| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While traveling through the wilds, you and your party hear a shrill scream on the road up ahead. When you investigate, you find a carriage on its side, horses maimed and tangled, a young girl--a noble--inside with what appears to be a critically injured butler.
Outside the carriage are a number of soldiers in uniform, fighting several elementals which are being summoned by a sinister-looking man in dark robes near the treeline. Several bodies of expired soldiers already litter the area.
Clearly seeing that the carriage has been attacked, you and your fellow party members jump into the fray, attempting to save the carriage occupants. After the elementals and dark wizard are vanquished, the soldiers thank you for coming to their aid. You then approach the carriage and attempt to save the butler from his injuries. The girl is hysterical, screaming "Jhonas"--what you assume is the butler's name--over and over again. As you do so, you realize that he was cut open by a sword, which neither the elementals or dark wizard possessed. The girl looks up at you and frantically screams "What did you do to Jhonas!?"
A volley of poisoned crossbow bolts flies into the carriage and dispatches both your patient and his young ward.
The "guards" once again thank you for your "assistance" before turning their weapons upon you.
You've just unwittingly aided the band of assassins and murdered the carriage's only guard, ultimately leading to their targets' demise, and possibly yours as well. Even if you survive the encounter, you will have been responsible for a young noble's death, and quite possibly branded a criminal.
As a player, how might you react to such a scenario? Would you think yourself a fool for having made the wrong assumptions? Or rather, would you view it as a despicable trick of a dastardly GM? How would you feel? How might you respond?
(Flagged for removal to Gamer Life. This doesn't seem P2e-specific.)
As a GM, it sounds like the beginning of an interesting campaign. That's assuming the GM specifically set you up to choose the "wrong" side and has the whole campaign planned for the party to discover the bad guys and atone for their error.
If the GM's just doing because they think it's funny to trick you and the rest of the campaign is just running from the law until they eventually track you down (with paladins and/or clerics "fallen" for their actions), then I'd say, "My PC can't live with herself because of what she mistakenly did and turns herself in to face justice/falls on her own sword. Next campaign!"
I.e., it entirely depends on the GM's intentions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Flagged for removal to Gamer Life. This doesn't seem P2e-specific.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;P
As a GM, it sounds like the beginning of an interesting campaign. That's assuming the GM specifically set you up to choose the "wrong" side and has the whole campaign planned for the party to discover the bad guys and atone for their error.
Honestly, it makes me want to run it now. Whichever side the party chooses to help turns out to have its own agenda that they'll feel forever responsible for until they track down the BBEG and make things right. It's Schrodinger's Encounter. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the carriage was nondescript (they were attempting to travel incognito). The soldiers bore no emblems but were all similarly equipped with matching weapons and armor. Since the party arrived in the middle of combat, all combatants were intermingled with one another. Only the wizard was near the treeline (presumably for cover), as was previously stated.
As a GM, it sounds like the beginning of an interesting campaign. That's assuming the GM specifically set you up to choose the "wrong" side and has the whole campaign planned for the party to discover the bad guys and atone for their error.Honestly, it makes me want to run it now. Whichever side the party chooses to help turns out to have its own agenda that they'll feel forever responsible for until they track down the BBEG and make things right. It's Schrodinger's Encounter. :D
That's the idea. I want to gauge peoples' reactions before running it for my 2E players.
I'm also looking for possible technical hurdles as well, such as balancing the encounter or determining in advance what kinds of checks the PCs might want to make.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I wasn't given reasonably obvious clues that something was up, as a player?
I'd be pissed. And probably leave the campaign. Subverting tropes can be done well, and it can be done poorly. My first rule is to never assume that's what's obvious to me is obvious to other people.
Edit: Actually, to explain why I'd be pissed and probably leave the campaign. To me, if this is sprung on me without knowing something is up, it tells me that the GM is fond of 'gotchas'. That I cannot trust the GM to be a fair arbiter of the rules or story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, it sounds like the beginning of an interesting campaign. That's assuming the GM specifically set you up to choose the "wrong" side and has the whole campaign planned for the party to discover the bad guys and atone for their error.Honestly, it makes me want to run it now. Whichever side the party chooses to help turns out to have its own agenda that they'll feel forever responsible for until they track down the BBEG and make things right. It's Schrodinger's Encounter. :DThat's the idea. I want to gauge peoples' reactions before running it for my 2E players.
I'm also looking for possible technical hurdles as well, such as balancing the encounter or determining in advance what kinds of checks the PCs might want to make.
Oh, sure, now you bring in the 2e rules. ;P
I think, in any system, a scenario like this is going to require a lot of assurance from the GM that they're not screwing the party over, that the party hasn't "failed" or "lost." I once tried to run a campaign that started with the PCs as minions in a drow noble house when it was attacked and defeated by a rival house. The PCs fought as long as they could, and when they came to, they were for sale in the marketplace. I gave the players a lot of OOC reassurance that the game was on track, that I had a plan, that nothing bad was going to happen to them, etc. Honestly, in retrospect, I should have just had them starting out in the slave market with their house falling being part of their backstory, because that perceived "failure" really tainted the players' first impression of their PCs and the campaign.
P2e-specific, some players might feel screwed over if they have Society trained or some sort of local Lore that they feel should have given them a hint who was on what side.
If they're only allowed to notice the butler's wound by GM fiat when it's too late, they might complain. "What do you mean, 'now I notice?' Why couldn't I see that before?" I would probably not volunteer the information as GM but wait for the party to seek clarity on their own after the encounter; even then, I'd probably emphasize the blood soaking his clothing and not let them get a clear look at the wound until they remove his coat or something, so they don't feel like it's something they should reasonably have noticed before.
I would definitely make sure the girl and wizard only speak a language the party doesn't have access to. There's too many opportunities for someone to demand, "Hold, miscreant!" or the like and expect that the good guys should have made some effort to explain what's going on. (Maybe the "butler" was their interpreter?)
Poison arrows that automatically hit and kill instantly, especially through a carriage window and a bunch of soft lesser cover, are definitely going to cause someone to call shenanigans. Everyone knows that's not how poison works in Pathfinder. And if you have access to "I win" arrows, why bother with the grunts?
And, as Cydeth says, I would definitely only do this with players who are on board for a "moral conundrum" campaign and/or who know and trust me as a GM.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm siding with Cydeth on this. I'd
1) Be peeved
2) NEVER EVER trust the GM again. I'd NEVER jump at his plot hooks, I'd assume that he could never be taken at face value.
From then on, I'd expect everything to bog down as the PCs investigate everything the GM says.
But I've never liked Shadowrun :-).
Mechanically it should work fine.
I would definitely want to check with the rest of the table. Don't have to give away too many spoilers, but you will want to get a feel for what type of campaign the players are wanting.
Do be aware of any players who want to use Sense Motive (I think that is just a perception check now, yes?). Overly diplomatic players may want to try and stop the fight and investigate first. But I expect that to be rare.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and have a contingency for if the PCs choose the other side. In that case, the girl is a rakshasa or something and the soldiers are appropriately trying to stop her from escaping from the scene of something horrible she's done.
Or maybe both sides are bad guys. The girl's the up-and-coming scion of Chelish nobility, and the soldiers are assassins working for a rival family. The only "good" choice is to walk on by and let them wipe each other out. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the thing that stands out as most likely to leave a bad taste in my mouth isn't the scenario itself, but the way the Butler and the Maiden are just kind of instantly killed. That strikes me as kind of cutscene-y and I could see it rubbing someone the wrong way that they don't at least get some token chance to intervene or notice a problem.
The other big thing to look out for, I think, is players not following that lead in the first place. Obviously you know your players better than any of us but I could definitely see some savvier groups trying to assess the situation before jumping into the fray.
That I cannot trust the GM to be a fair arbiter of the rules or story.
I'm sorry but this is just kind of an absurd leap.
We have a scenario where the characters make a decision with incomplete information, which turns out to be incorrect. To try to twist that into an assertion that the GM is dishonest or a cheat is, frankly, ridiculous.
These wildly inimical views of the player-gm relationship are always kind of mind boggling to me.
Oh, and have a contingency for if the PCs choose the other side. In that case, the girl is a rakshasa or something and the soldiers are appropriately trying to stop her from escaping from the scene of something horrible she's done.
Personally I'm really not a fan of these "the world changes to punish the players" type scenarios.
Reminded of a scenario in a book (for a different system) where a man offers to pay the party if they help his dying daughter. If they help, the party finds out he lied about the reward because he's a level 1 peasant with no material possessions, if they refuse to help suddenly he's a ranger several levels higher than the party kitted out in a king's ransom worth magical gear and so are all of his friends and he attacks and almost invariably TPKs the group.
It was really bad and I pretty much stopped picking stuff up from that scenario writer at that point. Don't do this kinda thing.
Do be aware of any players who want to use Sense Motive (I think that is just a perception check now, yes?).
Yeah, if a player spends an action to Sense Motive and scores a critical success, they're entitled to know "the creature's true motives." In that case, the PCs should definitely know that the soldier is intent on harming the people in the carriage, that the wizard is trying to defend the girl in the carriage, etc. That's one roll that could derail the scenario from the beginning.
In which case, you have to let them know what's actually going on and let them help whom they want to help.
If we’re talking the start of a new campaign, then there doesn’t seem like there’s enough investment for something so dramatic. You could lower the number of assassins down to one or two powerful members that were just being interrupted/delayed by the caster and elementals. That would make it feel less conspiratorial against the players. What’s suppose to keep players interested though?
I wouldn’t blame myself for wrong assumptions; particularly cause the way the scene is written i would be suspicious of the girl for some reason, but that may just be me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That I cannot trust the GM to be a fair arbiter of the rules or story.I'm sorry but this is just kind of an absurd leap.
We have a scenario where the characters make a decision with incomplete information, which turns out to be incorrect. To try to twist that into an assertion that the GM is dishonest or a cheat is, frankly, ridiculous.
These wildly inimical views of the player-gm relationship are always kind of mind boggling to me.
If the GM deliberately leaves out information just to make me help the bad guys, doesn't give me the chance to see through it, and instantly kills NPCs without even giving me the chance to save them, I consider them a bad GM.
Maybe the GM misread the group and made a mistake. They might apologize when I'm livid afterward. They also might have done it deliberately. I've played with GMs who've done things like this before, and it made the game terrible. My decisions didn't matter because things always turned out the way he wanted them to turn out, and I happen to know that the GM in question did cheat. He bragged about it later.
A situation like this is a massive warning sign to me, and unless they handled it well, or apologized when they realized they screwed up? It's a sign I cannot trust the GM as a fair rules arbiter for a game I'm playing for fun.
And yes, I would consider it dishonest. What, the wizard didn't beg for help protecting his charges? The girl didn't scream for help saving the butler? Like Joana said, no insignia on the soldiers/carriage to give clues? There are ample opportunities to allow the players to have an informed decision. If he wants the NPCs dead, then kill them before the PCs arrive and be done with it instead of trying to do a catch 22.
This feels, to me, like the sort of GM who would try to set up a situation where a champion falls no matter what they do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Ravingdork's scenario, having the party make a mistake and align themselves with evil would make the GM the jerk, unless the GM carefully gave clues that the party ignored. However, if the deception was carefully crafted by the leader of the assassins, then he will get the blame instead of the GM. The players will hate that leader for having fooled them and have great satisfaction in hunting the assassins down.
I did something similar once. I beefed up the 13th-level encounter with the thaumaturge Xaliasa in Sins of the Saviors. Several town guards had gone to confront him and had disappeared. When the party went in, Xaliasa staged himself with a victim on an alter before him, apparently ready to sacrifice her. Really, he had readied himself to magically swap places with an unconscious guard when he was attacked. I wanted Xaliasa to come across as a jerk. Players passionately hate an enemy who is a jerk more than they hate one who committed major acts of evil.
The paladin archer cohort of the party paladin of Iomedae shot an arrow at Xaliasa. Xaliasa made the swap and the arrow took the guard into negative hit points. That paladin flew (via celestial armor) past Xaliasa's minions, taking several attacks of opportunity, and saved the guard with Lay on Hands. That scene roleplayed out beautifully. Iomedae was impressed and in a dream enhanced her bow with several enchantments, including one that could turn her arrows into healing bolts as an immediate action. (The paladin would not have fallen if the guard had died. Iomedae can recognize a dirty trick and would not hold it against the paladin.)
The players looting Xaliasa's magic items after Xaliasa escaped, including his unmarked collection of cursed magic items, earned him further emnity.
I had an unintentional good/evil mix-up with the same party at 19th level, coincidentally involving Xaliasa again. Maybe not so much a coincidene, because my Xaliasa loved mind games. The party had detected Xaliasa's characteristic runewell magic in the Uskwood in Nidal. When they arrived on scene, they found some neutral halflings and evil werewolves wearing Xaliasa's symbol battling an evil elite vampire patrol from the capital city Pangolais. The party checked alignments magically and sided with the patrol. Then a new mixed-species group flew in on a flying carpet and joined the halflings. The party attacked them, too. The new group was not evil; instead, they were with the Bellflower Network that frees halfling slaves. But the party had not checked alignments of the new group.
The werewolves were halflings, former Bellflower Network members who had been offered power by Xaliasa. That made them evil, but they were using their evil powers for good. They did not realize that their efforts were channeling sin magic to Xaliasa's runewell, making him even more powerful. If they knew, they would still kept to their deal with Xaliasa. The party managed to track down the werewolves while they were in halfling form and talked to them first, so they eventually learned this.
The party did not care about having attacked innocents and people misguidedly evil rather than deliberately evil. They were too busy trying to take down Xaliasa.
Some additional clarifications: The carriage passengers don't necessarily die instantly. That being said, they are basically noncombatants and thus won't have much in the way of combat stats (or at least won't have high values anyways). I imagine a crit would be fairly likely, even with cover from the front and/or back window.
The intent IS that they perish, so the odds will be heavily stacked against them, but "they just die" isn't really how I roll. The poison isn't meant to instant kill them either; it's more of an insurance policy should the PCs fail to notice that the poison is even there (it increases the odds that they die, while also giving the heroes something to do to try and save them).
If the PCs somehow pull a rabbit out of their hat, I don't mind giving them the victory and finding another way to progress the story. (Perhaps that's something you guys could help with?)
I don't like the idea of changing the world as some have described. If they save the girl, then something will have to happen later. For all intents and purposes, she will be safe from the immediate threat (and won't turn into a vile succubus or some such).
Assume that the assassins intentionally lure the PCs to their aid with deception. They won't outright lie (the wizard could easily refute it if they did, causing the PCs to hesitate), but they could simply say "Help us!" or something like that. This could also lead the wizard to mistake the arriving PCs to be additional assassin reinforcements.
What, the wizard didn't beg for help protecting his charges? The girl didn't scream for help saving the butler?
Been trying to figure the wizard out myself. I was thinking he might mistake the PCs as additional assassins and simply attack them as well. After all, you wouldn't think to ask for help from a perceived enemy (works both ways for the wizard and the PCs). Saying something silly like he's mute or something seems much too railroady and obvious for my tastes. A tragic misunderstanding, however? I could see that being possible.
The noble is easier. She's simply hysterical, and only screams the one name over and over until the fight is over. The butler is unconscious.
What if I gave the players a brief description of the intended campaign in advance, similar to a Player's Guide or the back of a published module? Something along the lines of the following:
It's enough there that they know the general intended direction of the campaign, but don't know any specifics on how it will occur, what it will take to absolve themselves, or who the true villain might be.
or apologized when they realized they screwed up?
The fact that you think you're owed an apology because a scene in an RPG didn't play out the way you expected it to at face value kind of has my head spinning, ngl.
All we have is the stated scenario RD provided: Where a group of players immediately jump into a fight and end up in a bad situation because of it. To try to extrapolate the things you're trying to out of this requires a lot of really, really bad faith assumptions.
The really telling thing here, I think, is this instinctive reaction to lash out at the GM and attack them as a person when things don't go your way.
or apologized when they realized they screwed up?The fact that you think you're owed an apology because a scene in an RPG didn't play out the way you expected it to at face value kind of has my head spinning, ngl.
All we have is the stated scenario RD provided: Where a group of players immediately jump into a fight and end up in a bad situation because of it. To try to extrapolate the things you're trying to out of this requires a lot of really, really bad faith assumptions.
The really telling thing here, I think, is this instinctive reaction to lash out at the GM and attack them as a person when things don't go your way.
Seems to me that Cydeth (and possibly others) may have had some bad past experiences with GMs and that, quite naturally, has negatively effected the ability to trust other GMs in the future--particularly when a scenario bares similar red flags. It's not good, but it's understandable.
What if I gave the players a brief description of the intended campaign in advance, similar to a Player's Guide or the back of a published module? Something along the lines of the following:
If the whole thing is, in actuality, a pre-written "clear your name" campaign, then it does feel like railroading to maneuver them into the situation. After all, if they don't get fooled, your campaign is off its rails, and repeated attempts to get them to help the bad guys are going to feel a little contrived.
Could you start your campaign with them framed for a crime? If the whole thing is set up by the BBEG to get at them, why can't he hire doppelgangers, or disguised minions, to do something bad in public? Or bribe witnesses to implicate the PCs? If the lawful authorities take the word of the noblewoman's trusted lady-in-waiting (who is really the BBEG's daughter/lover/minion/whatever), who was the only survivor of the dreadful attack, the PCs would still be "wrongly accused of a heinous crime" and have to "track down clues in the criminal underworld" to discover who's responsible. In the original scenario, they aren't really "wrongly" accused, in that they do help the assassins, if erroneously.
If you do that, you don't risk your players feeling cheated or deceived and can still tell the same story, albeit without the gotcha.
If the whole thing is, in actuality, a pre-written "clear your name" campaign, then it does feel like railroading to maneuver them into the situation. After all, if they don't get fooled, your campaign is off its rails, and repeated attempts to get them to help the bad guys are going to feel a little contrived.
I mean, no more contrived then saying "You're a bunch of pirates who've been press-ganged" or "you're all going to be circus performers or crew." If they don't like the synopsis as given, then they don't have to play, just like with any other adventure path.
Could you start your campaign with them framed for a crime? If the whole thing is set up by the BBEG to get at them, why can't he hire doppelgangers, or disguised minions, to do something bad in public? Or bribe witnesses to implicate the PCs? If the lawful authorities take the word of the noblewoman's trusted lady-in-waiting (who is really the BBEG's daughter/lover/minion/whatever), who was the only survivor of the dreadful attack, the PCs would still be "wrongly accused of a heinous crime" and have to "track down clues in the criminal underworld" to discover who's responsible. In the original scenario, they aren't really "wrongly" accused, in that they do help the assassins, if erroneously.
That...just strikes me as extremely cliche. I could just show them the first post of this thread, then play the game from there, but really, where is the fun in that?
The gotcha (not the term I'd use to describe it) is what I'm hoping will motivate them into really getting into the story. If you were tricked into doing something horrible, wouldn't you want to make it right, and enact vengeance on those who wronged you?
I'm just trying to make sure it remains in-game vengeance rather than out-of-game vengeance.
One last assumption: Assume everyone involved are mature adults, not easily offended children.
If you do that, you don't risk your players feeling cheated or deceived and can still tell the same story, albeit without the gotcha.
But I do risk the game being seriously uninteresting for everyone involved.
I love putting players into grey situations like this (just because they are being targeted by assassins doesn't mean they didn't deserve it). I wouldn't have the assassins turn on the players unless there was a real reason for them to.
I would also describe the sounds of battle before the PCs could see anything and allow the party to organically make choices rather than drop them into it directly.
My GMing style is very "as it lays" I dislike overly influencing a party unless I can see that the pacing is going to be decimated by indecision or I have no plans for the direction they are going and cannot think of any way to continue other than stopping the session early (which sometimes I have done, but when it is an hour into a fortnightly game sometimes a bit of hidden railroading is the mark of a good GM vs being rigid)
I wouldn't have the assassins turn on the players unless there was a real reason for them to.
The PCs are witnesses to the crime. I can't imagine any competent assassins wanting loose ends. What's more, most PCs are unlikely to take kindly to the killing of a young girl.
The only thing I can think of that might change that dynamic is if either party was so beat up at the end that they didn't think they could realistically take out the other.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would depend.
If I was either given clues to the real situation in the description, or rolls to notice such clues, or ideally both, then I'd be fine with the situation (as long as there are no other rules fudging things to force a bad outcome). I mean, I'd be appalled in-universe and maybe pissed at myself for missing clues, but not upset at the GM or anything. Enemies lying to or tricking the PCs is entirely normal and fine in PF2, or most other RPGs.
If, on the other hand, I was not given such opportunities to figure out the situation, I'd be pissed. Because then it's not the in-universe enemies who tricked me, but purely the GM, using the meta-convenience that the PCs only see the world through their descriptions to trick the players rather than their characters. And that kind of OOC trickery and manipulation is unpleasant and results in characters doing things that make no sense in-world. It's basically the GM side of all the problems with metagaming and I hate it.
It's the same problem as a GM refusing to tell you there's a door in the room you're in, because you didn't ask. It's a subtler version, but the same issue.
I think I'm siding with Cydeth on this. I'd
1) Be peeved
2) NEVER EVER trust the GM again. I'd NEVER jump at his plot hooks, I'd assume that he could never be taken at face value.From then on, I'd expect everything to bog down as the PCs investigate everything the GM says.
I realize this sort of thing happens to me enough that I'm already at Pauljathome's 2 end results before the game starts.
My first response is "Should I get involved, and if so, should I do so in a way that shows preference toward one faction or the least lethal solution to all parties." Then I'm flipping through spells and abilities figuring out how to get the wagon back up and running to escape with the wounded rather than complete the combat.
I'd probably take issue with the sinister description as it implies information the players wouldn't have access to without making a sense motive check unless they had some bias toward believing the caster was malicious. It's better to explain what the players see rather than how they experience it. "sinister" is a successful or failed sensemotive check in PF1. I suppose it's a critically failed make an impression check in PF2, but I'm not sure how that would happen mid combat unless the wizard had the group impression and glad hand feats.
To be honest I don't know how I would react because that is very dependend on how the scenario was presented in detail (as others already said, was there any chance to notice and prevent the error at any point in time etc) and what kind of character I am currently playing and the group composition. However as per the stated timing of events and the characters I usually tend to play there is a very high chance that I would be p****d, at least short term.
You really need to think ahead and have a contingency plan for a couple of probable outcomes and group reaction, which may vary because of the players involved and their character and moral choices. A neutral to evil group may try to cover up the scene themselves, killing every possible witness to sweep it under the rug and if that does not work go down the revenge and retribution road. A lawful to good group may turn themselves in to the local authorities instead of trying to get their names clear by themselves, rendering your campaign rather short unless you like to play out trials.
The thing is you know your players and their characters best. Worst thing to happen is that one or more players feel cheated, flip you the bird and try to actively derail your adventure / campaign.
Also keep watch how often you pull those stunts. Having played with a GM that favored shady stories with massive plot twists for a couple of years I can assure you that this kind of gamemastering may easily alienate your players and your world/story. For example after the first couple of "unpleasent" surprises the general rule of our group became to limit social interaction with NPCs to a minimum and never ever become invested in or emphathize with any obviously plot relevant NPC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we’re talking the start of a new campaign, then there doesn’t seem like there’s enough investment for something so dramatic.
This. I've got a friend who looooves twists like this. He has an M Night Shamalan problem: he's never thought of a twist he said no to. It overcomplicates his narratives and often leads to plot holes which collapse the whole scenario or at least shatters my sense of immersion.
I discussed it with my first GM, and they gave me an important bit of insight. You can't really open with this kind of twist because it means that your players don't trust the world and don't trust you. This GM specifically avoids making any sort of twists in the early sessions so that players feel like they understand the world around them, and therefore are more likely to feel invested in it.
In this case, RD, opening on this sort of thing can immediately put your players in a bad headspace. They don't have a reason trust you or the world ever again and won't feel invested. That's why Cydeth has such a visceral aversion, I think.
Also, logistically... Hanging such a huge plot point on your players acting in a very particular manner is a BAD IDEA. My friend tried doing a 5e one shot where he wanted to trick us into murdering some befuddled goblins that turned out to be polymorphed humans. Instead I used a sleep spell to take them alive and then used magic to get past the language barrier issues. His entire plan for a session involving a trial was suddenly derailed and he never really recovered.
In your particular scenario, what do you do if your party healer goes and heals the butler? An entirely reasonable course of action, mind you, and enough to either get them talking to the Noble or at least for her to realize they aren't trying to kill her and set them straight. Even if the butler is already dead, they'd probably go and confirm that as heroes, no?
There's just too much room for this to go wrong on either side of the screen, IMO.
|
I think it could work, but it takes trust. You have to trust the GM to basically only screw you over in fun ways. And as a GM you should know not to gloat that you "outsmarted" the players.
The term railroading came up, and that tends to cast things in start good/bad plot tones. But we do want stories that are actually headed somewhere, so a bit of guiding in the right direction as a GM isn't bad.
Again it comes down to trust. In my own group the players are pretty relaxed about "oh, that's an obvious plot hook, we're being sent in that direction, but we're curious to go and see what's actually there". If you can get off the train every now and then to stretch your legs, and see interesting things out of the window, then the occasional railroad ride isn't a bad thing.
In this situation, I think you can sweeten the deal by actually making it possible (but hard) to save the girl. The wizard calls out some stuff but in a foreign language and he doesn't come off as friendly. The girl is hysterical, sure, and the butler is unconscious. The assassin leader happens to be a bard with good social skills and has great odds of seeming sincere when he "recruits" the PCs to the "defense". Afterwards, the girl is unarmored and so is likely to get crit multiple times, so she probably dies. Although it's possible that with good initiative rolls the PCs go early enough that they get a chance to save her. Note that protecting a squishy NPC is actually a fairly challenging and memorable combat in PF2 rules!
What if she does survive? The campaign isn't really that far off-track; there's still the mastermind who ordered the assassins to kill the girl for whatever reason. Instead of hiding from the law while tracking him down, the party now has to multitask to protect the girl from another assassin team while tracking down the mastermind. The key facts of the campaign (evil mastermind wants girl dead) haven't changed.
I also just keep thinking of plot holes your players could rightly point out, which is not promising.
I'd advise being very careful in describing the scene. Describing the wizard as sinister-looking and the bandits as soldiers in uniform could bias the players (they might be in uniform. But maybe just call them men).
It's a cool idea. Just needs to be handled carefully. Don't narrate in any way to steer the players towards thinking they're supposed to help one side or the other.
Why isn't the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever inside the overturned carriage using that for cover? Running away to the trees doesn't scream "Trusted Guard" and seems tactically unsound. He's guaranteed to fail his escort mission.
Also, I suggest naming him Leon, because little girls in peril always shout Leon.
Wow. Tons of great advice this morning! Thanks everyone!
I agree that I should probably describe the opposing forces more neutrally.
I'm wary of over-describing things though. The more a GM describes something, the more players will obsess over that thing compared to others. Even the GMG says so.
On the other hand, if I don't describe things well, then the PCs may well use the missing info as a springboard to hunt for proof that the GM messed up or was somehow wrong. They'll start asking questions like "wouldn't we have noticed the assassins weren't in a defensive position?" or "why didn't I get a sense motive check?"
For me to say "They were all mixed" or "you all failed the secret checks to realize that something was off at the time" just sounds weasily and railroady when brought up after the fact.
If there is no trust, I can easily see how it could be viewed as a lose lose scenario for the GM.
I'm not so sure 2e creates a good environment for building trust either, what with the GM having more power and control than any prior edition. The trust already needs to be there for any game to have a chance of working.
Why isn't the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever inside the overturned carriage using that for cover? Running away to the trees doesn't scream "Trusted Guard" and seems tactically unsound. He's guaranteed to fail his escort mission.
Also, I suggest naming him Leon, because little girls in peril always shout Leon.
Case in point. :P
Perhaps he was driven to the tree line during the combat (2e by and large is much more mobile), or was atop the carriage and had been thrown in that direction when it tipped over. The PCs won't be privy to that information since they arrive after the fact but perhaps some forensic styled post battle checks might allow them to deduce it.
|
|
That I cannot trust the GM to be a fair arbiter of the rules or story.I'm sorry but this is just kind of an absurd leap.
My issue isn't that the GM is being unfair with the rules (he can probably do this legally if he works hard enough)
My issue is that most groups have an unwritten agreement not to question the incredible coincidences and leaps of faith that are more or less necessary to make a D&D campaign function. Hence my reference to Shadowrun :-). They play very differently and this is one very major reason why.
My reaction to this would be to assume, likely forever more, that with that GM I was ALWAYS in a Shadowrun campaign where I can expect betrayal, false information, etc at every turn.
Which is fine as long as that is what the GM wants :-)
|
|
The heroes are wrongly accused of a heinous crime and must track down clues in the criminal underworld to discover the identity of the true villain responsible. Will the heroes be able to clear their name and stop an evil scheme all the while avoiding the pursuit of lawful authorities and those who would seek revenge against them
The problem with this is that it would make the PCs MASSIVELY paranoid. I think that would only work if you basically just described the incident and did NOT do it live.
Or the players agreed to go along with the railroad tracks in that encounter
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like the scenario for a few reasons.
Mostly, I don't like tricking players into morally grey territory. Not only does it feel gross to me, but for players it can come across as the DM creating a contrivance that changes their perception of their character and feels like you're taking the reins of who their character is now. If the DM holds all of the cards and then suddenly "Surprise! It was a child all along!" then that can really suck. But while I won't trick players into morally grey, I am happy to present scenarios where the players can act morally grey if they want. And, of course, it depends on your group; the folks I play with like to be heroes and enjoy that aspect of the game.
I also don't think it's a very compelling narrative, personally. It's a scenario that's basically an example of why people don't like railroading, and it's playing on grimdark in a way that feels heavy-handed and contrived. Or like the players are just watching a cutscene. There are countless ways for it to go differently, and I think many of those ways actually make it more interesting for the players and as a story.
For example, what if the Cleric casts sanctuary on the kid? Heals the butler? Players will ask why they couldn't sense motive on the assassins before it was too late. Why didn't anyone yell out "You fools! They're assassins!" Did the "evil" wizard get hit with sleep or another incapacitating effect?
So what if the players do figure out that these were assassins? That moment of realization mid-combat would be more compelling, I think, and leads to a much more interesting adventure of maybe getting the young noble to safety and trying to figure out who these assassins are. You might still get the players to act like fugitives (briefly) if, say, a ranger sent by the noble's family comes across signs that the PCs were involved in this fight and are on the run with the young noble. Or a group of Hellknights is on the trail of these assassins, and mistakes the players for the assassins. Maybe the kid has a condition where they periodically lose consciousness? Maybe the butler is a suspicious guy, but for different reasons than because he's somehow in cahoots with the assassins, etc. etc.
Just seems like it's all lacking nuance at first glance, and the scenario isn't prepared for player agency or even NPC agency. Doesn't play to the strengths of a collaborative narrative. As a player I wouldn't be too excited at the outcome, and it wouldn't be telling a story I'd want to be a part of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reminded of an AP where the PCs start out having been poisoned into unconsciousness. The AP naturally has that occur offstage to get to the part where player agency mattered.
One GM decided to RP the box text though, leading to all sort of dilemmas. I think one of the players even rolled a 20 on their poison save.
Which is to say, it all backfired poorly and before the campaign even formally began, the players were disgruntled.
GMs have to balance when the players have agency, the illusion of agency, or no agency. I've found players can be quite forgiving of me setting aside agency for the sake of a key plot point, mainly to start a campaign or major arc. But then they know their will be a time when their choices will have major impacts on the flow of events.
On the flip side, there's at least one RPG I'll likely never play a published adventure from again since there's practically no agency on the part of the PCs. They're simply witnesses trying to survive to the end. One story made a major point of which of two sides in an election to support (or neutrality was viable and "significant" too) only to have none of that effect the outcome whatsoever. At all. Back to status quo so as not to disrupt the world too much. Aren't the players supposed to be participating in significant ways that alter the world?!? (And this was just a small region at that.)
So as to the OP, if the players have agency, you shouldn't know the outcome or be able to script it out so thoroughly for us. Nor should you depend on specific player choices for any major arcs. Will they be murder-hobos seeing an "obvious" quest assignment or will they actually immerse, asking questions of those involved and trying to discern the scope of the matter?
I do think the positioning is off too, as are the tactics. The faux guards should eliminate the target, especially if they can do so at range. Then they have more freedom of if or how to deal with the wizard (who shouldn't assume a group of uniformed attackers have a group of randos standing nearby, especially as the guards will likely demonstrate surprise). And the guards shouldn't automatically get the drop on their targets after combat. There are adventurers on hand made more alert due to recent combat and a threatened innocent. Roll initiative.
The setup leaves a poor taste in my mouth, though I suppose good improvisation could remedy that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Tons of great advice this morning! Thanks everyone!
I agree that I should probably describe the opposing forces more neutrally.
I'm wary of over-describing things though. The more a GM describes something, the more players will obsess over that thing compared to others. Even the GMG says so.
On the other hand, if I don't describe things well, then the PCs may well use the missing info as a springboard to hunt for proof that the GM messed up or was somehow wrong. They'll start asking questions like "wouldn't we have noticed the assassins weren't in a defensive position?" or "why didn't I get a sense motive check?"
For me to say "They were all mixed" or "you all failed the secret checks to realize that something was off at the time" just sounds weasily and railroady when brought up after the fact.
If there is no trust, I can easily see how it could be viewed as a lose lose scenario for the GM.
I'm not so sure 2e creates a good environment for building trust either, what with the GM having more power and control than any prior edition. The trust already needs to be there for any game to have a chance of working.
Why isn't the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever inside the overturned carriage using that for cover? Running away to the trees doesn't scream "Trusted Guard" and seems tactically unsound. He's guaranteed to fail his escort mission.
Also, I suggest naming him Leon, because little girls in peril always shout Leon.
Case in point. :P
Perhaps he was driven to the tree line during the combat (2e by and large is much more mobile), or was atop the carriage and had been thrown in that direction when it tipped over. The PCs won't be privy to that information since they arrive after the fact but perhaps some forensic styled post battle checks might allow them to deduce it.
Sure, you can come up with a reason to justify the poor tactics of both the guards and the wizard in this scenario. But the more you have to do that, the more contrived your scenario becomes and the harder it will be to sell your players on it. You could make the noble and the wizard not speak Common to avoid them telling the score to the PCs, but that creates even more problems in justifying their presence there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of having the assassins kill the girl with crossbows, instead have one of them be a "healer" who attempts to help out Jhonas. During this medical attention, the "healer" offers a "healing"/"poison" potion to the girl or perhaps some other more subtle way of bringing about her demise.
Give the party a chance to perceive this deception and potentially intervene. You could make the Perception and/or Sense Motive DCs high enough to reasonably fail but with some chance for them to figure out what is really going on. Have a cleric (or other character with healing capabilities) get a bonus to their roll to detect the deception - perhaps even forcing their own healing attempts. If the party detects the ruse and stops the "healer", you could have the assassins kill the "healer" and allow them to keep up their ruse for a later attempt (see below).
As far the posts question, my immediate reaction would depend largely on the kind of character I am playing. A CN barbarian with a similar bent party probably wouldn't care (unless there is some financial motivation with saving the girl), a LG paladin would likely attempt to bring down the assassins and try to convince the party to do the same (if they detected the deception in the first place).
If the party actually does save the girl, have the adventure/campaign attempt for her demise in some other way (perhaps something the party may also have a difficult time disrupting). You could keep up these attempts until successful and each time find some way to frame the party for her demise. Then you can proceed to the remainder to the adventure - which I assume is about proving their innocence.
Let me add:
If they rescue the girl, let them rescue the girl. Don't just auto-kill her later on.
Don't pull them Aliens 3 shenanigans!
Whoever is behind all this should be able to work with whatever happened (having the GM's support!) framing the event however they need to by controlling the public narrative.
Now the PCs have this fragile girl in tow, one who supposedly orchestrated lots of evil stuff (which she was framed for offstage!) and the party is the hooligans she hired to help make her escape, killing many innocent guards along the way! Oh, dear!
Heck, saving her may have made life even more difficult.
There may be allies in power who don't believe the spin, yet have to act like they do until they can amass enough counter-evidence (if it exists!) and so forth. Meanwhile, the BBEG is looking for such folk so as to purge them from power. A guard may have gotten away to act as a witness. Who knows what the wizard's allies make of such events.
And so on in that vein.
Seems to me that adding a traitorous healer would accomplish 2 things: Add yet another variable to an already complicated mix, and further cause the PCs to not trust anything or anyone for the rest of the campaign.
I also think many of you are overestimating the power of sense motive. It's not automatic, the PC in question has to spend an action to use it.
If a player did call for one, I'd have a success tell them that something about the scene is amiss and a critical success more or less giving away the whole deception/misunderstanding.
@Ravingdork
What if you do the following:
- Pre-adventure: BBEG, through a series of cutouts or something, finagles things such that someone of at least Neutral alignment, and otherwise seemingly trustworthy, requests the aid of the party. In fact, you could even have it be someone who is honestly opposed to BBEG, and maybe even has a little clout to push back. Maybe a second-or-third-in-line noble trying to eliminate a threat to the country (i.e. the BBEG). Call this person The Noble.
- Adventure 1: Party does task for The Noble. Something simple. Maybe a fetch quest to get a doodad from someone. Important in its own right for the plot but mostly to establish some trust.
- Twixt Adventures: BBEG finagles The Noble again, now to attack a target. The target is the Mage protector (the dark robed elemental summoner guy you first mentioned). The Mage is Evil. Yes, Evil. But The Mage's goals align almost perfectly in opposition to BBEG. Maybe under Geas? Regardless, truly the Mage is there to protect the two non-combatants. The Noble, however, is not aware of whatever is binding The Mage to the non-combatants, but is convinced The Mage has to go. Also The Mage is, again, Evil, and so will register as such.
- Adventure 2: Party goes after The Mage. Stumbles across the fight as you described. Makes the call to help the guards against The Mage.
Outcome: The Noble is *also* dragged into this, having given the Party their initial marching orders. The Noble might have some ability to shield the Party from the worst effects of what they've done, and the Party would understand they have been done dirty becaue another NPC is along with them for the ride.
It is still, of course, possible that the Party could catch on, but at least now their complicity in the deaths won't feel quite as much like a failure, and they will also have someone else to work with.
Seems to me that adding a traitorous healer would accomplish 2 things: Add yet another variable to an already complicated mix, and further cause the PCs to not trust anything or anyone for the rest of the campaign.
I also think many of you are overestimating the power of sense motive. It's not automatic, the PC in question has to spend an action to use it.
If a player did call for one, I'd have a success tell them that something about the scene is amiss and a critical success more or less giving away the whole deception/misunderstanding.
If the guards are trying to fool the PCs, perhaps by seeming wholesome or flat out lying, then they have to roll Deception, which is pretty much the equivalent opportunity for the PCs to see through the ruse.
And if they aren't trying to deceive, the expressions of the guards should make it obvious. Having an armed party crash your ambush would be quite shocking, perhaps obviously so.
Apparently the Lie action takes at least 1 round, something I had not known until now.
And it does look like we should all expect to use Sense Motive first thing, since there's no passive check like in PF1! Does this mean subterfuge (without lying or impersonating) auto-succeeds unless you're wary?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that adding a traitorous healer would accomplish 2 things: Add yet another variable to an already complicated mix, and further cause the PCs to not trust anything or anyone for the rest of the campaign.
I also think many of you are overestimating the power of sense motive. It's not automatic, the PC in question has to spend an action to use it.
If a player did call for one, I'd have a success tell them that something about the scene is amiss and a critical success more or less giving away the whole deception/misunderstanding.
Sense motive doesn't trigger automatically, but needing to roll to Lie does. Your assassins need to roll to Lie if they say pretty much anything to the PCs. They might even have to roll to Impersonate for their disguises. You can give the assassins Extreme Deception to give them good odds to pull this off, but if they Nat 1 the roll, are you gonna just fudge it?
Also, that seems very stingy for a success, because it shouldn't be hard to tell the wizard is trying to defend the carriage if you take an action to study it, even with the bizarre placement of the combatants.
Honestly, if you want to frame the PCs, there are better ways to do it. Noble hires PC to kill an ogre or whatever. Assassins recognize this as an opportunity to create a Patsy. They use Disguise magic to go talk to the Noble somewhere with witnesses, pretending to be a PC demanding triple the agreed upon rate and getting angry and belligerent about it. Noble turns up dead, with the wounds coming from whatever weapon the PCs favor. PCs return from ogre slaying to find they are accused of murder.
It leaves a lot less up to chance and doesn't rely on any gotcha moments against the players.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think many of you are overestimating the power of sense motive. It's not automatic, the PC in question has to spend an action to use it.
Sure, technically RAW, but also technically RAW, all the assassins should need to make Deception checks to fool the PCs at the PCs Perception DC (since what they're doing is either Lie or Impersonate and both require a check under these circumstances). Indeed, it's arguable that what they're doing is both Lie and Impersonate in which case they must each make two checks...but that's probably excessive. Impersonate would be sufficient IMO, and doesn't take an action to make the check (they make it reflexively whenever they interact with someone...this situation definitely counts, IMO).
You can absolutely go that route...but if you do you actually need to roll for all the assassins, which can get awkward and time consuming, and feel to the players like they lose agency. You're likely better off reversing the rolling order and giving the PCs a roll vs. the assassins Deception DC instead, both for time and to make the PCs feel like they had input.
The first version is certainly still fair, and most players will acknowledge it as such when told, assuming that they trust you not to fudge the rolls, but I'd personally lean towards the second.
But doing neither and just saying the enemies succeed is exactly the situation that would both cause problems and be deeply unfair to the PCs.
If a player did call for one, I'd have a success tell them that something about the scene is amiss and a critical success more or less giving away the whole deception/misunderstanding.
That's not really a fair ruling. A success is a success and should reveal something meaningful about the situation, not just something that they must have suspected or they wouldn't have even rolled.
Any success should certainly be the equivalent of the assassins failing their Lie or Impersonate roll, and should thus immediately reveal that they're lying or not who they appear to be. Now, it might only reveal that about one or two of the assassins (indeed, that's almost certainly correct for the RAW version where the assassins do the rolling), but it should reveal a great deal more than 'something is amiss'.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me to say "They were all mixed" or "you all failed the secret checks to realize that something was off at the time" just sounds weasily and railroady when brought up after the fact.
If there is no trust, I can easily see how it could be viewed as a lose lose scenario for the GM.
I'm not so sure 2e creates a good environment for building trust either, what with the GM having more power and control than any prior edition. The trust already needs to be there for any game to have a chance of working.
First - I super disagree here. The GM has always had absolute control over everything. It's just spelled out more clearly in 2E, with specific guardrails around where games have run into problems in the past (detect alignment spells being uncommon, secret checks, etc.). 2E gives better tools to handle it, but that's not *more* control, just more obvious and explicit.
If anything, most of the problems people have pointed out are all of the game mechanics you're throwing out (we assume at first glance) to enforce this scenario. Saldiven's list of skill checks and whatnot are good examples, as are those who called out the PCs with heal skills, etc. Players should have these options to learn more as it happens.
That said - I think the scenario is workable, but agree that "as is" will likely leave a bad taste in a lot of players' mouths.
My suggestion is actually to double down on your original description. The wizard is sinister-looking. The soldiers are uniformed. The real question is why are these uniformed assassins here? Maybe the actual situation is that the entire situation is a gray area - there is no "right answer."
Maybe the young girl is the last survivor of a ruling family that's already been assassinated, but the family was actually tyrannical and got what was coming to them. The girl might be spoiled and bigoted and generally awful (and the PCs can potentially even recognize her and know this), but she's still just a kid and is now the lawful ruler. The wizard can be a dark wizard, who does terrible things, but is nonetheless loyal to the actual family because he thinks it's his responsibility and that he is the best person to help the family rule the land.
The assassins are rebels, led by a charismatic but also probably terrible rebel leader, who has a different vision for their society but is just a different flavor of lousy, but he's swept up a lot of good people into his rebellion. These people have been oppressed and treated terribly, and have good reason to rebel, but no idea that their "savior" is likely to be another tyrant within a year or so.
How do the PCs handle this? It's actually better to know who the girl is. Maybe they can save her and steer her toward being a better leader and save everyone from tyranny, but they have to do it while being hunted by a rebellion led by good people following a new bad leader. Perhaps this requires dealing with the wizard, who won't stop trying to interfere with the players' plans. Maybe the players help the rebellion, but plot to prevent the new leader from taking power because it's the only approach to prevent his becoming a tyrant. Maybe they seize power for themselves, and set themselves up as the ruling authority.
But follow the rules. Let the PCs with social skills make checks.
Let the ambiguity of the situation wash over them. Let them make choices that matter. In particular, I think that the girl/wizard/butler should all follow full dying rules - give the players a real chance to save them. They can then deal with the consequences.
And any path they choose (except, perhaps, walking away) has a bunch of interesting stories to tell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno if I'd say you need both seeds to be morally ambiguous per se, but I do think if you're going to carry out this scenario you better be equally prepared for the party to not "take the bait." Any fair scenario means leaving a real possibility to deviate. If your campaign hinges on them being set up, if this is going to be a story about being falsely accused, then you should use a different set up.