When the party rests a second night, foreshadow a future attack on them.
If someone is taking watch roll some perception checks, they can spot someone watching them. They can do a chase scene following that enemy back to the hideout. If they catch the enemy scout those in the hideout only know they lost a scout and send out a small warband next.
But if he makes it back to the hideout then enemies will send a full group to attack the party headon.
Now dont leave the pc captured out of all of this. Give them chances to escape and rejoin the party or sabatoge the enemy in some way from within.
If that enemy scout makes it back and puts together an assault on the party camp, make that an opportunity for the pc captured to take advantage of thinned out guards on them.
When the party rests a second night, foreshadow a future attack on them.
If someone is taking watch roll some perception checks, they can spot someone watching them. They can do a chase scene following that enemy back to the hideout. If they catch the enemy scout those in the hideout only know they lost a scout and send out a small warband next.
But if he makes it back to the hideout then enemies will send a full group to attack the party headon.Now dont leave the pc captured out of all of this. Give them chances to escape and rejoin the party or sabatoge the enemy in some way from within.
If that enemy scout makes it back and puts together an assault on the party camp, make that an opportunity for the pc captured to take advantage of thinned out guards on them.
I would treat any losses the enemy face as taking from encounters you had planned in the hideout.
A small warband could just be an moderate encounter from in the hideout coming to attack the camp.Think of the full on attack as the boss fight of the hideout coming to them.
if full attack give the captured PC a quick escape sequence when the opportunity arises. Set a number of turns based on how they chose to escape as the turns they will be absent before rejoining the boss battle.
Anyway it goes down the party is taking care of the same encounters you had planned, just in different locations with new circumstances that might be less or more favorable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do the enemies understand Translocate well? As in there's a one hour wait period before the caster of a 5th Rank version can Translocate (or technically be Translocated). So interior patrols every 45 minutes would keep PCs from getting in and out cleanly.
As for getting in, it's not like old school Dimension Door. The caster has to have been there in the past or see their destination while casting. Relative location & distance isn't enough on its own any more. Have the PCs been scrying or something? Do enemies have access to illusions & tricks against scrying? Even a non-magical disguise might work to get the PCs to rescue an enemy, or at least put them in the wrong room.
Couldn't the baddies set a trap (like with the Silence mentioned above)? That caster's asking to be ambushed IMO, and with the one-hour pause, that's death assuming the enemies are built to challenge the whole party. They should be able to deduce where possible entry points are, and at minimum put up alarms/cans/bells if not dig pits and bar some doors (an invisible intruder's least favorite obstacle).
Can the enemies hire mercenaries?
They have loose gold right? Maybe via Rituals?
Reminds me of a Dungeon Magazine scenario full of high-levels casters who carried a fortune in material components (mainly gems). The PCs were expected to siege the dungeon, but the longer they took, the more treasure the enemies burned through to summon expensive allies in what would be Rituals in PF2.
No p!an survives first contact. If they don't adapt, then things should go badly for them. After being seen the fort should send out scouting parties and then war bands to take care of the problem. Every time they fail the same thing, ramp up the consequences.
You can even make it a point you can drive home, if they continue this way eventually the fort empties as everyone is out searching for the party and will likely end in a massive wave encounter of all the enemies converging on them. But the fort is empty, so would be a good time to sneak in, take out the leader and then escape.
Could also have the enemy finish their plan. If the party is taking days to figure out a rescue, then have the enemy do the thing they wanted the prisoner for in the first place. Getting info and/or perhaps selling into slavery. Death should be off the table because the captured PC shouldn't be punished because his team mates couldn't be relied on to save them.
It can be real hard when you have players really convinced their, potentially dumb, idea is genius and has to work. Getting them to pivot to new ideas instead of dying on that hill can be rough. Try to be as realistic and sensible as possible. Have consequences but also open opportunities for different ideas to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered talking to the players and formulating a plot arc that you are all happy with?
Or is there some valuable reason to have the players and GM constantly trying to outplay each other that I am unaware of?
Have you considered talking to the players and formulating a plot arc that you are all happy with?
Or is there some valuable reason to have the players and GM constantly trying to outplay each other that I am unaware of?
Yeah, the goal as a GM should never be to outplay the players. It should be to challenge the players, and make it look like the odds are against them, and that there is a real chance of failure, while still actually winning.
As a GM, my goal is to give the illusion of real challenge while also the players basically always "win" Although that doesn't mean they succeed at every individual task along the way, but does mean they will "fail forward". So you can't climb the 50ft sheer rock wall. After searching you find a cave and decide to take it.
That said, I'm also a fan of having reasonable enemies react to player actions. So the OP's example is something I consider reasonable. The enemy doesn't just sit there doing nothing.
Without knowing details, as a GM I might have had the group move from the spot entirely. Such that the players don't even know where the enemy camp is.
It's also a weird situation, that unless their is some perceived value in the prisoner, I wonder why they're being kept alive (although I'm not actually suggesting executing a PC, that's too harsh).
Probably the course of action I would suggest is that a small group of enemies take the captive PC to be sold at a slave auction. The next time the PCs try to assault, have them learn about this by leaving a note or something laying about. Now they have to track down the cart with the prisoner and have a smaller group of enemies to deal with to get their friend back.
But I almost certainly wouldn't let this whole "teleport in (even with 2 people)" work the way they're expecting. There would be too many enemies, even if they encounter only 1 at first that enemy likely runs and calls for others. If they can incapacitate the first great, but they likely have to keep repeating that kind of thing until they clear the camp.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
This is definitely a tough spot to be in. As a player myself, I've run into several instances where an otherwise great campaign felt ruined or dampened by a GM taking it upon themselves to make us feel small intentionally. It turns the game away from playing together and playing against each other, and that's not a feeling I personally enjoy in this context.
Granted, it is still very important the players be presented with hurdles and lessons as part of the fun. I'm not saying you should make things easy on them, but as Claxon has mentioned above, it should never be about outplaying the players or having something over on them. The GM should be challenging the players, and the players should be challenging the GM too, by way of a game that is very much cooperative between the two groups.
I would talk to them more or less OOC about the dilemma. Being honest with them could be a great way for you all to come up with a solution that works for both sides. You are playing the game together after all. Without spoiling your plans, it could at least be beneficial to let them know that in general for your campaign, repeating the same patterns isn't going to yield the same results.
You could even literally just ask them what they think would be fun in this case? You don't have to do whatever it is 100% as they suggest, but having some perspective on what they would enjoy in this instance could at least help you formulate an arc together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa, who said this GM's pitting themselves against the party? Or trying to make them feel small? He even explicitly understands the plight of playing a captive PC and will amend that ASAP even if it breaks continuity. I do not sense it's his GMPCs vs. the players' PCs, rather his (disposable) NPCs vs. the PCs who are planning so poorly he's having a hard time maintaining verisimilitude & adventure simultaneously.
---
While I'd focused on the NPC response before, maybe it's better handled on the PC side. An NPC who acts as a sounding board for their ideas could work, or if none are present, an Int or Warfare Lore check might be due. "Yeah, that strategy is what got so-and-so killed a hundred years back."*
Or yeah, the escape plan idea in the OP. Though I'm of a mind that threats to the party should be able to subdue and retain a party member, that's only if that's their MO. Maybe these guys miss a routine precaution because they seldom capture. Or they "kill" the PC, but forget to check the corpse so the PC wakes up Wounded 3 in a garbage heap and with an aching for vengeance (and their stuff back).
Lots of ways to play this, and to tie in old & future threads/NPCs into the events unfolding.
*Sometimes I've had to bite my tongue when there's no wise PC and the PCs fail their secret checks. And sometimes players have read my stoic face well enough to rethink their plans!
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
Whoa, who said this GM's pitting themselves against the party? Or trying to make them feel small? He even explicitly understands the plight of playing a captive PC and will amend that ASAP even if it breaks continuity. I do not sense it's his GMPCs vs. the players' PCs, rather his (disposable) NPCs vs. the PCs who are planning so poorly he's having a hard time maintaining verisimilitude & adventure simultaneously.
---
While I'd focused on the NPC response before, maybe it's better handled on the PC side. An NPC who acts as a sounding board for their ideas could work, or if none are present, an Int or Warfare Lore check might be due. "Yeah, that strategy is what got so-and-so killed a hundred years back."*
Or yeah, the escape plan idea in the OP. Though I'm of a mind that threats to the party should be able to subdue and retain a party member, that's only if that's their MO. Maybe these guys miss a routine precaution because they seldom capture. Or they "kill" the PC, but forget to check the corpse so the PC wakes up Wounded 3 in a garbage heap and with an aching for vengeance (and their stuff back).Lots of ways to play this, and to tie in old & future threads/NPCs into the events unfolding.
*Sometimes I've had to bite my tongue when there's no wise PC and the PCs fail their secret checks. And sometimes players have read my stoic face well enough to rethink their plans!
OP did not say they had, no! My GMs in the past actively intentionally did (one even went so far as to tell us this explicitly), and unfortunately, sometimes lack of communication between GM and players can create this perception among players. You are right in that there are lots of ways to play this, and it's great that OP brought the issue here to ask for help as well! That already shows how much they care about making their campaign fun for their players. I'm just providing my past experience with being in these tenuous waters, and I can only hope that OP eventually comes to a decision as to how to progress that works best for them and their party! ^_^
OP did not say they had, no! My GMs in the past actively intentionally did (one even went so far as to tell us this explicitly), and unfortunately, sometimes lack of communication between GM and players can create this perception among players. You are right in that there are lots of ways to play this, and it's great that OP brought the issue here to ask for help as well! That already shows how much they care about making their campaign fun for their players. I'm just providing my past experience with being in these tenuous waters, and I can only hope that OP eventually comes to a decision...
I think it's also important to point out that there's one player who seems to be forcing the group to do his one way that makes him shine. It's going to be very hard fixing that behaviour in-game without punishing multiple players. It's already failed and they want to keep doing it, if you progress the story then there's a real possibility that the party blames that one player or gets defensive and blames the GM.
Depending on how comfortable you are with these players, you might need to talk to them above game, let them know the longer they wait the worse things could get.|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
I think it's also important to point out that there's one player who seems to be forcing the group to do his one way that makes him shine. It's going to be very hard fixing that behaviour in-game without punishing multiple players. It's already failed and they want to keep doing it, if you progress the story then there's a real possibility that the party blames that one player or gets defensive and blames the GM.
Depending on how comfortable you are with these players, you might need to talk to them above game, let them know the longer they wait the worse things could get.
You're so right, and I wholeheartedly agree with this. A player wanting to play more or less for themselves among the party often tips scales negatively in the general playing dynamic. Sometimes it works because everyone understands that this is just a character trait and the other players' characters consent to play off of that, but sometimes it takes away fun from the whole group, GM included. I do also hope that OP talks to everyone to try to sort this out!
This is reminding me that maybe we as a community don't discuss interpersonal OOC relationships in games enough, and we should!
ALso, I forgot to say this earlier, but don't worry about the length of your question, OP! I saw that you had apologized for it, and I just wanted to provide some reassurance there. Any length that allows you to get your idea out is a good length for us!
|
As a GM, my goal is to give the illusion of real challenge while also the players basically always "win"
This is basically my goal as a GM. Putting aside the occasional cakewalk encounter designed to demonstrate how badass the PCs are, my usual goal is for the PCs to win, and for the players to feel they earned that win.
At the same time, while I am against an adversarial GM/Player stance, when I’m playing the adversaries, I do want to actually play adversaries. It’s a line to walk, but when I pull it off it’s pretty cool. That said, this illustrates the value of the stereotypical Bond villain, whose hubris allows him to underestimate the hero, and proves his undoing. That is even more useful in an art form wherein one author doesn’t control every character’s actions. A lot of tropes that can seem silly or lazy in forms where a single author controls every character, can be a lot of fun when the GM doesn’t know what the player characters, who are, after all the heroes of the tale, are actually going to do.
So, while the bad guys who have captured a PC shouldn’t just be idiots, it’s totally reasonable that they be overconfident in a ways the PCs can exploit, especially if the players realize they’re exploiting specific weaknesses of the enemies.
Why would the bandits keep the captured PC in the same hideout after the PCs (unsuccessfully) infiltrate it? Because the boss is sure he’ll capture another PC if he keeps the trap baited. Maybe the boss isn’t there to monologue, but a note can serve the same purpose. And Magic Mouth (the remastered alternative may not be as annoying) would be perfect for taunting a PC.
The patrols are a good idea. You can also start trapping the parts of the hideout the enemies know the PCs were in (or lock some wild animals in those parts). When your teleporting PCs hits a few of those, maybe he'll rethink his solo-strategy.
Smart foes might leave the ransom note(s) in those same areas if they expect the PCs might be back, and if you want to demonstrate that the foes are smart enough to anticipate the PCs repeated tactic.
Any chance the captive could escape in a short one-on-one session? Assuming his previous location was the more secure one, their new location may be less so, or could have a friendly NPC/co-captive that could help.
Could one of the bad guys turn traitor and offer to sell the PCs information on the layout of the base, number of guards, and location of their friend?
|
|
Any chance the captive could escape in a short one-on-one session? Assuming his previous location was the more secure one, their new location may be less so,
This idea that the “backup cell” is less secure makes a lot of sense, because the most secure location ought to be the first place they’d stash a prisoner.
If the captive PC escapes, stress that being moved was a big part of why he escaped, which means the teleporting PC “helped” by prompting the move.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is basically my goal as a GM. Putting aside the occasional cakewalk encounter designed to demonstrate how badass the PCs are, my usual goal is for the PCs to win, and for the players to feel they earned that win.
This is my favorite kind of GM to play with!!!! It makes the losses feel good and more rewarding as they're part of the greater goal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is reminding me that maybe we as a community don't discuss interpersonal OOC relationships in games enough, and we should!
Indeed, I think there's generally two viewpoints for this.
People who only play with their friends so just assume the social contract prevents much of the gross play habits that can show up.
People who play society games and so there's a person putting it together and more of an authority feel to it. (I've never played society so might be wrong on this.)
While playing online with random people can feel like the minority, as it doesn't feel like it's talked about much. As nerds I feel we have a lot of social and communication issues to varying degrees. So it can be hard to set boundaries and such with people when you don't even know what a lot of the issues that might come up even are.
The only time such things come up is when there's a problem. It can be hard to present such problems fairly at times as you might not be able to really understand the other persons point of view.
Don't want to derail so I'll say yes, it would be great to have talks about social contracts, as mostly it's a learn as you go type of thing.
Seeing how the OP has noticed this type of thing from this specific player though, I would say having a talk with the group why they go along with such things and if this is a really good use of their time.
Suggest that the best outcome is teleporting in and getting their friend out, but then list the dozen or so ways it could go wrong, especially increasing as more days pass. Maybe try to get others input and ideas on the table and go over what might be more successful.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I would say having a talk with the group why they go along with such things and if this is a really good use of their time. ...
Yes, definitely agree that a great way to move forward would be to check in with the whole group! Maybe a panel about things like this at a future convention could be useful too. I'll suggest it to the team! ^_^
... I would say having a talk with the group why they go along with such things and if this is a really good use of their time. ...Yes, definitely agree that a great way to move forward would be to check in with the whole group! Maybe a panel about things like this at a future convention could be useful too. I'll suggest it to the team! ^_^
In general, I think the word 'metagaming' gets a bad rap.
In order to tell a shared story, everyone has to be aware of the basics of the intended plot. And it needs to be a plot that is known and agreed to by all of the players - GM and PC players both.
A GM 'hiding' the plot is not a good way to maintain suspense and tension. It just leaves the players confused about what is going on and how best to respond to it.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
In general, I think the word 'metagaming' gets a bad rap.
In order to tell a shared story, everyone has to be aware of the basics of the intended plot. And it needs to be a plot that is known and agreed to by all of the players - GM and PC players both.
A GM 'hiding' the plot is not a good way to maintain suspense and tension. It just leaves the players confused about what is going on and how best to respond to it.
Agreed. I'm personally not a big fan of spoilers to the story, but I'd still like my boundaries taken into consideration. I disagree with the sometimes assumed sentiment that boundaries should be sacrificed at the expense of maintaining the element of surprise, so I support what you're saying here. I don't want the fun or mystery to be ruined, but I also don't want the GM to think they can't talk to us about things going on in the campaign if they or other players are just simply unhappy with its progress. It should be as much about discovering a story together as it is about making sure that story actually works for everyone while it's going. Regular check-ins with the party are also a good idea!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I'm personally not a big fan of spoilers to the story, but I'd still like my boundaries taken into consideration.
Certainly. To be clear, there is definitely a concept of toxic metagaming - a player using game knowledge that they don't need in order to gain an advantage in the game mechanics or to bypass the storytelling.
Gee, thanks.
But especially in PbP where the players aren't in the same room and a single back-and-forth of a conversation can take 24 hours, I have seen more problems come from a GM that wants to avoid 'metagaming' and 'railroading' and so doesn't give the players any ideas about what is expected.
GM: Posts a fantastic scene description and NPC character introduction, but with no clear goals for us to achieve.
OK. You are all up. What do you do?
Me: What are the options?
GM: Well, I don't want to railroad the party. So you have to decide what you are doing.
Me: I don't know what we are trying to accomplish. What are the goals for this scene?
GM: You have to figure it out.
Me: OK. Do the rest of you players have any ideas? How would you like to approach this scene?
Other players: crickets
Me: Well, I don't feel like I should railroad the party either. I don't think this game is working.
The scenario you posited is purely bad GMing.
At the very least the GM needs to help set the initial scene, there should be a reason why the PCs are all in the same place at the same time, and the players should know that reason ahead of time so they make characters that are compatible with that.
If the start of your campaign is "there's a party happening in the town green" then everyone needs a character that would be there, for whatever reason. If you character is so anti-party they would probably just miss the whole thing. And then in the middle of the party someone/something attacks or otherwise ruins the party. And that's your initial plot hook.
A GM has got to provide at least something that basic for players to go off of.
The scenario you posited is purely bad GMing.
Yes. But what I notice is that some GMs are aware that they need to do this for the initial scene - but then forget that they need to continue to do that for the entire rest of the campaign.
For example, the Age of Ashes player's guide talks about the Call to Heroes event and gives guidance for how players can build their characters to be one of the heroes that attends that event. And the introductory scenes go great because of that plot knowledge.
And then the events of the Call to Heroes play out and the PCs are looking around afterwards at the gathered crowd of townsfolk.
And the GM says, "OK, so what do you do now?"
Me: "Well, what are the options?"
I think I played through age of ashes (in 1st edition) so I can't recall the plot at this point, as it's been probably a decade or longer.
But generally APs have a pretty clear direction written in them, that it should be trivial to direct the players.
But I can definitely see some GMs just not giving direction.
In this case it seems like the plot hook should be:
1) You've built characters that would be interested in participating in the "Call to Heroes"
2) There should be at least one but preferably more things that the PCs could get involved in (and it be great if the multiple things all lead back to one larger issue)
3) Start play by being at the "meeting" with the PCs listening to the problems
At that point it should be pretty obvious that the PCs should start choosing which issues to investigate and follow up on. Potentially on all of them. And ideally, they should all somehow point back to a larger issue that will advance the overall plot even further.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Age of Ashes was the PF2 launch AP. So it is only almost a decade old at this point.
And yes, this is the very thing that I am trying to point out. Such 'obvious' guidance should be given by the GM.
And the game will fall apart if it is not given.
And I have seen several games fall apart for this very reason. All while the GM is claiming that they are in the right for avoiding 'metagaming' and 'railroading'.
I am perfectly fine with providing narrative guidance in game.
I'm still not making the player decisions for them but in the situation Finoan provided I would either invite players to share what they remember about why they are here and what they are trying to accomplish, or tell them any info I believe they should have to decide how to move forward.
Certainly dont want it to be just, ok your in a room with 4 walls and ceiling, theres a guy over in the corner, what do you do?
Age of Ashes was the PF2 launch AP. So it is only almost a decade old at this point.
And yes, this is the very thing that I am trying to point out. Such 'obvious' guidance should be given by the GM.
And the game will fall apart if it is not given.
And I have seen several games fall apart for this very reason. All while the GM is claiming that they are in the right for avoiding 'metagaming' and 'railroading'.
Sorry, I was thinking Curse of the Crimson Throne for some reason, thinking AoA was the PF2 remake of the original.
I don't know why I thought that.
Anyways, the rest of my thought is still valid (I think).
As to the whole "railroading" and "metagaming" issue. GMing (to me) is all about the art of railroading, but in a way that players happily go along with.
Like sure, you're players could just decide "yeah, I'm going to stay in the starting town and become a baker, what happens". And then I tell them "you become a baker and never go on adventure and the story ends, because that's not one I'm interested in telling".
And metagaming...yes the GM can technically do that when they should be inhabiting the mindset of an individual creature. You don't know that specific player has something prepared to exploit your specific weakness, so you don't know to go after them first. Do do that. But telling the players where the narrative is and lore behind it is just...essential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players need to buy into the story, accept there might be some rails and need to build off of what is presented, especially for APs.
Making your own adventures with people you don't know is a lot more work as you need to forshadow or outright explain all the things that would be in an APs player guide and then some.
This is why I find it funny when people accuse CritRoll of being scripted. It's just that Matt talks to each of his players to make sure they are on track for the overarching story and exchange ideas for that characters possible personal story arc. This can be very difficult with people you aren't familiar with to have a casual conversation about where things are and how they are going.
It can be uncomfortable trying to stem mildly problematic behavior. Sometimes just suggesting why the current idea or path could be a bad idea might work, sometimes you might have to have a check in to get everyone on the same page. I've seen such go badly but it's better to address issues early then to let them fester and possibly explode or worse.
Yup. And to relate it all back to the original post and the point of this thread...
This appears to me to be the pit that DimensionalThrift has found themselves in as a GM. Some dice rolls went a certain way and the NPC captive was not rescued as planned.
So the GM says, "So what do you do?"
Player1: "Uhh... I'll use Heightened Translocate to pop in and get them out."
Other players: "Sure. Sounds good to me."
The GM doesn't like that plan. But doesn't want to just say so to the players. Because that would be 'metagaming' and 'railroading'.
So instead the GM wants to come up with ways to make the plan fail in a subtle way so that the players will have to guess again at what the GM is expecting the plot to be.
As a player, if I was aware that the GM was doing this, I may very well rage quit this game. Why can't GMs just tell me what is expected - either for plans that will work or plans that won't work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think their plan failed because they snuck in, got found out but found where there companion was being held.
Next day get the spell to pop in and out but their companion was moved so another sneak in attempt would fail. As makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is for the party to waste days trying the same trick. Thus they should be encouraged to come up with a different plan.
When all else fails, do it the hard way. They could still have interesting options when doing a full on assault.
And that absolutely feels like a GM that is using GM Fiat to say, without saying anything, "I don't like your plan and will make it fail." There aren't even any dice rolls involved. Just a 'gotcha' moment of wasting a spell slot or two to 'find out' that the companion was moved.
So again, if the GM doesn't like the plan that the players have come up with, they should just say that.
If the GM is expecting the players to go on a full assault of the base, they should just say that.
So how about 'encourage to come up with a different plan' by using your words. Rather than trying to do some sort of hint/mime type of interpretive dance thing to communicate that idea.
I agree, you need to tell players all the information they should know about what works and doesn't in the game world for the most part.
There is no actual taking in information with ones own senses after all, its all based on what GM is giving them, so if they didn't understand what you give them the way you do and come up with a plan that just doesn't work that can all be worked out with the GM saying so.
Now if there are rolls involved and they are just not making them and making decisions based on the information they can have based on those bad rolls thats a bit different.(but even here maybe don't put any crucial info needed to just know what to do behind a roll)
Is the OP even reading any of this...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that absolutely feels like a GM that is using GM Fiat to say, without saying anything, "I don't like your plan and will make it fail." There aren't even any dice rolls involved. Just a 'gotcha' moment of wasting a spell slot or two to 'find out' that the companion was moved.
So again, if the GM doesn't like the plan that the players have come up with, they should just say that.
If the GM is expecting the players to go on a full assault of the base, they should just say that.
So how about 'encourage to come up with a different plan' by using your words. Rather than trying to do some sort of hint/mime type of interpretive dance thing to communicate that idea.
Finoan, I'm often on the same page as you, but as a GM that doesn't like the game world to just sit idly by waiting for players to interact with it, I disagree with you on this topic.
The NPCs had the PC captive. The players entered the enemy camp, but alerted the enemy before they were able to free the captive and ended up retreating. As a result, the NPCs moved the captive (which is very reasonable in my opinion). When the PCs later tried to teleport in to quickly free the PC, they found the captive wasn't where they thought and presumably left again because the single PC wasn't equipped to fight the whole camp.
At this point, if I was the GM I would have the following happen:
The NPCs are taking the captive to a slave market (or something similar), splitting their forces such that it will be obvious that the players could take either group.
I would expect the players to try the same teleport trick, but they would find much less enemies present and definitely find a note/ledger/something that would tell them the captive was taken via cart to the slave market.
On the way to the slave market the NPCs cart will break, causing some to be further split up looking for materials to fix it or walking back to the original camp.
The players would find the captive and some guards. Definitely a number of guards that feels like 3 PCs could take them.
I wouldn't directly tell the players "Hey this plan isn't going to work" before the second teleportation attempt because I do feel it's a little too "metagamey". I would have hoped the players learned that the NPCs have a least a little common sense after the first teleportation, and realize that the plan isn't going to work as expected.
I would likely remind them of how the first attempt worked out if they attempt to teleport in a second time.
In my mind, the "best" thing the PCs could do is have 2 players draw attention at the front of the camp, trying to infiltrate. The 3rd player would translocate, again finding the captive gone, but hopefully the group will realize they are more than a match for the NPCs that are present and stick around long enough to gain useful information.
But if the players just keep teleporting in, and then running away when they don't easily find what they want...well I'm not sure how to handle that.
That needs to be an out of game conversation about expectations and stories.
As a GM I want to tell stories where the PCs are challenged, and the above (teleport in and then teleport out) doesn't sound like a challenge.
Finoan, I'm often on the same page as you, but as a GM that doesn't like the game world to just sit idly by waiting for players to interact with it, I disagree with you on this topic.
I think it is a matter of knowing your players.
Also, understand that for me this is a trauma response. People do this type of 'I'm punishing you because you didn't pick up on my hints' type of thing to me constantly IRL.
The NPCs had the PC captive. The players entered the enemy camp, but alerted the enemy before they were able to free the captive and ended up retreating. As a result, the NPCs moved the captive (which is very reasonable in my opinion). When the PCs later tried to teleport in to quickly free the PC, they found the captive wasn't where they thought and presumably left again because the single PC wasn't equipped to fight the whole camp.
At this point, if I was the GM I would have the following happen:
The NPCs are taking the captive to a slave market (or something similar), splitting their forces such that it will be obvious that the players could take either group.I would expect the players to try the same teleport trick, but they would find much less enemies present and definitely find a note/ledger/something that would tell them the captive was taken via cart to the slave market.
On the way to the slave market the NPCs cart will break, causing some to be further split up looking for materials to fix it or walking back to the original camp.
You are still assuming the plan of the PCs. You are assuming that their plan is going to be tracking and following the cart - so that they find it broken down along the way. If they know where the slave trade is happening and have access to teleportation effects, why not teleport to the place the trade is happening and plan to ambush the cart when it arrives? How would that plan go? Would it also get punished in subtle ways to make it fail?
-----
Maybe it would help if I define what I am thinking of when I think of railroading.
I have a plan in mind for you to do. Here it is. Follow this plan. That I created. Without your input.
That is railroading. This is the railroading that is set up by playing an AP or other pre-published adventure.
However,
I have a plan in mind for you to do. You can do whatever you want. I will make sure that any plan you do that isn't my plan will fail.
That is also railroading. This is the one that is triggering to me. Why can't the GM just be more above-board with the railroading? Why turn it on me and try to make me feel like I am so stupid because I didn't think of the GM's plan first?
And maybe most surprising,
I have a plan in mind. You can do whatever you want. I will, behind the scenes, swap things around so that you follow my plan no matter what you choose.
That is also railroading. Stereotypically seen in Theater of the Mind dungeon paths. "From this room there are 5 doors. All are identical. Choose one." 'No matter which door is chosen, it leads to the same next room.' But it can also be done with social encounters. 'No matter which of the inns/taverns/shops you go to, you find the same NPC that gives you the same quest.'
Railroading is any time the players don't have an informed and meaningful choice to make. Whether that is because they aren't allowed to make a choice, because the choice isn't meaningful, or because the choice isn't informed.
And this is why I say that Railroading and Metagaming gets a bad rap. Things like this are, to an extent, necessary. Otherwise the task of being a GM is way too difficult. No GM can be expected to flawlessly and instantly come up with new plot and new NPCs and new stat blocks and new treasure on the ever changing whim of the players. We try to make the game world feel like it is alive and responsive to the player's actions, but it is imperfect.
It requires buy-in from all of the players to make it work. And it requires some above-table discussion between all of the players in order to keep everyone on the same page in the story.
As a GM I want to tell stories where the PCs are challenged, and the above (teleport in and then teleport out) doesn't sound like a challenge.
And I would absolutely agree that it doesn't seem like a fun challenge and isn't the plot that I would go with and support as a GM.
But I would tell them that above table.
Not try to find creative ways of hinting that it is never going to be allowed to work.
I may even go so far as to say that this type of GM thinking is the very reason why the players are wanting to try things the safe and non-challenging way all of the time. They can't trust the GM to not punish them seemingly at random any time they try something - so they definitely don't want to try something risky.
I kind of understand the situation the OP is in.
They are trying to leave it up to the players to decide what they want to do. The fine tuning on the GM side though is to adapt and present new opportunities for the players to make better plans.
Like I said before players only have the information of the game world the GM has given them. Its ok to give more if it leads the players to making more interesting decisions and they have more fun with the outcomes.
This is why I suggested the scouting from the enemy hideout prompting the party to action. Give the captured player the opportunity to sabatoge things from within or escape and rejoin the party while the enemies move out of the base to attack the PC camp if its spotted by a returned scout.
Could do a number of different things to move things forward.
Could even give the player teleporting something else they find while there that prompts action or provides a different advantage than the rescue they had in mind. Let them come back with intel on layout, or a weakpoint to infiltrate from, or steal an item that helps the pcs get in easier. Give them anything to help them move forward and players generally feel they need to use it.
The NPCs had the PC captive. The players entered the enemy camp, but alerted the enemy before they were able to free the captive and ended up retreating. As a result, the NPCs moved the captive (which is very reasonable in my opinion). When the PCs later tried to teleport in to quickly free the PC, they found the captive wasn't where they thought and presumably left again because the single PC wasn't equipped to fight the whole camp.
At this point, if I was the GM I would have the following happen:
The NPCs are taking the captive to a slave market (or something similar), splitting their forces such that it will be obvious that the players could take either group.I would expect the players to try the same teleport trick, but they would find much less enemies present and definitely find a note/ledger/something that would tell them the captive was taken via cart to the slave market.
On the way to the slave market the NPCs cart will break, causing some to be further split up looking for materials to fix it or walking back to the original camp.
You are still assuming the plan of the PCs. You are assuming that their plan is going to be tracking and following the cart - so that they find it broken down along the way. If they know where the slave trade is happening and have access to teleportation effects, why not teleport to the place the trade is happening and plan to ambush the cart when it arrives? How would that plan go? Would it also get punished in subtle ways to make it fail?
True, I am assuming a plan on part of the PCs. Of course from my perspective there are logical steps for the NPCs to take, and some assumed steps that the PCs will take (specifically trying to retrieve their ally from the camp). I could be wrong about that, but I don't think it's a crazy stretch to assume the players will attempt to infiltrate the NPCs camp again. When they do, I just need to leave enough bread crumbs to tell them "hey, you should be able to find your companion if you go this way". If they know where the slave trader camp is, sure they could go there and wait. That's fine, the encounter will likely look a little different if they do but they would eventually find the NPCs. At that point, the PCs could fight the NPCs, "buy" the captive PC as a slave, break the captive out of the group slave pens, etc. If they decide to go there and somehow manage to get infront of the NPCs I would ask them "so what is your plan". Not to thwart them, but so I understand what to prepare. Whether that's a fight against the captors, a slave break, or simply having the PCs show up with cash to buy their friend back.
It is worth noting, I don't think the PCs have full on teleport but only translocate. Which has a reduced ranged and wouldn't likely allow them to teleport to the slaver city.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is in my game world, my NPCs will react in a logical way based on the information they would reasonably know and with the abilities they reasonably have. There wasn't a mention of spellcasters, so far I've assumed no or minimal spellcasting capability of the NPCs for instance, which is why the NPCs would transport the captive in a cart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I want to tell stories where the PCs are challenged, and the above (teleport in and then teleport out) doesn't sound like a challenge.And I would absolutely agree that it doesn't seem like a fun challenge and isn't the plot that I would go with and support as a GM.
But I would tell them that above table.
Not try to find creative ways of hinting that it is never going to be allowed to work.
I may even go so far as to say that this type of GM thinking is the very reason why the players are wanting to try things the safe and non-challenging way all of the time. They can't trust the GM to not punish them seemingly at random any time they try something - so they definitely don't want to try something risky.
There is where we differ a bit. You think it's punishing to have the NPCs react to the PCs actions, and do something that I think is reasonable (moving the captive so they're not in the same place). It's convenient for a player when the dungeon doesn't move when the players aren't there, but I feel it creates a hollow game world.
And I also feel a bit to metagamey to say something like "using translocate is never going to work" because they might actually come up with a plan that would make it work.
If the first time they had continued to the assault, even if it meant using hit and run tactics in a protracted fight that might have saved their friend then. During the second attempt, when they failed to immediately find their friend, if the other characters had attempted to assault the NPCs to make a distraction for the caster to search they might have retrieved their friend.
Before the second time, if they had attempted to scout the compound I might have given them a clue. "Hey you noticed that the guard detail that was previously on the building your friend was held at isn't there". However OP didn't say whether or not they attempted to scout.
It honestly sounds like a two fold problem. 1) The players aren't thinking out multiple options, are discouraged when their one method doesn't work, and aren't doing preparation to help their success
2) The GM potentially not dropping enough in game hints. Don't get me wrong, there are potentially times where there is no way to provide a reasonable in game hint at a situation (at least I've created some situations where that's where I found myself) and then had to directly explain something out of character to the players so they can adjust their approach. But my preference is to avoid that when possible.
Possible 3rd issue: Knowing when you're players are really truly out of ideas and when to cross that line between dropping in game hints, and hitting them with that out of character knowledge.
If I'm GMing for kids, I have a different expectation of how creative they can get in finding a solution versus adults. But knowing you're players and their tolerance here is incredibly important.
And with the OP, it may be important to tell their group out of character (if they've reached their "breaking point") "Your ally can definitely be retrieved, but you're going to need to put more thought and effort into the solution than simply using translocate. Based on what you've done so far, your attempts to employ that seem unlikely to work."
Just because you have had bad experiences don't assume everyone else is the same.
As for going to the market and planning an ambush, that's potentially a rather terrible idea. Committing what is likely a crime, or against the code of whatever organization runs the slave market, close to a populated area where you can get discovered is an extra risk that has no need to be taken.
Following the clues that Claxon would have given out and catching up to a slow moving transport is far more advantageous. Even if you couldn't catch up in time you could then pretend to be a buyer and try to either buy your friend back or follow and deal with who ever does buy them one way or another, there's lots of ways that story arc could go.
Getting to know your players and what sorts of stories and themes they like is very important, so is finding ways to let them know when an idea might not work out the way they think.
The fact that there's a player who seems like they have something to prove, is a problem. Depending on a number of different factors the way to deal with that is varied, so there's no real answer other then have a talk with them about it.
I think Finoan's issue really boils down to a GM not knowing their player's well enough to know when they are mentally at their limit, and need to talk out of character (out of game).
I don't think (based on the description) I read that the OP is at that point. But if the group continued to try this translocation whack a mole thing it could reach that point. Which is why my suggestion is to move the prisoner completely and leave clues. And by moving the prisoner's location (with reason) it actually presents several different solutions to the players to try to resolve the situation.
I think Finoan's issue really boils down to a GM not knowing their player's well enough to know when they are mentally at their limit, and need to talk out of character (out of game).
That.
And additionally: assuming that your players are picking up on your hints.
Hinting is a very crude and error prone method of communicating.
So if the players try a plan once and it doesn't work, sure - leave breadcrumbs.
If the players are sticking to a plan that doesn't work, or moving from one plan that doesn't work to another plan that won't work - don't continue to hint that the plan isn't working. Your hinting isn't working either.
I think Finoan's issue really boils down to a GM not knowing their player's well enough to know when they are mentally at their limit, and need to talk out of character (out of game).That.
And additionally: assuming that your players are picking up on your hints.
Hinting is a very crude and error prone method of communicating.
So if the players try a plan once and it doesn't work, sure - leave breadcrumbs.
If the players are sticking to a plan that doesn't work, or moving from one plan that doesn't work to another plan that won't work - don't continue to hint that the plan isn't working. Your hinting isn't working either.
I would say, that if players are attempting to accomplish the same goal for more than a third time, there probably needs to be an out of game conversation to address what's going on. In the OP's case, there were two attempts made and both failed. There should be some sort of significant development in the third attempt that would drive the story forward, and presumably not leave players and GM frustrated with the stagnation of the story.
However, I do think hints are an important step in between, as I feel it's the difference between attacking a challenging yourself and figuring out, and being told the solution. Some people do like the solution handed to them, but most people will enjoy the experience more if they can solve it "on their own".
Indeed, there was just too much focus on it being the GMs fault when clearly one single player was making this an issue.
Without clues you can easily run out of ideas to tackle a situation, setting up multiple ways to solve a problem and being open to crazy player ideas (within reason) is best.
Getting the other players input on the situation would be good as well. I have a hard time imagining a group of players that are invested in the game and story to be ok with just sitting around for multiple in game days for a single slightly far fetched plan to work.