code while the Rogue and the Ranger sneak off following the NPC's tracks back to the dark cave where they loot and murder the whole place by themselves.
Of course the Rogue and the Ranger catch flak from the rest of the group for going off to get all the treasure and XP while the rest of the group stood around doing a dress rehearsal for ethics 101, save for the paladin who simply threatens to lock them up for drawing their weapons. Later that night the Ranger murders the Paladin in his sleep and runs off into the night while the Wizard, who hasn't said a word the whole time, turns out to be the Paladins best friend, starts raining down flame strikes in the darkness. The Rogue takes advantage of the distraction to slip the Paladins big magic sword into his bag so he can hock it later when they get back to town.
Sigh...when I started to DM I very carefully examined what was at the root of these kinds of dynamics, and it usually boiled down the DM being unclear, or just a lack of communication between the DM and the players overall. Thats one reason I say drop certainties, not hints.
Interesting.
In my general experience it boils down to "We roll some Sense Motive checks and ask it some questions" not "We all murder each other" but maybe my experience is atypical.
Any other fine folks who have binary games where the alternative to "Follow everything that even vaguely looks like a plot hook without question" is "Game collapses on itself instantly" every time?
Everything sounded reasonable up to the point where they went into the darkness with no sources of light.
Interesting.In my general experience it boils down to "We roll some Sense Motive checks and ask it some questions" not "We all murder each other" but maybe my experience is atypical.
Any other fine folks who have binary games where the alternative to "Follow everything that even vaguely looks like a plot hook without question" is "Game collapses on itself instantly" every time?
One of the dms in my group has this problem. Often if we roleplay even a little rational doubt, the tenous excuse he comes up with to get us to do something seems completely absurd. His hooks are often fairly weak, and attempts at a pseudo sandbox game. The end result is often a lot of faffing about (as in 8 real world hours worth in one marathon session) where nothing gets done, if we dont latch hard onto any hooks we actually notice.
I find that sandbox type games, or investigative type games have this problem pretty frequently.
Anyone in my Tuesday Campaign in Cohoes, please do not read this thread - it contains spoilers.** spoiler omitted **...What hints did you drop and how did you lay out that it would be "this" type of campaign to the players. Maybe they did not get it. As a GM there were times when I thought I was being absolutely clear, but the players did not get it. Also how much of a departure from your normal GM'ing style is this? Maybe you said this would be a dangerous campaign, but sometimes players don't understand something until the experience it.
With the GM's I have had I never would have followed some random creature anywhere without asking questions first, but they not have had the experiences I have had.
Cuup you missed my post. Here it is again
Basically 1st level, 1st adventure, players don't want to think, use skills or do anything overly hard. They want the combat intro, they want to explode into violence and see what their party is made of in a softball encounter so they can gauge how well their powers work together.
There is a reason for the convention that most 1st level encounters are softballs. 1st level characters are exceptionally fragile. A single critical hit from a bow can outright kill some characters at first level, from full health to -con in one shot. They also have far fewer resources to undo what is done to them. Where a cure light wounds spell is hardly a worry at say 3rd level. At 1st level that might be one of two spells the divine caster can cast that day.
So yes, tactically complex encounters at 1st level are fairly rare. That is, with the assumption that you DONT want characters do die. If character death is a non-issue, then no big deal. But for many, that want a coherent story with character development, and intertwining plots, you need consistent characters. Given how easy it is for 1st level characters to die, it makes sense to employ softball encounters in the beggining.