What would be your immediate reaction if this happened to you?


Advice

101 to 131 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Let's nip the racism mini-topic in the bud right now. If anything about this encounter is racist, then nearly all interactions in fantasy roleplaying games are equally racist, and that's just not a can of worms I want opened in my thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

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?

Depends on my character, ultimately.

If I were some CN ruffian type, I'd say it's none of my business and leave the fools to their situation unless they offer me some "persuasion." Unless the situation piques my own interests, I have no reason to get involved.

If I were some goody two-shoes who thinks he has to save everyone, I'd have been bamboozled and screwed over by the GM.

If I were the player, I'd probably politely say I'm not comfortable with this kind of gaming behavior, follow up with wanting to take care of and do other more important things, bid them a calm farewell, and get the hell out of dodge, never to return, before I decide that this kind of gaming starts being good.

To be fair, there was an old adventure path I played (not Paizo) that did basically this same thing where we were made outlaws due to some stupid law of selling weapons during guard shift changes and were basically forced to flee and defend ourselves from a nation of backwoods fools. If our group wasn't with our GM for a long time, we probably all would've left that table and told the GM to screw himself before we slammed the door then and there, because stupid miniscule "gotcha" scenarios are some of the worst aspects of both gaming and storytelling, two of this genre's biggest components.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the idea...but I would strongly suggest setting some expectations during session zero...like be prepared for hard and not always obvious moral choices...don't bring a character who won't be able to cope if they screw up and realize they did the wrong thing, etc. Then maybe have that encounter a couple sessions in, once they have had a chance for that thought to move to the back of their mind and not be the first thing they think of.

It would also depend a lot on the group...a group of experienced players could probably roll with the curve ball a lot better than a group of fresh first time players. I've been playing for decades, so I love a good twist/plot hook like that...someone who has only been playing for a short time may feel tricked or attacked if something like that is sprung on them.

Another option would be to have this scenario be the whole setup for the campaign, and have this all be just box text/cut scene that sets the stage, instead of played out in game...it would take away some of the "OMG, what have we done?!" factor...but it would also give the players a more solid basis on what kind of character would be more appropriate to the game, give them a solid motivation to build off of...whether that is make some kind of amends, or figure out how their character would react ahead of time.


Ravingdork wrote:
Let's nip the racism mini-topic in the bud right now.

Help... I'm being suppressed!

<Grin>

But... whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ravingdork, I brought your scenario before my players the other night as described without leading them into any question of why I was bringing it up. After I explained it all from start to finish, I asked them for a gut reaction on how they would feel if I did that as their GM.

They were unanimous in their opinion that although the idea was clever and they would be more than happy to roll with it as a plot complication. They were okay with the muted description so long as any unfairly leading language is carefully removed, but not being prompted into certain checks* to make sure they're getting all the information is what made it a poor introduction that would injure their trust.

*When checks are necessary, I prompt players to make them. I decided a long time ago with my players that if I rely on them to take the initiative to make certain checks to notice details, they will seriously bog down the flow of action by making checks all the time when they aren't really necessary.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks for doing that, Yossarin.


The setup seems incredibly dues ex, makes no sense from whats supposed to be the premise of the situation, and likely relations with the DM and players.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My immediate reaction reading it was OMG, what a heavy-handed railroading.


This is terrible for two reasons.

The first is that it takes away player agency. Why did you make us go in and choose sides?

The second is that it’s very prejudiced. I’m not saying the situation is racist but it’s very somethingist, and it’s not right. So many assumptions and stereotypes were used to set up this situation.

There would be a mutiny at this table.


Joana wrote:

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. :)

Wow, no matter what choice the PCs make is wrong. Railroading at its finest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think I would want to feel like I was really fooled by the assassins. Like they should be carrying banners that match the local kingdom and that my party should feel betrayed by them, not the situation. This would also explain why the wizard might not intuitively ask for help, but you could offer interesting clues like having the wizard cast AoE spells, but taking care not to hit the carriage.

I don't think you are taking away player agency if this is the very first encounter of the campaign and the players no in advance, build characters around the assumption that they will be accidentally finding themselves on the wrong side of the law and having to work to reclaim their names.


thorin001 wrote:
Joana wrote:

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. :)

Wow, no matter what choice the PCs make is wrong. Railroading at its finest.

That doesn't really sound like railroading to me. Gotcha GM move, sure, but there's a bunch of paths the PCs could take and none of them have the same results. None of them are good, but they all sound different.

Dark Archive

Anguish wrote:

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.

Well, since Jhonas is a wizard who is obviously spellcasting, I think that this isn't likely. And describing him as a "sinister figure in robes" is really setting things up to direct the PCs to kill him. What makes him "sinister"? In your world are spellcasters typically and stereotypically evil?

It would be extremely farfetched to find a wizard on Golarian that does not speak Common... and even if he didn't speak it well... I agree, he should say something!!!

This could then prompt the "guards" to say something that requires deception (which has a DC of the target's perception DC, FYI).

Also, to comment on your earlier response...

Ravingdork wrote:
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).

Your description of the scene was:

Ravingdork wrote:
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.

So, what makes it look like the butler is "critically injured". Does he have a couple of arrows sticking out of his chest? Nasty slashes across his belly? Always try to be specific about what you are telling the players, as you are their eyes and ears.

Example:
In the overturned carriage, you see a young woman crouched over a man who has a pair of arrows sticking out of his chest, and a pool of blood below him. She cries out, "Jhonas!".

Peception to notice the wizard reacting to his name being called out. Very few people actually ignore their name, especially when called out in this way...

----

In this way, you are giving what they see, not a biased opinion of what they see.

---

Description of Jhonas.... rather than a "sinister looking man"...

At the tree line, you see a man in dark robes, his cowl pulled over his head. He cuts into his forearm with a cruel looking curved dagger, while speaking an eldritch phrase in a language you don't understand. As he completes his spell, a creature of rock pushes up from under the soil, its rocky carapace stained by a trickle of blood.

---

That sounds pretty sinister to me.... but this could allow a recall knowledge on arcana to learn things (it could just be a different way of casting the spell). Society could recognize his robes as being of a particular school that was sponsored by the Lord of this region.

When he glances at the princess, when she screams, a Perception check could notice a similarity in his features to hers (maybe he's a brother or uncle?)

---

The key is to give the information, but to also allow the players to draw the wrong conclusions. Don't color their perceptions with your lack of detail or leading descriptions.

I hope this helps, at least in some little bit (it helps me think about how I present things... so at least it wasn't a complete waste of time for me :D)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's nice, but it seems to go in the opposite extreme to me. I don't see how they wouldn't side with the wizard with descriptions like that.


You could just give them much less info.

You hear muffled screams and calls for help coming from inside the overturned carriage, you see a leg protruding from underneath pinning one of the carriage's occupants. Surrounding the carriage is a disorganized melee between men in city guard uniforms and earth elementals. At the edge of the tree line, hiding behind a bolt riddled tree, is a dark robed figure in the middle of casting a spell.

You should account for how the carriage was overturned. If there's crossbow bolts in the horses, then it's too obvious, but if there's no explanation it points at the wizards and would need a non-wizard explanation.

Introduce the "Jhonas" scream in round two, and a breathless "a little help here?" From a guard if they hesitate to join in. The wizard should scrutinize them, realize he doesn't know if they are friend or foe, and try to prevent them from joining the combat without hurting them. A wall or pit spell would be perfect. Accompany that with a warning that they should leave if they know what's good for them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
That's nice, but it seems to go in the opposite extreme to me. I don't see how they wouldn't side with the wizard with descriptions like that.

That's - I think - the point that's being made. Given accurate information instead of misleading information, there's a good possibility the PCs might make informed, rational decisions. That's what you're trying to avoid, which is what some of us find awkward.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is as Anhuish says. Maybe all of the details are not necessary. Maybe the wizard isn’t a relative. But the rest is still valid... that casting certainly seems sinister to me!

But, if your goal is to get the party in a gotcha... well, don’t bother listening to advise. If I were a player in that group, and you pulled this on me, I’d probably be done with the game. The GM is supposed to be an “impartial judge”, and is my only eyes into the world. Using biased words to describe things, and then screwing me over because I acted on YOUR descriptions breaks a player-GM contract, in my eyes.

Ravingdork, it feels like you just want validation that screwing over the party is ok. Sorry, you will not get it from me.

Dark Archive

Silbeg wrote:

It is as Anhuish says. Maybe all of the details are not necessary. Maybe the wizard isn’t a relative. But the rest is still valid... that casting certainly seems sinister to me!

But, if your goal is to get the party in a gotcha... well, don’t bother listening to advise. If I were a player in that group, and you pulled this on me, I’d probably be done with the game. The GM is supposed to be an “impartial judge”, and is my only eyes into the world. Using biased words to describe things, and then screwing me over because I acted on YOUR descriptions breaks a player-GM contract, in my eyes.

Ravingdork, it feels like you just want validation that screwing over the party is ok. Sorry, you will not get it from me.

I came back to say this s well. This isn't cool in the slightest. I'd rather not play than be given such a false leading description and have to worry about them for the rest of the game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Every GM does this to varying degrees, whether they are willing to admit it to themselves or not. If you didn't manipulate the course of the campaign or have some control over the player characters, you'd never make it through the campaign's plot/story arc.

The real issue under contention here, and one of the measures of being a good GM, is the amount of perceived player agency; the invisibility of the rails so to speak.

If the players feel they are being railroaded, it usually spoils their fun (and not having fun is one of the primary hallmarks of bad GMing). However, a skilled GM knows to give his players the semblance of freedom, and has several tricks, tools, and strategies to accomplish that.

For example, a GM plans for the PCs to go to location X to meet their contact. However, the players end up confusing the instructions and end up in location Y. The GM simply has their contact meet them at location Y, since it's not the location that's important to the plot/story, only that they've met the contact. If done well, they might not even realize they made a mistake at all, and the game progresses. Alternatively, if timing isn't an issue, the GM can just say that they made a mistake, they missed the contact, and will have to try again. (I believe similar examples have existed in GM guides for ages.)

Games would consistently fall apart if a GM were not permitted to do this sort of thing. It's not a moral negative. It's just another valuable tool in the GM's toolbox.

For a "PCs are falsely accused and spend the adventure on the run trying to absolve themselves" scenario to work, they first need to be accused of a crime. The details don't matter too much, but if I don't at least have that bit of it, then there is no campaign. I'd also like to have this done in play, rather than out of it (since I feel that has the potential to be more immersive), but I suppose that's not strictly necessary for the adventure to go on.

I appreciate everyone's advice thus far, and must admit, I am quite surprised at the negative reactions. If nothing else, it does show me that there is something fundamentally wrong with my initial setup and that adjustments will need to be made (and many of you have been clear as to what you think that is).

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


For a "PCs are falsely accused and spend the adventure on the run trying to absolve themselves" scenario to work, they first need to be accused of a crime. The details don't matter too much, but if I don't at least have that bit of it, then there is no campaign. I'd also like to have this done in play, rather than out of it (since I feel that has the potential to be more immersive), but I suppose that's not strictly necessary for the adventure to go on.

I think the huge problem here is the "doing it in play" part, at least without the PLAYERS cooperation.

I'd have absolutely no problem with being told the basic campaign premise (but I'd REALLY REALLY want to know it before character creation. It would greatly impact the character I brought to the game).

But I'd then want EITHER
1) The GM to just narrate the event without even any pretense of player input. Heck, I'd quite possibly do this narration BEFORE character creation

2) Have a scene with the characters playing it out but with the PLAYERS having the complete knowledge that THIS is the scene where they get framed. So, pretty much EXACTLY as you propose but with player knowledge and buy in.

Heck, with the right players I'd run the scene with player input.

GM : Describes scene more or less as in your original post, without the leading adjectives like "sinister"
GM : "Now, players, WHY would your character rush into this on the wrong side? Feel free to change some details as appropriate
Player 1 : "I recognize the wizard as someone who was expelled from the college that I attended for practicing foul magic.
GM adds to his notes : The wizard was falsely accused of foul magic by a rival.
Player 2 : My family were destroyed by Earth Elementals so I HATE Earth elementals and those who summon them with a passion. That would overcome my good judgement.

etc.

Suddenly the campaign gets a little bit richer with some campaign hooks. And you have PLAYER buy in, with each describing basically a character flaw that ALLOWED them to be fooled

Silver Crusade

pauljathome wrote:


I'd REALLY REALLY want to know it before character creation. It would greatly impact the character I brought to the game).

I hate quoting myself but I'm past the one hour edit window.

I realized an example of how your method could go HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY wrong.

Lets say I was playing a paladin in your original scenario.

Things could go badly in several ways
1) The paladin detects evil and the whole thing immediately goes off the tracks
2) The paladin is tricked and one can make a VERY strong argument that the paladin falls for NOT detecting evil and instead jumping to conclusions. At the least, he arguably needs an atone which is hardly trivial for a low level character
3) The paladin decides that the only honourable thing to do is to surrender and face justice. He DID screw up, he should pay the price.

I've played paladins who WOULD surrender to the authorities. I've also played clerics who's reaction to the original scenario would be Calm Emotions until they could sort things out. I've also played under GMs who would make the paladin fall.


Depending on the level of the party, at least, that scenario won't need to take detect alignment into account for a Paladin. Can Paladins get detect alignment?

I think that spell's also Uncommon...

Liberty's Edge

Come to think of it, what I miss the most is using your actual PCs' history and background to launch this adventure. For example, if they have enemies willing to add their weight to false accusations or to help framing the PCs from the start, it adds to the verisimilitude IMO and brings potential red herrings that actually matter to the PCs themselves.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Every GM does this to varying degrees, whether they are willing to admit it to themselves or not. If you didn't manipulate the course of the campaign or have some control over the player characters, you'd never make it through the campaign's plot/story arc.

This is only even sorta true if you have a specific plot in mind. Now, that's a fine game style, but not the only one. A strictly sandbox GM could easily never do this.

And even if you have a specific plot, you can get player buy-in rather than manipulating them into stuff, if you like. Manipulating them is fine if they know you do that and are cool with it, but it's far from the only strategy to be a successful and fun GM.

Ravingdork wrote:
The real issue under contention here, and one of the measures of being a good GM, is the amount of perceived player agency; the invisibility of the rails so to speak.

No. It isn't. The issues in play are firstly fairness (inasmuch as screwing PCs over by effectively breaking or ignoring the rules is unfair), secondly honesty (inasmuch as manipulating the players rather than their characters is dishonest), and thirdly actual rather than merely perceived player agency.

After all, we're discussing deceiving players to effectively remove their characters agency here.

Ravingdork wrote:
If the players feel they are being railroaded, it usually spoils their fun (and not having fun is one of the primary hallmarks of bad GMing). However, a skilled GM knows to give his players the semblance of freedom, and has several tricks, tools, and strategies to accomplish that.

Or he could, y'know, give them actual freedom. Now, this can easily be by telling them 'Listen, we're doing X type of game, obviously your character can refuse to go along with it, but if they do I sorta don't have a game...'

IME, most players are pretty willing to go along with the rails (assuming there even are any), for the most part. No need to lie or manipulate or actually remove agency to somehow improve the illusion of it.

Again, manipulating and lying remain fine for the GM if that's the social contract, but even then doing it to remove player agency remains a terrible idea the vast majority of the time.

Ravingdork wrote:
For example, a GM plans for the PCs to go to location X to meet their contact. However, the players end up confusing the instructions and end up in location Y. The GM simply has their contact meet them at location Y, since it's not the location that's important to the plot/story, only that they've met the contact. If done well, they might not even realize they made a mistake at all, and the game progresses. Alternatively, if timing isn't an issue, the GM can just say that they made a mistake, they missed the contact, and will have to try again. (I believe similar examples have existed in GM guides for ages.)

This isn't the same thing, though. Changing small details to speed play, so that PCs can succeed at something they've already decided to do, is a completely different from manipulating a description to force them into taking an action they wouldn't otherwise take.

The first is enabling the PCs decisions, the second is removing their decisions from consideration.

Ravingdork wrote:
Games would consistently fall apart if a GM were not permitted to do this sort of thing. It's not a moral negative. It's just another valuable tool in the GM's toolbox.

This really depends on context and social contract. But in most games, certainly most Pathfinder games, if the players can't trust the GM's descriptions of the world to at least try and be objective, the game is gonna fall apart.

Ravingdork wrote:
For a "PCs are falsely accused and spend the adventure on the run trying to absolve themselves" scenario to work, they first need to be accused of a crime. The details don't matter too much, but if I don't at least have that bit of it, then there is no campaign. I'd also like to have this done in play, rather than out of it (since I feel that has the potential to be more immersive), but I suppose that's not strictly necessary for the adventure to go on.

The thing is, this is easy to do without you the GM actually forcing them to commit a crime, which is what this scenario does (or at least tries to do).

You could just as readily have them stumble over the fight immediately after its over, then have an investigator show up while they were checking it out and leap to conclusions. Or, heck, while the PCs investigate have the victims rise as undead, have the PCs need to kill them again and then have the investigators show up and leap to much more reasonable conclusions (and, if non-combatant, then sneak away and call for the law).

There, a scenario where the PCs wind up wanted through no fault of their own with no need for the GM to manipulate or trick the players into actually committing a crime.

Ravingdork wrote:
I appreciate everyone's advice thus far, and must admit, I am quite surprised at the negative reactions. If nothing else, it does show me that there is something fundamentally wrong with my initial setup and that adjustments will need to be made (and many of you have been clear as to what you think that is).

Yeah.

For some insight into this, I'm gonna tell a story now. I once played in a game where, in addition to sending a hit squad after me for basically no reason, I made a roll to lose said hit squad (I just knew I was being followed, not by who). I had a reroll and asked the GM out of character if losing them was a good investment of said reroll. I was told no. My character subsequently died in a basically unwinnable fight that I could've avoided with said reroll. That's the only game I've ever just walked out of and never looked back, because it wasn't NPCs who'd killed my character, it was the GM being actively complicit and lying OOC to enable that result.

What you're suggesting isn't nearly as bad as that, but it's bad for the same reason. It's the GM lying to players OOC in order to screw over their characters. That's terrible and will always result in said players being very upset.


Puna'chong wrote:

Depending on the level of the party, at least, that scenario won't need to take detect alignment into account for a Paladin. Can Paladins get detect alignment?

I think that spell's also Uncommon...

There's an 8th level champion feat that gives you a vague sense that detects evil if it's powerful enough. It's high level, unreliable, and unlikely to detect mook level evil.

But heck, we have a wizard summoning a bunch of elementals here, so who knows what system is being used.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
However, a skilled GM knows to give his players the semblance of freedom, and has several tricks, tools, and strategies to accomplish that.

Skilled players know how to give their GM the semblance of control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to point out that - at least in my humble opinion - there's an important difference between railroading and railroading into negative action.

The moment you run a published module/adventure path, there is an agreement that certain rails will exist. You don't agree to play Mummy's Mask and decide to go on a pirate adventure; you have consented to play an Egypt style adventure mostly/entirely in Osirion.

On the other hand, this specific scenario's open involves PCs being railroaded into making a mistake. Being fooled. Aiding in a crime. I reiterate that's - in my book - a different type of railroading. I'd be willing to play a falsely-accused story, but I wouldn't be willing to play a had-no-choice-and-did-wrong campaign.

Railroading me into playing a poopy person isn't my idea of fun, while railroading me into playing an awesome hero is absolutely okay by me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
The moment you run a published module/adventure path, there is an agreement that certain rails will exist. You don't agree to play Mummy's Mask and decide to go on a pirate adventure; you have consented to play an Egypt style adventure mostly/entirely in Osirion.

This feels less like railroading and more like getting buy-in. Maybe some overlap but different in intent.

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:
I appreciate everyone's advice thus far, and must admit, I am quite surprised at the negative reactions. If nothing else, it does show me that there is something fundamentally wrong with my initial setup and that adjustments will need to be made (and many of you have been clear as to what you think that is).

Well, I for one would love to hear about the actual outcome of your GM play with this scenario. Perhaps you can start a new thread and let us all know how it actually was received by your group (with any/all changes you may have made). If it is anything close to your character generations, I imagine it would be quite the interesting read.

Thanks for all your posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

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?

I think you need to realize the difference between the two forms of expression:

In a written story, sure, cool, whatever.

As a roleplaying scenario: frak no - you just removed the players agency!

You just assumed the players would act in a certain way. That they did not cast spells, or used Perception to find out if something's wrong.

Put simply: if you pull stunts like thses a lot of gamers will simply stand up, walk out and never want to game with you ever again.

---

As a ttrpg scenario you need to provide Stealth checks for everybody involved. Perhaps the party never approaches like you assume, preferring to make their attacks from the side. From where does these poisoned crossbow bolts come from? Why didn't the party see that coming? Perhaps the party wizard cloaks the carriage in darkness shielding the young girl from being targeted.

You will find that the likelyhood of the players sussing out something's wrong is overwhelmingly large. In my experience, pulling the rug out from under the players is never worth it:

Not only does the dice seldom allow it to succeed, why even attempt an outcome most players would hate.

I'd recommend you to write it as a short story instead.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chiming in the agree with the majority of responses that doing this would be a bad idea.

Deceiving your players or manipulating them into taking a certain path is indeed a necessary part of GMing sometimes, but it works best when the players never realize that you've done it, or only figure it out much later-- after they're already invested in the storyline that ensued from the deception. Doing it so openly right off the bat would set a poor tone for the rest of the campaign imo.

And besides, it's unnecessary-- if a situation has to play out in a certain way in order to kick off the plot of the campaign, then why not just make it part of the backstory or opening narration?

If I were running this, I might start the first session by telling the story of the carriage encounter exactly as OP wrote it in the original post, and then have the players roll for initiative just as the "guards" turn on them. That first roll is the signal to the players that they now have the power to influence the story going forward-- that from here on out, their choices and actions actually matter.

101 to 131 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / What would be your immediate reaction if this happened to you? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.