|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I think a lot of my problem with this scenario is that it is too contrived. For it to work, the following things have to happen.
- The "guards" have to be closer to the carriage than the wizard and his elementals when the PCs arrive
- None of the "guards" can be attacking the carriage when the PCs arrive
- Neither the wizard nor the noble girl can say anything during the fight. Especially the girl.
- The PCs cannot recognize either party (yes, this takes an action, but if I were playing, I would make the check)
- The "guards" should be making a deception check in order for the PCs to think that they are guards (this is definitely a rules thing, and should happen prior to initiative being rolled.)
- The PCs cannot have seen the nature of the wound on the butler
- Having the assassins autokill the noble girl and butler has no basis in rules, and removes player agency.
All in all, I would be quite pissed if my GM pulled this on me. This is definitely a "gotcha", with the GM withholding vital information.
Each of these issues (and they are just my gut reaction issues) could be mitigated.
1) An elemental stands over a fallen "guard" who has a sword in his death-grip, and the elementals are facing away from the carriage towards the remainder of the assassins. This alone would help a LOT, because the wizard would be summoning his protections between the bad guys and those he is trying to protect.
2) The fallen "guard" would be the clue for the next issue...
3) The girl should call out something, with some sort of clue about who attacked the butler. "Those brigands! They cut poor Winthrop down!" or "Jhonas, who are they?" while pointing at the PCs (and the wizard responds)
4) There should be some livery... at least have the butler and wizard have at least one thing that links the two. (similar clothing, perhaps)
5) The guards need to roll deception. This is a secret roll, but the GM should do it honestly.
4) The wound on the butler should be described in the box text. The PCs might not realize what it means, at first, but they would have a chance
5) If you want the assassins to kill the nobles after, make them roll. Then allow the PCs to fight them. Don't make it an autokill, give the PCs a chance to save them.
This is my opinion, and I spent more time on this response than I planned....
I doubt very much the PCs could even get a good look at the girl and her butler (much less his wound) without climbing atop the carriage and peering down through the open side door. I imagine there would be a small window on the front and back, but those might not even be big enough for a spell to qualify as having line of effect (I'll have to research carriage construction I guess).
I do think some of the descriptions and info need to be revised, but I also think that the sheer amount of details you guys are asking for me to give to the player goes above and beyond that which is generally produced by Paizo and their adventures.
If the rules call for checks and I remember the rules, the PCs will get their checks. I'm not a cheat GM. However, if they need to spend an action to get their checks (such as for Recall Knowledge or Sense Motive) and don't spend that action, they'll get no pity from me.
I don't see why the guards necessarily need to roll Deception checks, at least not right away. Calling for aid is not a deception. It's a request.
Now, if they openly lied ("We're with the carriage" or "Take this healing drought for the girl") then there will most definitely be checks involved!
There was never going to be an auto-kill with the assassins versus the carriage occupants. Just an extremely-probable-kill.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think some of the descriptions and info need to be revised, but I also think that the sheer amount of details you guys are asking for me to give to the player goes above and beyond that which is generally produced by Paizo and their adventures.
Paizo adventures don't pull stunts like this though.
|
Paizo adventures don't pull stunts like this though.
I can think of a few times where the normal player agency is overridden in order to tell a specific story but Paizo does a pretty good job of explaining that the event happens despite any efforts the party can, or likely will, make to stop it. These things include an important NPC (Usually it's a Dwarf, why though!?) gets killed and cannot be saved no matter how fast or skilled a PC might be.
IMO - Generally speaking, this encounter sounds pretty neat, I dig it. I'd lean away from throwing too many mechanical options to throw a monkey-wrench into the encounter though such as Deception Checks and the like. It sounds like you have something really specific you're working towards and it could prove to be really interesting and fun.
My last 2cp: If you want to give opportunities to "see-through" the ruse and figure out what is really going on, you should do so in a way that doesn't directly involve throwing the Characters into Initiative as soon as they roll up and even prompt some info for the party to suggest that running in with swords held high may not be the only option.
Paizo adventures don't pull stunts like this though.
What? Of course they do. We even described some of them up thread!
Finally, something I consider to be a real plot hole.
I think I would write out a quick, round 1 after/during combat assassins do X, round 2 they do Y, and have them stick to that script, allowing the PCs to interfere if they get the chance/blunder into it.
There should definitely be clues to let them know what happened, and a way for one (possibly higher level) assassin to leave the battlefield without pursuit, so they can, you know, actually frame the PCs and not some other random murder hobos.
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.
Generally, why would they care? Are they concerned about their faces being revealed? why weren't they using disguises. Are they worried about the players revealing that someone was killed at all? if so does it matter really and if it does then why not spin a lie to the players about why these people had to die. Make something plausible and let the players come to their own conclusion.
Loose ends for sure, but they have no reason to think that the people the people they were just helped by are worth risking their lives to fight imo.
|
I don't see why the guards necessarily need to roll Deception checks, at least not right away. Calling for aid is not a deception. It's a request.
If the situation was reversed(the PCs were attacking somebody and some strangers wandered by) you wouldn't call for skill checks of some sort, you'd just have the NPCs pick a side?
I haven't played with you but that runs contrary to my experience with all other GMs
It's different for PCs. Social skills can dictate an NPC's actions. The same cannot be said of PCs, however. Being PCs, they always retain their autonomy short of mind control magic.
I read that recently, though I don't recall where. GMG maybe?
I read that recently, though I don't recall where. GMG maybe?
CRB where it talks about changing attitudes in the skill section (around the make an impression action)
PCs remain autonomous, yes. There's no "The NPC rolled high on diplomacy so now you like him"
But having an NPC roll deception and, based on that result, giving the PC the impression on whether or not they seem trustworthy doesn't take away the player's autonomy.
|
|
It's different for PCs. Social skills can dictate an NPC's actions. The same cannot be said of PCs, however. Being PCs, they always retain their autonomy short of mind control magic.
I read that recently, though I don't recall where. GMG maybe?
Sure. But in a game where the action economy is so utterly crucial it seems more than a tad unfair to allow the NPCs to do stuff without an action but require the PCs to take an action. Although, admittedly, you could certainly require a check from PCs without requiring them to spend an action
I think that, in general, we just have differing views on when such checks are called for.
When do you use Sense Motive?
When someone is trying to deceive you of course. It's right there in the middle of Sense Motive.
That being said, I just reread the Deception and Sense Motive rules, and I think I may still have had a 1E mindset on the matter when posting earlier.
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.
In this case, I am on the same wavelength as Squiggit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt very much the PCs could even get a good look at the girl and her butler (much less his wound) without climbing atop the carriage and peering down through the open side door. I imagine there would be a small window on the front and back, but those might not even be big enough for a spell to qualify as having line of effect (I'll have to research carriage construction I guess).
This is probably fair, but checking on the girl is a very possible course of action you should plan for the PCs doing.
I do think some of the descriptions and info need to be revised, but I also think that the sheer amount of details you guys are asking for me to give to the player goes above and beyond that which is generally produced by Paizo and their adventures.
Sure, but Paizo adventures don't actually do this. They certainly railroad PCs, but once the game starts they never force the PCs into siding with the wrong side or indeed force them into a specific course of action at all once the game starts. And a trick they don't get to roll against is absolutely forcing them.
In backstory before the dice start getting rolled, and clearly stated when you make the character, is different and there sometimes PC choices are dictated, but once play starts? The PCs are not tricked into situations like this in a single Paizo adventure. There's a reason for that.
Also, and to be clear, I'm not really suggesting going into exhaustive descriptions, just giving all the PCs a Perception roll (or forcing all the assassins to make Deception rolls, either works) to figure out what's really going on.
If the rules call for checks and I remember the rules, the PCs will get their checks. I'm not a cheat GM. However, if they need to spend an action to get their checks (such as for Recall Knowledge or Sense Motive) and don't spend that action, they'll get no pity from me.
It's true that those are actions, but successfully deceiving them is also a check, if not an action.
But also, there are times when you need to examine things other than the RAW in order for PCs to feel they were treated fairly. I mean, technically, you can do all sorts of things to screw PCs over within the rules as written that remain deeply un-fun and will breed resentment and cause the players to feel like they are not being treated fairly.
Something being RAW does not, on its own, mean that it feels, or in some cases even is, fair or fun. And fairness and fun are the goal.
I don't see why the guards necessarily need to roll Deception checks, at least not right away. Calling for aid is not a deception. It's a request.
But dressing as a guard when you aren't (or even dressing as a different guard) is definitely Impersonate. And asking for help is definitely interacting, which is when someone impersonating must make a Deception check at the Perception DC of those they are interacting with.
Now, if they openly lied ("We're with the carriage" or "Take this healing drought for the girl") then there will most definitely be checks involved!
Their whole situation is a lie, specifically an impersonation.
There was never going to be an auto-kill with the assassins versus the carriage occupants. Just an extremely-probable-kill.
That's fair enough.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I'd absolutely hate this sort of "gotcha!" stuff set up by the GM. If this is how the campaign starts, and the GM's intention is that every NPC in that encounter ends up dead regardless of what the PCs do, I wouldn't trust that GM anymore. I'd question and triple-check EVERYTHING, and try to avoid combats as much as possible until I'm sure I'm killing the bad guys and not good guys dressed up as villains.
I see this being about trust and what many Indie RPGs call "the social contract" between the GM and the players; I promise to believe in your world and to immerse myself in it as much as possible, but only if you don't betray my trust. If I can't trust you will treat my character fairly, I can't believe in your world and its inhabitants. It breaks my immersion and makes me question even the smallest details.
I'd change the premise; in fact, as a GM I wouldn't run that sort of encounter at all. It's fine occasionally to include twists in a campaign, but if a major twist is force-fed to your players at the beginning of the campaign, IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.
But also, there are times when you need to examine things other than the RAW in order for PCs to feel they were treated fairly. I mean, technically, you can do all sorts of things to screw PCs over within the rules as written that remain deeply un-fun and will breed resentment and cause the players to feel like they are not being treated fairly.
That's basically the purpose of this thread, to examine those other things.
IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.
The worst? Really?
IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.The worst? Really?
Well there was this infamous Dark Eye adventure where the players volunteered to pose as undercover agents on the slave market (as slaves) when things started going sideways quickly... :P
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's basically the purpose of this thread, to examine those other things.
Well, yeah. :)
But my point is that, even if the rules did allow it (which I am unconvinced of), allowing NPCs to successfully trick PCs automatically with no roll is always gonna be a bad idea and feel unfair and unfun.
The worst? Really?
It's arguable that a game opening that actively discourages PCs from actually doing anything is indeed the worst possible game opening.
And this opening runs the real risk of precisely that, because the PCs may well be too busy double checking things so as not to get caught in such a trap again to actually do much. If half of every session is paranoid double checking of everything, even things that make no sense to check, it kinda slows the game down, and that's a non-zero possibility here, depending on the group in question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big thing for me, is why did the NPC assassins in this case not assume that the PCs were reinforcements or simply away from the cart at the time? Generally, immediately assuming others are willing to commit a crime/banditry is just... well a huge stretch. Especially from a random bunch of bandits. If their leader was some kind of charismatic bamf, then maybe it could work, but the NPCs seem to have more knowledge than they should.
Why also did the hooded figure not call to them for aid? Wouldn't he have been tipped off the PCs weren't other bandits because the bandits didn't know them?
I don't have a problem with "gotcha" moments necessarily, but this seems like it was an encounter built without a possibility for the PCs to uncover they were being tricked.
And as has been pointed out, the PCs didn't get a Sense Motive on the request for help nor did the bandits roll a Deception.
"Gotcha!" should be reserved when the PCs make the wrong decision, and IMO in this case the "decision" had a thumb on the scale significantly and without a reasonable expected "setup" since this was the opener.
If I ask you to look behind door number 1, and you open it, and then I say "HA! There was a second door the whole time!" that's not really a fair decision.
If the PCs were told "You need to walk through a door. This door looks like X, and that door looks like Y. Which door do you pick?"(Where X and Y can be skewed to incentivize the PCs), that would be "fair" to me.
Like I could see this scenario being totally fine in the middle of a campaign after they run into some Moriarty type villain or some such thing that would inherently set the tone that PCs should be suspicious or shouldn't take everything for granted, but as an opener, it's a bit jarring.
And if it was an opener, it should be an introduction of a major villain/plot point so the PCs understand they didn't make the wrong choice so much as they were manipulated by a Villain. And even in that scenario, they deserve a chance to get it "right".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worst? Really?
You did ask what the immediate reaction of people as a player would be. If you didn't want to hear answers like this, why did you ask the question?
That said, there have been a lot of suggestions or discussions of things that would make it much less likely to anger me, personally, but most of them run the risk of setting things up as a 'gotcha' moment. And that sort of thing is, IMO the worst way to operate as a GM unless you have explicit buy-in from the players.
As for some of the comments? Yes, I've had three GMs that have done things like this to my PCs. I've lost a PC because a GM thought it would be more fun to turn my max-level 'good event' roll in a L5R character creation chart into a 'You're being tempted by the Dark Oracle of Fire!' event... and gave me a worthless rank 5 artifact that I paid for in character creation. I have just a bit of a wariness for GMs who think things like this are awesome. Or a lot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst? Really?
Arguably yes.
Lets think of some other really bad things could happen.
1) The GM creates a grossly overpowered encounter and the first encounter ends in a TPK. Oh well, we all learn and move on (likely using the "it was a dream, honest" excuse :-). This is, for me, worse as it would potentially affect ALL the games that GM EVER ran for me
2) The GM turns out to be a complete asshat because he <insert unforgiveable sin here> and I walk out of the game never to return.
Ok, I'll grant you, that IS worse than what you're proposing :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah bud. It isn't good.
I think the big thing for me, is why did the NPC assassins in this case not assume that the PCs were reinforcements or simply away from the cart at the time? Generally, immediately assuming others are willing to commit a crime/banditry is just... well a huge stretch. Especially from a random bunch of bandits. If their leader was some kind of charismatic bamf, then maybe it could work, but the NPCs seem to have more knowledge than they should.
Why also did the hooded figure not call to them for aid? Wouldn't he have been tipped off the PCs weren't other bandits because the bandits didn't know them?
I don't have a problem with "gotcha" moments necessarily, but this seems like it was an encounter built without a possibility for the PCs to uncover they were being tricked.
And as has been pointed out, the PCs didn't get a Sense Motive on the request for help nor did the bandits roll a Deception.
"Gotcha!" should be reserved when the PCs make the wrong decision, and IMO in this case the "decision" had a thumb on the scale significantly and without a reasonable expected "setup" since this was the opener.
If I ask you to look behind door number 1, and you open it, and then I say "HA! There was a second door the whole time!" that's not really a fair decision.
If the PCs were told "You need to walk through a door. This door looks like X, and that door looks like Y. Which door do you pick?"(Where X and Y can be skewed to incentivize the PCs), that would be "fair" to me.
Like I could see this scenario being totally fine in the middle of a campaign after they run into some Moriarty type villain or some such thing that would inherently set the tone that PCs should be suspicious or shouldn't take everything for granted, but as an opener, it's a bit jarring.
And if it was an opener, it should be an introduction of a major villain/plot point so the PCs understand they didn't make the wrong choice so much as they were manipulated by a Villain. And even in that scenario, they...
Yeah, having this be an intentional frame up by the villain is much more palatable than this scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But also, there are times when you need to examine things other than the RAW in order for PCs to feel they were treated fairly. I mean, technically, you can do all sorts of things to screw PCs over within the rules as written that remain deeply un-fun and will breed resentment and cause the players to feel like they are not being treated fairly.That's basically the purpose of this thread, to examine those other things.
IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.The worst? Really?
Not the worst, personally, but pretty bad.
The most likely scenario is the targets and the assassins are all dead at the end (because the assassins turn on the party afterwards).
So... there's no hook. Some random strangers are dead on the road, and the PCs aren't motivated to really do anything afterwards.
Its actually worse than just finding the aftermath of the murder, because the players are going to feel like they can't trust the situation- ie, hauling the girl's corpse along to wherever the PCs are going has a high likelihood of going wrong.
The best reaction is to check for any convenient bags of gold and walk away.
When Voss and I agree on something, you know something ain't right. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When Voss and I agree on something, you know something ain't right. ;)
Happily bringing the community together one post at a time. :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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-is, that is going down a dark path, and sounds like no fun. My immediate reaction would be to call out the GM and ask where this game was going, and verify that I wanted to play it. My RPG time is too limited to squander on nonsense.
Tweak it a bit and it would be a good intro to a "The Fugitive" type scenario. Instead of them killing the guards, the PCs disrupt the defense, and accidentally allow the bad guys to win. Then from there they have to bring justice to the assassins while not being arrested. That sounds more like a story worth my time.
I don't mind the GM "tricking" the players as long as it is setting up something interesting. Think of it as exposition, but with some player involvement. But this sort of thing has to be infrequent. People play RPGs to have input/agency, not to be be told that they got things wrong.
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.
Piques my interest right away!
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.
Oh man! What have we stumbled upon?!! I dig it!
Clearly seeing that the carriage has been attacked, you and your fellow party members jump into the fray, attempting to save the carriage occupants.
Is this meant to be the description of a scene? Or what "could" happen?
I would suggest actually allowing the members to jump into the fray here. In fact, I would likely "open up" the encounter right here.
You have come up with this evocative opening encounter, and now I would suggest that you consider the various ways it would likely play out, and what the story goal/s might be, and then let the action happen organically.
For example, if the party decided to do nothing, but watch cautiously at this stage, you could have another group jump out and attempt to help the young girl, and if the party continues to simply be a bystander, then the rest you have presented could be the way you describe.
But, again, I would consider a few possible results of player reactions, and be prepared for the way you want to continue/alter the story from there.
Clearly seeing that the carriage has been attacked, you and your fellow party members jump into the fray, attempting to save the carriage occupants.Is this meant to be the description of a scene? Or what "could" happen?
I was describing how I saw it to the forum. Poor wording on my part. I would not phrase it that way to the players and certainly would not be dictating the players' actions. (I hate it when GMs presume to speak for my characters.)
I was describing how I saw it to the forum. Poor wording on my part. I would not phrase it that way to the players and certainly would not be dictating the players' actions. (I hate it when GMs presume to speak for my characters.)Clearly seeing that the carriage has been attacked, you and your fellow party members jump into the fray, attempting to save the carriage occupants.Is this meant to be the description of a scene? Or what "could" happen?
Cool! Yeah, I figured as much. I'll be interested to hear how you develop the scene if you end up running it.
Since others have already said most of what I would I'm going to look at it a little differently. If I were to run an encounter based on what you seem to be aiming for I might approach it something like this.
********
While traveling through the wilds, you and your party hear a shrill scream and the sounds of battle on the road up ahead.
GM: What do you do?
Once the players reach the area – Arriving on the scene, you find a carriage propped on its side with two shattered wheels, horses maimed and tangled, from inside you hear what sounds like a young girl in hysterics screaming the name Jhonas. Around the carriage warriors and elementals fight and its unclear at the moment who’s winning though the bodies of several warrior lay strewn around the area.
GM: Everyone make a perception check.
If made – Through the carriage door you catch a glimpse of the girls tear streaked face wearing clothes befitting a noble. She appears to be looking down at something as she cries, her eyes looking a bit wild. Again, you hear her as she screams the name “Jhonas!”
(continuing)
Ten feet or so from the carriage are two injured fighters, possibly guards, armed with swords standing among a pile of earth and rock. They are turning to face an earth elemental. Itself only 10 or so feet from them and quickly closing the distance.
Elsewhere along the road you see a few other elementals fighting more warriors. Near the tree line one of the elementals stands before several identical men in dark robes interposing itself between them and the fighters.
GM: (checks to see if any of the PC’s are seen if necessary)
If any of the PC’s are seen by the fighters – One of them notices you and hollers, “Help us take down these blasted elementals.”
GW: what do you do?
********
GM Notes – When the young noble girl’s carriage was waylaid, she was traveling with the driver, a butler, and a wizard. Upon being attacked the driver was killed almost immediately and his body has fallen on the other side of the carriage. The butler drew a crossbow kept in the carriage for protection and attempted to use it for shelter while protecting the girl. Meanwhile the wizard who was also riding up top enjoying the weather has been using defensive magic like mirror image and summoning elementals while trying to draw the enemy away so the others could escape.
Unfortunately, the enemy was more numerous then he realized and the butler has been mortally wounded from a pair poisoned crossbow bolts. Additionally, the wizard is rapidly finding himself out of his depth as he is running low on spells.
Immediately before the PC’s arrival two of the assassins will have dispatched an elemental guarding the carriage and Jhonas will have ordered or conjured another to replace it before they could get any closer to the young girl, they are there to kill.
Assuming the PC’s join in wiping out the elementals Jhonas will assume, wrongly, that they are with the assassins and hence not say anything to them. Meanwhile, once they have things in hand, the assassins will take the opportunity to go, open the carriage door, and promptly slaughter the occupants.
********
Immediately upon seeing the young noble girl slaughtered in front of him, Jhonas screams “NO!”, looking around pale and angry he swears “If it’s the last thing I do I’ll see all of you pay for this” he then steps around a tree and vanishes.
GM notes – Jhonas uses the cover of the tree to conceal whatever spell(s) he uses to escape such as dimension door, invisibility, teleport, etc. Once gone he will report what has happened and the PC’s may well end up responsible for a young noble's death and branded a criminal.
The "guards" then thank the PC’s for their "assistance" before turning their weapons on them.
********
I believe that ties most things up nicely though with players you never know how things will play out. Players like to do unexpected things… but then that’s half the fun :)
If the players save the girl, good for them. I think most plots still work fine it just changes how everything goes afterward. They wouldn’t be wanted criminals they’d be heros that could be hired to hunt down those responsible etc.
I will mention that I'm uncertain how well this would work in 2e since the wizard has to sustain the summoning spells so he couldn't have more then 2 elementals if I understand correctly. I haven't ran into anyone using summoned creatures in my 2e game yet so I'll let you check and figure out what you'd need to do.
Thanks Revel. That's a very well laid out scene.
Revel's scenario as laid out seems pretty reasonable, except for the dying butler having access to high level teleportation magic and auto-escaping the party feeling a little contrived.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Revel's scenario seems reasonable enough to me. I certainly wouldn't side with people vs. elementals without question (indeed, I'd go save the girl, while loudly proclaiming what I was doing).
In terms of summoned creatures, yeah, we're talking one at a time right now. Putting another guard or three on his side (they could even be allied elementals, depending on level) solves the problem, they just wouldn't be summoned.
Revel's scenario as laid out seems pretty reasonable, except for the dying butler having access to high level teleportation magic and auto-escaping the party feeling a little contrived.
Jhonas is the Wizard, not the dying butler. A powerful Wizard having teleportation is reasonable enough. Escaping automatically not so much, but that wasn't the impression I got, just that he used his next turn after the girl's death to get away.
Oh, whoops. Yeah that makes more sense. Though that scenario is predicated on the Wizard surviving which seems a bit iffy in this context.
|
|
But also, there are times when you need to examine things other than the RAW in order for PCs to feel they were treated fairly. I mean, technically, you can do all sorts of things to screw PCs over within the rules as written that remain deeply un-fun and will breed resentment and cause the players to feel like they are not being treated fairly.That's basically the purpose of this thread, to examine those other things.
IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.The worst? Really?
(Sorry about not responding sooner, I've been super-busy with work and family life!)
Yeah, I mean, it's a cliché to begin a campaign in which PCs are prisoners or slaves, after falling victim to unseen assailants, spells, or poison. No saving throws or initiative rolls, it's just pure GM exposition in the form of a monologue. Although if you do it right, it often works surprisingly well. After all, it starts with a mystery and action as the PCs need to escape the prison (jail, ship, tower, dungeon etc.) -- hopefully with their gear plus some extra stuff -- and find out who (and why) did it to them.
This also doesn't usually "violate" the trust between the GM and the players, and I think there's an unspoken agreement about the players choosing to accept that premise without arguing about minutiae, and the GM agrees to give them a fair shot at escaping with their gear.
Your example is about taking away the player agency, because no matter what they do, they'll end up being branded as criminals. Or rather, they would be, if only there were witnesses left. Like Voss said, I think many players would just shrug and loot the bodies, walking away. And yet, if there are lawful champions or clerics in the party, they might want to contact the authorities and confess what has happened. Either way will probably not be how anyone thought the campaign would begin, and most likely your players don't either care, or are mad at you for "tricking" them into becoming murderers. In any case they're not likely to easily swallow any adventure hooks in that campaign.
It's also about trust in the sense that your players might be creating champions and good clerics, assuming that they'll get a chance to do heroic things. If you're going to use this assassin scenario, inform them before the first session that this campaign is about potentially casting them as villains in certain adventures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't Jhonas use a free action to speak?
"They're trying to kill her."
"I'm defending her."
"Let's stop and talk."
This scenario predicates on the TV/movie trope of the-viewer-doesn't-know-what's-going-on-and-it-could-all-be-solved-by-someo ne-just-talking.
Unless Jhonas is mute, which is - to me - one too many railroad coincidences, I'm not buying it.
Also, scenario in general, I play Pathfinder for escapism. I personally look to play the hero, and while failure is totally on the table, this sort of personal, dark, miserable opening wouldn't engage me much. I'd see the coming campaign as one where I wasn't given opportunity to fix problems until after I was complicit in creating them.
That said, subverting racist assumptions that elementals bad, soldiers good is an interesting thing. It just needs work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not following the last bit. The assumptions about elementals in D&D/PF aren't racist, they're usually considered rigidly neutral and indifferent, with the summoner being the factor as to whether they're foes or not.
Far from subverting anything, this scenario just sets up the idea that you can and should murder hobo everything that isn't the obvious damsel in distress.
|
Ravingdork,
To avoid a "gotcha" scenario, consider the following two advices:
1) Clue the PCs in somehow
2) Focus on NPC "inputs" rather than NPC "outputs"
1)
If it was me, I would tie the Clues to their Exploration Mode tactics: If a PC chooses Investigate or Search, I would allow them to start the encounter with some sort of clue. Or. give them all a free secret Sense Motive check to determine that something inexplicable seems "off", and allow them to make further Sense Motive actions to learn more info. Maybe use the Library rules in GMG!?
2)
Don't pre-decide that the outcome is the butler and noble die by the poisoned arrows of the disguised assassins. Instead, have that be their intent, but, consider that the PCs, and/or their own die rolls, create a different scenario instead. Be prepared to create new opportunities to return to your main narrative arc, which may involve "contingency" NPCs at a future time.
Good luck!
I'm not following the last bit. The assumptions about elementals in D&D/PF aren't racist, they're usually considered rigidly neutral and indifferent, with the summoner being the factor as to whether they're foes or not.
Far from subverting anything, this scenario just sets up the idea that you can and should murder hobo everything that isn't the obvious damsel in distress.
All I was talking about was the assumption that between "soldiers" and "caster with summons" the soldiers would be sided with. By and large in RPGs, if it's got more (or less) legs than the PCs, it's a monster to be murder-hobo'd, as you say. This scenario has the soldiers (right number of legs) being the bad guys and the elementals (insufficient legs found, please insert legs in drive A: and press any key) the good guys.
The damsel in this case is in distress and (evidently) innocent regardless. She's not part of the subversion I was talking about.