# Am I a cruel DM?



## Ambrus (Nov 28, 2004)

Here's what's happened in my campaign:

For the last 35+ sessions, the party has been embroiled in a quest to recover the McGuffin artifact. They've successfully played through the Banewarrens adventure (at the end of which I placed the artifact). Naturally there are other factions outside the party who want the McGuffin for their own ends. One, the branch of a LG church has been generally supporting the party in hopes that it'll be returned to heaven (from where it supposedly came). Another is a group of heretical demon-worshippers bent on corruption and conquest. Yet another is a seemingly neutral group of gnome and dwarf psions trying to fulfil an ancient prophecy.

On the way out of the dungeon, the party successfully repelled an ambush by the demon-worshipping faction. They then met up with some of the psion gnomes in the dungeon with whom they'd developed an alliance of sorts (though both groups originally started on the wrong foot when they first met, resulting in some gnome deaths). The party decided to trust the gnomes because they wanted their help getting the McGuffin out of the city above secretly (it can't be teleported or plane shifted). The gnomes had a ship waiting at the docks for just this purpose. Unfortunately, the city docks were all under crown surveillance because the kingdom is gearing up for a war and is weary of all the cargo and people arriving or departing the city.

Finally, the gnomes convinced the party that the only way to safely get on the ship and out of the city was to have all the party members (along with the McGuffin) placed into wooden crates and carried onto the ship. Later, after the party agrees to this plan, gets itself crated up (all in separate crates) and carried around by workmen, the party begins to suspect something is up. After half a day, they bust out of their crates only to realise that they are in a warehouse, still in the city, with their equipment but that the ship, gnomes and McGuffin are all long gone.

The funny thing is that I didn't really plan what happened (I honestly don't put much thought into what the NPCs are going to do ahead of time). There are just so many factions who were after the artifact, and I'd been playing each group with the idea in mind that any one of them, including the party, may eventually end up with it. I didn't know where the party was going to go with the artifact, who they would trust and how they'd plan to leave the city. I didn't imagine that the opportunity to separate the party from the artifact would have presented itself so easily to the NPCs involved. The party has become one of the most powerful, unpredictable and dangerous factions involved in this race. One of the other factions simply couldn't ignore this opportunity to separate them from it when it presented itself.

Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy, though a few of the players are, understandably, quite upset. They've been fighting to recover this artifact for well over a year of gaming. Now, only a few games after finally finding it, it is taken away from them. Some players find it a lame plot development. Was I unwise in handling the situation the way I did? Am I just mean?


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Nov 28, 2004)

Unless your gnome/dwarf faction has no brains, you played them well.  I won't say "correctly" because they could have been 'nice' and not taken the artifact.  But they certainly played fairly, in that they didn't kill the party.

I understand your players being upset.  I'd be upset, too, if I was stupid enough to trust some other faction after the same artifact.  

I don't think you were unwise or mean.  You just played your NPCs intelligently.  Huzzah!


----------



## The Amazing Dingo (Nov 28, 2004)

With what you've told us, I don't think it was mean.  I think the PCs overtrusted a group whom they might not have known enough about.  Truthfully, it was pretty foolish to seperate themselves thusly from the artifact and leave the artifact in the hands of others.

On the other hand, did you somehow mislead the PCs through bending the rules, even if just a little?  Did a Divination spell or such reveal something incorrectly?  I'm going to take it you were truthful and upfront with all of this.

In the end, I think it is the PCs fault.  They shouldn't take allies for granted and never take anyone at face value.  At least, thats my philosophy of gaming, even when I'm in games where the DM is pretty straightforward and truthful.  Heck, _Zone of Truth_ is a first level spell for this very reason.  After playing for that long, they surely had other means - both magical and mundane - to discover if these gnomes might double cross them.

End Result: Players' fault.


----------



## rumblehed (Nov 28, 2004)

*cruel DM*

I can understand how upset the players would be after having gamed for the past year to acquire the artifact.  They might cool down after a while, however, and see the opportunity to recover the item from the gnomes as the beginning of a new adventure.  The problem with using an artifact for which the characters are constantly questing is that anything else you've got planned in a campaign can take a back seat.  Our group calls it the All-Powerful-Artifact-of-Scenario-Bypass.  Also, if the PC's continuously acquire and then lose the artifact, they will also lose trust in the campaign.


----------



## Dagger75 (Nov 28, 2004)

I always find it funny a group of players would rather fight the kingsguard and start a war because they won't be allowed to see the king armed yet will hand over something of great significant (not to them though) to anybody that asks.

 With what you said, the party attacked or was attacked by this faction once before.  I find it hard to believe they never discussed what they were going to do with the artifact.


----------



## Argent Silvermage (Nov 28, 2004)

I't only a few more games like that and you'll be up there with the great Rat-bastard DMs like Piratecat and Wizardru. Congradulations!

Actually any party who has gone through so much to get the item was just stupid to be so trusting. No your fault. (but still well done.)


----------



## Sejs (Nov 28, 2004)

> The party has become one of the most powerful, unpredictable and dangerous factions involved in this race.





Something doesn't quite sit right with me - the short psion faction (which, for some reason, my brain wants to call a conflict with which "the Low-down Showdown"...) didn't they think that hey.. these guys are quite powerful, dangerous, and unpredictible.  Let's make them really angry with us!

Sure, getting the artifact is great, but their methods seems really, really  short sighted.  The party flat out -knows- who betrayed them.   I don't know, it just kinda seems like a scapegoat would be more in order or something.  *shrug*


----------



## Len (Nov 28, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Sure, getting the artifact is great, but their methods seems really, really  short sighted.  The party flat out -knows- who betrayed them.   I don't know, it just kinda seems like a scapegoat would be more in order or something.  *shrug*



But at least the party knows whose butts to kick to get it back, which should make them feel better.


			
				rumblehed said:
			
		

> Also, if the PC's continuously acquire and then lose the artifact, they will also lose trust in the campaign.



I don't know what you mean by that, unless you mean that the players should trust that they'll never lose!

It seems perfectly fair to me. The artifact really is a "McGuffin" if they don't know what they want it for. The next quest will involve some item or other, why shouldn't it be the same one.

Something similar happened in our campaign recently. After we recovered the McGuffin, it turned out to be a decoy (and a very dangerous one at that), so we had to turn around, go back and finish the quest. When we figured that out we just sighed and rolled our eyes. All in a day's work for a DM.


----------



## tonym (Nov 28, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> ...The funny thing is that I didn't really plan what happened (I honestly don't put much thought into what the NPCs are going to do ahead of time)...(




Well, that's the thing that would bug me as a Player.  If you, as a DM, knew from the get-go that the gnomes would screw-over the party, that's fine--because then there'd a good chance that one of your Players would've picked up on their trecherous nature via roleplaying.  But if for months you roleplayed them as truly trustworthy NPCs who 'liked' the PCs, because you knew them to be trustworthy NPCs who liked the PCs--but then, when the party finally relied on that trust in a big way, you suddenly decide they were secretly treacherous and have always been trecherous, then that is a bit lame.   Because there would've been NO WAY for your Players to pick-up-on the gnomes' trecherous nature via roleplaying during all those previous sessions.

I'm with your Players on this one.

Tony M


----------



## Gilwen (Nov 28, 2004)

I think you played that well. It's not your fault and if you players are grumpy then they should direct it at themselves. Let's see...we have the object we have been questing over and we'll just agree to box it and everyone in different boxes....well they would not (at least less likely) have been robbed if they had assigned someone to be with the item. No way would I have left that thing out of my sight. 

Gil


----------



## Tom Cashel (Nov 28, 2004)

First, I don't think what you've done is "cruel." The whole idea of a trustworthy NPC claiming to have a ship ready strikes me as unfair use of meta-information by both sides. You switched things up behind the scenes (as noted by tonym), but they likely felt they were safe, because how could the DM screw them after all that work (I guess I find it hard to believe that the players would be so dumb without meta-thinking to make them feel safe)? So, the scam itself doesn't strike me as very useful, but that's not the point.

Here's the meta-concern that matters to me:

Were I a player in your campaign who'd just spent *35+ sessions* (that's a lot of sessions...*140 hours* of play if you play only 4 hrs. each time) searching for an artifact, I wouldn't be upset that we'd gotten stung for the item.

I'd be upset that after all that work, it's *not over yet*. When do we get to be finished with our quest and do something else? When will the DM finally let us succeed?

I could be wrong...but maybe I'm not.


----------



## Ketherian (Nov 28, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Was I unwise in handling the situation the way I did? Am I just mean?




Speaking as a player in said game, I think the DM is worried about loosing players as well as their trust.

The game went pretty much as he described it. The solution of trusting the gnome-dwarf-psions was not the only solution; but it was the only solution the players agreed on (with some disention). The party is now suffering an extreme bought of shoulda-woulda-coulda; and naturally few members are taking it a lot harder than others.

Speaking as a DM (oher games, other systems) - I understand the quandry and I don't feel the GM was being either mean or cruel; although the end result is hard to take - but then when is it ever good or nice to realize you've been betrayed? Half the party is bent on revenge agains the demon group while the others are pretty much limited by alignment. Loosing the alliance of the gnomen-dwarven-psion group is exceptionally hard on one member, as it was his only grounding in society. The DM didn't mention it - and maybe this PC has it wrong - but the LG faction seems to be split - one part is very much for the party (and has already sacrificed to assure our success) while the other (and more powerful) faction is wondering what the heck is going on (and actively trying to find out).

Timing did not allow us to use Zone of Truth nor did the attitude of trust we were trying to instill. Divinations are hard to come by when you've got no supplies and no time to get any. We asked only for the most meager of supplies (diamond dust to perform restorations) but we could have insisted on more. The players are in a situation of their own making.  

It really sucks, and it's nice to know the DM is as bummed as his players - but my vote is to say the DM is not being mean, just thorough.  

I do know that once the McGuffin artifact is recovered - we'll all be pining for short adventures.  Players and GM alike.


----------



## scourger (Nov 28, 2004)

*Hilarious!*

And well played by you as the DM!  I thought while reading it that the PCs would hear a splash just as the crates start to fill with water when the gnomes jettison their competitors as so much ballast bound for Davy Jones' Locker.  You might even have drowned them!  But, your nice gnomes left them in a safe warehouse.  The players should count their lucky stars the PCs are not dead after a misstep like that, especially with the history of a few gnome deaths on their heads.  I really am surprised the gnomes ddin't try to get a little pay back for that!

Now is their chance to pursue the treacherous gnomes.  They have to team up with another faction that happens to have a ship; or hire a pirate boat; or steal their own vessel.  

Or the artifact is just gone.  Maybe the players are just sick of it.  Maybe they had their chance and blew it.  The gnomes do whatever neutral thing they do with it and their dwarves; the world changes for good or ill; and the game goes on.

I don't think you're a cruel DM.  I've exploited player choices in much worse ways.  I once used a greater doppleganger to kill off an entire party PC by PC until I had a TPK, and I had each eliminated PC help emilimate the next one by playing the doppleganger who was now in the guise of that PC!  It was great!  They embraced it in a truly dark fashion.  Some felt badly later, but there were no such complaints at the table!


----------



## IronWolf (Nov 28, 2004)

Sounds to me like a great plot!  I am sure it was disappointing to have the artifact stolen after such a long time questing for it, but once the artifact was found the group should have been quite careful in who to trust it to (especially if they knew others were looking for it).  The party now knows who to go after to gain it back a second time, so all is not lost.  They will probably be more careful with it when they get it the second time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I'd be upset that after all that work, it's *not over yet*. When do we get to be finished with our quest and do something else? When will the DM finally let us succeed?





When will the DM finally *let us* succeed?  

Admittedly, we might not be seeing the whole scenario here.  However, assuming that the DM is doing a reasonably good job, the DM determines the circumstances and the opposition.  The players determine, within that framework, when they will succeed based upon their actions and choices.  

Sure, the DM has a partial responsibility over pacing.  However, if, and only if, the circumstances and/or opposition are somehow unfair does the DM have an
absolute responsibility.  

In this case, it is quite clear that *the players had won*.  They then turned around and foolishly gave away what they had won when they trusted the gnomish faction.  Sure, if they were really nice to the gnomes, perhaps _*some*_ of them might feel sorry for what happened and try to make amends in another way.  But I, for one, would not have them absolutely betray the gnomish faction, either.  Maybe some form of consolation prize.  You know, a messenger arrives with a package and a note:  "For your service in the cause of blah, blah, blah, and as a token of our goodwill, we send you the gizmo of godzmo.  No hard feelings."

The DM should be careful not to make every NPC a rat-bastard who'll betray the PCs at the first opportunity.  Early modules were rife with these type of characters.  Hence, early players learned to trust no one.  Unless the DM wants a very cynical group of untrusting PCs who view every NPC as potential fodder, the "bad egg" NPCs need to be balanced against _a lot_ of openly honest and/or unexpectedly helpful NPCs.  Otherwise, all NPCs will soon seem to be "the enemy" -- even those that the PCs are supposedly saving or helping or protecting.

But, as has been pointed out by others, the PCs had many opportunities to prevent this outcome.  Foremost:  Have one of the PCs crated *with* the McGuffin.

Players (and PCs) make mistakes.  If they're wise, they'll learn from them.  DMs make mistakes, too.  This just doesn't seem to be one of them.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## fusangite (Nov 28, 2004)

I would really enjoy being a player in your game. If that kind of thing happened to my characters more often, I would probably enjoy D&D more. 

That stated, I am now imagining how this would have gone over with my old gaming group. And already I can see that two of my players would have freaked-out over this. So being in the right or pulling off what, in my view, is some really good story telling that makes the world more vibrant and real, has resulted in some players being upset instead of appreciative.

All I can do is offer you the hollow comfort that you are doing a good job. Some of your players will never "get" why your decision was right. Some are realizing it right now. Some will be cranky until the moment they get their hands on those bastards who stole their stuff. The ones who never get it -- you should reconsider whether you want them in your next campaign. Those who will eventually get it sometime between now and the end of the campaign will be more trusting and appreciative the next time something like this happens.


----------



## tonym (Nov 28, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, as has been pointed out by others, the PCs had many opportunities to prevent this outcome.  Foremost:  Have one of the PCs crated *with* the McGuffin.




I was assuming the DM had arranged things so that no PC could be crated with the McGuffin.  Like the crates were already built and the McGuffin was so big, it needed its own crate.  Or the McGuffin was radioactive or stank real bad or something.  But maybe the PCs didn't think of the idea of somebody traveling in the McGuffin crate (which is what many of you posters think had happened).

So, which is it?

Was the idea of a PC entering a crate with the McGuffin in his lap an idea nobody thought of?  Or was being crated with the McGuffin simply not an option?

Tony M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2004)

Sorry, Tony M, but if I were playing, the minute I was told the McGuffin had to be crated seperately would be the minute I would have said:  "Well, that's not going to happen, so what's Plan B."


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Nov 28, 2004)

You know it's funny, in the game I currently play in, we're the exact opposite.  We trust nobody.  And the DM finds it hilarious that we are so completely paranoid that anyone could be a traitor/doppleganger/fiend-in-disguise. 

I agree with tonym.  There was a similar thread recently about a paladin's crisis of faith, where the DM planned to present the paladin with two choices, and whichever one the paladin selected would be the wrong one, as far as his goddess was concerned.  It's a no-win situation.  As a player, I can't stand that kind of negative railroading.

Now let's look at your game.  My main problem is that, from your initial post, you seem to indicate that any and all of the main factions in the campaign would have betrayed the PCs, had then gotten the chance.  Again, it's a no-win scenario.  No matter what the PCs do, they had no chance of making lasting allies, creating real trust, or earning anyone's respect enough to not be taken advantage of.  This would annoy me in the extreme.  _Especially_ if the DM used this kind of scenario to take away an artifact that had taken a year of real time to get.

So are the players expected to quest after the darned thing for _another_ year, because they made the mistake of thinking they could form a positive relationship with an NPC faction?

I'm with your players.  It's like J.R. waking up and saying the whole last year was a dream.  You've completely negated a year-long campaign goal through questionable means.


----------



## yangnome (Nov 28, 2004)

I see no problems with what you did.  If you ran the adventure anywhere close to how it was written, I am surprised your PCs trusted the gnomes (or anyone else) at all.  I also really like the fact that the PCs got duped by a gnome prank of sorts...

The issue of whether the PCs could or could not be packed with the artifact really doesn't matter.  If the PCs were not allowed to be packed with it, that should have raised red flags. Had a PC been allowed to be packed with it, it would have sucked to be that PC.  Could you imagine being the lone guy clutching onto the artifact on a boat full of gnomes who wanted it?  That would have been a far worse scenario; the group still would have lost the artifact and probably a PC.  Further they'd feel completely obligated to go after the artifact.


----------



## The Amazing Dingo (Nov 28, 2004)

Something that is being hit upon now and that I missed in my initial post is that the DM should not, as Pendragon pointed out, adjust his PC's actions/intents because you want to put the PCs in a bad situation.  I realized you said you hadn't figured out what your NPCs would do, but I thought that meant you had not figured out the details of what they would do (but had their intentions on double-crossing and such figured out).

That said, if it turned out as Pendragon said, that is wrong.  A DM shouldn't adjust such things depending on the PCs actions just to screw them over.  It is unfair and too unhanded even for a DM.  The players should have an honest chance of winning.


----------



## tonym (Nov 28, 2004)

Ketherian said:
			
		

> Speaking as a player in said game, I think the DM is worried about loosing players as well as their trust.




For a DM, it is the easiest thing in the world to foil a party of PCs.  At any moment in any campaign, the DM can yank away victory if he feels like it.  Simply put, there is no way a group of PCs can cover all their bases, so Players need to trust their DM not to spoil their fun.

What usually makes a DM yank away victory from the PCs is when the Players screw-up big-time by making an error in judgment.

In this case it looks like the DM decided that the PCs screwed-up by trusting their allies.  To me, that doesn't seem like the kind of error that justifies yanking away their hard-won victory.  Especially when it sounds like you had the gnomes acting as solid allies until the minute you decided to take away the McGuffin, at which point you changed them into treacherous villains.

Tony M


----------



## arscott (Nov 28, 2004)

Yanked away their hard-earned victory?  Sure, these people spent untold hours striving to get that artifact, but it sounds like they didn't even know what it did.  From a game perspective, artifacts are meant to be lost at the end of an adventure.  And since it didn't fall into the hands of the infernal faction, the PCs essentially won.


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 28, 2004)

Wow. I've never had a thread I posted promote such a large response before. Thanks for all the feedback. Some of you brought up some points of contention that I'll try to elaborate on for those who are curious.



> Truthfully, it was pretty foolish to separate themselves thusly from the artifact and leave the artifact in the hands of others.




The artifact itself is fairly large (about the size of a large chest). They did consider putting a pseudodragon familiar and/or a sprite cohort into the box but decided that there was just wasn't enough spare room in the crate for that.



> Did a Divination spell or such reveal something incorrectly?




No. They didn't cast any divination spells.



> With what you said, the party attacked or was attacked by this faction once before.




They did have a few violent conflicts with this faction. But to their credit, the party did try to make it up to them by helping to pay for some of the gnomes to be raised later. After that, relations were a bit tense but some characters on both sides tried to champion the idea of cooperating.



> I find it hard to believe they never discussed what they were going to do with the artifact.




They did talk about it briefly. The gnomes admitted truthfully that they wanted to bring it back to their venerable dwarf lady messiah (which the party met at the beginning of the campaign, fought briefly and remained dubious about) while the party stated their general intention of carrying it through a portal into a fairy realm to ask a PC's fairy-queen/goddess' opinion about it. They never really resolved these opposing plans but did generally agree that their first concern was getting the artifact safely out of the city. I believe the intention was to try resolving the matter at a later date.



> Sure, getting the artifact is great, but their methods seems really, really short sighted. The party flat out -knows- who betrayed them. I don't know, it just kinda seems like a scapegoat would be more in order or something. *shrug*




"Short sighted" He he. 

My players, please don't read this next bit (how does one black out text?):   

The thing is most of the factions aren't entirely of one mind. The gnomes, for instance, that the party were speaking to were sincere and were even crated themselves alongside the party. It was those members of the faction who were responsible for loading the ship who actually made the decision to leave the party behind because they still don't entirely trust them and were afraid they wouldn't be able to stop the party if it insisted on taking the artifact elsewhere.



> If you, as a DM, knew from the get-go that the gnomes would screw-over the party, that's fine--because then there'd a good chance that one of your Players would've picked up on their trecherous nature via roleplaying. But if for months you roleplayed them as truly trustworthy NPCs who 'liked' the PCs, because you knew them to be trustworthy NPCs who liked the PCs--but then, when the party finally relied on that trust in a big way, you suddenly decide they were secretly treacherous and have always been treacherous, then that is a bit lame. Because there would've been NO WAY for your Players to pick-up-on the gnomes' treacherous nature via roleplaying during all those previous sessions.




I hadn't decided that the gnomes would screw over the party because I had no way of knowing for certain that they'd ever have the need or the opportunity to do so. I simply kept in mind the various gnomes' opinions, attitudes and goals in mind and had them react to developments as the campaign progressed. The gnomes, for instance, proved generally unable to explore the dungeon themselves because they weren't well suited to it (some of them kept getting killed when they tried). They knew the party was down there and seemed to be making better progress than they were capable of, but the party also remained out of touch with them for long stretches. On the occasions they did meet the gnomes, I role-played some of them as friendly and helpful while others openly voiced their distrust of the party while others simply adopted a neutral wait and see attitude.



> I thought while reading it that the PCs would hear a splash just as the crates start to fill with water when the gnomes jettison their competitors as so much ballast bound for Davy Jones' Locker. You might even have drowned them!




Heh. I suggested this possibility to them as a "hey things could be worse" scenario but, as expected, few of them were comforted by this. The gnomes could have likewise left with the party's equipment and loot (much of it was packed into separate crates) but the gnomes felt that would just be cruel.  



> That stated, I am now imagining how this would have gone over with my old gaming group. And already I can see that two of my players would have freaked-out over this.




Well, it's particularly hard when the player who is the most upset happens to be my live-in SO. Let me tell you, it was a cold lonely night in our apartment last night.  

The other player who would have really freaked out was absent from the session. I fear she may just quit when she hears about what happens. She doesn't take party failure very well.  



> All I can do is offer you the hollow comfort that you are doing a good job.




Thanks for your support everyone.


----------



## tonym (Nov 28, 2004)

arscott said:
			
		

> ... From a game perspective, artifacts are meant to be lost at the end of an adventure.  And since it didn't fall into the hands of the infernal faction, the PCs essentially won.




But they lost the McGuffin to a bunch of gnomes.  I repeat, GNOMES!  Whom they trusted.  What a humiliating end to such a long, complex adventure. 

Now, a new adventure has begun: Recovering the McGuffin.  That particular adventure may be a lot of fun.  Hopefully it will be. 

Nonetheless, the first adventure is over and it has ended on a low note--at least for some of the Players.

Tony M


----------



## The Amazing Dingo (Nov 28, 2004)

The only part I disagree in this whole thing is the fact that you hadn't decided what the gnomes would do.  I know it is hard and I find it amazingly difficult to predict which way my PC (I DM a solo game) goes most of the time.  

Here is the deciding question for me and I know it might be impossible to answer or remember, but:

When you asked yourself about the gnomes did you say, "When given this opportunity, what would the gnomes do?"  or did you ask yourself, "How best could I get this artifact away from the PCs?"

Something tells me, from the way you've been speaking, it was the former.  

Otherwise, I think it sounded great.  The gnomes sounded to be of a mixed enough attitude to have raised the PCs suspicions about having them as what seems like more perminent allies then mere dungeon-crawling allies.  They should have dumped that familiar into the crate with it at the very least.  Sorry for the familiar, but it was foolish to leave the artifact like that around gnomes, some of whom apparently didn't like the PCs at all (and for some good reasons).

If anything, I'd talk to your players and let them know that you didn't have it in for them but that they made a mistake.  Since the PCs are that far behind and are of at least a mid to high level (if they are casting Raise), then they might be able to quickly catch up with their ship and get the crate back.  At least, thats what I would try to do as a player right now.

Otherwise, I love the gnomes being split and their relations being somewhat rough at times.  From everything I"m getting from it, I think it went well, though being able to plan the NPCs actions a little bit better might at least give the PCs a chance next time (i.e. - A Sense Motive Roll against some of the more hostile gnomes to see if they might turn on the PCs, etc.).

If anything, I think the PCs are upset that they didn't have a chance earlier in the campaign to read the gnomes a little better.

Yah for the wee folks!


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 28, 2004)

> When you asked yourself about the gnomes did you say, "When given this opportunity, what would the gnomes do?" or did you ask yourself, "How best could I get this artifact away from the PCs?"




I'd have to say the former. I didn't really plan on taking it away from them, asside from planning on having the demon-worshipers attempt it. What I did was figure out what each faction would do with it if they managed to acquire it: (the gnomes would do this, the demon-worshipers would do that, the church would do this and the party will decide on it's own what it wants). I was curious to see which group would end up with it.

The demon-worshipers tried and failed to grab it and were sent scurring away. They haven't had time to regroup and devise a new plan yet. The party had it and could have done any number of things with it (go ahead and try predicting a party's actions ahead of time) but the gnomes encountered the party and saw an oppurtunity they weren't expecting (it was a PC's idea to sneak onboard in crates).

Does that answer your question?


----------



## tonym (Nov 28, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> The artifact itself is fairly large (about the size of a large chest). They did consider putting a pseudodragon familiar and/or a sprite cohort into the box but decided that there was just wasn't enough spare room in the crate for that...




Ah-HAH!  You foiled their pre-cautionary efforts ON PURPOSE!  By making the McGuffin chest too small for their sprite!  Or, rather, the gnomes did.  (But same thing.)

Hmm.  Actually, that would've tipped me off that something sinister was afoot.  Between that, and the behavior of the various gnomes throughout the adventure (which you explained above), I'm a little surprised the PCs let themselves get crated-up.  Very, very SURPRISED, actually...

No offense, but did you railroad them into the crates?  You know, like some of the Players did not want their PC inside the crates and suggested other alternatives, but you shot down every idea they had until only the crate-idea was left?

I've had DMs do this plenty of times, is why I ask.  As a Player, you can tell when the DM wants something to happen.  You can try to avoid it, but if the DM seriously wants it to happen, he'll keep talking and talking until you give-up and do what he so clearly wants you to do. 

Tony M


----------



## The Amazing Dingo (Nov 28, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> I'd have to say the former. I didn't really plan on taking it away from them, asside from planning on having the demon-worshipers attempt it. What I did was figure out what each faction would do with it if they managed to acquire it: (the gnomes would do this, the demon-worshipers would do that, the church would do this and the party will decide on it's own what it wants). I was curious to see which group would end up with it.
> 
> The demon-worshipers tried and failed to grab it and were sent scurring away. They haven't had time to regroup and devise a new plan yet. The party had it and could have done any number of things with it (go ahead and try predicting a party's actions ahead of time) but the gnomes encountered the party and saw an oppurtunity they weren't expecting (it was a PC's idea to sneak onboard in crates).
> 
> Does that answer your question?




That answers it just and fine was what I assumed you did, though a little reassurance is nice.


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 28, 2004)

I never saw a mention of a Sense Motive vs Bluff check for any of the interactions.

This is a non-magical check that can be done at pretty much any time as long as the 2 sides are talking to each other.  All skills involved can be used untrained also.

Now if there was no opportunity for the PCs to make such a check (or no reason because you hadn't decided what the gnomes we going to do) then you were a baad DM. The PCs would have had no way to figure out they were being outfoxed or played other than the metagame players' knowledge.

IMO a sense motive check should have been called for by the DM to see if the PCs thought that the gnomes were being helpful and sincere in the desire to be of aid.  While the player's make the Sense Motive roll the DM makes the Bluff roll (or just randomly rolls some dice to keep the player's on edge if the DM knows that the gnomes are indeed being honest).  The result of the check would be how comfortable the PCs feel about the situation.

This seems real reasonable since it was stated there was some discussion and disagreement between the players/PCs on what to do.  A roll of 1 is not an automatic failure but can give an indication of how badly the PC is off in his interpretation of the situation.


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 28, 2004)

> No offense, but did you railroad them into the crates? You know, like some of the Players did not want their PC inside the crates and suggested other alternatives, but you shot down every idea they had until only the crate-idea was left?




Well, to the best of my recollection, it went something like this (I'm paraphrasing):

PC1: We could have the gnomes carry us aboard in crates.
PC2: Alright but you and me should be locked in the same crate along with it. (two medium sized characters with the chest sized artifact).
NPC: Whoa, there is a maximum size of crate that can be loaded onto the ship.
PC2: Well how big?
NPC gnome: Not much bigger than this (mimes a cube roughly 3-4 ft big)
PC1: Are the crates ready made? Is there any flexibility on their size?
DM: They have some crates ready made but they also have a supply of boards & nails and are able to build them to fit.
PC2: I know, we can have your (PC1) pseudodragon and the sprite cohort (PC3) inside the crate with the artifact.
PC1: No it won't fit with them.
PC2: Why? they're Tiny.
PC1: Yeah but they still take up room in the crate. There won't be much room in the crate asside from the artifact.
PC2: No they're Tiny. That's nothing.
PC1: No it'll be too tight for them. There's no room.
PC3: Sprite, in what crate do you want to go?
NPC sprite: With you of course! (he's madly in love with PC3).
PC1: Besides, I'll need to have my pseudodragon with me in my crate because [convoluted story-specific reason].
NPC: Well, you all could be in these crates for as long as a day. They'll be cramped. The big folk (the medium sized PCs) should only be loaded one to a crate. You'll need room to move a bit and we'll load you up with some waterskins, bread and cheese and a chamber pot. Though the others (the small sized PCs) can fit in the same crate if they want.
PC2 and PC4 (the small sized PCs) decline this offer.
NPC: You'll have to be perfectly quiet the whole time.
PC3: How long will we be in there?
NPC: We'll load you in the crates tonight after dark. You'll then be carried to the docks during the night, probably wait there for a bit until you're loaded into the cargo hold and then you'll have to stay put until well after we've left port, which should be sometime tomorow morning. It could be as long as 24 hours.
PC3: But how will we get out?
NPC: We'll break you out when it's safe.
PC3 remains dubious about this plan.
PC1 then gives the gnome a series of instructions on how his crate must be kept close to the artifact crate at all times and how they should be carried together and loaded onto the ship simultaneously, etc.

If you want a player's perspective on how it unfolded, read Ketharian's post above.


----------



## Malic (Nov 28, 2004)

FWIW, to me (as a player) this sounds reasonable, realistic and a great story. Sure it'll hurt. But it does sound like the players had plenty of opportunity to realise that the gnome/dwarf faction had different goals to themselves and were split about how to deal with the party, with some individuals being somewhat hostile. It doesn't sound like they had no chance to be suspicious or that you arbitrarily changed the intentions of the gnomes at all. You didn't even take their gear, which sounds merciful to me.

For this level it shouldn't be too hard to find the gnomes and the artifact. Or maybe they can ask their fairy goddess what to do about it (if they get it back) first. Heck, it could even be that these are the best hands for it to be in.


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 28, 2004)

If you pulled this on our group, we would salute you.  I'm serious, we wouldn't enjoy losing the item, and some of us would be mad, but a month later we would be all laughs.

The gnomes had their own agenda, and they were willing to fight the party for the item earlier, something that they weren't able to do with success.  Apparently the item couldn't do what it does for both the gnomes and the party's interests so I don't see how the party could not see the conflict coming.


----------



## Acid_crash (Nov 28, 2004)

I think that is a great way to handle the situation, especially since it was the players themselves that suggested the idea of putting themselves in a crate and even argued against the suggestion of putting the sprite or pseudodragon in with the artifact.  

Of course the gnomes, the ones that don't trust the PCs and want the artifact for themselves would take advantage of the gift the PCs presented to them.  I mean, if the gnomes wouldn't have done that, I would (as a player) think that the DM was just letting us keep the artifact just because we are the Player Characters and therefore we should keep it.

I salute you.


----------



## tonym (Nov 28, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Well, to the best of my recollection, it went something like this...




I was assuming, initially, that the PCs had no real choice--only a choice between entering crates or failure.  But it seems that the PCs brought the McGuffin-theft upon themselves by choosing to crawl into the crates.  So, assuming there truly was another way to move the McGuffin besides the crates (was there, Ambrus?), then I'm changing my vote to say that you are not a Cruel DM.  

Semi-cruel, maybe. 

Still, it's a bummer that the consequences of the Players' mistake had to be so dire.  I hope you can twist the whole event into a positive thing, and keep that one Player from departing.  

PS: Ketharian, are you PC1, the Player who proposed and championed the Crate Idea?  Or PC2, who didn't care for the idea of the McGuffin being in the crate by itself?  Or PC3, who remained dubious throughout?  Or PC4, who was pretty quiet during the whole thing.  (I'm guessing PC4 was the missing Player's character.)  Just curious.

Tony M


----------



## Vecna (Nov 28, 2004)

You are mean only if your campaign end there.
Otherwise it's just the beginning of "part 2: artifact recovering": more fun for your players!


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Nov 28, 2004)

My big concern over the situation would be the possible change to the player's (not the party's) attitudes towards NPCs.

It was a loooooong quest, obviously, and it's very possible that, in taking the artifact away through betrayal, you've created a group of players who will end up paranoid in the extreme. 

The sort of group that, regardless of the characters and regardless of the NPCs, won't ever trust *anybody*, and will go to extremes of paranoia that are just ridiculous. 

I've seen groups like this, and it just isn't pretty from a roleplaying standpoint. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 28, 2004)

Overall, I think it was lame (having the g/d faction steal the artifact as they did) and I'd be pretty pissed as a player.  If you can get the group to play again, contrive some way for them to follow the ship, and have them come on upon it shortly (as in immediately in real time) w/ the crew having killed one-another infighting over exactly what to do w/ the artifact and bring the damn quest to an end.

Upon further reflection, I'd say you have a pretty serious game-dynamic issue here.  You've apparently seriously pissed off a couple of your players and no matter how you 'fix' it, there will probably be some hard feelings (and deservedly so in my opinion) - I don't really know what to tell you...  You probably need to find out if the players are still interested in continuing the game.  If so, resolve this plot thread fast and move on to something else.


----------



## NPC (Nov 28, 2004)

I may have missed this in the thread, but did the DM give ample Bluff/Sense Motive opposed skill checks during the conversation with the gnomes?

If the DM gave enough chances for the PCs to discover the true motives of the gnomes, then I think it's okay the way the story unfolded.

If, however, the DM did not use the Bluff/Sense Motive mechanic during the conversations, then I feel the outcome is a bit unfair, especially considering the real time length of the campaign.  It kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the PCs, IMO.  And they are the stars here.

I mean, what's so bad if the PCs succeed?  Why can't they enjoy their moment in the sun?


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 28, 2004)

> So, assuming there truly was another way to move the McGuffin besides the crates (was there, Ambrus?),




Well, the McGuffin is surrounded by an anti-magic field with a radius of 20 ft. (which is why they couldn't simply dimension door, teleport or plane shift away with it). At one point one of the players came up with the idea that they could summon the paladin's flying mount and suspend the artifact 20+ ft. below the mount (or between two flying characters) and simply fly out of the city under cover of darkness. They were nervous about that idea because they feared the city guard would spot them. They kicked it around for a bit and then let it drop when they heard about the ship. I personally thought the idea had some merit.

I also laid out the floorplan for the ship and briefly detailed the crew, their alliances (some were of the gnomish faction, others were not) and how'd they'd react in a fight if the party tried to take the ship by force. It would have been a tough fight (there were a handful of city guards stationed nearby) but they'd would have had the element of surprise and the ship was in an isolated dock so a well executed plan might have succeeded. The paladin character (Ketharian) would probably have disliked this option though unless there was no other choice.

I considered the possibility that they might have tried to fast talk their way onto the ship but it would have been tough because it's a freighter; the crew wasn't expecting pasengers or any new crew members to show up. There was also a city official there who was overseeing the loading of cargo. Still creative PCs often can come up with surprisingly good stories when pressed.

Finally, there is actually a fairy portal within the city's park which they could make use of to escape, but it only opens seasonally. They would have had to lay low for nearly a month until the summer solstice for it to be viable route out.



> I hope you can twist the whole event into a positive thing, and keep that one Player from departing.




Yeah, me too.  



> PS: Ketharian, are you PC1




Ketharian is PC5. I'm sorry I just don't recall her having much to say in this particular debate. She's was generally upbeat and was trying to believe the gnomes had good intentions.



> (I'm guessing PC4 was the missing Player's character.)




Your guess is correct.


----------



## Noelani (Nov 28, 2004)

*PC3 speaks.*

I'm one of the other players in this game, mentioned previously as PC3 and as "the live-in SO". (FIANCE, dammit. SO indeed!!)

What Ambrus has neglected to mention is that we're geased to follow this quest through. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. We HAVE to get the artifact back or we'll die a slow ugly death. Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking.

I -did- do a sense motive check when one of the gnomes told us his plan. He was really clear what he was going to be doing, about the crates and getting us onto the ship, etc. I rolled a very high check. Apparently he still seemed sincere. I still didn't trust them. I've been the voice of dissention against the gnomes from the beginning. (This is all sort of ironic, given that I play a priestess of joy, and I'm the one who's the most pissed off).

Further, amongst the party we have a ridiculous amount of charisma. The paladin (Ketherian, or PC5) has a Cha 20, my cleric has 19 and the sorcerer (PC2) has 18. We made our intentions very clear to the gnomes as well. We spoke to them kindly and reasonably. We were very diplomatic. (I should ALSO mention here that I have a diplomacy check of 30.) If we can't win people over to our side, no one can. And we really were trying. Or at least I felt I was. Despite distrusting the gnomes. So much for that.

ALSO not mentioned, and I think this is the kicker, is that one of the PCs (PC1?) is himself a gnome. I honestly think in and out of game, that he was conspiring against the party the whole time. He's always seemed to have his own agenda, despite what the rest of the party wants, says or does. He's often off on his own. He was suspected of conspiring with the gnomes previously as well.  So the betrayal of the gnomes thus becomes the betrayal of PC1. I'm not the only one who feels this way. (Absent PC4 will agree, for one).

This all boils down to: All the NPCS are out to get us, possibly without exception. Other PCs are out to get us, so the party itself is doomed to in-fighting from here on out. We can't ever win, no matter what we do, how long we play, or how hard we try. Every little victory we gain seems to be ripped away from us within a session or so.

I'm very tired of losing.

This isn't a matter of us PCs being incompetent. Its a matter of the world being completely stacked against us.

I think we had enough to do without being on a quest YET AGAIN to find the stupid thing. I wish I could wash my hands of the quest, honestly, but then my character would die. Because of the aforementioned geas.

I think my anger remains justified.


----------



## Eric of Ptolus (Nov 29, 2004)

*Tying it all together*

Here's one idea how you can tie off the campaign thread.

It's a race to the dwarven homelands, first by ship. The gnomes have a serious head start. Have a series of roll-offs (seamanship abilities?) once the PCs acquire transport, in an attempt to let them cut the gnomes lead. After that, a footrace to the dwarf kingdom.

The gnomes/dwarves are trying to get the item to the Queen. Maybe she needs it to restore power to failing magical protective wards about the kingdom. Maybe she is dying, last in line, and wishes to use it to resurrect a dwarven noble who died too young (cursed, poisoned, or something). 

Anyway, if the group catches the gnomes before the deed, they beg the party to let them use it before returning it to the group. Please ? Or have them show up as the enchantment is already underway. Great effect ! Would they deny the dwarves their next king ? "Just a few more minutes...".

Hope this inspires you in some way to rectify the dissention (sp?) in the ranks. FWIW, I think the manner in which you conducted the crate episode was well within the bounds of "what's fair".


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Noelani said:
			
		

> I think we had enough to do without being on a quest YET AGAIN to find the stupid thing. I wish I could wash my hands of the quest, honestly, but then my character would die. Because of the aforementioned geas.
> 
> I think my anger remains justified.



I agree.  Were it me, I'd show up w/ a new character and inform the DM that the old one gave up, succumbed to the disease and is now dead.


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus, what exactly did you think would be your player's reaction to your decision in this?  

"Oh yay!  Great, we've only been at this a year so far, let's drag this out some more!"?  I can't imagine that one even occured to you as a best-case.

Seriously, you all have obviously been playing for a while, could you really not anticipate the unhappiness of your players?


----------



## swrushing (Nov 29, 2004)

A question for the GM in question...

Were you unaware of the, somewhat obvious, dissatisfaction within your players about the long and, seemingly, mandated quest, about their perception of not being "allowed" to win for any length of time, and so forth?

If so, if you were aware of all this, it seems the "next reversal of fortune" was unwise, as it drove the already tense situation over the brink.

if not, if this all came as news to you, you have a much bigger problem than a single session's ending.

My general rule is that when players leave pissed or upset or angry AT ME, i have done the wrong thing as a GM. Sure, on occasion they leave mad at my NPCs. On occasion they even leave ticked off at themselves. those are all a part of roleplaying in a challenging but enjoyable and "fair" environment.

But, if they leave seeing ME as the bad guy, ME as the force to be overcome, ME as the opposition stripping them of victory... then I have erred, its my bad, regardless of what anyone i describe it to over the internet says.

The "i did not know before hand what they would do" is a biggie to me. 

Scripting a reversal-of-fortune on this big a scale needs to be a deliberate, seriously thought out and intentional element of the story, not a sudden "hey wont this be fun." From your fiance's description, this result not only whammies the interrelation with NPCs they had some good reason to suspect they could trust (good skills at sensing deception and making alliances and no hints of deception gained even while suspicious) but also resulted, not surprisingly, in direct dissension within the party characters, due to one of them being "in league" with the gnomes.

I would say that this type of reversal, especially if not the first, particularly given the player's feelings about the plotlines, deserved more than an on-the-fly decision about it and needed instead to be a calculated part of the overall story, one with potential clues given as to the "what was about to happen" so that once it occurred, the players did not come away with a sense of "we wuz robbed" BY THE GM, but rather BY THE NPCs.

Simple Rule: if it loses you players you wanted to keep, if it pisses off players you want happy, or if it puts them in opposition with you as opposed to your characters, it was the wrong move, no matter how well you can justify it to the millions of readers on the net. The number of people you need to convince its justified and right all fit in your living room (or basement or whereever you play) and the rest of us do not matter one whit.

good luck and I hope it works out for you and yours.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 29, 2004)

I think the DM could have found something else to hook for the next plot and let that macguffin thing end. A sense of accomplishment and the rewards that go with it are all part of the game. 

And that all I have to say about that.


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> A question for the GM in question...



swrushing, please save this to a notepad somewhere - this is one of the best forumlated and most elloquent dissertations on DMing that I've ever read.  My hat is off to you.  Seriously.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

*Pretty Big Points Left Out*



			
				Noelani said:
			
		

> What Ambrus has neglected to mention is that we're geased to follow this quest through. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. We HAVE to get the artifact back or we'll die a slow ugly death. Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking.
> 
> I -did- do a sense motive check when one of the gnomes told us his plan. He was really clear what he was going to be doing, about the crates and getting us onto the ship, etc. I rolled a very high check. Apparently he still seemed sincere. I still didn't trust them. I've been the voice of dissention against the gnomes from the beginning. (This is all sort of ironic, given that I play a priestess of joy, and I'm the one who's the most pissed off).
> 
> Further, amongst the party we have a ridiculous amount of charisma. The paladin (Ketherian, or PC5) has a Cha 20, my cleric has 19 and the sorcerer (PC2) has 18. We made our intentions very clear to the gnomes as well. We spoke to them kindly and reasonably. We were very diplomatic. (I should ALSO mention here that I have a diplomacy check of 30.) If we can't win people over to our side, no one can. And we really were trying. Or at least I felt I was. Despite distrusting the gnomes. So much for that.





Well, then, these are some very important points that we were not apprised of in the initial description of the events in question.

The Geas, of course, is a pretty significant problem for the group.  I am not certain how the Geas occurred, though, so I won't address it.  It might have been fair; it might have been railroading.  Geas is a tough tool for a DM to use without ticking players off.

Opposed checks in Sense Motive/Bluff do mean that a very high Sense Motive check can be overcome by an even better Bluff check.  But, clearly you had reason to believe that (1) you could win the gnomes over, and (2) that you could get some idea of what the gnomes were planning.  After all, you have one of those rare groups smart enough to pump up Charisma and buy ranks in the social interaction skills.  

Although it is metagaming, it also seems likely that you might have concluded that the DM put the gnomes there as a means to get you onto the next part of the quest (i.e., they provided passage out of the city), especially considering the obstacles that you had to overcome.




> This all boils down to: All the NPCS are out to get us, possibly without exception. Other PCs are out to get us, so the party itself is doomed to in-fighting from here on out. We can't ever win, no matter what we do, how long we play, or how hard we try. Every little victory we gain seems to be ripped away from us within a session or so.





Personally, I don't think any player should ever come to the conclusion that all NPCs are out to get the PCs.  If that's the conclusion you've drawn, then either your DM has created a world in which only fools play the roles of heroes, or he hasn't really thought this through.

As I said earlier, this was a problem in early modules, where the NPCs would always be ready to backstab the PCs.  It was supposed to be a surprise.  However, when it happens _over and over_, the element of surprise is lost.  It's like the adventure where players are supposed to believe that a bunny on a stump isn't really a monster, despite the fact that normal animals *never, ever* appeared in adventures....unless they were there to attack PCs.

In my campaigns, I try to go with a "Most people are worthy of your trust and protection, but some are obviously not, and some are tricksy" approach.  The PCs know that farmers will regularly grant them shelter in return for news.  In the wilds, travellers' caches along the roads store needed supplies (replenish what you take, leave what you can spare is the general rule).  People are generally honest, and dishonesty is not something you want to get a reputation for.


RC


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

Noelani said:
			
		

> I think my anger remains justified.




I absolutely agree, you anger does remain truly justified... within the context of the game.  If that was one of my characters, I'd be kicking me some gnome arse.

I'm really not trying to shout you down here, but I agree completely with the way Ambrus played it.  I'm not trying to sound insulting, but letting the gnomes make off with the thing really was a lapse in judgement.  The fact is, even the highest statted and best paid NFL quarterbacks throw a ball that gets intercepted every now and then.  Should you be pissed off?  Yep.  Should it wreck the game?  Nope.

It is the DM's job to provide a challenge to the players in order to make the game fun.  If the players fall short of the challenge, it hurts.  However, if the challenge is real, the stakes high, and the victory finally in hand, the thrill is enourmous.

It sounds to me like Ambrus is trying to make the game a success, so I would have faith that if you persevere, you will attain your goals.  And the victory will be sweeter if the challenge is real, so I really hope that he does not succumb to the clamor and turn over the Mcguffin without your party having to earn it back.  I'm sure that's what you really want too.

Good luck!


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 29, 2004)

Hrm...it sounds like the gnomes who the party talked with were cool, but were overruled by their superiors and were forced to betray them.

Well, were I in the party, my initial reaction would be to hunt down and slaughter every single gnome in that faction.  And, in fact, had they been tossed overboard, I'd've done just that.  Instead, I'd allow myself to be talked into hunting down the artifact and smacking said gnomes within inches of their lives.

Oh, and I think that the gnomes were clearly lying about their ability to load cargo of only a certain size.  Surely they've had to carry things larger than a chest?

Brad


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

At this point, wouldn't it perhaps be better if the gnomes sent the means to break the Geas?


RC


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> At this point, wouldn't it perhaps be better if the gnomes sent the means to break the Geas?
> 
> 
> RC



At this point, the best thing would be for the DM to do a mea culpa and flat reverse the events from the previous game IMO.  It would not be particularly satisfactory, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing that particular game any more w/o some major grovelling from the DM and then a major change of the situation.


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

tec-9-7 said:
			
		

> At this point, the best thing would be for the DM to do a mea culpa and flat reverse the events from the previous game IMO.  It would not be particularly satisfactory, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing that particular game any more w/o some major grovelling from the DM and then a major change of the situation.




Did you save the game?


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Kilmore said:
			
		

> Did you save the game?



If I forgot to, I'd break the disk and toss it into the garbage.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Whoa.  When a Player that the DM respects enough to plan a marriage with says she is "very tired of losing" in his campaign, and refers to the McGuffin as a "stupid thing" and says the world is stacked against the PCs, I'm inclined to think that the DM might be less interesting in creating a fun experience for his Players, and more interested in frustrating their efforts.

The big give-away is the gaes.  It's the gaming-equivalent of the DM putting puppet strings on the PCs. 

Tony M


----------



## Impeesa (Nov 29, 2004)

What, none of the party can cast (or hire someone to cast) a Greater Teleport to "30' away from the artifact"? 

--Impeesa--


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Impeesa said:
			
		

> What, none of the party can cast (or hire someone to cast) a Greater Teleport to "30' away from the artifact"?
> 
> --Impeesa--



After reading Noelani's post, what possible reason would the players have to think that this would succeed?


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

I'm having rather a different reaction to the "new information" than others are. I don't understand why the geas thing is relevant here. How does the motivation behind their quest for the artifact bear on whether the gnomes' behaviour was reasonable? I'm sorry but I just don't follow. Indeed, this falls into the same category as a bunch of other irrelevant data such as:
(a) the fact that some people in the party have high charisma scores
(b) the fact that one of the PCs is a gnome

How do these three things have any bearing on what how the situation with the gnomes worked out? What -- do gnomes only steal from non-gnomes? Are charismatic individuals impervious to robbery even when locked in crates leaving a priceless artifact unguarded? Do devious people take pity on individuals because they are subject to a geas, quest or curse?

*No!* Are you people on glue? Nothing's changed here!

Well, almost nothing. I am curious as to why the Sense Motive check turned up nothing. I can think there are reasons it might have but I don't want to prejudge. So, if you can wade through all this nonsense about the geas, Ambrus, let me know.

And congratulations on your engagement!


----------



## swrushing (Nov 29, 2004)

tec-9-7 said:
			
		

> swrushing, please save this to a notepad somewhere - this is one of the best forumlated and most elloquent dissertations on DMing that I've ever read.  My hat is off to you.  Seriously.




aw shucks... thanks.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm having rather a different reaction to the "new information" than others are. I don't understand why the geas thing is relevant here.



Because the PCs can't quit.  If the geas wheren't there, now that the artifact's been stolen, the PC's could say "oh, well, sucks that those gnomes backstabbed us.  Let's go check out the Tomb of Ancient Loot and see if there's any left."

But because of the geas, the PCs can't do that.  They have to set out to look for the artifact _again_.  This completely invalidates the campaign for the last year+ of real time.  They didn't have the artifact then, and now they don't have the artifact again, and they _must_ find it again.  Or die.

And then after possibly another year of real time tracking the thing down again, they have to hope that another group of NPCs doesn't miraculously have 30+ ranks in Bluff (which I'm willing to wager none of the gnomes actually did,) to fool the highly-diplomatic and motive-sensing party into trusting them.







> How does the motivation behind their quest for the artifact bear on whether the gnomes' behaviour was reasonable?



There are multiple issues here.  In-game justification, In-game mechanical fairness, and out-of-game campaign satisfaction.  The gnome's actions might have been fair, but were they mechanically fair?  (Where bluff checks rolled vs. sense motive, did the gnomes have reasonable scores not meant to screw the PCs, etc. etc.)  Possibly not.  And as for out-of-game satisfaction, clearly there is a problem here.  The fact that the geas prevents the players from dumping the quest rather than repeating a year of real-time progress is one of the problems.







> I'm sorry but I just don't follow. Indeed, this falls into the same category as a bunch of other irrelevant data such as:
> (a) the fact that some people in the party have high charisma scores



With a Diplomacy of +30, Neutral NPCs you meet _automatically_ become Friendly.  A PC with that kind of score should be able to be reasonably sure that most NPCs he encounters are going to like him, and want to do well by him, unless they're already Hostile.  And even if they're Hostile, there's a darned good chance they'll be merely Neutral instead.







> (b) the fact that one of the PCs is a gnome



This relates to the player frustration, not whether the gnomes acted reasonably.  Again, there are several issues here.







> Are you people on glue? Nothing's changed here!



A lot has changed, and you'd have to be on glue not to see that.  Before, we had no understanding of why the players would be willing to quit the campaign, when the scenario seemed so standard.  Now we know the whole story.  The new information makes things much clearer.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Nov 29, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Because the PCs can't quit.  If the geas wheren't there, now that the artifact's been stolen, the PC's could say "oh, well, sucks that those gnomes backstabbed us.  Let's go check out the Tomb of Ancient Loot and see if there's any left."
> 
> But because of the geas, the PCs can't do that.  They have to set out to look for the artifact _again_.  This completely invalidates the campaign for the last year+ of real time.  They didn't have the artifact then, and now they don't have the artifact again, and they _must_ find it again.  Or die.




I think this is the real key. Regardless of whether or not it's the players at fault, I think they're feeling a bit ground down by all this. 

It sounds to me like tedium has set in, and that the players are just ready for this whole thing to be _done. _ 

35 sessions can be a loooong time, particularly when you feel completely trapped by a seemingly never-ending quest. As Noeloni said: "Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking."

So, at this point, it's likely the players are feeling that the last 35+ sessions served no real purpose, and that the finish line isn't any closer than it was before. 

It's one thing to play out the Lord of the Rings, it's quite another to feel that it's _you_, not Frodo, carrying the one ring around your neck. 


At this point, my suggestion is to, rather than hit the magic reset button, set it up so that the characters can recover the artifact quickly, and then perhaps contrive to force the gnomes to help them finish their quest faster. 

Get the quest done, or at least let the tedium of finding it end, and get the party running towards the payoff. A good payoff will probably help the players feel more invigorated, and replace frustration with fun. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm having rather a different reaction to the "new information" than others are. I don't understand why the geas thing is relevant here.





The level of responsibility the PCs have for their actions is directly related to the level of leeway that they have in those actions.  Who cast the Geas?  Why didn't the Geas caster forsee this problem, and provide some guidance?

My guess is, barring further information, that the PCs were on a "Mission...from God" as the Blues Brothers put it.  If that were the case, then doesn't it seem reasonable that they expect a little divine providence?  Wouldn't the gnomes seem like divine providence under the circumstances?

The _gnomes_ have the right to stack the deck against the PCs.  The DM should not.  In 25 years of DMing, I have never relied on Geas or Quest spells to force the PCs to undergo certain actions.  Personal preferences, I know, but I have always thought that this stacks the deck.




> (a) the fact that some people in the party have high charisma scores
> (b) the fact that one of the PCs is a gnome





Unless the world is one in which racial sympathies are strong, I agree with your point (b).  However, your point (a) does not take into account the fact that, simply put, it is harder to screw over charismatic people than it is to screw over people you find loathsome.  In D&D, things like Charisma and the Diplomacy skill are used to sway attitudes.  If the DM doesn't allow Charisma to do this, the PCs might as well all go put that high stat somewhere else.

Charismatic individuals are obviously not impervious to robbery, but do you honestly believe that if a group of people decided to steal some jewels, and then they discovered that stealing those jewels would bring harm to a beautiful and charming individual, not one of the group would consider tipping the beauty off, even if only in hopes of a more personal reward?

Are you actually suggesting that how you are perceived has no bearing on how you are treated?

Are you suggesting that how you treat others doesn't affect how they treat you?  In such a world, being good really does equate with being stupid.

Do devious people take pity on individuals because they are subject to a geas, quest or curse?  If devious equates to evil, then not necessarily.  But in my campaign at least, even evil people can feel some degree of empathy.

What has changed here is specifically:

(1)  We now know that the PCs deliberately went out of their way over a period of time to change the gnomes' opinion of them, and were given reason to believe that they had succeeded, and

(2)  As even you note, the Sense Motive check(s) turned up nothing.

Over an extended period, with a PC who has actually taken enough ranks in Sense Motive to indicate some sense of wisdom and caution, there should have been _something_.

There is also the general sense from the Noelani that this is not an isolated incident within the campaign.  My first response included the caveat that the players shouldn't be betrayed so often by NPCs that they conclude that "They are all against us", so, in a sense, my _opinion_ has not changed.  What has changed is my understanding of the circumstances, and therefore, the meaning of "this" in the question "Is this unreasonable?"

Now, perhaps there is more information than we are now being told, which would indicate that not only is the outcome reasonable (which it may well be, especially if the gnomes are also Geased), but -- equally importantly -- that the information the players were given about the situation was reasonable. 


RC


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Nov 29, 2004)

I think there are a couple of issues at work here:

First, the artifact the players have invested so much time in getting.  The way it was originally described, they sounded like they were after it just for the heck of it.  At which point, it making a stop-off in gnomeland really doesn't matter, and the argument that 'a relic in the hands of a neutral party is superior to it being in the hands of an evil cult' makes sense.

Second, the issue of the geas.  Whether fairly given or 'railroading', they are geased.  They MUST find this item, or die.  That's a lot of pressure.  A hero generally will accept that they must die, for the greater good, holding off the hordes... but to know now you stand a good chance of dying because you were put in a box?  

My first instinct is to say that the idea of the grand chase makes sense.  You see it in cinema alot; the ships chasing each other over stylized maps, ala Indiana Jones.  But, the point that sticks in my head right now is...  Who are the people that quested the party?  Was it the gods themselves?  I can't imagine the paladin's god not aiding the party, somehow; I mean, they were acting for the Heavens afterall.  Or the priestess of joy?...

I've shot myself in the foot many times in games I've run before doing such things.  Alot of damage has been done in the campaign to both the players AND characters' willingness to trust anyone.  Now, when they need help the most, they'll never ask for it; why invite new enemies in?

I think what should have been done would have been for these champions on both sides discuss a plan, while crating things... the whole thing of, 'We need this or our queen dies/We need this or WE die...'... a lot of roleplaying possibilities there.  And I can't believe that the NPCs who were friendly with the party would willingly let this happen.  

But, I rant, therefore I am.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

tec-9-7 said:
			
		

> At this point, the best thing would be for the DM to do a mea culpa and flat reverse the events from the previous game IMO.  It would not be particularly satisfactory, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing that particular game any more w/o some major grovelling from the DM and then a major change of the situation.





As both a player and a DM, I would prefer that the gnomes sent the means to break the Geas.  It's believable if we assume that the gnomes both require the McGuffin, but that they feel guilty for what they have done.  Also, I personally find Geas to be a particularly distasteful form of railroading, unless it relates directly to some action the PCs in question performed.  I prefer my players to have choices, and I sure as heck prefer to have choices as a player.

That said, I don't care for flat reversal of events, either.  I would rather move forward.  As a player, I'd rather know that what happens was going to stand upfront, with no re-dos, than to wonder if those choices mattered.


RC


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That said, I don't care for flat reversal of events, either.  I would rather move forward.  As a player, I'd rather know that what happens was going to stand upfront, with no re-dos, than to wonder if those choices mattered.
> 
> 
> RC



I got the impression that at least a couple of players are no longer interested in moving forward - ideally game stuff should stand, but if the DM is willing to man-up and admit that he royally screwed the pooch here, as a player I'd settle for a dream-sequence - but that's just me.  As far as I can tell, this campaign is now in salvage mode at this point.  

Here is the best I can come up with.  PCs are sitting around w/ their collective heads in their hands when the gnomes sail back to port.  Turns out the gnomes the PCs were interacting with DID intend to work with them from the start, but their superiors ordered a double-cross.  The gnomes finally subdued their own superiors and returned for the PCs to do the right thing. At that point, the whole campaign should be rapidly put to bed, as it sounds as if the players are pretty well done with it.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Good idea, tec-9-7.

I bet if the DM did that, and also said something to the Players like, "Don't despair, you are near the end.  Three more sessions, tops!  One to get the artifact, one to repair it, and one to give it the the gods," then all the Players would be very interested and happy.

There is something about seeing a finish line after a long, difficult trek that makes one merry.


Tony M


----------



## tec-9-7 (Nov 29, 2004)

Thanks Tony.


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

It does sound like there is a bit of a case of frustration trauma setting in.  Perhaps a quick game of Paranoia or Toon next weekend?


----------



## coyote6 (Nov 29, 2004)

Maybe y'all should just dump the campaign, and let someone else GM.


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Maybe y'all should just dump the campaign, and let someone else GM.




After getting US involved?!?  That's like school on Sunday... no class at all.   

Seriously, if they didn't care about keeping the campaign going, I doubt we would have ever heard about it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 29, 2004)

Noelani said:
			
		

> What Ambrus has neglected to mention is that we're geased to follow this quest through. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. We HAVE to get the artifact back or we'll die a slow ugly death. Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking.



The geas only works for one day per level of the caster.

So if you've been playing the quest for a year of time, the geas has (most likely) expired. Unless it was cast by someone epic. In which case, why didn't they just go do it?

Live free and celebrate!


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The geas only works for one day per level of the caster.
> 
> So if you've been playing the quest for a year of time, the geas has (most likely) expired. Unless it was cast by someone epic. In which case, why didn't they just go do it?
> 
> Live free and celebrate!




Or it means that the party's dead.


----------



## Dagger75 (Nov 29, 2004)

I don't know how the geas was worded, If was to recover the artifact, they did that. Quest done.

  Your party could always die and get risen from the dead, that always breaks a geas spell.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The geas only works for one day per level of the caster...




In the PHB v3.5, page 235, it says that "the geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."  This is in the text, which I'm given to understand would override the info written under duration.  

Tony M


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2004)

It doesn't sound too bad to me.

I think you should do something with the gnomes who remained with the PCs - the PC's friends and allies who were overruled by their superiors.  If you really want to reverse the last session, you could have them stage a mutiny to retake the artifact.

After all, 30 Diplomacy is pretty good.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 29, 2004)

tonym said:
			
		

> In the PHB v3.5, page 235, it says that "the geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."  This is in the text, which I'm given to understand would override the info written under duration.
> 
> Tony M




Yeah, you'd be right. The day/level thing only comes about if the quest is open ended.

Mind you, it'd be interesting to know what the exact wording of the geas/quest actually IS...


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The geas only works for one day per level of the caster.
> 
> So if you've been playing the quest for a year of time, the geas has (most likely) expired. Unless it was cast by someone epic. In which case, why didn't they just go do it?
> 
> Live free and celebrate!




(looks up in PHB)
Um, that's Lesser Geas with the duration.  Geas itself doesn't have a duration in either edition.  Sorry.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Because the PCs can't quit. If the geas wheren't there, now that the artifact's been stolen, the PC's could say "oh, well, sucks that those gnomes backstabbed us. Let's go check out the Tomb of Ancient Loot and see if there's any left."




It had not crossed my mind that anyone would react this way. Obviously, if the artifact is taken you have to recover it and complete the quest. Who would want to write-off all their work simply because at one point the quest faced an unexpected challenge. I mean these are heroes, right?



> But because of the geas, the PCs can't do that. They have to set out to look for the artifact again. This completely invalidates the campaign for the last year+ of real time.




How is that the case? Have you ever read a story in which there is a setback in a quest? Let me rephrase: have you ever read a story in which there is not a setback in a quest?



> They didn't have the artifact then, and now they don't have the artifact again, and they must find it again. Or die.




They don't need a spell to compel them to do this; simple commitment to the storyline should suffice.



> And then after possibly another year of real time tracking the thing down again, they have to hope




So, on what basis have you concluded that the GM has that it will take a year to recover the artifact from the gnomes? Does he strike you as crazy? He seems sane to me so why would he restructure the campaign in this way?



> that another group of NPCs doesn't miraculously have 30+ ranks in Bluff (which I'm willing to wager none of the gnomes actually did,)




Let's wait until we hear from the GM about how the Bluff/Sense Motive contest actually went. The person making the statement may not, himself, have intended to steal from the characters. He may have used a Potion of Glibness. Let's see what actually happened first.



> There are multiple issues here. In-game justification, In-game mechanical fairness, and out-of-game campaign satisfaction.




If your only purpose as a GM is to please the players from minute to minute, you're not going to be a very good GM. Some players supported the GM; others did not. The role-playing world is full of people who have different tastes in gaming. Some players felt the GM did the right thing. Some did not. Gming isn't about pleasing all of the people all of the time. It is about creating a believable story in a believable world. A world full of flat NPCs with no agenda of their own is not that kind of world.



> The gnome's actions might have been fair, but were they mechanically fair? (Where bluff checks rolled vs. sense motive, did the gnomes have reasonable scores not meant to screw the PCs, etc. etc.) Possibly not.




Right. But you have no evidence for the accusation you are making all of a sudden based on the fact that people were under a geas spell. I just don't get it. How does a geas spell cause you to change your view on this?



> And as for out-of-game satisfaction, clearly there is a problem here. The fact that the geas prevents the players from dumping the quest rather than repeating a year of real-time progress is one of the problems.




How could people have found abandoning a quest half-done after working on it for a year more satisfying than finishing it? An abandoned half-done quest is not something that produces "satisfaction."



> With a Diplomacy of +30, Neutral NPCs you meet automatically become Friendly.




Regardless of making a high Diplomacy check, how could the PCs preemptively persuade the gnomes not to rob them? A generalized Diplomacy check does not cause NPCs with an agenda to suddenly abandon it. 



> A PC with that kind of score should be able to be reasonably sure that most NPCs he encounters are going to like him, and want to do well by him, unless they're already Hostile.




You know _Charm Person_ is a spell because you need to do actual magic to pull all the NPCs you encounter onto your side.



> A lot has changed, and you'd have to be on glue not to see that. Before, we had no understanding of why the players would be willing to quit the campaign, when the scenario seemed so standard.




Right -- the scenario seemed standard because the scenario was standard. We were asked about whether the NPCs behaved in a realistic way in the context of the scenario. They did. There are various ways a GM can redirect a campaign towards something the players find more compelling; running NPCs in an unrealistic way is not one of them.



			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> It sounds to me like tedium has set in, and that the players are just ready for this whole thing to be done.




We have heard from two players. One has taken that position; the other has not.



> 35 sessions can be a loooong time, particularly when you feel completely trapped by a seemingly never-ending quest. As Noeloni said: "Its not like the quest was over, either. The artifact had to be repaired and we had to find a way to get it to the Gods themselves. Not a minor undertaking."




Indeed. But what evidence do we have that the gnomes getting hold of it will thwart this process? For all we know, the gnomes are the people most capable of repairing the artifact. There may be a delay of 1-4 episodes; there may be no net loss of time. It depends on how the GM adjusts the overall storyline in response to the NPCs' actions.



> So, at this point, it's likely the players are feeling that the last 35+ sessions served no real purpose, and that the finish line isn't any closer than it was before.




I don't see how you view a setback in the quest as restarting the quest. How many movies have you seen where the good guys lose the object of their quest just before the climax? Isn't this event a recurring trope in the modern quest genre?



> It's one thing to play out the Lord of the Rings, it's quite another to feel that it's you, not Frodo, carrying the one ring around your neck.




So LOTR would be a _bad_ story if it were played as an RPG. Funny… I thought it was the ideal everyone was striving for.



> Get the quest done, or at least let the tedium of finding it end, and get the party running towards the payoff. A good payoff will probably help the players feel more invigorated, and replace frustration with fun.




Why have you assumed that they're not near the climax or that the GM isn't already on this track? All the narrative signs indicate to me that this is the very point the campaign is approaching. Generally, in Hollywood quest movies, the object of the quest being seized by the bad guy is a sign that the climax is imminent.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The level of responsibility the PCs have for their actions is directly related to the level of leeway that they have in those actions. Who cast the Geas? Why didn't the Geas caster forsee this problem, and provide some guidance?




Let me get this straight: the caster of the geas is supposed to anticipate the PCs making bad judgement? How would the caster know, inadvance, what errors of judgement the PCs were likely to make in the course of their quest?



> My guess is, barring further information, that the PCs were on a "Mission...from God" as the Blues Brothers put it. If that were the case, then doesn't it seem reasonable that they expect a little divine providence?




So, what you're saying is that the geas should function as some sort of blessing making NPCs more favourably disposed to the PCs? I really don't buy this.



> Wouldn't the gnomes seem like divine providence under the circumstances?




No. I don't imagine that being naïve and unsuspecting was how they recovered the artifact in the first place. I don't get any evidence for a good faith belief on the part of the PCs that the gnomes were somehow, unlike all the other NPCs, agents of a benevolent deity.



> The gnomes have the right to stack the deck against the PCs. The DM should not. In 25 years of DMing, I have never relied on Geas or Quest spells to force the PCs to undergo certain actions. Personal preferences, I know, but I have always thought that this stacks the deck.




I've never used the spell either but I have played in a campaign where it was used to good effect.



> However, your point (a) does not take into account the fact that, simply put, it is harder to screw over charismatic people than it is to screw over people you find loathsome. In D&D, things like Charisma and the Diplomacy skill are used to sway attitudes. If the DM doesn't allow Charisma to do this, the PCs might as well all go put that high stat somewhere else.




Agreed. But I don't think having a Charisma of 20 is sufficient to passively cause NPCs to take on your interests and priorities in place of their own. If someone is planning to rob you if they get the chance, a preemptive general diplomacy check will not stop that. 

Look at the enchantment spells in the PHB: it takes magic to make people who are planning to exploit you abandon their interests in favour of yours. So, I just don't buy that passive or generalized diplomacy checks can prevent a robbery.



> Charismatic individuals are obviously not impervious to robbery, but do you honestly believe that if a group of people decided to steal some jewels, and then they discovered that stealing those jewels would bring harm to a beautiful and charming individual, not one of the group would consider tipping the beauty off, even if only in hopes of a more personal reward?




Consider, yes. Certainly do: no.



> Are you actually suggesting that how you are perceived has no bearing on how you are treated?




No. I'm suggesting that a +4 charisma bonus does not confer _Protection from Theft 30' Radius_ as a spell-like ability useable at will.



> Are you suggesting that how you treat others doesn't affect how they treat you?




See above. 


> Do devious people take pity on individuals because they are subject to a geas, quest or curse? If devious equates to evil, then not necessarily. But in my campaign at least, even evil people can feel some degree of empathy.




Empathy isn't the only human emotion. Greed is a well-known emotion too.



> (1) We now know that the PCs deliberately went out of their way over a period of time to change the gnomes' opinion of them, and were given reason to believe that they had succeeded, and




No. We don't know that. I'm not aware of any lengthy campaign to make the gnomes love them. I'm aware of a Sense Motive roll, a short conversation and a diplomacy check being made. 



> (2) As even you note, the Sense Motive check(s) turned up nothing.




Yep. Let's see why that is. There are a number of possible explanations -- perhaps we should wait to hear them before we condemn the GM for doing something irregular. I have run NPCs who are bards, have potions of glibness or done various other things to mislead the PCs. 



> There is also the general sense from the Noelani that this is not an isolated incident within the campaign. My first response included the caveat that the players shouldn't be betrayed so often by NPCs that they conclude that "They are all against us", so, in a sense, my opinion has not changed. What has changed is my understanding of the circumstances, and therefore, the meaning of "this" in the question "Is this unreasonable?"




Accepting the word of one player against the word of the GM and another player does not seem to me to be a wholly reasonable approach. Three people have given us their perspective on the campaign; you are taking the minority opinion as gospel and rejecting the other two opinions that you have.


----------



## scourger (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus, there's too much junk here for me to wade through it now; but I think you should stick to your guns.  You've apparently got your players, including your fiancee, chiming in on this thread now about how high their Charisma is, how high their Diplomacy checks are, how mad they are, and blah, blah, blah.  Man, I get tired of hearing that stuff from players.  Why are they even making those rolls in the first place?  The DMG has a bunch of skills listed that the DM should make for the players, and I think Diplomacy is one of them just to avoid this kind of belly aching.  Sometimes, no matter how skilled a character is, they just fail a check.  Sometimes, the NPCs are just as skilled or *gasp* even more so!   Imagine the NPC expert who has a decent attribute score, maxes out a skill, maxe synergistic skills, takes Skill Focus, and even one of those other feats to get a +2.  If you made your livelihood as a Diplomat, wouldn't you have those skills & feats?  Isn't it reasonable to assume that the best diplomats in the game world are actually attracted to such professions in a vibrant campaign setting?  Why, the NPC may even be a paragon or *gasp again* EXCEPTIONAL at a particular skill.  

If the players couldn't see this coming from a mile away, they deserve to be crated up and left in a warehouse.  

Bottom line: sometimes players get fooled, and sometimes characters do too.  Get a helmet.

That said, I've played in a game where the artifact quest became a millstone around the necks of all the players.  We aren't playing that game anymore.  Maybe you shouldn't be either.  But, it's not because you're a cruel DM (to get back on the original topic of this post).


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> So LOTR would be a _bad_ story if it were played as an RPG. Funny… I thought it was the ideal everyone was striving for.




That's... completely not what I'm saying.

I'm talking about the difference between the character's experiences and emotions, and the player's. 

Characters in the game endure hardships, they get depressed, they get frustrated, tired and maybe even feel hopeless - and that's all well and good.

The players, however, shouldn't feel tired, depressed, frustrated, and hopeless. People game for enjoyment, and none of those things are conducive for enjoyment. 

And I see at least one player who's very angry, and obviously frustrated - and even the other player talks about everyone pining for short adventures. 

My impression is that the quest has become an exercise in slogging through to the end - which is fine from a character standpoint, and can lead to some great "weary heroes still fighting the good fight" roleplaying, but isn't so great from a player standpoint.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If your only purpose as a GM is to please the players from minute to minute, you're not going to be a very good GM. Some players supported the GM; others did not. The role-playing world is full of people who have different tastes in gaming. Some players felt the GM did the right thing. Some did not. Gming isn't about pleasing all of the people all of the time. It is about creating a believable story in a believable world. A world full of flat NPCs with no agenda of their own is not that kind of world.





Herein, we agree completely.

RC


----------



## Anabstercorian (Nov 29, 2004)

I think, personally, that while your idea would have been justifiable in most circumstances, it's unjustifiable against a party of 3 Cha 18+ characters one of whom has maxed out diplomacy and is using it actively.  Find some way to retcon this in to a non-treasonous thing - maybe for some reason that gnomes HAD to separate the party and bug out, and they'll contact them later with ladles of apologies.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> With a Diplomacy of +30, Neutral NPCs you meet _automatically_ become Friendly.  A PC with that kind of score should be able to be reasonably sure that most NPCs he encounters are going to like him, and want to do well by him, unless they're already Hostile.  And even if they're Hostile, there's a darned good chance they'll be merely Neutral instead.




Major misconception here. Just because the dice could determine that NPCs will view the PCs as friendly, that doesn't mean that they can be won over and give up their own agendas. That would be relegating an role-playing to just a series of dice rolls and that's not a good thing. The gnomes could be quite friendly and still plan on screwing the PCs over. It's a question of what the gnomes are willing to be friendly and cooperate on and what issues are completely off the table. Letting the PCs walk away with an artifact that they also want would quite reasonably be off the table.
Sounds to me like some players are WAY over-reacting. I can understand some frustration. It happens. But it sounds to me like they may have been a   little too trusting and that chicken of gullibility has come home to roost.


----------



## Arc (Nov 29, 2004)

I think the sub-factioning of the gnome faction should play a major part in this, and resolves a lot of the mechanical problems being cited. Sure, your players may have diplomacy mods of 30+, and be able to sense motive there way out of pretty much any lie. *However*, that doesn't mean that the gnomes the party talked to weren't intending to do as they said. It just means that another group of gnomes either overruled or overpowered them (or simply neglected to consult them at all). Some of the gnomes very well ought to be allied with the party, and should the party meet up with the gnomish ship again (hopefully in the near future, so the event is still fresh), then many of the gnomes ought to side with the party, or at least remain neutral in the fight.

That would actually make a great set piece. The party chases the ship down (or teleports to it, which would certainly speed things up), and finds the gnomes on the verge of violence about what to do with the McGuffin, and the left behind PC's. I'm not sure how you'd be able to accomplish this without a bit of railroading, but you might consider a well timed Scry informing the party of this split within the gnome faction. That would add a lot to the final encounter between the gnomes and the PC's, especially if the PC's can't tell which faction the gnomes belong to at first, and have to judge quickly before things get out of hand (who wants to kill the gnomes who've been trying to help all along).

As to the feeling that the adventure was "done", and that the removal of the McGuffin is simply stealing the party's thunder, I must disagree. If the party obviously had at _least_ one challenge left ahead of them (removing the artifact from the city), then there should be no reason for them to assume that the quest was pretty much in the bag. Such an assumption seems almost arrogant on behalf of the PC's, because they're essentially stating that they've done enough work on such an epic quest, and so they're giving up caring about finishing it. I suppose it's time to reference LOTR again: Did Frodo and Sam give up when they reached Mordor, and Frodo was paralyzed? They certainly had done quite enough to get there, so they *ought* to not have to face any more challenges before they finished the quest. It's an oversimplification, but I feel the gist of the idea still applies: the PC's are getting lazy at the end of the quest, and so you shouldn't pull any punches in keeping up the challenges because of that.

My hat is off to you regarding your improvisational skills. You managed to impliment a major plot twist that doesn't really conflict with anything in your campaign (as I understand it), and did it nearly subconciously. An aside: Should it really matter whether a DM plans things or not? As a player, how are you supposed to know the difference (if you have a compitent DM), and so how should it matter?

I'm not sure about the merit of Geas as a motivation for the plot. Could you expand on how the Geas was placed, and why the PC's accepted it? I think that would clear up a lot of misconceptions about it.


----------



## hong (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Gming isn't about pleasing all of the people all of the time. It is about creating a believable story in a believable world.




GMing is about creating an ENJOYABLE story in an enjoyable world. This is so staggeringly obvious that I can only conclude that a GM who does not grok this must have the social skills of a walnut.

As to what constitutes enjoyable, grasshopper, now _there_ is a topic ripe for discussion.



> A world full of flat NPCs with no agenda of their own is not that kind of world.




Not, of course, that that had anything to do with the original question.


----------



## hong (Nov 29, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like some players are WAY over-reacting. I can understand some frustration. It happens. But it sounds to me like they may have been a   little too trusting and that chicken of gullibility has come home to roost.




I will remember this line the next time someone whinges about their players not trusting them.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 29, 2004)

I don't think DM cruelty is the issue here. It's whether your players are enjoying your game. From the looks of it, they are not.

My suggestion is to talk to your players and find out what they want. If necessary, freeze the current campaign and re-start one that will be more to their tastes. In particular, the geas does not seem to have gone down well.

If you really want to continue the current storyline, my advice would be to have one of the friendly gnomes contact the PCs (to show that not all NPCs are untrustworthy) and tell them where to find the other gnomes so that the PCs can descend upon them like the Wrath of the Gods and beat d20 kinds of stuffing out of them (so that the PCs can vent their frustrations). Then wrap up the campaign quickly and start another one more to their tastes.


----------



## Malic (Nov 29, 2004)

On what we've heard so far, it still sounds to me like the plot twist was reasonable. The diplomacy/bluff thing doesn't matter if the gnomes they discussed the plans with weren't the ones who left them behind. IMO this artefact being pretty much a priceless thing to both sides, just because the PCs are very charismatic and the gnomes are friendly to them doen't mean they gnomes should automatically change their goals wrt it, or that the PCs should assume they will.

My group, just as an example, would feel a bit cheated if the gnomes didn't follow their established motivations and take the thing when it was dangled in their face. Although we would be pretty irritated if we couldn't get a line back on them in a reasonable time, to keep the quest moving forward.

That said, it does sound like there might well be a problem here - the overall tone of the campaign, at least as perceived by some of the players - and that does need addressing. Wrapping the artefact arc up quickly is probably in order. Checking if this is part of a pattern of constant reversals and betrayals by NPCs, or not, would also be good.

The suggestion up thread a bit, that the gnomes might be able to repair it, sounds really good to me. The gnomes might well have to repair it for their own purposes. That done they might be able to do their thing and let the PC's take it afterwards, or vice versa. Or of course the PCs could do the Wrath of ?? thing and then find the artefact was fixed ready for the final act.

Good luck!


----------



## Berandor (Nov 29, 2004)

I think the plot twist was reasonable and well-done.

HOWEVER (big however), part of the group at least seems to be totally sick of the plot. Two players are ready to throw the towel and don't want to hear any more of it, if not for the death of their characters.

So, my suggestion would be to contact them out of game. Tell them that this incident opened your eyes about their feelings. Explain to them how some of the gnomes were trustworthy, and others weren't (this is not the time for meta-game doubts). Have the trustworthy gnomes come back or leave the PCs a message and a trail of bread crumbs. Promise a short finish for the plot, but be firm that you want to finish the campaign for all of the players, since they all invested a lot of time in it. Give yourself a time frame for this finish, say 5 more sessions max. Inform the players of this time frame. Keep to this time frame.

Finish the campaign on a high note, and then have a beer will all of them and talk about what happened, and what each of them can do to make the next campaign better. Perhaps a smaller, shorter plot? Perhaps more allies? Perhaps a different DM? A different system?

You've had 35 sessions to get that far. Don't let it go to waste - but end it quickly, or it might spoil on its own.


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 29, 2004)

Malic said:
			
		

> On what we've heard so far, it still sounds to me like the plot twist was reasonable. The diplomacy/bluff thing doesn't matter if the gnomes they discussed the plans with weren't the ones who left them behind. IMO this artefact being pretty much a priceless thing to both sides, just because the PCs are very charismatic and the gnomes are friendly to them doen't mean they gnomes should automatically change their goals wrt it, or that the PCs should assume they will.




And that I think is the crux of the matter.  The PCs had no way of determinng they were being misled.

Adding to that the DM said he didn't "plan" on things happening the way they did but it fit the motivation of the factions of gnomes.

The PCs/player's did nothing wrong as far as I can tell. They did a Sense Motive to determine if the gnomes could be trusted (it appears their checks indicated they could).


It appears to me that the DM suddenly saw an opprotunity and used it, but the PCs/players had no way of seeing it coming.  This, IMO, is absolutely wrong.  As was presented in the original post it appeared as if it was the PCs/players' choice to do things they did when in fact the situation (geas, sense motive check, urgency, every one after them, etc.) dictasted their actions - hence it was *out of their control*.


Bottom line is that the players should be presented things to make choices which determine outcomes. In this case that was not done, unless there is another piece not presented.

It doesn't really matter if the PCs' were adjusting the attitudes of the gnomes or not, what does matter is the sense motive/bluff check results.  That is what they are for.


----------



## Malic (Nov 29, 2004)

Well, it's a bit academic us arguing about it really, as it is really the business of the group, who know all the circumstances ... and accordingly the following comments are not meant to be disrespectful to the players involved, I know I don't know the full story ... but hypothetically, based on what we have heard here, I totally disagree that there was no way the party could have seen this coming. A Sense Motive check is not a substitute for the PCs thinking about the situation. First is the importance of the item itself to several parties, and the fact that the group was aware that the gnomes had their own plans for it and that the gnomes knew the party's plans were different, and this situation had not been worked out. Then there is the fact that the party knew that not all the gnomes had the same attitude to the party, and in fact some were unfriendly. Even if there were no other gnomes involved and the ones they were talking to were 100% sincere at the time, and then changed their minds ... as an artifact this is one of the most valuable objects in the world, that is a heck of a lot of temptation to put in front of anyone, with the guards helpfully neutralised and a getaway vehicle waiting. Now perhaps there were reasons the party would believe the gnomes would be as loyal as their closest family about it, but I haven't read any here.

This is totally seperate from the other campaign/player enjoyment issues that seem to have built up, of course.

I don't have a problem with a GM doing something he hasn't planned in advance, if it is consistent with the drivers that have been established in advance, and doesn't contradict the past. It sounds like this example qualifies.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Characters in the game endure hardships, they get depressed, they get frustrated, tired and maybe even feel hopeless - and that's all well and good.
> 
> The players, however, shouldn't feel tired, depressed, frustrated, and hopeless. People game for enjoyment, and none of those things are conducive for enjoyment.




I think your observation is based on a common modern misconception about human relations: that if people feel a particular way, their feelings are inherently justified and people should alter their treatment of this individual simply because they feel bad with no reference to whether those feelings are reasonable. 

I GMed a campaign once where I set up an epic battle where the players had to respond, in the middle of the night, to an emergency. They didn't have time to don their heavy armour and make it to the battle in time. Of course, I had scaled the battle so the characters could win it without their armour but that wasn't good enough for one of the players. 

He demanded that I suspend the armour donning rules and when I wouldn't, he chose to spend the entire episode donning armour, stormed around the house while everyone else fought and then insulted me at the end of the game. He remained furious for two weeks, claiming that I didn't care about the game being fun anymore. But I held firm. As a GM, I simply wasn't interested in playing 18 Int villains if they couldn't use clever tactics to mess with the characters. 

This is the gaming world. People with poor social skills, inappropriate attachments to their characters and various other psychological problems are pretty common. I work with players who are socially and economically successful but from time to time, some have taken unreasonable emotionally-based positions. 

I have a lot of trouble with using people's emotional reactions to something as the sole test of whether it is reasonable in any area of human relations -- but especially among gamers. 

What I have witnessed in this thread is the GM appearing upset and virtually everyone siding with him; suddenly a player appears who is _more_ upset. People pretend that she has given us new information and this has caused them to change their minds. But in reality, she provided no new conclusive information; instead her emotional intensity caused us to reorder our moral hierarchy of who was in the right. Because in today's PC world, whoever is most upset is automatically more correct.


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 29, 2004)

Wow. I'm still staggered by the amount of keys people have been willing to press in response to this. I appreciate all your opinions and criticisms. There are a few issues people have been kicking around or have been waiting for my response to judge (the single sense motive check, the casting of the geas and the goodwill of the gnomes) so here goes:

The Geas:

The party's investigation into the gnome's activities (tunneling into the dungeon) led them to seek out a high placed member of the LG church, a cardinal, who they befriended and whose help and advice they wanted. In trying to help the PCs on their quest, the Cardinal has cast numerous spells (restorations, cures, break enchantments, raise deads, communes) for free (except for the material costs). At one point he suggested to the party that it would be in their best interest to form/join a holy order, sanctioned by himself, dedicated to this "holy" quest (recovering the artifact). He told them that it would help shield them from the crown if they were ever apprehended doing something seemingly illegal. Ecclesiastics have their own legal system separate from the state's legal system. As members of a holy order they could simply claim to be on church business and somewhat exempt from state prosecution. Together they penned a charter for their new holy order incorporating the party's gods and philosophies rather than just the cardinal's god (which is quite progressive and somewhat unorthodox for the Cardinal's church). After dark they went to the cathedral to seek out the blessing and advice of an ancient elven anchoress (a religious recluse) who lives entombed in a small cell in the floor of the cathedral. Together they prayed and each read through the party's newly scribed charter (including the Cardinal) and as each of them finished reading the oath "to retrieve and return to the gods the [sought out artifact]" she cast a silenced geas on each of them. She did it because she'd been waiting for a group of heroes to fulfill this quest on her behalf, but she was weary of putting her complete faith in a group of strangers she'd just met. After they were all geased she used an unseen servant to lift out of the floor a king's ransom in donations and tithes she'd collected over the previous century (60 000 gp worth) for the party to use as they saw fit during the quest. A shopping spree ensued shortly thereafter.

The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.


The goodwill of the gnomes and the sense motive check:

Like I mentioned earlier, the gnomes and the party have had a rocky relationship. But members of both sides have tried to put that behind them and cooperate (even though the party killed 2-3 of their members). The party has eventually won over most of the gnomes they've dealt with personally. In the end, they were dealing with two gnomes, one who was already won over and one who was distrustfully. Pretty quickly, the party won even this holdover to their side (even though their long term goals differed). When the sense motive check was made (I usually prefer to roll social rolls myself in secret but my fiance made this roll herself) the gnome was truthfully relaying his immediate intentions to the PC gnome (to go talk to the other gnomes involved, arrange a place for the PCs to hide and to arrange the crating details and then to return to retrieve the party). These two gnomes had been won over by the party and were sincere in their efforts. They had themselves crated up alongside the party. It was the members of the gnome faction who they had entrusted to load them onto the ship and their superiors (whom the party had never personally encountered) who made the final decision to leave the party behind.

The gnome faction did consider taking the PC gnome (whom they like and trust) with them but they were worried that the PCs would be able to track them down much easier if he was with them. OOG I was also dubious about splitting up the party. The gnomes knew that the party had formed some kind of secret order, but were unaware that they had been geased (the party hasn't advertised that fact).

Hope this clears up some details for you all. :\


----------



## hong (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I have a lot of trouble with using people's emotional reactions to something as the sole test of whether it is reasonable in any area of human relations -- but especially among gamers.




Because, after all, gaming is a character-building experience. It's not good for you if you're enjoying it.


Hong "is STILL waiting for 7 Habits of Highly Effective Munchkins" Ooi


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Because, after all, gaming is a character-building experience. It's not good for you if you're enjoying it.




Hong -- I _feel_ you are wrong. Why won't you change your mind to make be _feel_ better?


----------



## hong (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Hong -- I _feel_ you are wrong. Why won't you change your mind to make be _feel_ better?



 Because posting on this here mailing list _is_ a character-building experience. Now bend over.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.




I'm surprised.  I would NEVER have guessed that an NPC so untrusting and cruel as to cast a geas on the PCs for the obvious purpose of threatening them and controlling them would 'ever' voluntarily remove it.  I wonder if this news comes as a surprise to any of your Players.  If my PC was in that party, the next goal would be to visit that anchoress.  

Although, of course, you mentioned that the PCs could be punished by the Law for daring to adventure without a geas.  (CRIPES!!!)  I'd still get it removed.



			
				Ambrus said:
			
		

> These two gnomes had been won over by the party and were sincere in their efforts. They had themselves crated up alongside the party. It was the members of the gnome faction who they had entrusted to load them onto the ship and their superiors (whom the party had never personally encountered) who made the final decision to leave the party behind.




Ah, so they had never met the two gnomes that turned their plan into a shambles.  No wonder everything went awry.  Ambrus, earlier you referred to the PCs' losing of the artifact as a "failure."  It sounds to me like you made sure the failure was going to happen by keeping those sinister gnomes unavailable for conversation.

Furthermore, if the gnomes that trusted the PCs were familiar with the 2 never-met sinister gnomes, they should have warned the PCs about the potential for treachery while crated.

Tony M


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Nov 29, 2004)

EDIT: On second thought, no point in responding.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> What I have witnessed in this thread is the GM appearing upset and virtually everyone siding with him; suddenly a player appears who is _more_ upset. People pretend that she has given us new information and this has caused them to change their minds. But in reality, she provided no new conclusive information; instead her emotional intensity caused us to reorder our moral hierarchy of who was in the right. Because in today's PC world, whoever is most upset is automatically more correct.





Fusangite,

While I agree with most of what you've written here, I do disagree with your "pretend that she has given us new information" statement.  The new information that she gave us _does_ pertain to both in-game and metagaming issues.

The basic scenario as described by the DM is still absolutely fine.  The basic foolishness of the PCs in letting the gnomes crate up the artifact separately is still absolutely real.  It is definately okay for the DM to have NPCs change their plans according to circumstances.  Indeed, it would be a serious detriment to the game if the DM did not.

That said, over a reasonably long period of time, PCs with high bonuses to Sense Motive have a reasonable expectation of being able to sort out who their allies are, and who their enemies are.  Of course, the players should still expect to use their own wits.  But they should also be allowed to use their characters' abilities.

Secondly, we have also been informed that several of the PCs had a high Charisma, and good Diplomacy skills.  Should the gnomes have taken the artifact?  Yes.  I do not agree with the idea that time should be backtracked and that this should have been done differently.  But they should have also felt bad about it, and this should be apparent in their actions.  As an obvious example, they could have left the PCs something for their troubles.  Had it been within the gnomes' abilities, they should have tried to satisfy the needs of both parties.  (Of course, this may also be true of the PCs -- Diplomacy can have some serious negative modifiers if the diplomant is inflexible.)

These are in-game issues, and there is some evidence that they came up over the course of several sessions.  

As far as meta-gaming issues go, issues of railroading and NPC behavior arise from the player's post.

Geas is, by and large, a railroading device.  From a meta-gaming standpoint, Geas is the ultimate DM's "You will follow my plot or else" and, as such, should be used sparingly if at all.  If the Geas is treated as a curse, then the PCs should have an opportunity to break that curse.  If the Geas is not treated as a curse, then the PCs should have additional, and personal, reasons to follow the quest in addition to the cattle prod that Geas provides.  If this is true for a short adventure, it is exponentially true for a long campaign.

The idea that PCs can, and will, be betrayed by NPCs that they trusted is as old as gaming.  In fact, many early modules used these sorts of NPCs as "surprises" in the storyline.  And these sorts of NPCs _can_ be surprising, if they are used in moderation.  The player's post raises the issue that deceitful, unethical NPCs are encountered far more often than trustworthy NPCs.  While some may view this as being "realistic" (discounting their own personal friends and associates, of course), it creates a very sharp divide between PCs and NPCs.  PCs are, generally, trustworthy.  NPCs are not.

In such a world, it is difficult to perceive even PCs as trustworthy.  It is certainly difficult to have any motivations which are not self-serving.  What is the motive of saving the village from the Awful Green Things if the villagers are as conniving and backstabbing as any Awful Green Thing the PCs have ever faced?  More conniving, actually, because at least the Awful Green Things aren't _pretending_ to like the PCs!

Players whine.  It's part of the nature of the beast.  Normally, when all else is equal, I fall on the side of the DM.  After all, the DM has invested the most time...and probably money...into the game.  But the fact that players sometimes whine without good reason does not imply that all player complaints are baseless.

These are not issues that were raised by the DM's initial description of events.  And, again, while they do not change the cleverness of the events described -- I could easily see myself doing the same thing, had I thought of it -- they do change the _context_ in which those events took place.  It is, I believe, this context which needs to be addressed.

The DM can make a good start by simply evidencing that the gnomes _did_ feel guilty, and that the PCs' efforts at swaying them were not all in vain.  This can be done without ret-conning, using several methods suggested in this thread.  I am no fan of ret-conning.

It may also be valuable for the DM to consider why the PCs should care what happens to the NPCs in this world.  Is good equivilent with stupid?  Or are most people's lives and freedoms really worth fighting for?  


RC

(The Ever-Opinionated)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.





While everything seems reasonable in and of itself, again I believe that there might be issues of _context_.  For example, what is the anchoress' goal in casting Geas if she will remove it later, quest not having been completed?  

One player says, "We can't trust any NPCs; they're all out to get us."

If you cannot trust the LG anchoress to _*tell you*_ that she intends to Geas you if you accept funds/a quest, then that player may well be right.  Had they been told, and been given a choice to accept or decline, then the Church might well have been considered allies.  As it is, the Church pretended to be allies while sneakily taking control of their lives in an underhanded way (player perspective).

Again, the question becomes, why would the PCs trust or want to help anyone in this world?

Another question is, why couldn't the PCs take the artifact to the Church for aid?  Why did they have to trust the gnomes?  If the Church is far away, the characters cannot simply return if the quest goes awry; they must follow the artifact or suffer the consequences.


RC


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 29, 2004)

> I'm surprised. I would NEVER have guessed that an NPC so untrusting and cruel as to cast a geas on the PCs for the obvious purpose of threatening them and controlling them would 'ever' voluntarily remove it.




I'm sorry, at the time it didn't occur to me that casting Geas/Quest might be considered cruel. It is available for good clerics to cast. The party chose to freely swear the oath themselves, her intention was simply to ensure that they kept their word before she entrusted them with the sum of her wealth and her hopes.



> Although, of course, you mentioned that the PCs could be punished by the Law for daring to adventure without a geas. (CRIPES!!!) I'd still get it removed.




It's not necessary to be geased to adventure in my campaign. The cardinal sanctioned the party's order to help ensure they'd have some legal protection if they were apprehended by the city guard while adventuring within the city, which might have necessitated some illegal activities such as breaking and entering into a building while investigating or fighting in the streets if confronted with enemies, ect.

The cardinal didn't know the anchoress was going to cast geas beforehand so he didn't warn the party. The anchoress cast it as a silenced spell because she had taken a vow of silence long ago. Why she did it is detailed above.



> It sounds to me like you made sure the failure was going to happen by keeping those sinister gnomes unavailable for conversation.




The "sinister gnomes" didn't feel the need to go meet the party directly since they were in the process of deciding to work against them. There was nothing they needed to learn from them at that point so why go and chat?



> Furthermore, if the gnomes that trusted the PCs were familiar with the 2 never-met sinister gnomes, they should have warned the PCs about the potential for treachery while crated.




It didn't occur to them that they might get overruled by their own allies.

I'm not trying to justify what I did or make excuses, but please keep in mind that I was improvising most of this as it developed. :\


----------



## fredramsey (Nov 29, 2004)

Just my two coppers:

I think you have some whiny players. It sounds to me like something that could happen in the scenario, therefore, the characters have to deal with it. It's all about challenges after all. As long as it makes sense in the story, there is really no such thing as an "unfair" challenge, IMHO. I don't think my players would have batted an eye. They would have said, "Why those @#$%ing little gnomes! Let's go after them!"


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 29, 2004)

> I'm not trying to justify what I did or make excuses, but please keep in mind that I was improvising most of this as it developed.





And this is another major part of the problem.  Such a major turning point in the overall adventure shouldn't be winged like that.  Too many things were obviously not thought about ahead of time.

The gnomes that went against the PCs - were they from a different sect than the ones that the PCs made friends with?  If so then how did those two groups get along? There should have been a disagreement over what was happening amongst the gnomes - those friendly to the PCs should surely have argued against the stealing the artifact.  In fact based on how you presented that the interacting gnomes were in deed "friendly" to the PCs it should most likely have been a "loud" disagreement (Listen check anyone).

I reiterate that the PCs (and players) should have the opportunity to make poor judgements for themselves.  Since they didn't interact with the ones that were betraying them they couldn't make that call.  The story shouldn't advance without the PCs which is what happened.

The PCs made the only call they could with the evidence they were given.  Their doubt over the trustworthiness of the gnomes was put to rest by the sense motive check.  The player who still didn't trust them was metagaming, since there was no information presented to do otherwise - in fact the information supplied led the PCs to believe they were safe.

As far a LG priest placing a geas - I have to agree it just doesn't make sense.  That is to say placing the geas without letting the party know it was going to happen is not a very lawful nor good thing.  More on the level of chaotic (while it could still fall within the good guidelines and not be evil it is really not lawful).  Let me guess the geas was another winged issue.  How many clerics have prepared a geas in their spells for the day?  And since this was a cleric that took an oath of silence pretty much all spells would have been prepared silent (hence using up many high level spell slots).  Lets see a silent geas spell uses a 7th level cleric spell slot and affects a single creature - so how many were prepared/cast?  again the problem with winging things.

I would not in any way redo time though. What has happened has happened.  As a responsive DM you could talk it over with your players and let them know how you mishandled some things but will do better in the future. I would also lay out a new storyline that allows the PCs the means to reach another climatic ending and finding the artifact - an obvious clue left behind by the friendly gnomes would be a handy thing, also reflecting that not all of the gnomes are to be mistrusted.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> And this is another major part of the problem.  Such a major turning point in the overall adventure shouldn't be winged like that.  Too many things were obviously not thought about ahead of time.




I disagree that a major turning point needs to be thoroughly scripted out. As long as the DM has the general motivations and character of the NPCs thought out in advance, any winging-it that is true to those motivations and characters is AOK in my book.
I suspect you're also coming at this problem as a DM who generally plans/writes out their adventures rather than typically wings it. There are definite style differences between the two and I think that DMs who plan details in advance tend to extend less legitimacy to DMs who wing it. And I think that's unfortunate.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, at the time it didn't occur to me that casting Geas/Quest might be considered cruel. It is available for good clerics to cast. The party chose to freely swear the oath themselves, her intention was simply to ensure that they kept their word before she entrusted them with the sum of her wealth and her hopes.




The anticipation and/or reality of blood running from the PCs eyes and ears is where the in-game cruelty of geas comes in (that's my description of the daily damage; yours may involve boils or spontaneous combustion).  When the NPC cast geas, she cast the spell to kill the PCs in a hideous way.  Unless it was all a bluff.  But then she'd have to be certain that her spell wouldn't kill anybody--which would be a very difficult thing to do.  What if a PC had 1 hp after a battle and decided to quit the quest?  Twenty-four hours later, death by boils!  Okay, an extreme example, but still....




			
				Ambrus said:
			
		

> It's not necessary to be geased to adventure in my campaign. The cardinal sanctioned the party's order to help ensure they'd have some legal protection if they were apprehended by the city guard while adventuring within the city, which might have necessitated some illegal activities such as breaking and entering into a building while investigating or fighting in the streets if confronted with enemies, ect.
> 
> The cardinal didn't know the anchoress was going to cast geas beforehand so he didn't warn the party. The anchoress cast it as a silenced spell because she had taken a vow of silence long ago. Why she did it is detailed above.




Oh.  I thought the geas was part of the cardinal's whole concept of sanctioning the party.  My bad.  Please disregard that previous criticism about PCs needing a geas to adventure in your world. 

Hey, that means the party can lose the geas and still benefit from working with the cardinal, should they get arrested.  Very neat.

Dang, your campaign is complex.  (Not a criticism.  Just marveling at it, like I would a spiderweb.)




			
				Ambrus said:
			
		

> The "sinister gnomes" didn't feel the need to go meet the party directly since they were in the process of deciding to work against them. There was nothing they needed to learn from them at that point so why go and chat?




Well, that is very realistic.  But it makes the Player's job a lot tougher, of course.

Tony M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I disagree that a major turning point needs to be thoroughly scripted out. As long as the DM has the general motivations and character of the NPCs thought out in advance, any winging-it that is true to those motivations and characters is AOK in my book.





I agree.  The problem is not whether or not it was pre-planned, but whether or not it worked.  Saying the DM shouldn't wing a major plot point is the same as asking the players to do foolish things _*now*_, before the DM has time to plan.  It is also asking the DM to railroad the players, which is seldom a good thing IMHO.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus,

For the record, your does sound like an interesting campaign world.  I don't see anything wrong with the way you're winging things, per se.  I do think that, between sessions, though, you ought to give some consideration to what has happened, and where things are going.  Again, matters of context and overall pattern rather than individual encounters.

Sure, X may do Y in the heat of the moment.  That doesn't mean that, later, when X has cooled off, he doesn't regret doing Y.  It's true of real people, and should be true of NPCs as well.

Let what happened stand.  Then consider how their actions impact the NPCs views of themselves.  Then decide what they do next.

Also, consider giving the PCs some reason to like/trust at least some of your NPCs.  I have lots of chances to take advantage of people every day that I do not take.  Lots of people have a chance to take advantage of me as well, and do not.  Usually, it is a lot easier to take advantage of people you don't like, or people that you can discount as individuals for whatever reason.


RC


P.S.:  I am assuming that the contract written up by the players and Cardinal was the substance of the Geas (otherwise hard to do Silenced).  In this case, the PCs shouldn't have agreed to it if they didn't want to be bound to it.  They still should have been warned prior to agreeing.  If the Abbess can communicate the terms of the Geas, she can sure as hell communicate that the Geas is going to be cast.

Were I a player in your game, I would have told you my concerns, but I wouldn't have let what I've heard so far stop me from playing.  I certainly wouldn't expect you to "grovel", as one poster suggested.  A lot of what we've been able to glimpse seems quite involved and interesting.  I truly hope you get past this point, and we get to read all about it later as a Story Hour.

RC


----------



## Hitokiri (Nov 29, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> There are definite style differences between the two and I think that DMs who plan details in advance tend to extend less legitimacy to DMs who wing it. And I think that's unfortunate.




Thats OK, I usually extend less legitimacy to GMs that plan everything out in advance.

On the issue of winging it: 
I rarely have my games scripted beyond the goals and starting positions of the NPCs.  I try to know where each one is, and how they are LIKELY to act in some basic situations, but to my mind having everything decided beforehand makes for a static world.  PCs should not be the only one reacting to events around them, and being able to change what an NPC does (as long as it remains true to character of course) seems to bring my worlds to life.  Have I winged major plot twists that have screwed over PCs before?  You bet I have.  The real trick here is to not do it too often and to make it abundantly clear that what has happened is just a setback, not a complete failure.  Everything in moderation is the key.

Now, with that background for me, I'd have no problem with what you did from a purly in-game related perspective.  However, it sounds like you need to talk with your players and figure out why some of them are becoming bored with the game, and whether it is salvagable or should be tied off ASAP.  If frustration is the biggest problem (as opposed to just being tired of playing in the setting, which would be enough to put the campaign to rest imho), then think about letting the players pull off a major coup.  It sounds like there is quite a bit of splintering in the gnome factions, could the PCs use that to their advantage.  Could the PCs play the gnomes off against one another and possibly oust the gnomes that are working against them, thus not only securing the artifact but also the support of the gnomes (who they know are trustworthy since they've cleaned house)?  The artifact needs to be repaired iirc, are the gnomes planning on doing the repairs themselves (thus allowing the PCs to retrieve the artifact and esentially skipping one of the steps they need to complete).  

There are some great opportunities here for the PCs if they will just look for them.  I'd say let them sweat it out for another couple of games, and then let them have the artifact back (and maybe put them even closer to ultimately fulfilling their quest).  And don't, for the love of god, pull another major plot twist for some time.  Barring the PCs doing something horrendously stupid, they should be fairly confident that the artifact is not going to be leaving their possesion again anytime soon.  Of course, all this assumes your players cool off a little bit and aren't ready to just call it quits at your next session.


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 29, 2004)

> The anticipation and/or reality of blood running from the PCs eyes and ears is where the in-game cruelty of geas comes in (that's my description of the daily damage; yours may involve boils or spontaneous combustion). When the NPC cast geas, she cast the spell to kill the PCs in a hideous way.




Well, I've actually toned down the effects of the geas to make it more player friendly. They've never suffered any damage from it. They actually took a ten day week of down time to re-equip and have some magic items made. The first few days nothing happened except for a general feeling of anxiousness, the next few days brought a growing sense of unease and anxiety. Only by the end of the week did they start suffering any ill effects in the form of nausea. It all disappeared as soon as they resolved to head back into the dungeon the next day. This to me, seemed like a more LG version of the spell.

As to why the LG  Anchoress would feel the need to resort to casting geas, well without going into her background in depth, I'll say she has some serious trust issues and a few 'people' problems.



> Dang, your campaign is complex. (Not a criticism. Just marveling at it, like I would a spiderweb.)




Thank you. Thankfully I have two gifted note-takers (Noelani and Ketharian) to help me remember what I'm doing. It's also more complicated than I'm making it out to be. I've been doing my best to keep these descriptions simple so you all don't confused or distracted by the details. For instance, I didn't mention that the city is built on a airborne island of stone high above the earth or that the ship was actually a flying ship. That's why I didn't originally mention the geas either. 



> Well, that is very realistic. But it makes the Player's job a lot tougher, of course.




I agree. My intention is to offer up a challenging campaign. The issue now seems to be whether it's *too* challenging. 



> I do think that, between sessions, though, you ought to give some consideration to what has happened, and where things are going.




Well, I always spend more time planning the session then I do spend running it. I like to feel prepared. I also think it's the only way to improvise well (knowing what all the NPCs are doing/thinking/planning) so that I'm ready to react when the party does something unexpected.



> Also, consider giving the PCs some reason to like/trust at least some of your NPCs.




Like 60 000 gp gifts? 



> A lot of what we've been able to glimpse seems quite involved and interesting. I truly hope you get past this point, and we get to read all about it later as a Story Hour.




I've never written (or even considered) writing one. How's it work? 

And just to clarify something, I have five players. Two have voiced support for what I did, one hasn't offered any objections yet, one is quite upset and the other isn't aware of it yet (though she'll almost assuredly be quite upset too).


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 29, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> You are mean only if your campaign end there.
> Otherwise it's just the beginning of "part 2: artifact recovering": more fun for your players!




This 2was my feeling as well. If the thing can't be *Plane Shifted* or *Teleported*, then your group has a pretty good chance of tracking them down don't they?

Hire a ship! Get a bunch of *Locate Object* scrolls! Start using _Gather Information_ to find out where Gnomes would ship the Atom Bomb if they had it.

Talk about a motivated group


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

Well, now that the details are in, it's just a matter of mopping up. 

1. Those cruel untrustworthy NPCs... who give out 60,000gp in equipment to people they hardly know in exchange simply for an enforceable contract. I just don't see how the word of one player about NPC behaviour can be preferred over much more detailed, precise information from the GM. Geas seems like a perfectly reasonable insurance policy; without it, it would have been foolish in the extreme for the cardinal to hand out 60,000gp in resources. Surely the characters did not imagine they were getting this king's ransom with no consequences or strings attached. 

2. Diplomacy checks of 30. So, the gnomes who were impressed went off and pleaded the party's case to their superiors -- using _their own_ diplomacy checks. I think this is a basic game mechanical issue in which the GM is clearly in the right -- you cannot do second-hand Diplomacy. If you persuade an agent, emissary or ambassador of something, when they go to make your case to their superior, they use their own diplomacy skill not yours.

3. Sense motive checks of 30. It seems to me that the only way Sense Motive could have been triggered here would be if the gnomes had misrepresented their superiors' intentions -- if they had said, "my superiors agree with me." But instead, they were pretty up front that they would have to sell their superiors on the idea of not screwing over the characters.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> And this is another major part of the problem.  Such a major turning point in the overall adventure shouldn't be winged like that.  Too many things were obviously not thought about ahead of time.




How on earth do _you_ play NPCs? Do you write down their response to every possible thing the characters could do in advance or are you a living breathing human like the rest of us who designs NPCs with motivations and personalities and plays them like people?



> The gnomes that went against the PCs - were they from a different sect than the ones that the PCs made friends with?  If so then how did those two groups get along? There should have been a disagreement over what was happening amongst the gnomes - those friendly to the PCs should surely have argued against the stealing the artifact.




What is your evidence that they didn't? All you know is that they didn't successfully persuade their superiors of the wrongness of taking the artifact. For all we know, they may well have been strong advocates for the party.



> I reiterate that the PCs (and players) should have the opportunity to make poor judgements for themselves.  Since they didn't interact with the ones that were betraying them they couldn't make that call.




What nonsense! They knew of the existence of these people. They knew that the gnomes were going to report to them. It is the job of the players not the GM to ensure that they meet the people relevant to their quest. Perhaps a reasonable precondition for agreeing to be separated from the artifact would have been to speak to the people who were actually in charge. 



> The PCs made the only call they could with the evidence they were given.




Actually if you read the approximated dialogue, you'll see that they were going to have their familiars guard the artifact and then abandoned the plan in mid-stream for no good reason. The NPCs indicated that they couldn't put a human-sized person in the same box as the artifact but took no position regarding familiars. 

Also, are you really suggesting that these gnomes were really the only possible option for shipping this thing? On what evidence do you make this assertion? We don't know enough about where the characters were to know what other options may have been available. 



> Their doubt over the trustworthiness of the gnomes was put to rest by the sense motive check.




Yes. But if I become convinced that a king's ambassador is on my side, it tells me nothing about whether the king is on my side.



> The player who still didn't trust them was metagaming, since there was no information presented to do otherwise




You mean like all their previous interactions, conflicts and other experiences with these gnomes? How is that not information? Remembering what happened last week and knowing who you're talking to is not metagaming.



> - in fact the information supplied led the PCs to believe they were safe.




I suppose that would be true of a player who only joined the campaign in that session. But I believe all the players were veterans.



> As far a LG priest placing a geas - I have to agree it just doesn't make sense.




Then why isn't it an evil spell in the mechanics?



> That is to say placing the geas without letting the party know it was going to happen is not a very lawful nor good thing.




It was very lawful. The party made the agreement; if they did so in good faith, the geas would not affect them; if they didn't, this would be divine punishment for their bad faith. 

I agree that it I had been the GM, I would have made the geas an explicit part of the contract, basically saying, "I'm going to cast a spell that ensures our agreement is adhered-to." But that's a pretty minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. Geas is sometimes a punitive spell but it seems to me that the spell is more a magical mechanism of enforcing a contract that would otherwise be unenforceable.



> More on the level of chaotic (while it could still fall within the good guidelines and not be evil it is really not lawful).




How is making people abide by an agreement inherently chaotic?



> Let me guess the geas was another winged issue.  How many clerics have prepared a geas in their spells for the day?




What gives you the sense that they met the cleric, made the agreement and got the 60,000gp in one day? I have created ecclesiastical judge NPCs who always have geas prepared because their business is enforcing contracts and meting out punishments. If that was the main job of the cardinal, I would expect her to have the spell prepared in any case.



> And since this was a cleric that took an oath of silence pretty much all spells would have been prepared silent (hence using up many high level spell slots).




The _Silent Spell_ feat adds one level to a spell. So, where does you "many high level slots" come from?



> Lets see a silent geas spell uses a 7th level cleric spell slot and affects a single creature - so how many were prepared/cast?  again the problem with winging things.




How on earth do you run NPCs? Seriously!? Or are your players just really really predictable?



> I would not in any way redo time though. What has happened has happened.  As a responsive DM you could talk it over with your players and let them know how you mishandled some things but will do better in the future.




Don't do this Ambrus. Admit you're wrong only if you're wrong. Don't cave in just because people are getting upset. Otherwise, you'll give them an incentive to get upset again. And nobody wants that.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Well, now that the details are in, it's just a matter of mopping up.
> 
> 1. Those cruel untrustworthy NPCs... who give out 60,000gp in equipment to people they hardly know in exchange simply for an enforceable contract. I just don't see how the word of one player about NPC behaviour can be preferred over much more detailed, precise information from the GM. Geas seems like a perfectly reasonable insurance policy; without it, it would have been foolish in the extreme for the cardinal to hand out 60,000gp in resources. Surely the characters did not imagine they were getting this king's ransom with no consequences or strings attached.
> 
> ...





If all of the information Ambrus gave is correct, then all of Fusangite's above conclusions are mechanically correct.

If this aggravates the players, then there are some decisions to be made.

Hong mentioned earlier that the "purpose" of a campaign was to present an *enjoyable* gaming experience in an *enjoyable* world, while Fusangite would replace "Enjoyable" with "Believable"

Neither is the correct answer.

I've played in both sorts of campaigns, and I much prefer the Believable model to the Universally Enjoyable one (Call me a simulationist if you must), but if the players want a world where they _will_ succeed then you need to look closely at whether you have any interest in providing a game world like that.

Myself? I wouldn't bother.

Your fiance? Sounds like she doesn't want to bother playing in a "simulationist" world.

No right or wrong here, just differing tastes.

For what it's worth, I would've _loved_ to be involved in this campaign as  player, and from my vantage point, Ambrus sounds like Hell-and-Damnation as a DM (which is good)


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 29, 2004)

Let's see - I don't script everything.  I do script major attitudes events (ambushes, betrayals {as in when it's likely and what is apt to prompt the event}, etc.)  I do script or at least have a general concept laid out on how an NPC will initially react to the PCs, this of course gets modified by how persuasive their arguments are. I don't always ask for a dice roll, in fact I prefer to weigh the merits of the plan presented to the NPCs and have them react accordingly.  I in general hate having an NPCs reaction determined by a dice roll.

What I gleemed out of the posts was that the fact there was a disagreement between the gnomes was the "winging".  This is a purely NPC interaction with NPC and should be more planned since it cannot be affected by anything the players do and is behind the curtain so to speak.

Things that could have (and probably should have) been scripted would be, IMO:

1. The location of the ship (a possible escape route).

2.  Other possible escape routes.  A DM needs to have more than one way out of a trap since players will more often than not avoid doing what the DM had planned so other possibilities need to be available.

3.  The presence of the gnomes and their general attitude/motivations - prior to the PCs showing up.

4.  Any internal conflict in motivations for the gnomes (e.g., more than 1 sect present).

5.  The boxes themselves. A means for hiding the PCs and artifact onto the ship.

6.  How the gnomes would initially react if confronted by the PCs.

7.  To what extremes are the gnomes willing to go to achieve their goals and exactly how far apart are those goals from those of the PCs.

8.  What happens if the PCs lose?  This one is extrememly important since many times DMs fail to have a contingency plot/story in case the PCs fail to accomplish a specific task.

If you look at what I have listed you can readily see that there is a whole lot of room to maneuver about in reaction/response to the PCs' actions and yet some essential plot line devices are prebuilt into the scenario.


In the case presented most of the storyline progressed without any PC interaction and that is what is wrong about it.  Decisions that adverse affect the PCs were made without them having any way of knowing what was going on.  It is way different for them to have been successfully deceived but when all indications given to them were that they were doing something right then there is a game fault here and the players have a very legitimate right to be upset.  They will most likely get over it once you have given something to go on but until then they feel betrayed (at least that is what I'm getting out of this). 

Ambrus, if you were so convinced that what you had done was correct then why bother to post it as a question in the first place?  I mean you must have thought it possible that you had been unfair to the players or else you wouldn't ahve bothered posting it for discussion. It really seems that you have been spending your time trying to justify your decisions/actions instead of listening to what others see as right or wrong about them.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 29, 2004)

Being geased, especially long-term, is no fun for the players even if it is plausible within the gameworld. In this case, fun trumps plausibility.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> It was very lawful. The party made the agreement; if they did so in good faith, the geas would not affect them; if they didn't, this would be divine punishment for their bad faith.
> 
> I agree that it I had been the GM, I would have made the geas an explicit part of the contract, basically saying, "I'm going to cast a spell that ensures our agreement is adhered-to." But that's a pretty minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. Geas is sometimes a punitive spell but it seems to me that the spell is more a magical mechanism of enforcing a contract that would otherwise be unenforceable.





Hmmm.  I imagine that a Lawful Evil or a Lawful Neutral character might not have a problem with what occurred, but I doubt that would be the case were the character Lawful Good.  According to Ambrus, the PCs and the Cardinal worked out the details of the contract, and the details of the contract did not include the Geas.  It was hidden.  It was not part of the contract.  Plain and simple.

Moreover, I will go so far as to suspect that it was not made part of the contract because Ambrus knew that his players would balk at accepting it.  Why?  Because almost every player out there balks at accepting magical compulsion.  Anyone who says they're surprised that the players are upset over having their characters magicallly compelled either hasn't been playing that long, or isn't being completely honest (though perhaps they are only fooling themselves).  It is my opinion that Ambrus has been playing for a while.

Dropping X gp as a reward?  Well, that's nice, but it isn't necessarily a reason to trust people.  I've worked for companies that dropped nice Holiday Bonuses but took you up the backside during the remainder of the year.  In real-world terms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are more important than any temporary monetary gains.  In my opinion, this holds true in fantasy games as well.

What the Abbess did essentially boils down to:  "I don't trust you, because I have met so many people in this world who cannot be trusted.  And, guess what?  I cannot be trusted either."

It is perfectly fine to have the Abbess be a bleeping bleeping so-and-so.  It is perfectly fine to have the gnomes be bleeping bleeping so-and-sos.  It is perfectly fine to have the gnomes steal the treasure _simply because the PCs made it so damn easy_.

But having the majority of NPCs turn out to be bleeping bleeping so-and-sos creates a world where the _PCs_ are forced to be the same simply to survive.  If that is what the DM is going for, then I suppose there isn't any real problem.  But it isn't a realistic simulation.  It certainly isn't realistic within my experience.  Games theory has looked at cooperative strategies, and would suggest that this constant betrayal of trust is a very poor social stategy for any world, fantasy or real.




> Don't do this Ambrus. Admit you're wrong only if you're wrong. Don't cave in just because people are getting upset. Otherwise, you'll give them an incentive to get upset again. And nobody wants that.





And, yet, I agree with this.  Don't admit that you're wrong, Ambrus.  Simply ask yourself:  "Who are my PCs supposed to care about?  Who are my PCs supposed to trust?  Who is worth questing for (without a Geas)?  Who is worth dying for?"  If you can answer those questions (or, better, your players can), then I am getting the wrong idea from what I've read, and your players are just whiny.

If you can't, though, it's far, far better to provide those answers in the future than it is to ret-con the past.  Easy enough to say, "You were in CITYSTATE?  Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany...." 


RC


----------



## Mallus (Nov 29, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Hong mentioned earlier that the "purpose" of a campaign was to present an *enjoyable* gaming experience in an *enjoyable* world, while Fusangite would replace "Enjoyable" with "Believable"



Looks to me that for Fusangite "believable" is a vital part of "enjoyable", not some competing goal/design paradigm.


> No right or wrong here, just differing tastes.



Exactly


> For what it's worth, I would've _loved_ to be involved in this campaign as  player



Me too.

Doesn't this all come down to knowing your group, and knowing when to mete out rewards and challenges? While I can sympathize with the frustrated players, some of comments in this thread --particularly ones to the effect of "the players must always be presented with enough information to make an informed choices" strike me as well, awful. Its all about presenting players with a steady stream of challenges. And nothing's more challegning than a situation that blindsides them... so long as that's not the only kind of challenge you present them with...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

Mallus said:
			
		

> ome of comments in this thread --particularly ones to the effect of "the players must always be presented with enough information to make an informed choices" strike me as well, awful. Its all about presenting players with a steady stream of challenges. And nothing's more challegning than a situation that blindsides them... so long as that's not the only kind of challenge you present them with...






Well, what if you said:  "The players should be presented with whatever information is available to the characters"?  I think most of us would agree with that.  And, regardless of what else may or may not have occurred, this was largely done...assuming that Ambrus was quite clear that the gnomes the PCs were dealing with had no real power.  Again, the PCs made it easy for the gnomes to change their minds.

However, that doesn't address the problem of rat-bastard NPCs.  Obviously, we all like to play r-bNPCs as DMs.  And, equally obviously, the r-bNPCs are the ones we love to hate as players.  So, r-bNPCs are an important and integral part to any campaign world.

But, they should not turn out to be the average NPC.

In order to make a world breathe for players, the PCs need NPCs that they care about.  They need NPCs that they like.  They need NPCs that they would face danger for, and, if necessary, die to defend.  In other words, they need sympathetic NPCs.

Sympathetic NPCs are, if anything, more important than r-bNPCs.

So, hey, I would have enjoyed playing in Ambrus' game, especially with "new Geas-lite" because I, for one, wouldn't have let the artifact out of my sight.  Moreover, when I discovered the Geas, I would have considered either confronting the Church ("This was not part of our contract!"  "Neither was the gold, but you accepted that readily enough."  "You #$(@!s!") or getting the Geas dispelled by a qualified practitioner.

I also note that the Geas would have no effect so long as I kept the artifact close (due to its antimagic field).

Maybe the gnomes' goals and the party's are not mutually exclusive.  As I pointed out earlier, Diplomacy only really works when both sides are capable of some flexibility.  The diplomat has to have _something_ to offer.  I wouldn't mind knowing more about this.  Lots of available possibilities.

But I'd still want some NPCs I liked.

I also wouldn't mind knowing why the Church wouldn't take the artifact out of the city.  Still no answer on that one, and it seems a bloody obvious idea to me.


RC


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 29, 2004)

Sounds like the DM did a good job to me.

Also seems like a certain player is simply projecting other issues onto this particular situation. Not a valuable attitude.


----------



## wally (Nov 29, 2004)

Just wondering.  I think the GM mentioned that the artifact being discussed actually radiates an anti-magic field.  If they are putting this on an airship, I need to ask...Does this airship have any magic keeping it afloat or pushing it forward?  Wouldn't the anti-magic cause some problems?  Even if the boat is big enough, I would imagine that there would be some problems.


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 29, 2004)

> Ambrus, if you were so convinced that what you had done was correct then why bother to post it as a question in the first place? I mean you must have thought it possible that you had been unfair to the players or else you wouldn't ahve bothered posting it for discussion.




Well, I didn't think I was being unfair at the time, but when then accused of being unfair I felt that it's my duty to carefully consider that possibility. I care about my players' opinions. I also believe that DMs should be accountable for their decisions. Being personally involved in the situation makes it difficult to cast an unbiased eye on the situation though, so I thought I'd try getting some unbiased opinions about it online. I figure that if the majority of people online think I was wrong then I'll seriously have to reconsider my DMing style. How would you go about it?



> It really seems that you have been spending your time trying to justify your decisions/actions instead of listening to what others see as right or wrong about them.




I assure you that I've carefully read every post so far. I've gone into far more detail about the events in question then I originally intended to because people keep asking for additional information or clarifications. My intention wasn't to justify my actions but simply to answer peoples' questions, and perhaps correct them about something if I believe they've misunderstood something that's been presented unclearly.

I've done my best to avoid arguing or disagreeing with those who offer me negative critisisms. I'm sorry if you feel I haven't succeeded. I assure you I've been keeping track of people's opinions about what I did wrong (I shouldn't have had the gnomes betray the PCs, I should have been making NPCs more compliant to the PCs with high Cha/diplomacy scores, I shouldn't have had a NPC geas the party unawares, I should have had the PCs in a position to observe and interfere with the machinations of the gnomes, I should have presented more options for getting the artifact out of the city, ect.) and their suggestions (end the campaign, let someone else DM, wrap up the storyline quickly, don't ever use geases as a DM, let the party chase down the ship and get the artifact back, have the gnomes send the party a consolation prize, have the gnomes dispel the geas, have some NPCs be nice to the party for a change, have the gnomes finish using the artifact and have them return it to the party, ect.) They're all valid suggestions and I appreciate that people have taken the time to offer them, I may use some. Some aren't applicable to our situation, but that's not the fault of the posters.  



> I think the GM mentioned that the artifact being discussed actually radiates an anti-magic field. If they are putting this on an airship, I need to ask...Does this airship have any magic keeping it afloat or pushing it forward? Wouldn't the anti-magic cause some problems?




Yes the ship has a [mysterious to the players] mode of quasi-magical lift and propulsion (though it also uses sails for extra speed and maneuverability). It was shown ahead of time to the players though that the artifact wouldn't cause the ship to crash, though it'll slow it down a bit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> I've done my best to avoid arguing or disagreeing with those who offer me negative critisisms. I'm sorry if you feel I haven't succeeded.





Actually, you have been incredibly calm in the ensuing discussion of what you did and did not "do wrong".  It speaks well of you, and actually lends quite a bit of weight to the argument that what you did was reasonable.




> I shouldn't have had the gnomes betray the PCs





Well, the PCs did make it incredibly easy.  Perhaps better to say that, under the circumstances, there should have been signs that the gnomes did not unanamously betray the PCs.  Of course, you can easily argue that the PCs not having woken up as their crates plunged to the ground far, far below was just such a sign.  




> I should have been making NPCs more compliant to the PCs with high Cha/diplomacy scores





You mentioned the sprite being madly in love with on PC.  High Cha may not be as useful as high Str, but you should take it into account.  Likewise, Diplomacy costs as much as Climbing, and you should get some bang for your buck.  Of course, as I pointed out earlier, diplomats need to have some areas of flexability for Diplomacy to be effective.




> I shouldn't have had a NPC geas the party unawares





I have serious reservations about a supposedly LG character signing a contract with the PCs, then Geasing them without warning, when such action was not part of the contract.  I imagine that, coupled with this, the gnome incident might have seemed a bit...similar?




> I should have had the PCs in a position to observe and interfere with the machinations of the gnomes





It might have helped had the gnomes said, "Of course, it isn't us you have to convince...." or if a Sense Motive check would show them growing a bit nervous about meeting with their superiors following what they believe to be a change of plan.  It might have made the PCs a bit nervous as well.

BUT, the players actually were nervous about the plan (or, at least, one of them was) and _they went along with it anyway_.




> I should have presented more options for getting the artifact out of the city





I am again confounded by the idea of a LG Church having sent them on this mission, with a Geas to boot, without having given them any idea as to how they would get it out of the city.  It seems to me that your group might lack a planner.




> end the campaign, let someone else DM





Um, are you holding hostages so that other people cannot DM?  Are you forcing people to sit at your table and play?  If not, then these suggestions should be politely ignored.




> wrap up the storyline quickly





Honestly, this doesn't sound like a storyline that can be wrapped up quickly.  Nor do the players have an easy out at this moment.  Based upon what's happening with the NPCs and in the world, the PCs are just going to have to decide what they want to do.  No one likes a duex ex machina, and I certainly wouldn't recommend you setting one up just to end the storyline.

It would also rob their current frustration of any meaning later.  If they're paying for it with blood, sweat, and tears, they deserve to reach the end on their own steam.




> don't ever use geases as a DM





Well, I haven't done so yet, and I do think that they should be used sparingly.  If a Geas is intended as a kind of curse, then there should be the means to break it (just not right away).  If it is not meant as a kind of curse, then the PCs should have understood what they were getting into.

It's a meta-gaming issue, perhaps.  But, really, how did you expect the players to react?




> let the party chase down the ship and get the artifact back





Well, under the current set-up, they have to try this, don't they?




> have the gnomes send the party a consolation prize, have the gnomes dispel the geas, have some NPCs be nice to the party for a change, have the gnomes finish using the artifact and have them return it to the party, ect.





These are actually all parcel of the same general idea that not every NPC out there is going to be a rat-bastard, and that there have to be some NPCs out there that the PCs can like, trust, and be willing to help at personal cost.  The possible suggestions are not necessarily the best ones, but conceptually, there has to be some reason that the PCs are willing to be the good guys.

Unless you are playing in an evil campaign, which does not seem to be the case here.


RC 


P.S.:  And, again, overall, you seem to be doing a great job.  Feel free to ignore any of my comments that you don't feel apply.  Not that you needed _my_ permission to do so.  lol.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, you have been incredibly calm in the ensuing discussion of what you did and did not "do wrong".  It speaks well of you, and actually lends quite a bit of weight to the argument that what you did was reasonable.




I agree with Raven Crowking.  After sending a few of my posts, I thought, "Holy crap, I should've been more diplomatic--Ambrus is going to tear into me over that."  But you never did.  Your replies have always been completely courteous.  Few threads are more annoying than those where a DM asks if he did something wrong, then proceeds to rip people apart for suggesting he did something wrong.  This thread is NOTHING like those threads.  I rattle my d20 in salute, sir.  

(rattle, rattle)


Tony M


----------



## JebeddoGarrick (Nov 29, 2004)

*A Gnomon's Musings*

It is fun to read everyone's different views of what happened. Some were very insightful. I'm the player of the gnome in this game but don't ask me what number I am.

The geas was very apropriate under the circumstances. It gave the quest the air of a divine blessing. All the PCs had been involved in negociating the terms of the oath.

I don't think the group can blaim anyone other than themselves for what happened. We knew that we had bad relations with the gnomes. There were racial tensions involved. We had told them our goals were different from theirs. We knew that they didn't trust us, due to our own actions.

Yet we went and put ourselves in their power. I saw it as a way to build an alliance. We would earn their friendship by trusting them first. The party suggested the plan to hide in crates, decided to crate the important object separately, and didn't make any provisions to escape the crates. One of our members took a sleeping draught to knock him out for the duration of the voyage. We didn't even drill small holes in the crates to see what was going on outside. 

My character is a gnome that is headstrong and independent. He has always had trouble fitting in. He is always wandering off alone to investigate something, much to chagrin of the other party members. Then along come these gnomes who are interested in the same things as him and follow the same god. They invite him to join one of their secret meetings. He wanted desperately to trust them and would have overlooked all but the most obvious reasons not to. 

The issue is probably more one of pacing or plot arc than NPC actions. Imagine playing D&D for 35 sessions in one dungeon that you can't leave for risk of getting caught. You can't buy or sell anything. You can't do any crafting nor speak to any NPCs outside the dungeon. It wore down on everyone's moral. In a computer game equivalent, it was the end of a giant level and we would have been rewarded with a cut scene. I guess that was what the players were expecting.

However, the time was not wasted. We broke the seal on what an empire had kept hidden for several millenia. We have something in our possession that is equally important, if not more. Our actions will help reveal the light of hope to those who had given up.

Jebeddo
__________________
"If we shadows have offended 
Think but this, and all is mended. 
That you have but slumb'red here 
While these visions did appear." 
- A Midsummer Night's Dream


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2004)

Glad to hear your views, Jebeddo.  I was having some difficulty reconciling some of the things I had learned with the overall imression that Ambrus was a reasonable person with a complex campaign.

RC


----------



## Esme (Nov 30, 2004)

*Another PC from the game*

Hello, I'm another PC from Ambrus' game.

First off, I have to say that Ambrus is a very good GM in my opinion. His strenght is in creating a logical and believable world and in crafting interesting NPCs for us to interact with. I trust in his impartiality.

My character (the sorcerer) feels saddened that the gnomes chose to betray us but he can't say he blames them, as relations between the Empire and the gnome/dwarven psion faction is strained at best. He actually died in the first battle with the gnomes, after starting the battle and feels his death was just penance for his aggresion. 

For people to understand why we were so trusting to hand off the artefact to the gnomes, they have to understand we had been in the donjon for 30 odd sessions and returning to the surface made us giddy with excitement. We easily could have found another way to leave the city, but we were so exhausted and fearful to be caught by the authorities (it's very complicated, but basically the item is the most valuable thing in the world) that when the gnomes offered their ship, I jumped on the chance mand did not give to much thought to betrayal. it was perhaps not to wise, but it's in character for me I think.

As for the geas, neither my character or me the player feel cheated in this situation. We swore an holy oath to recover an artifact, and if the gods chose to bindf us to that (working through an elven woman) then that's just more proof of the importance of the quest.

Now we must clearly dry our tears, find the location of the artefact and fly off to it's rescue.

Yay adventure!   

Esmé


----------



## hong (Nov 30, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> It didn't occur to them that they might get overruled by their own allies.




Why not?



> I'm not trying to justify what I did or make excuses, but please keep in mind that I was improvising most of this as it developed. :\




Never mind. After all, gaming is a character-building experience, you know.


----------



## hong (Nov 30, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> If all of the information Ambrus gave is correct, then all of Fusangite's above conclusions are mechanically correct.
> 
> If this aggravates the players, then there are some decisions to be made.
> 
> ...




Only those who believe the purpose of playing a game is not to have fun would think that "enjoyable" is not the correct answer.



> I've played in both sorts of campaigns, and I much prefer the Believable model to the Universally Enjoyable one




Not, of course, that anyone said anything about "universally enjoyable".

It is true that:

1) There is more than one dimension to what makes a game enjoyable.

2) Different people will put different priorities on each dimension, depending on taste.

This does NOT lead to:
3) You must therefore cater for everyone's tastes.

It DOES lead to:
4) You are under no obligation to game with people whose tastes are radically different to yours.

It ALSO leads to:
5) If you have decided that someone's tastes are not so radically different to yours as to rule out gaming with them, you have an obligation to work with them to build a game that will be an enjoyable experience to both, since roleplaying is (generally) a social nteraction carried out between equals, and unless the two of you are clones, there will likely still be points of disagreement.

Of course, 5) requires something in the way of people skills and the ability to reach a consensus. I believe I said something earlier about those with the social skills of a walnut, which might explain their difficulty with this.


----------



## tonym (Nov 30, 2004)

Thanks for posting, Jebeddo and Esme.  Coupled with Ketherian, I now count 3 Players who are fine with Ambrus' handling of the gnome situation.  Not only fine with it, but happy with everything Ambrus has done.  

THEN, standing apart from those happy Players, is Noelani, the fiance who wrote, "This isn't a matter of us PCs being incompetent. Its a matter of the world being completely stacked against us."  Noelani made it clear she is fed-up with the level of frustration in the campaign, the usage of deceipt by so many NPCs, the geas, and several other things.

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it, but 'something' is bugging me about how Jebeddo, Esme and Ketherian so completely disagree with Noelani.  It's like, why are they not giving her any support at all?  She is their fellow Player, and they are all flat-out contradicting her.

It would've been so easy to say something like, "I understand where Noelani is coming from; the world often does seem to be stacked against us.  But I enjoy it, personally."

But none of them are sypathizing with her...

I am confused.

I guess I still believe Noelani, in other words.  Ambrus' world would be improved if it was a little less frustrating.  Not a cakewalk, of course.  STILL frustrating.  Just a little 'less' frustrating.

Tony M


----------



## Acid_crash (Nov 30, 2004)

What's sad is that no matter how good a game goes, nor how well a DM is, if all players BUT one are happy with the game, and that one is not happy, the DM feels like it was a failure because one isn't happy with it.  

This happened to me in my last game.  I didn't like being put in that position.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 30, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Only those who believe the purpose of playing a game is not to have fun would think that "enjoyable" is not the correct answer.




Don't be obtuse Hong, there is no argument to win here, much less win by arguing semantics.

If you are _seriously_ implying that your belief regarding what I meant by "Enjoyable" vs. "Believable" was that the game is best served by being unenjoyable, then I have overestimated you throughout your posting history.

The other option is for me to assume that you are not actually retarded and tht you are just being argumentative because you love semantics and think this kind of argument makes you look clever.

It doesn't. 



			
				Hong said:
			
		

> Not, of course, that anyone said anything about "universally enjoyable".




More of the same and best ignored.



			
				Hong said:
			
		

> It is true that:
> 
> 1) There is more than one dimension to what makes a game enjoyable.
> 
> ...




And to think I managed to distill all of the above into...



			
				Me said:
			
		

> I've played in both sorts of campaigns, and I much prefer the Believable model to the Universally Enjoyable one (Call me a simulationist if you must), but if the players want a world where they will succeed then you need to look closely at whether you have any interest in providing a game world like that.
> 
> Myself? I wouldn't bother.
> 
> ...




...n the same post you were disagreeing with.


----------



## FCWesel (Nov 30, 2004)

Ambrus, looking over the thread, I don't see a problem with what your NPCs  did. At all. I mean, not ALL HOPE is lost, right? The heroes are well...uh, heroes, right? So they can do something...heroic...and get after it right?

I also wanted to note that I found your posts and replies both calm, collected and gentlemenly and my hat's off to you on your most noble conduct. Not to mention the fact that you posted the inquiry here shhould tell your players YOU personally didn't set out to screw them over.

Believe it or not folks, sometimes NPCs *just do things*...Seriously.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 30, 2004)

tonym said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it, but 'something' is bugging me about how Jebeddo, Esme and Ketherian so completely disagree with Noelani.  It's like, why are they not giving her any support at all?  She is their fellow Player, and they are all flat-out contradicting her.




I don't know whether you're aware of this but, even in the 21st century, people can still just be wrong. Your preposterous idea that noticing someone is wrong is somehow hostile or mean is frankly... wrong.

Being in the same gaming group as another person does not require you to agree with them -- if anything it charges you with a greater responsibility to point out when they are wrong. 

What if Noelani stated that she believed Ambrus was trying to kill her and the other three players contradicted her? If they denied that he was, would you find fault with them then? How about if she stated he was building a dirty bomb with salvaged x-ray machines and was going to detonate it for Al-Qaeda? The mere statement of an opinion is insufficient, by itself, to make the opinion valid. We are all wrong from time to time. Why is it not okay/possible for Noelani to just be wrong?



> It would've been so easy to say something like, "I understand where Noelani is coming from; the world often does seem to be stacked against us.  But I enjoy it, personally."




But what if the world really doesn't seem that way to them!? What if it really isn't? What if it's so friendly that NPCs the characters hardly know give them 60000gp worth of stuff just for agreeing to carry out a quest?



> But none of them are sypathizing with her... I am confused.




Of course you are. You have drawn a conclusion and now the evidence doesn't fit it so... you're about to announce an evil conspiracy of the GM and all the players lying to us about the game so as to make the GM's fiancee feel bad...



> I guess I still believe Noelani, in other words.




So, what's the motive behind this unanimous wall of lies that her fiance and his friends have cooked-up for us?



> Ambrus' world would be improved if it was a little less frustrating.  Not a cakewalk, of course.  STILL frustrating.  Just a little 'less' frustrating.




Improved by whose standards? Noelani would like it more; you would like it more. Most contributors to this thread and most players of the actual game wouldn't find it improved.


----------



## Esme (Nov 30, 2004)

*Clarification*

>I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it, but 'something' is bugging me about how Jebeddo, Esme and Ketherian so completely disagree with Noelani. It's like, why are >they not giving her any support at all? She is their fellow Player, and they are all flat-out contradicting her.

Perhaps I should offer some clarification to my previous posting, in light of the preceding remark from a poster (thank you all by the way for your various insights. Our game seems to be the matter of quite the discussion!  

I totally understand and sympatise with Noelanie's point of view. It was a big dissapointment to loose the artefact, after thinking we could trust the gnomes. It's disheartening and frustrating. I died and game back to recover the item. Noelanie has every right to feel the way she does. Earlier in the campaign, the group tried and failed to stop the demon-worshiping faction of performing an evil ceremony. It stung for a while to have failed but we moved on to bigger chalenges. And we REALLY hate that faction now  I can see Noelanie's pont of "another challenge failed, another challenge to difficult for us". 

However, after the shock wears off I see the potential for the story to go forward and for it to be interesting and challenging. While Ambrus' decision might have been harsh, it was neither cruel, which implies malice and forethought, nor gratuitous, as demonstrated by his concern by our reaction. I think he is an impartial and fair judge of events. In this situation, events just got the better of the party. But I will not blame anyone in the group for feeling the way they do. it's only human. 

*Esmé hugs Noelanie*   

Oh but those gnomes have no clue who they pi**ed off!   

Esmé


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 30, 2004)

> Thanks for posting, Jebeddo and Esme. Coupled with Ketherian, I now count 3 Players who are fine with Ambrus' handling of the gnome situation. Not only fine with it, but happy with everything Ambrus has done




And that is what is really about after all.  3 out 4 have posted saying they truely enjoy the game and after a while got over the dissappointment of failure. IMO the one that posted (note this was a while ago) was reacting emotionally from the first feelings after the occurance and hadn't had time to let the overall potential/possibilities set in yet.

I also agree with the postive and controlled manner in which Ambrus has responded to posted criticism.  If he handles his games in the same manner then they really can only be enjoyable, IMO.


----------



## Numion (Nov 30, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> 2. Diplomacy checks of 30. So, the gnomes who were impressed went off and pleaded the party's case to their superiors -- using _their own_ diplomacy checks. I think this is a basic game mechanical issue in which the GM is clearly in the right -- you cannot do second-hand Diplomacy. If you persuade an agent, emissary or ambassador of something, when they go to make your case to their superior, they use their own diplomacy skill not yours.
> 
> 3. Sense motive checks of 30. It seems to me that the only way Sense Motive could have been triggered here would be if the gnomes had misrepresented their superiors' intentions -- if they had said, "my superiors agree with me." But instead, they were pretty up front that they would have to sell their superiors on the idea of not screwing over the characters.




I think you are onto something here. In the real world leaders have since the dawn of time sent others to do their diplomacy, bluffing and sensemotiving. Often with the negotiator being clueless to the leaders real intentions - just as a safeguard for not betraying them unwittingly. 

In a D&D world where the leaders are aware of people who can sense your motive with ease this shouldn't be too surprising or uncommon.


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 30, 2004)

> And that is what is really about after all. 3 out 4 have posted saying they truely enjoy the game and after a while got over the dissappointment of failure.




Don't forget though that there remains a fifth player whoose opinion you haven't yet heard. She is now aware of what occured (Noelani informed her by email) and though I haven't yet heard her reaction yet, I fear the worst.  



> IMO the one that posted (note this was a while ago) was reacting emotionally from the first feelings after the occurance and hadn't had time to let the overall potential/possibilities set in yet.




Since it seems unlikely that Noelani will post here again, I should mention that although she has calmed down, she mantains her opinion (as I understand it) that what I did was wrong and that I acted unfairly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2004)

It seems to me that, after everything has been discussed, any error you might have made was well within normal tolerable limits.  And it also seems that there is so much good stuff going on in your game that you deserve higher limites than average.

From what I'm reading, you've pulled off the impossible and made at least some of your players feel special because they've been Geased.  That's something I certainly could not have accomplished!  My hat is off to you!

If you ever move to Toronto, and you're looking for another player, let me know!


RC


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Nov 30, 2004)

tonym said:
			
		

> Well, that's the thing that would bug me as a Player.  If you, as a DM, knew from the get-go that the gnomes would screw-over the party, that's fine--because then there'd a good chance that one of your Players would've picked up on their trecherous nature via roleplaying.  But if for months you roleplayed them as truly trustworthy NPCs who 'liked' the PCs, because you knew them to be trustworthy NPCs who liked the PCs--but then, when the party finally relied on that trust in a big way, you suddenly decide they were secretly treacherous and have always been trecherous, then that is a bit lame.   Because there would've been NO WAY for your Players to pick-up-on the gnomes' trecherous nature via roleplaying during all those previous sessions.
> 
> I'm with your Players on this one.
> 
> Tony M




Well some of the players are with the DM it seems.  Given the backstory of the gnome/dwarf faction and the fact that the PCs had killed some of the their group it was massively unwise to trust them.  If I were the Dm I would have just sat with my mouth agape as the players gave away the object of their quest to a group that they had no business trusting in any way.  Mind-boggling!  

edit - upon reading the rest of the thread (or at least more posts in it) there is one thing that really does need repeating (I think swrushing posted it) that you need to make the game fun for the players - all of them.  Convince the internet hordes all you like there is still the problem with having at least 1 possibly 2 unhappy players who _don't want to play anymore_.  That is a bad thing.  I don't suggest a reversal of events but something needs to ahppen to swing the advantage to the PCs for a little while (a lifting of the geas would be my first instinct - I've always hated them and never use them.  They, and don't be offended at this, always seemed like the ultimate railroading device, imo)


----------



## jmucchiello (Nov 30, 2004)

I think this is easily salvagable. I'd spoiler this but I'm just assuming the players won't care where the idea came from....

If the players are upset that the gnomes betrayed as it appears on the surface then they just have to turn up a few dead gnomes (including one of the ones negotiated with) and find some clues to the demon faction having interrupted the gnomes transfer of the artifact and party onto the ship. Now the players can team up with the surviving gnomes (run into later) to get the artifact back/avenge the dead gnomes.

---

I can't believe some of the responses in this thread. How could the gnomes they beguiled with great feats of diplomacy not give them some recompense for taking the artifact? Well, they didn't kill the party, that's reasonable recompense I think. Those crates could just as easily have been loaded into the locked hold of a ship that had its keel ripped and sank.

---

Hong, given you are correct that gaming should be enjoyable, does not mean that 100% of all gaming time must be joyous. Some enjoyment can be had with a frustrating cliffhanger or setback. In this case, some of the players found the setback too great. Still if recovery from the setback is plausible and quick it will also be satisfying, perhap enjoyable.

---

Ambrus, I'd be really worried that only your SO (SO? Fiancee!!) is upset. How cold have the last few days been?


----------



## Ambrus (Nov 30, 2004)

Well, the thread seems to be finally loosing steam so I'll take this oppurtunity to thank everyone who chimmed in with their insight and feedback. I've certaintly gotten a lot to think about, more than I originally expected. I'll let you all know how it turns out, perhaps in a story hour as someone suggested; if I can figure out how that works.

I'll just leave off with this short anecdote:

When my boss asked me how my weekend went I answered "less than stellar". When he asked why, I tried my best to explain in very simple terms (my boss is utterly RPG illeterate) how I upset my players by taking something away from them that they'd worked long and hard to acquire. His response to this was an expected "I don't get it." I decided to explain it in terms a non-gamer might understand:
"Have you ever seen Indiana Jones and the lost Ark?"
"Yeah, sure."
"Well, imagine that you're Indiana Jones and you've worked hard to get this Ark. Then, in the last ten minutes of the movie, nazis show up and snatch away the Ark right out of your hands. That's kind of how my players feel."

*pause*

"And you're the nazi?"
"Yeah... I'm the nazi."
"Ah. I get it now."

Now I just have to worry about bursting into flames or melting. 



> Ambrus, I'd be really worried that only your SO (SO? Fiancee!!) is upset. How cold have the last few days been?




I'd rather not go into that. Thanks. 



> If you ever move to Toronto, and you're looking for another player, let me know!




I actually lived in Hamilton between 98 and 02. I can't say that I have any intentions of moving back there. Thanks for the offer though. Let me know if you ever move to Montreal.


----------



## Asmo (Nov 30, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> "And you're the nazi?" "Yeah... I'm the nazi." "Ah. I get it now."





Hehe, brilliant!

Asmo


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 30, 2004)

I have deleted a large number of posts from this thread. I am _exceedingly_ annoyed that I needed to do this. Thank you to everyone who didn't follow the hijack, and please remember that bickering and hijacking is not something that we tolerate. When you're tempted to do so, you're much better off just walking away from your keyboard for a time.  Otherwise you may find yourself being forced to take a break, and everyone would generally prefer to avoid this.

Carry on!


----------



## Darthjaye (Nov 30, 2004)

No your not.  This is coming from the player side of things.  Firstly, as pointed out previously and numerously, the party should have been on their toes.  They relied too much on someone else to get things done in this instance.  Some may say they weren't paranoid enough about a group they barely knew offering a helping hand with no real costs.  Secondly, never, i repeat, never as a player trust the hard earned artifact (ARTIFACT!!!) you fought so hard to find, with someone you don't know from Adam (whomever ever the heck he is).  Thirdly/est/ish, you as the GM deserve to have a little fun.  They need to understand it's not just for their entertainment.  They just get up, wipe themselves off, and either go get even with them little bastichs or move on.  Me, i say revenge is a dish served cold and often.  Find em, plug em, raise and plug em just to get the point across.  They duped them and made it somewhat personal by befriending them.  As the great      Jesse Ventura once said "I ain't got time to bleed" which i can only surmise, after writing it, is two things:  One-my brain may have just have a fart, and Two-dust yourselves off and go get your artifact back (and your reputation, cause if anyone else finds out this happens, your gonna hate bards!!).  
Speaking of which, can you use locate/ discern/ commune type spells to find a artifact you had in your possesion?  
     Hell if my GM (coyote6) had pulled that off he'd have laughed at us when we figured out what happened.  And i mean laughed at us to our faces.  That doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just that he knows a good laugh/ blunder when he sees one.

Hope that helps....rub the salt in!!!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2004)

*Story Hour*

Ambrus,

To write a story hour, simply write up a sequential story telling your campaign events as they happened.  You can examine mine, or those of other posters, for examples.

I would really like to read the backstory here, and know where this one goes.

RC


----------



## robberbaron (Dec 1, 2004)

Don't beat yourself up over it.
I don't plan every twist and turn of my campaign and haven't had any complaints (yet).

Did any of them ask for a Sense Motive check? Did you offer one?

No and no - perhaps a bit harsh.
No and yes - dopy players.
Yes and yes/no - bad rolling. Shame, but it happens.

Carry on with the plot but let them get the artifact, unless they give their trust unconditionally to the next bunch of miscreants who want to rip them off, in which case they get what they deserve.


----------



## tonym (Dec 1, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> ...I'll let you all know how it turns out, perhaps in a story hour as someone suggested; if I can figure out how that works.




Yes, please let us know what happens--preferably in this thread, since I don't check the Story Hours.  If you do a Story Hour, please post news about it in this thread so I'll know to read it.

Good luck!!  This thread has been very interesting, btw.  I've been in 2 gaming groups which experienced somewhat similar situations.  One had a happy ending, one a sad ending.  I hope yours ends happily for all involved.

Tony M


----------



## _Magnus_ (Dec 1, 2004)

I think that this is fair. It might be dissapointing, but not unfair. having the artifact stolen will make the party think twice about letting go of valuable/hard earned items in the future. It also makes the experience more real. In real life, I dont think those gnomes would have given the artifact back, and it shows that NPC's don't always have the parties best interests in mind, and that they have their own agendas.


----------



## Fieari (Dec 1, 2004)

This thread has been a VERY enjoyable read.  I would love to hear the conclusion to this little tale... what the group actually ended up doing to resolve it.  And then I'd like to see this thread archived.  It gave me some great insight as to how I should handle certain situations in my campaign... a great blessing.

Also, here's an offering of thanks to PCat for deleting posts so I didn't have to read them.  The sheer civility of everything I've read heartened me greatly, because all too many threads of this nature end up as... er, "urination duels" (is this term eric's granny friendly?).


----------



## Treebore (Dec 2, 2004)

Along the same vain as Magnus brought up, artifacts are priceless, right? In real life would you trust A few friends you know, but not really, help you hide it away without you being directly involved the whole way? Better yet have your BEST friends back you up the whole way as well? I don't think so.

Heck, in real life I wouldn't trust my best friends with something I owned that was considered priceless. I would worry about being killed for it, by anybody.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 2, 2004)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> No your not.  This is coming from the player side of things.  Firstly, as pointed out previously and numerously, the party should have been on their toes.  They relied too much on someone else to get things done in this instance.




Hey, if nothing else, i bet they won't ever, under this GM, make the mistake of trusting NPCs when it counts (or relying on NPCs when it counts again) NO MATTER how good their diplomacy skills and sense motive skills and so forth are. 

i would have to wager they sure elearned their lesson this time.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 2, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> i would have to wager they sure elearned their lesson this time.



If that lesson is "NPCs are never trustworthy," I agree.

I'm not sure that's a lesson I'd want my players to learn, but these players sure look like they learned it, and then some.  :\


----------



## fusangite (Dec 2, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Hey, if nothing else, i bet they won't ever, under this GM, make the mistake of trusting NPCs when it counts (or relying on NPCs when it counts again) NO MATTER how good their diplomacy skills and sense motive skills and so forth are.




Can you explain how you think the Diplomacy and Sense Motive mechanics were misapplied here? I think there is a pretty clear consensus that these checks can only apply to the NPCs with whom the characters are directly interacting. Is it your contention that these checks affect individuals beyond that? Also, even if the characters were affecting these other gnomes whom they were not talking to with their diplomacy checks, in order to get a Hostile NPC to become a Helpful NPC (what the characters were asking), a check of 50 would be required.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> If that lesson is "NPCs are never trustworthy," I agree.
> 
> I'm not sure that's a lesson I'd want my players to learn, but these players sure look like they learned it, and then some.




In all the posts we have received, two NPC interactions have been described: negotiating with the gnomes and deciding to go on the quest. So there are two problems with your observation:
1. The sample is too small. You're arguing that because 50% of the two interactions we have heard about resulted in the NPCs betraying the characters, 100% of the PC-NPC interactions in this 35-episode campaign have involved the NPCs betraying the characters. 
2. Even if you think two encounters is a large enough sample size by which to judge an entire campaign, there is the problem of the one other NPC interaction we know about. Correct me if I'm wrong but giving people 60,000gp in exchange for an enforceable promise is not normally what is defined as "betrayal."


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 2, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Can you explain how you think the Diplomacy and Sense Motive mechanics were misapplied here? I think there is a pretty clear consensus that these checks can only apply to the NPCs with whom the characters are directly interacting. Is it your contention that these checks affect individuals beyond that? Also, even if the characters were affecting these other gnomes whom they were not talking to with their diplomacy checks, in order to get a Hostile NPC to become a Helpful NPC (what the characters were asking), a check of 50 would be required.




I for one never said the skills were misapplied. I have said that IMO the DM was at fault by not providing the PCs an opportunity to "smell out" the betrayal.

The betraying happened in the "back room" and totally out of the players' control or influence. Basically they had no idea there were other gnomes that had to be dealt with other than the ones they were negotiating with. As far as I can tell the gnomes that "decided" to betray the PCs never had any interface with them at all - hence no opportunity to determine that things would go wrong.

I would repeat that every indication given the PCs (the response from the sense motive check and reaction by the gnomes to the diplomacy) indicated that this was indeed the correct thing to do and was as safe as it could get.

The only reason I can tell from the posts that the players' felt uneasy was because of the number of times they had been screwed over or crossed by other NPCS (based on their comments).

Now how do balance that past history with the fresh data being provided? Heck even a spell (that they couldn't cast at the time for various reasons) would have given them the same information as the sense motive/diplomacy checks.


----------



## Felonious Ntent (Dec 2, 2004)

Why do the pc's need a hint that this would happen? I don't get it. If the crown is upsurped and the new king decries all magic use is illiegal this would affect pc's. Now if PC's are in t he same city, hell the castle itself should they be privy to this in advance of it happening?


----------



## fusangite (Dec 2, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I for one never said the skills were misapplied. I have said that IMO the DM was at fault by not providing the PCs an opportunity to "smell out" the betrayal.




The PCs did not attempt any investigation of whether they could be betrayed beyond a single Sense Motive check. They did not attempt to speak with the other gnomes; they did not attempt to follow or spy on the gnomes; they did not come up with any system for checking on whether the gnomes were following through on the deal, etc. If they had attempted things like this and the GM had thwarted them, then your above statement would be true. 

In a game Teflon Billy ran, our party passed by a ghoul lair; inside there was treasure but we decided not to go into the lair but instead proceed on our way. TB did not "deny us the opportunity to sniff out the treasure" -- we just never acted on the opportunity that was available. 



> The betraying happened in the "back room" and totally out of the players' control or influence.




I don't buy that. Firstly, the fact that the characters didn't enter/influence the back room is not the same as them not being able to. Furthermore, the betrayal happened there because the characters permitted that to take place by virtue of the way they made the agreement with the gnomes. In a normal campaign, there are lots of off-screen consequences for the PCs' on-screen actions; this story is one such case.



> Basically they had no idea there were other gnomes that had to be dealt with other than the ones they were negotiating with.




Wrong. Re-read the posts.



> As far as I can tell the gnomes that "decided" to betray the PCs never had any interface with them at all




Did you not read the stuff about how the party had run afoul of the gnomes before and even killed some of them? It seems from the way you're expressing yourself that you think the party encountered these gnomes for the first time in the episode in question.



> I would repeat that every indication given the PCs (the response from the sense motive check and reaction by the gnomes to the diplomacy) indicated that this was indeed the correct thing to do and was as safe as it could get.




Yes. But that's why D&D is more than a bunch of dice rolls. Even Noelani acknowledged that simple common sense suggested that trusting the gnomes was a bad idea, regardless of the rest of the Sense Motive check. Having a high Sense Motive is no substitute for actually thinking through the consequences of an action.



> The only reason I can tell from the posts that the players' felt uneasy was because of the number of times they had been screwed over or crossed by other NPCS (based on their comments).




No. One of the four players who posted expressed this opinion. The other three did not. Why are you prefering the evidence of one player over that of the GM and three other players? What _was_ expressed was that the party had had a rocky relationship with _these particular gnomes_ in the past. That is the relevant piece of data here.



> Now how do balance that past history with the fresh data being provided?




What do you mean here? 



> Heck even a spell (that they couldn't cast at the time for various reasons) would have given them the same information as the sense motive/diplomacy checks.




Wrong. A _Charm Person_ spell unlike a Diplomacy check does cause an NPC to betray his allies in favour of the party. Clearly, if _Charm Person_ had been used in place of Diplomacy, the gnomes would have warned the PCs.


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 2, 2004)

Actually, I still don't understand why the party had to be crated. Or why the WHOLE party had to be crated. Why not leave a mage type outside to keep an eye on the gnomes. Once everything is loaded, the mage teleports to the ship. If the ship can fly with the anti-magic/teleporting artifact on board, certainly one can teleport to it.

IOW, even trusting the gnomes didn't require that they trust them completely.

And I still say the DM just makes a third party the real betrayers. That removes the failure of the party to sniff out the betrayal.


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 5, 2004)

> Yes. But that's why D&D is more than a bunch of dice rolls. Even Noelani acknowledged that simple common sense suggested that trusting the gnomes was a bad idea, regardless of the rest of the Sense Motive check. Having a high Sense Motive is no substitute for actually thinking through the consequences of an action.




So when is metagame thinking a substitute for role playing and what the character nows instead of what the player knows?

It appears to me that too many people are sustituting what they would know as players for what the PCs know and have evidence to back it up.

I listed all the evidence present and no one has been able to dismiss that.  Saying the PCs didn't look somewhere only applies if they have a reason to want to look.  In this case the result of the sense motive would have (IMO) been an indication to the PCs that their long time attempts to work on diplomatic relationship with the gnomes had indeed worked - i.e., the payoff of all that previous effort. 

And I wasn't refering to the effects of a charm on the NPCs but was making reference to any divination type spells they could have cast. Charm person per the rules only puts the affected creature at friendly (not helpful) which is more limiting in the aid being offered. Augury might well have been the best choice, but with a 1 minute casting time and the odds that most clerics don't have it memorized (its one of those spells best kept on a scroll) it is probably not real likely it was an viable option.  Likewise Divination would work, but also not likely to have on hand and be used in the situation. Detect Thoughts, Discern Lies, etc. would only give the same reaction as did the Sense Motive check. 

And since it appears that 1 out 5 and quite likely 2 out of 5 (nearly half of the players) weren't satisfied then quite clearly something needs to be looked at in regards to the situation.  A single person is not a reason to look too hard that something might be awry, but 2 out 5 is another story.




> And I still say the DM just makes a third party the real betrayers. That removes the failure of the party to sniff out the betrayal.




That is exactly the point I've been trying to make.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Can you explain how you think the Diplomacy and Sense Motive mechanics were misapplied here?



Looking back at the quote, i don't believe i said they were. Did you mean to quote someone else's post?


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> I think there is a pretty clear consensus that these checks can only apply to the NPCs with whom the characters are directly interacting. Is it your contention that these checks affect individuals beyond that?



No, not at all. After all, that would be such an easily reuted position to take, that i am amazed you inadvertantly assigned it to... ohhh wait... i get it.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Also, even if the characters were affecting these other gnomes whom they were not talking to with their diplomacy checks, in order to get a Hostile NPC to become a Helpful NPC (what the characters were asking), a check of 50 would be required.




scratches head... so the NPCs they were interacting with were hostile? i thought the gnomes working with them were, maybe at least neutral?
man, one would have thought a sense motive with a decent check, would have picked that hostility up?

Now, of course, had the NPCs they were interacting with been "honestly" intending to work with the PCs and help them, then its possible, just a little possible that those "honest" gnomes working out the agreement (who might have known they did not actually have the power/position to fulfill the agreement) MIGHT have told the PCs something like "hey, we gotta get this cleared by oue bosses" or might have, if they suspected they did not have the actual power to arrange all this, had their  doubts picked up by the more sensitive members of the PCs using sense motive.

These are of course, just possibilities.

from what i gather, the gnomes the PCs were interacting with...
1. were truly intent on working together with the PCs.
2. were expressing their own honest intentions.
3. apparently had no detectable concerns that the plan would be overturned  by those in charge, which of course, them being hostile-to-the-PCs gnomes seems a definite error on these work-with-PCs gnomes
4. were EITHER so convinced their bosses were goina long with the plan they took no efforts to confirm the situation OR were surprisingly, to them, powerless to ensure the agreement was done as they worked out.

the combination of coincidental limitation of access to anyone with duplicitous intents, lack of understanding or even doubt among the gnomes negoitiating that they were actually not going to be able to make this agreement work out as planned at all, and so forth made it fairly certain  that the skills use or none use would not really hand the PCs useful info.

its wasn't that the PCs used the skills wrong or that the Gm used the skills wrong, its just that the sources of info were just totally wrong, clueless as to the risks, possessing only info that would mislead the PCs... 

its almost like those nopc characters were crafted/built/sculpted like say bait for a trap. But, of course, that wasn't the case. Right? it just happened that the guys the party could read were unaware of the chance that the other gnomes might not have to honor the agreement.

But imagine how this overall situation might have turned out if, instead of getting "hey, they seem trustworthy and aren't deceiving us" hits from those well developed skills, the PCs had gotten also "yeah, but they still seem nervous, unsure, there is still something up here" because the gnomes working with the PCs were not either "flawlessly hiding the fact that they knew they still had to convince the bosses" or 'woefully ignorant of the fact that they still had to convince the bosses" or "totally wrong in their belief that the bosses would suddenly overocme all hostilities and go along with the plan."

********

At any time as GM, i can hand the PCs a contact who "believes everything he is saying" but who is just plain wrong and use my PCs own skills at reading people and at convincing people against them. Thats simple and easy and requires no more cleverness or fairness that me saying "hey, lets use their skills against them" and then, either before the fact or later when asked, adding to the NPC the relevent lack of knowledge or simply having the NPCs who served as my "info conduit" be just plain totally wrong on everything that mattered.

Its really not all that hard to fool someone when i control all the info flow.

But, of course, once i do turn their own character's expertise against them, ESPECIALLY if it is in a HUGE for the campaign situation like say blowing the end of a year long quest,  I really ought not to expect them to be willing to trust their abilities or traits the next time.

Why should they in the future believe what NPCs are saying when their great skills at reading people and at convincing people to join their cause have proven in the past to be this unreliable?

They should learn the lesson the first time, shouldn't they? 

Especially if its such a costly error for them the first time.

The Gm teaches his players, has the world teach their characters, every session. if its not a lesson you want them to learn, you shouldn't make it part of your lesson plan.

At least, IMO.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 5, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> its wasn't that the PCs used the skills wrong or that the Gm used the skills wrong, its just that the sources of info were just totally wrong, clueless as to the risks, possessing only info that would mislead the PCs...
> 
> its almost like those nopc characters were crafted/built/sculpted like say bait for a trap. But, of course, that wasn't the case. Right? it just happened that the guys the party could read were unaware of the chance that the other gnomes might not have to honor the agreement.



This is one of the things that has bothered me about this scenario.  It feels like the event has been crafted to circumvent all of the PCs' usual ways to judge a situation.  Perhaps it was just coincidence, but it feels like a deliberate workaround to foil PC skills.  "Buffer gnomes" to give the PCs false readings, while the true "Plot gnomes" hide in the shadows to spring their betrayal on the PCs at the right time.







> At any time as GM, i can hand the PCs a contact who "believes everything he is saying" but who is just plain wrong and use my PCs own skills at reading people and at convincing people against them. Thats simple and easy and requires no more cleverness or fairness that me saying "hey, lets use their skills against them" and then, either before the fact or later when asked, adding to the NPC the relevent lack of knowledge or simply having the NPCs who served as my "info conduit" be just plain totally wrong on everything that mattered.
> 
> Its really not all that hard to fool someone when i control all the info flow.
> 
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> So when is metagame thinking a substitute for role playing and what the character nows instead of what the player knows? It appears to me that too many people are sustituting what they would know as players for what the PCs know and have evidence to back it up.




I'm not talking about what the player knows. I'm talking about what the character knows. No matter how many times I repeat it, you guys can't seem to remember that the party has a history with these gnomes and has _killed_ some of them in the past. 

So, here's the actual scenario:

The party talks to some gnomes and by being very very charming, they persuade the gnomes that despite the bad blood that has existed between them in the past, the gnomes should adopt the party's agenda. They are so very successful that the gnomes agree to 
(a) adopt the characters' agenda and transport them and their artifact
(b) come up with a plan to facilitate this
(c) plead the characters' case to their superiors. 
Using their Sense Motive check, the characters discern that _these particular_ gnomes are sincere. However, because the characters _know_ they gnomes' superiors hate them, what with all the past bad blood and them having killed some of the gnomes, they remain apprehensive. But because the gnomes with whom they made the preliminary arrangement do not, after talking to their superiors, tell them the arrangement is off, the characters decide to assume that things are going ahead as planned. 

Both the characters and the players know that some of the gnomes hate them. Both the characters and the players know that they have killed some of the gnomes in the past. Both the characters and the players know that the gnomes with whom they spoke did not have the power to decide important things unilaterally and over-rule the other gnomes. So how is this using player-only knowledge?

For some reason people in this thread keep confusing remembering what happened in previous sessions with metagaming.



> I listed all the evidence present and no one has been able to dismiss that.




I don't know what post you're talking about here. I've been pretty thorough in my examination of what you've had to say. 

But let's make a real-world comparison: 

I have a set of suitcases containing $10 million in unmarked, untraceable bills. I want to transport the money across the Canada-US border but I am worried that my car will get searched. I remember a shady cruise ship company that I used to work with but got into a financial dispute with earlier this year. I approach some of the employees of the company and persuade them that even though we were involved in a 4-month court battle that lost both of us tens of thousands of dollars, they should really help me move the money. They agree and make arrangements to take the money on board their ship. I never actually speak to the captain or the company's CEO but I am fully convinced that the employees with whom I did speak are on my side. Is it unforeseeable that the captain would steal my suitcases? 



> Saying the PCs didn't look somewhere only applies if they have a reason to want to look.  In this case the result of the sense motive would have (IMO) been an indication to the PCs that their long time attempts to work on diplomatic relationship with the gnomes had indeed worked - i.e., the payoff of all that previous effort.




What long attempt? There was ONE DIPLOMACY CHECK. Yes. They rolled very well. But that's it.



> And I wasn't refering to the effects of a charm on the NPCs




I think you need to read my posts more carefully. What I said was that you seem to believe that rolling a Diplomacy check of 30 is equivalent to casting _Charm Person_ on everyone within earshot.



> And since it appears that 1 out 5 and quite likely 2 out of 5 (nearly half of the players) weren't satisfied




Do you work with the Compas research group or something? It's amazing how someone can make 1 out of 6 people involved in a situation equal to "nearly half." I can be dissatisfied with a game because nobody performed oral sex on me during the session but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to start looking seriously at changing the game dynamic in order to make me happy. It does not follow that because someone is unhappy with how things went that something went wrong.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> its wasn't that the PCs used the skills wrong or that the Gm used the skills wrong, its just that the sources of info were just totally wrong, clueless as to the risks, possessing only info that would mislead the PCs...




Here is where we disagree. If one looks at the whole history of the characters' relationship with the gnomes rather than just the one scene, other evidence does come into view. 



> But imagine how this overall situation might have turned out if, instead of getting "hey, they seem trustworthy and aren't deceiving us" hits from those well developed skills, the PCs had gotten also "yeah, but they still seem nervous, unsure, there is still something up here"




You raise a good point here. You're right that the Sense Motive check could have been more nuanced and informative.



> At any time as GM, i can hand the PCs a contact who "believes everything he is saying" but who is just plain wrong and use my PCs own skills at reading people and at convincing people against them. Thats simple and easy and requires no more cleverness or fairness that me saying "hey, lets use their skills against them" and then, either before the fact or later when asked, adding to the NPC the relevent lack of knowledge or simply having the NPCs who served as my "info conduit" be just plain totally wrong on everything that mattered.




The problem with your reasoning here is this: why were these particular gnomes well-disposed to the characters in this situation? Because the characters rolled a very high Diplomacy check. The reason these gnomes' views were different from those of the other gnomes is because of something the characters did. You cannot then turn around and argue that these gnomes having different views of the characters than their compatriots is part of some kind of duplicitous behaviour on the GM's part. 



> But, of course, once i do turn their own character's expertise against them, ESPECIALLY if it is in a HUGE for the campaign situation like say blowing the end of a year long quest, I really ought not to expect them to be willing to trust their abilities or traits the next time.




How many action movies do you watch? One of the single most common narrative conventions in an action movie is the main characters losing the object of their quest to the villains just before the climax. Someone in this thread already mentioned _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ but of course you don't have to go back so far. Watch _National Treasure_ -- it's still in theatres. I don't have that many action movies at home but I'm looking up at my shelf and I can see _The Ninth Gate_ and _Goldeneye_. 

Given that this is a common narrative convention in quest stories, why would you argue that losing the item just before the climax is identical to failing the quest?



> Why should they in the future believe what NPCs are saying when their great skills at reading people and at convincing people to join their cause have proven in the past to be this unreliable?




(a) They haven't proven unreliable
(b) I'm guessing that there have been more than two NPC interactions in this 35-episode campaign

Or is it your contention that if any NPCs _ever_ betray the party, no future NPC should be trusted again?



> They should learn the lesson the first time, shouldn't they?
> 
> Especially if its such a costly error for them the first time.




I'm lost here. What do you think they have been doing for the past 35 episodes? How can you possibly generalize this one situation to all NPC interactions in the entire campaign?


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> You raise a good point here. You're right that the Sense Motive check could have been more nuanced and informative.




Exactly. Put it down to careless game management on the part of the DM, in allowing this situation to develop.



> The problem with your reasoning here is this: why were these particular gnomes well-disposed to the characters in this situation? Because the characters rolled a very high Diplomacy check. The reason these gnomes' views were different from those of the other gnomes is because of something the characters did. You cannot then turn around and argue that these gnomes having different views of the characters than their compatriots is part of some kind of duplicitous behaviour on the GM's part.




But the DM should have provided a hint that not all the gnomes would have been on the party's side. That's ESPECIALLY if these gnomes got swayed by the super-high Diplomacy check, unless they're like vat-grown gnomes who have never checked the grapevine in their own organisation. By not providing relevant information, the DM significantly curtailed the possibility that the players would be able to influence the outcome.

So what if the group got into a fight with the gnomes 35 sessions ago? Do you remember every fight from back in the mists of time? In particular, since the party was willing to talk to these gnomes as opposed to drawing weapons immediately (and similarly on the gnomes' part), any bad blood between them can't have been very close to the surface. That's all the more reason why it's entirely reasonable for the players to get pissed off at bait-and-switch tactics by the DM, and all the more reason why a smart DM makes a plan to head off that possibility.



> How many action movies do you watch? One of the single most common narrative conventions in an action movie is the main characters losing the object of their quest to the villains just before the climax.




Hint: the climax had already occurred. They tracked down this artifact for 35 sessions (a tad longer than most 2-hour movies), went into the dungeon, killed the bad guys, and got out again. For all intents and purposes, especially in a game like D&D that tends to have a more highly structured setup than most RPGs, that constitutes successfully finishing the plot arc. The DM deciding to pull a trick like this during the denouement is nothing more than an anticlimax, and the way the players reacted during the session shows that they knew it.



> (a) They haven't proven unreliable




So why did it suddenly start being the case now?



> (b) I'm guessing that there have been more than two NPC interactions in this 35-episode campaign
> 
> Or is it your contention that if any NPCs _ever_ betray the party, no future NPC should be trusted again?




Strawman. NPCs can and will betray the party in any campaign. That doesn't mean it's something that happens without making damn sure you know what you're doing. In particular, a DM who pulls a completely out-of-the-blue betrayal like this, at a moment in time when the group was understandably feeling like they'd finally done all the hard work, cannot complain if the group starts becoming a lot more suspicious of people.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 5, 2004)

We wont agree, so just a few points to make


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Here is where we disagree. If one looks at the whole history of the characters' relationship with the gnomes rather than just the one scene, other evidence does come into view.



And as such, if you argument is that the PCs should not have trusted what their skills use told them in this REALLY HUGE  circumstance, then we agree after all. 


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> You raise a good point here. You're right that the Sense Motive check could have been more nuanced and informative.



This gets back to something i said in the first post...

We agree that the sense motive could have been more informative, if the gnomes had knowledge that they were cutting a deal that they themselves could not actually assure would happen.

For this to have been the case tho, the Gm would have to have known *ahead of time* that the two different gnome groups (one group is all the other gnomes who actually have power and one group all the gnomes talking to the party) were of differing opinions and he would have had to have known *ahead of time* that the group negotiating were not absolutely certain they had enough clout to pull this agreement off.

One of two things happened here...

1. The "winging it" style GM did not know "ahead of time" the other gnomes planned to betray the PCs. he played the good-gnomes straight up because thats where he thought at that moment the session was running. But, when the players "messed up" and presented him, the GM, with such an opening, he threw in the curve. The reason all the gnomes working with the PCs never gave off a hint of suspicion and never gave off the whiff of doubt about "can we actually do this" was because that only came in after the fact in the Gm's mind. This fits with the "winging it, make it up as i go along" style of GMing expressed by this GM as his style better than the "baited trap."

2. The "planned ahead" style GM set these "ignorant of what we can and cannot do and incorrectly believe totally that we can pull off anything we ahree to sincerely" gnomes in as a sort of "baited trap", which effectively use the PCs' skills against them.

Back to my earlier post, a major reversal like this in a game deserves much thought and planning, to make it come off right. if it plays out so as to leave the PLAYERS melancholy, the PLAYERS ticked off, and even some of the PLAYERS ticked off or feeling they are fighting THE GM, then it was not well executed, it was not "good job", it was bad GMing.

Notice the word PLAYERS used repeatedly. Its fine and dandy for the CHARACTERS to be melancholy, for the CHARACTERS to be pissed at the NPCs, and so forth, as long as the players, in contrast, are having fun and are seeing it as IN CHARACTER and the NPCs  not "the GM."






			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> The problem with your reasoning here is this: why were these particular gnomes well-disposed to the characters in this situation? Because the characters rolled a very high Diplomacy check. The reason these gnomes' views were different from those of the other gnomes is because of something the characters did. You cannot then turn around and argue that these gnomes having different views of the characters than their compatriots is part of some kind of duplicitous behaviour on the GM's part.



When the GM made the decision that the helpful gnomes had no idea that they actually did not have any ability to make the plan work like they agreed to, that was perhaps a duplictous act. 

After all, if these "helpful" or even "friendly" gnomes had told the party "you know, before we get you all in crates and you hand over the artifact, we ought to tell you that we are not in charge and our bosses might decide to hose you. Now, who's in the crate first?!" 


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> How many action movies do you watch? One of the single most common narrative conventions in an action movie is the main characters losing the object of their quest to the villains just before the climax. Someone in this thread already mentioned _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ but of course you don't have to go back so far. Watch _National Treasure_ -- it's still in theatres. I don't have that many action movies at home but I'm looking up at my shelf and I can see _The Ninth Gate_ and _Goldeneye_.



The difference is that, taking raiders for instance, when the sub showed up and the nazis too the ark, it was nothing Jones did. His capabilites were not "turned against him." He had not spent time working up deals with the nazis, getting to trust them, etc. He simply had a case of "man, those nazis are outgunning me". 

There is a big difference in a story arc between having the PCs badly lose and having the PCs badly lose at something they are really good at. You can play the "fish out of water" losses to even comedic effect, by putting say am uncouth fighter in a formal social event and have it play off well and enjoyable for most everyone. But, if you do the same sort of "you lose badly" scenario in the fighter's "thing i am good at", aka fighting, you should expect a different response. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> (a) They haven't proven unreliable



The absense of the artifact seems to me at least to be some evidence of unreliability among the PCs social skills. More to the point, if the PLAYERS believe the Gm is making it up as they go along and if the PLAYERS buy his "the gnomes with you had no clues", then why in the world would they not at least worry that this sort of "accidentally ignorant NPCs" thing wont happen next time, or the time after that? 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> (b) I'm guessing that there have been more than two NPC interactions in this 35-episode campaign



Any this HUGE? 

I'm sorry, but it sounds like on one hand, you think the PCS were not suspicious and untrusting ENOUGH for this scenario and thus set themselves up for a fall, but at the same time, you seem to want to argue that they should NOT take from this a lesson telling them that, next time they interact and make deals with NPCs, they should not rely on those same skills which failed them this time!!! next time, they should trust these skills, as they did this time, and what??? hope for the best?

The PCs trusted their skills, used their abilities, and paid the price.

As a GM, if that was the lesson plan for this scenario, i would HOPE they learned it.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Or is it your contention that if any NPCs _ever_ betray the party, no future NPC should be trusted again?




No, my argument is that if the PCs skills are effectively used against them, if the PCs good-at-them skills lead them astray on such a crucial moment, the players should learn not to trust those skills to lead them in the future. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm lost here. What do you think they have been doing for the past 35 episodes? How can you possibly generalize this one situation to all NPC interactions in the entire campaign?




The players have just been taught how "not smart" it is to rely on those skills and to act on that info gained from those skills. Thats a lesson that should stick with them.

its not a case at all of whwther they should or should not trust other NPCs... its a case of whether they should expect their characters' skills and aptitudes (as opposed to their characters' lacks and weaknesses) to serve them well or simply be another means of tricki9ng them.

getting led astray by you weakness, by your failings, by your worse aspects... thats usual and typical and fine storeytelling. Thats good character, IMO.

getting led astray by your strengths, by things you are good at, etc is a wholly different animal to me.

Of course, not everyone will agree and thats fine. As i stated in my original post, the issue of what I think is ireelevent as is anyone else on this board who is not in the game. The only opinions that matter are the players and if they leave seeing the :GM as the enemy", if they leave feeling "cheated" as opposed to...

well, its already been said. No need to go on again.

YMMV and clearly does.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> But the DM should have provided a hint that not all the gnomes would have been on the party's side.




Why would the DM need to tell them this again? As has already been clearly established, the past relationship with the gnomes has been rocky to the point of the characters _killing_ some of the gnomes. Why would it be surprising that some members of a group that you have violently attacked in the recent past might not like you?



> That's ESPECIALLY if these gnomes got swayed by the super-high Diplomacy check,




Hong, you're lapsing back into this belief in telepathic Diplomacy checks that I think I've pretty conclusively disproved. Just to reiterate, 

*DIPLOMACY CHECKS CAN ONLY AFFECT PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE!!!!!!!*



> By not providing relevant information, the DM significantly curtailed the possibility that the players would be able to influence the outcome.




But the party already had the relevant information. What happened last week is relevant information.



> So what if the group got into a fight with the gnomes 35 sessions ago? Do you remember every fight from back in the mists of time?




Firstly, we have already established that the party _did_ remember this. That's why some of them remained nervous and tentative about their new arrangement with the gnomes. Secondly, it didn't happen 35 episodes ago; it happened more recently than that. The campaign has been 35 episodes long. 

I guess you run very very different games than I do. But for me, remembering that you have had a violent confrontation with a particular group of NPCs in the past is a pretty basic requirement of competent RPG play where I come from. If a party cannot be expected to recall who the NPCs are from session to session, what is the point of running a campaign?



> Hint: the climax had already occurred.




On what basis do you assert this? 



> They tracked down this artifact for 35 sessions (a tad longer than most 2-hour movies),




Of the many completely ridiculous things you have said in this post, I think this ranks first. If you are making a direct equivalency between the amount of time it takes to resolve things in movies and the amount of time it takes to resolve things in RPG play, there should be two complete stories (climax and all) per episode. 



> went into the dungeon, killed the bad guys, and got out again. For all intents and purposes, especially in a game like D&D that tends to have a more highly structured setup than most RPGs, that constitutes successfully finishing the plot arc.




So all that stuff about the quest specifically mandating that the characters repair the artifact and return it to the gods has nothing to do with a story arc? Or is it that you believe that a genre convention of all D&D adventures requires that the climax be a big fight in a dungeon regardless of what the GM thinks? 

By any standards other than the completely absurd genre convention you may be attempting to introduce, it is abundantly clear that the climax of the game has not yet happened. 



> NPCs can and will betray the party in any campaign. That doesn't mean it's something that happens without making damn sure you know what you're doing.




So, having NPCs act rationally in their own interest is not knowing what you are doing?



> In particular, a DM who pulls a completely out-of-the-blue betrayal like this, at a moment in time when the group was understandably feeling like they'd finally done all the hard work, cannot complain if the group starts becoming a lot more suspicious of people.




Hong, for people who think that remembering what happened last week is a requirement of being an effective player, this is not "out of the blue."



			
				swrushing said:
			
		

> And as such, if you argument is that the PCs should not have trusted what their skills use told them in this REALLY HUGE circumstance, then we agree after all.




But their skill check didn't tell them anything about the gnomes they couldn't see. The _only_ information they had about _those_ gnomes was the data they had from previous interactions. 



> When the GM made the decision that the helpful gnomes had no idea that they actually did not have any ability to make the plan work like they agreed to, that was perhaps a duplictous act. After all, if these "helpful" or even "friendly" gnomes had told the party "you know, before we get you all in crates and you hand over the artifact, we ought to tell you that we are not in charge and our bosses might decide to hose you. Now, who's in the crate first?!"




In my experience, when people have been newly convinced of something, it does not occur to them that others like them will not be easily convinced thereof. You are expecting that the gnomes who have just been bamboozled by the characters are going to immediately think through how the characters' plan could go wrong. 

When you have been very successfully charmed by someone, you do not think "Oh -- I've just been convinced of this because this person is so damned charming," you think "Those arguments are so sensible and convincing." I therefore see no way, aside from the NPCs actually being conscious of how the Diplomacy skill mechanic works, for the gnomes not to anticipate these highly persuasive arguments wouldn't be equally effective on the other gnomes.



> There is a big difference in a story arc between having the PCs badly lose and having the PCs badly lose at something they are really good at.




You are assuming that the thing the PCs needed to be good at was detecting and affecting the emotional state of those around them. In fact, what the PCs needed to be good at, and turned out not to be, was thinking politically and strategically. These are player skills that are not represented mechanically precisely because good gaming is more than buying up skill ranks. 



> But, if you do the same sort of "you lose badly" scenario in the fighter's "thing i am good at", aka fighting, you should expect a different response.




Great example. A Fighter facing 10 orcs is a test of his ability to fight. A fighter facing 100 orcs is a test of his judgement, his ability to think strategically. The capacity for strategic thought -- what is really at issue here -- is not modeled by any skill but it is a crucial feature of effective play. 



> The absense of the artifact seems to me at least to be some evidence of unreliability among the PCs social skills.




See above. The skills that were required here were abstract reasoning, not just charm and sensitivity. 



> More to the point, if the PLAYERS believe the Gm is making it up as they go along and if the PLAYERS buy his "the gnomes with you had no clues", then why in the world would they not at least worry that this sort of "accidentally ignorant NPCs" thing wont happen next time, or the time after that?




But of course that's not what the players believe. That is what one player believes. Every other player we have heard from has stated the GM's actions were reasonable. If we are to use what the players believe as the standard for assessing this argument, I have already won it.



> Any this HUGE?




So, your argument is that because this is the most important NPC interaction, it should then become the sole basis on which the PCs assess all other NPC interactions irrespective of their individual characteristics? 



> I'm sorry, but it sounds like on one hand, you think the PCS were not suspicious and untrusting ENOUGH for this scenario and thus set themselves up for a fall,




You have that right. 



> but at the same time, you seem to want to argue that they should NOT take from this a lesson telling them that, next time they interact and make deals with NPCs, they should not rely on those same skills which failed them this time!!! next time, they should trust these skills, as they did this time, and what??? hope for the best?




No. I think they should take away a much more important lesson: Sense Motive and Diplomacy can only tell you about NPCs you can use them on. They cannot be extrapolated to NPCs you don't interact with. Here's another lesson: rolling dice does is not an adequate substitute for reasoning. 

The lesson to be gained here is not "disbelieve all NPCs" the lesson is "place the results of skill checks in the context of their circumstances. Don't decontextualize skill checks because they are only giving you information about the situation you are in."



> The PCs trusted their skills, used their abilities,




ignoring all other evidence and past experience with no reference to anyone outside of the scene where the abilities were used, 



> and paid the price. As a GM, if that was the lesson plan for this scenario, i would HOPE they learned it.




I would hope so too.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 5, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> In my experience, when people have been newly convinced of something, it does not occur to them that others like them will not be easily convinced thereof. You are expecting that the gnomes who have just been bamboozled by the characters are going to immediately think through how the characters' plan could go wrong.



"bamboozled"? 

perhaos this is part of the difference of opinion we have.

i do not see successful DIPLOMACY checks as bamboozling people. bamboozling people is IMO the effect of successful BLUFF checks.

One is a negotiation, the other is a scam.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> When you have been very successfully charmed by someone, you do not think "Oh -- I've just been convinced of this because this person is so damned charming," you think "Those arguments are so sensible and convincing." I therefore see no way, aside from the NPCs actually being conscious of how the Diplomacy skill mechanic works, for the gnomes not to anticipate these highly persuasive arguments wouldn't be equally effective on the other gnomes.



So, its seems like BECAUSE the PCs used their very good diplomacy and charm to move these front gnomes from enemies to allies, that they sowed the seeds for their own downfall because SINCE THEY DID SUCH A GOOD JOB at convining the front gnomes the front gnomes were incapable of letting on that they were really not able to deliver? 

if the PCs had been less convincing, if the gnomes were not so totally convinced that the PCs were right and that this would convince everyone, then the gnomes could have had suspicions that the other back gnomes would be so swayed and could have warned the PCs or let slip or otherwise tipped them off.

Wow! another twist on the "use the PCs talents against them" theory... 

Can you imagine a GM explaining this... 

GM: "they were so overwhelmed by your smooth talking and friendship that they couldn't tip you off to the potential betrayal."
PLAYER: "So, next time we should be less convincing and they might not set us up?"
GM: "Yup! you got it!"

Already said but... its not particularly hard or clever to "fool" someone when you control all the input.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> You are assuming that the thing the PCs needed to be good at was detecting and affecting the emotional state of those around them. In fact, what the PCs needed to be good at, and turned out not to be, was thinking politically and strategically. These are player skills that are not represented mechanically precisely because good gaming is more than buying up skill ranks.



So, that whole "player skill" vs "character skill" distinction isn't really an issue for you?


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> So, your argument is that because this is the most important NPC interaction, it should then become the sole basis on which the PCs assess all other NPC interactions irrespective of their individual characteristics?



you keep seeming to want to argue with yourself. Where did i say or suggest "sole basis" at all? 

Answer: i didn't. 

You did. 

Frankly, i think we have precious little info to draw conclusions about those 35 other sessions and the diplomacy on. We know that one group the PCs worked with geased them, a geas still in effect with its innate threat of death hanging. 

So, honestly, i do not have much to go on to say "yes, but their previous 35 sessions indicates they can trust NPCs and this one is an abberation." Maybe you do.

But i can definitely say that going from this one, I think they have a lesson to learn in regards to this GM and his games. 

or perhaps he does. I don't think i ever got an answer to the question to him about whether he saw any of this coming, had any clue there were problems, etc.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> No. I think they should take away a much more important lesson: Sense Motive and Diplomacy can only tell you about NPCs you can use them on. They cannot be extrapolated to NPCs you don't interact with. Here's another lesson: rolling dice does is not an adequate substitute for reasoning.



and, don't forget the one above... don't do too well with diplomacy because that might cause your contacts to be so overwhelmed they might fail to be able to give you clues or info you need.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> The lesson to be gained here is not "disbelieve all NPCs" the lesson is "place the results of skill checks in the context of their circumstances. Don't decontextualize skill checks because they are only giving you information about the situation you are in."



and as such, in future engagements, they should REMEMBER this incident and not trust the results unless they can also cover all the ways the skill checks can be misleading. 

heck, its really not a case of mistrusting the NPCs, as it wasn't the NPCs cunningly placing ignorant front gnomes, right? it was that the front gnomes were so overwhelmed by the PCs diplomacy skill at bamboozling that the front gnomes were effectively rendered ignorant by the PCs of the risk of being overruled.

So, really, the lesson they should take awa is "we are so good, we might cost ourselves the victory", right?



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> ignoring all other evidence and past experience with no reference to anyone outside of the scene where the abilities were used,



this event enters into the realm of "past experience" and should NOT be forgotten in future events.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> I would hope so too.




and see, agreement reached.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

> i do not see successful DIPLOMACY checks as bamboozling people. bamboozling people is IMO the effect of successful BLUFF checks.
> 
> One is a negotiation, the other is a scam.




If you think directly lying to people is the only way to bamboozle them, you should watch the OC more often. 



> So, that whole "player skill" vs "character skill" distinction isn't really an issue for you?




It depends entirely on whether the rules contain the skill. For example: obviously, the ability to convince an NPC of something is not based solely on the player's capacity to sound convincing him or herself. Why is this? Because there are various skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. that model this. Similarly, the ability to recognize creatures from the Monster Manual is also condition, in part, on a rules mechanic as outlined in the Knowledge skills. 

This simply isn't true of cognitive and memory skills. The rules do not have a skill you can roll on to remember what happened last session. The rules do not have a skill you can roll on to discern whether your strategy is smart or ill-advised. If your players come up with a good battle plan, do you force them to roll Int checks to determine if it crossed their characters' minds? Of course not. Some games do have that mechanic but D&D does not. 

So yes, I believe that reasoning and thinking strategically are things that the players do unmediated by the rolling of dice. Rolling on Knowledge-Arcana can only tell you that what you are looking at is a Great Wyrm and how overwhelmingly powerful a Great Wyrm is; what it cannot tell you is whether or not your first level Wizard should attack it. That decision is one that you make unmediated by the dice based on the best available data. 

Rather than going through another round of point by point responses to your arguments about the Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks, which at this point are getting repetitive, let me pose a hypothetical question that should clarify things:

What if the gnome they were talking to was hostile and had swallowed a _Glibness_ potion? Would the GM's actions still have been wrong?


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 5, 2004)

> Quote:
> And I wasn't refering to the effects of a charm on the NPCs
> 
> 
> I think you need to read my posts more carefully. What I said was that you seem to believe that rolling a Diplomacy check of 30 is equivalent to casting Charm Person on everyone within earshot.




I guess you need to reread the posts made. I have never made a big deal over the diplomacy check and the result of 30, nor have I made the comparison to it being like a charm person spell.

The point I have been making and focusing on was the Sense Motive and its results. 



> Quote:
> And since it appears that 1 out 5 and quite likely 2 out of 5 (nearly half of the players) weren't satisfied
> 
> 
> ...





No, but I am a CQA (Certified Quality Auditor) and an engineer and deal with percentages and overall concepts on a routine basis.  If you read further you wil see that I specifically stated that a single person is not reason to doubt the reuslts but that when 2 out 5 (sorry but that is nearly half by anyone's use of math) is an indication of a bad thing.  I get that extra 1 being dissatisfied because the DM himself stated that that person wasn't going to post but had that opinion once notified of what had happened. Also the DM should not be counted into this number (which is where you get are getting the total of 6).  The DM does not factor in the the reception of the players since he is the cause or means of their enjoyment.



One thing that is constantly taught in the military is to trust your indications until they can be proven false.  There were no contrary indications in this scenario, despite what you seem to think.

I also know that I am not alone in my contention on the fact that the PCs had nothing else to really go on here.  There was no additional info being provided by the DM - there was no interaction with the "bad" gnomes


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

> No, but I am a CQA (Certified Quality Auditor) and an engineer and deal with percentages and overall concepts on a routine basis.  If you read further you wil see that I specifically stated that a single person is not reason to doubt the reuslts but that when 2 out 5 (sorry but that is nearly half by anyone's use of math) is an indication of a bad thing.  I get that extra 1 being dissatisfied because the DM himself stated that that person wasn't going to post but had that opinion once notified of what had happened.




We have never heard from this second player. The GM _feared_ this person would also dislike his decision but we have never been told how she actually felt. The actual evidence we have at our disposal is from the GM and four players. So I really don't accept your reading of 40% when the actual number is 20%.



> Also the DM should not be counted into this number (which is where you get are getting the total of 6).  The DM does not factor in the the reception of the players since he is the cause or means of their enjoyment.




What rot! Of course the DM's enjoyment of the game is relevant to whether people enjoyed it. The DM is not a standup comic. He's not a paid actor. He's a person trying to enjoy the game too. The fact that he has a different job in the game doesn't make his enjoyment of it any more or less important. 



> One thing that is constantly taught in the military is to trust your indications until they can be proven false.  There were no contrary indications in this scenario, despite what you seem to think.




I think it really depends on what evidence you consider indicative. A major issues for us is whether the GM's performance met the generally held criteria for good GMing in the gaming community. 

You are also assuming that altering how the universe runs to placate one player does not affect anyone else's enjoyment. For me, having NPCs behave in a rational self-interested way is a criterion for my enjoyment of a game. If I'm in a game and another player successfully exerts pressure to make NPCs behave otherwise, my enjoyment is reduced or eliminated. This is equally true whether I am acting as player or GM.



> I also know that I am not alone in my contention on the fact that the PCs had nothing else to really go on here.  There was no additional info being provided by the DM - there was no interaction with the "bad" gnomes




In that episode. Your argument only works if this one interaction is completely decontextualized. Being involved in mortal combat with these gnomes in a previous episode is meaningful evidence.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> What if the gnome they were talking to was hostile and had swallowed a _Glibness_ potion? Would the GM's actions still have been wrong?




"Actions" as in the mechanical imp,ementation of the rules: They would have been legal then, which is a wholly different thing from "right" or "wrong".

"Actions" as in his choice for this script, well, based on his own assessments of the aftermath, I would still judge it as wrong. i cannot say whether he had foreknowledge of the current players opinions (and if so ought to have seen this reaction coming) or if he was clueless as to how they felt about the game/plot so far (and if so that is a much bigger problem than this flare up), but either way, 

if I ended a session with players in the mood and even one player who had been gaming with me for a long time, who i knew well, leaving with that much ill feelings about not only my game but specifically me running it... I would feel i had done something wrong.

and, of course, my first move would have been to go to a net board and seek support for my case... uhh.. no wait... 

As stated before, when you control the world its easy to fool the players. You can equip the face gnome with the right potions to beat their good-at-it-traits and thus use their own skills against them. You can even, amazingly, try and buffalo the notion that doing "too well" on their skills ends up costing them by preventing them from gaining info that would alert them, as you suggested. When you have all the numbers and unlimited creation ability and serve as the total conduit for info to the players and characters, its no great deal for them to come out of it surprised.

had he equipped the gnomes with glibness potions so that his answer would have been "they were better than you because they all used glibness potions and other magics so they could fool you" then he would have been taking credit for the betrayal as a planned, deliberate thing. That would have produced possibly different, though not perhaps better reactions, from the players.

the "i make it up as i go along and these gnomes expressed their true intentions but were too starstruck to admit they were making promises they could not keep" probably did not make it better.

When i pull major reversals of fortune like this in my games, and i do, i tend to do several things, and take several precautions in my setup.


> 1. thru foreshadowing and prior/current clues, i want this to not come as a surprise. It can come as a shock. It can be a "well, now that we put two and two together, its obvious." The best result is when they look at me right after and go SMILINGLY  "dang, you are right! geesh!" its even better if they are hosited on their character's failings.
> 2. it is NOT hinged on beating them at their character's strong suits. beating a character at his strong suit is usually a humiliating thing and stomps heavily on the "concepts" in a lot of cases. This is saying "you are not good enough at the things you do" as opposed to "everyone has a weakness".
> 3. it NEVER under any circumstances is the end of a session. I dont want the players slumping off for a week with the failure, with a sense of THEIR failure, hanging over them. I make this at the very least a mid-session event, although it makes a GREAT session opener. Either way, I let them move immediately forward into the "next step" and "recovery" ops. I leave them on a positive note, on to (for me at least) a later development that takes the sting out of this failure.




Imagine the difference had this scene stopped at the "you get crated up" stage, then next week it starts with the "something is wrong" and the pcs break out to find they have been had... but then hear the sounds of tied up gnomes nearby, find out the gnomes had been duped, and when the gnomes describe this stranger who did the duping, its some skulduggerous past-foe the PCs have been at odds with, who, yes, even back then had had a few gnome lackies.

Suddenly this turns into a chase to grab the known bad guy before he can get away with it. You drop a clue or two or remain consistent with previous knowledge and now you have fired up PCs and players with a FACE for their pain (other than you the GM) and you probably have one of the most fired up sessions in your game. One potential and IMO somewhat ideal script would have them spend that session FURIOUSLY pursuing the guy and mowing thru obstacles and the session ends with the face off... break scene and resolve it next week on a climactic finish.

Everyone left the first session with the sense of accomplishment.
everyone leaves the second session with the "we want his carcass NOW" sense
presumably they win in the third session and leave with a sense of accomplishment renewed.

they never leave ticked at YOU at all.

These are the types of things a deliberate, planned, well thought out reversal story arc done by a Gm who is aware of how his players feelings are (and cares about that) can be better than one mishandled on the fly.

As i said in my first post, these things aren't just things which come up, if you want them to work well in your game.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

> if I ended a session with players in the mood and even one player who had been gaming with me for a long time, who i knew well, leaving with that much ill feelings about not only my game but specifically me running it... I would feel i had done something wrong.




I'm glad I asked the question I asked. It has allowed us to cut through a lot of technical stuff that I correctly assumed was masking the real issue. 

Am I oversimplifying then if I frame your position as follows: If any player leaves the game unhappy, it can automatically be concluded that the GM has made an error and is solely responsible for how this person feels?

If so, I don't think we can go anywhere from here. Your basic assumptions about human relations are so completely alien to me (and I would hope most ENWorlders) that I don't think we have anything left to discuss.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm glad I asked the question I asked. It has allowed us to cut through a lot of technical stuff that I correctly assumed was masking the real issue.
> 
> Am I oversimplifying then if I frame your position as follows: If any player leaves the game unhappy, it can automatically be concluded that the GM has made an error and is solely responsible for how this person feels?
> 
> If so, I don't think we can go anywhere from here. Your basic assumptions about human relations are so completely alien to me (and I would hope most ENWorlders) that I don't think we have anything left to discuss.



Well, this is one ENWorlder that understands where he is coming from.

My basic philosophy of DMing is that the game has to be fun. Of course, fun is subjective, so I tend to play to the common ground as far as possible. Fortunately, I have never had to DM for a group of players whose tastes are no diverse that there _is_ no common ground. I would probably have to split the group if that ever occured to me.

The distinction between "fun" and "not fun" can be very fine. What one player finds to be an interesting and challenging plot twist, another player may see as a deliberate attempt by the DM to snatch away a hard-fought victory. Whether or not it was planned or spur-of-the moment, intended or inadvertent, is beside the point - the fact is that the session ends on a sour note.

That could be why my preferred method of pacing is to end my sessions on a high note and leave major plot twists to the next session.


----------



## NPC (Dec 6, 2004)

I'm with FireLance on this one.

You can't please all the players all the time, but you sure can try as hard as you can to reach that goal!

If a player of mine was mad, actually mad, at the end of a session, or frustrated over the course of a campaign, I'd feel like I'd bear some of the responsibility for that.

I really like swrushing's ideas on how the story could have been improved.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Am I oversimplifying then if I frame your position as follows: If any player leaves the game unhappy, it can automatically be concluded that the GM has made an error and is solely responsible for how this person feels?




you seem to have  a real bent on putting easily refutable positions into others' mouths, or perhaps fingers.

No. 

Obviously, a player can leave unhappy for any number of reasons. It could be they left because of a misunderstanding with another player. It could be they left unhappy because of an unfortunate emergency call. There are any number of reasons they could leave unhappy.

My position...

If a player leaves a game i run unhappy with ME, the GM, then i do conclude that I have made an error and my first and immediate focus is on figuring out two things.

1. how best to proceed with that player. Damage control.
2. What i could have done better. What can i do to avoid repeating my mistake.

Now, its entirely possible that, if this is a new player, that my error was in player selection. perhaps i allowed a player into my game who was ill matched for my game. This would obviously not be the case for someone with whom i had been gaming for a year.

But, again, the first thing i look at critically is ME, my performance, my choices, my role so as to see how I can do better next time. Only once i have figured out my failings do i then look critically at others.

I have found this approach improves my results immensly. heck it should produce great results if only for one reason, problems i identiofy in my own actions I can try and correct directly, whereas getting others to correct their problems is a much bigger deal.

See, this goes back to me being the info source for everything. 

if all my players miss something and make what would be percieved as a bonehead move (as many seem to indicate they think happened here) I don't start off with "how stupid they were" but instead start off with "what miscommunication did I do to lead my gang of very smart players to all jump to the same outlandishly wrong judgement?"

As i have stated elsewhere, its hard to get all my players to agree on wehat are in fact good decisions, so if they all agree on a bad one, then something somewhere got communicated wrong. Since i am the voice for everything they can know, that communication lack comes back and barfs up its lunch in my lap, not theirs.

hope that clears it up for you.
hope its not so alien to you.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Dec 6, 2004)

*Wow.  Big Thread...*

It seems that this thread has become quite popular, and like all worthy topics, has polarized people.

So why not add one more opinion to the general cacophony?

Based on the bits of this thread that I have read, I have come to this conclusion regarding your game, Ambrus.

You are not a cruel DM.  You are meerly a DM that encountered a game conflict that happens from time to time to many DM's.  Do you roleplay NPC's in a fashion that will maintain the integrity of the game, keeping them inteligent and believable?  Or do you roleplay them in a fashion that keeps the game entertaining for the players?  If you err towards the first one too often, your players will get frustrated / angry.  If you err towards the other, the game becomes a farce.

In this instance, you simply musjudged your players reactions.

However, if you drop a glass on a concrete floor, its still broken, even if you did not mean to drop it.  So it appears that regardless of your intentions, you still have a mess to clean up.

And with this many people chiming in on the subject, I think that sheer volume of advice may do more harm then good.

So instead of also adding advice on how to clean up the mess, I leave that to you to figure out.  Because,we all know how much better it is to have a random 3rd party just voice an opinion instead of offering constructive advice.  Besides, you asked if you were a cruel DM, not how to clean up a mess.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## hong (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why would the DM need to tell them this again? As has already been clearly established, the past relationship with the gnomes has been rocky to the point of the characters _killing_ some of the gnomes. Why would it be surprising that some members of a group that you have violently attacked in the recent past might not like you?




Because it clearly wasn't appropriate in the context of immediate past events in that game. For anyone who doesn't think of D&D only in narrow terms of world simulation (and that's the vast majority of people), that's a real and valid concern. As such, it's something the DM should take into account, unless they have players with much more focused tastes, or they actually derive pleasure from cleaning up messes at regular intervals.

You seem not to realise that verisimilitude can be achieved in lots and lots of ways. It's entirely believable that the gnomes might betray the party. So effin' what?

- It's also entirely believable that the gnomes might NOT have betrayed the party (maybe the leadership figured that the PCs were so badass it was better to suck up to them, rather than risking their wrath).

- It's also entirely believable that the gnomes might have refused to deal with them (the gnomes don't want the PCs as an enemy, but past bad blood means they won't help them either).

- It's also entirely believable that the gnomes might have attacked them on sight ("revenge for our dead!")

Each of these options is plausible, but they lead to different challenges for the DM to handle, and have vastly different consequences if the DM doesn't get things right. Since the choice of which path to follow is ultimately up to the DM, it's also their responsibility to make sure they can handle the potential fallout. It's simple risk management: if you don't think you can handle something, don't do it.



> Hong, you're lapsing back into this belief in telepathic Diplomacy checks that I think I've pretty conclusively disproved. Just to reiterate,
> 
> *DIPLOMACY CHECKS CAN ONLY AFFECT PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE!!!!!!!*




Your *ability* to use _formatting tags_ is *interesting,* but does not help your *argument.*

Hint 2: nobody ever said anything about the Diplomacy check affecting people who weren't there. You can continue bashing down this strawman if you like, but it died three pages ago.

Swrushing has already pointed out one way to handle it, which would have produced far better end results than what actually transpired, and not required anything in the way of Diplomacy-at-a-distance. Clearly, swrushing is a good DM.



> I guess you run very very different games than I do. But for me, remembering that you have had a violent confrontation with a particular group of NPCs in the past is a pretty basic requirement of competent RPG play where I come from. If a party cannot be expected to recall who the NPCs are from session to session, what is the point of running a campaign?




IME, players tend to retain a lot less information from one session to the next, than the DM does. The DM is immersed in this all the time, in planning each adventure, keeping track of NPCs, figuring out how various organisations react to events, and so on. The players turn up each week, kill monsters, angst about their misfortunes, and go home. If they're particularly committed players, they might also write fanfics about their characters' exploits, or search for new crunchy bits that will allow them to cause even more mayhem. However, that comes nowhere near the volume of information that the DM is going to have.

When we were doing the RttToH, in one session we got a password that would enable us to get past a locked door. Two sessions later (a month in real time), we got to that locked door, and none of us could remember we'd even found the password, let alone what it was: the DM had to remind us. And no, we're hardly lazy players.



> Of the many completely ridiculous things you have said in this post, I think this ranks first.




Oh dear.

1) Movie is short.

2) Campaign is long.

3) "Movie" == "campaign" works not.

Is it so hard to comprehend that the different storytelling frameworks involved mean that treating an entire campaign as equivalent to one, abbreviated storyline, is a nonstarter? We're not talking about a one-shot or even a short campaign. We're talking about a plot arc that's run for 35 sessions already.



> If you are making a direct equivalency between the amount of time it takes to resolve things in movies and the amount of time it takes to resolve things in RPG play, there should be two complete stories (climax and all) per episode.




Try one, because the inherently messy nature of roleplaying means that you tend to get a lot less done in a session than you would in an equivalent amount of time in a movie or TV episode. And yes, as a general rule there should be a climax (read: big fight) at the end of each session (although like all general rules, deviating from it occasionally is fine -- just don't make a habit of it). It would appear that your sense of dramatic pacing needs work.



> So all that stuff about the quest specifically mandating that the characters repair the artifact and return it to the gods has nothing to do with a story arc?




That constitutes the NEXT plot arc. I guess it's a good thing you're not a storytelling DM.



> Or is it that you believe that a genre convention of all D&D adventures requires that the climax be a big fight in a dungeon regardless of what the GM thinks?




If you mean that I'm suggesting the DM must always follow genre, then of course not. However, it does put an onus on the DM to plan ahead if he's doing things differently, because unless clear information is given to the contrary, then the players will be expecting something other than what actually transpires. Failing to meet expectations is a great way to cause a trainwreck, and not doing his homework is a sign of a careless DM.

Getting back to this particular scenario, everything about events up to this moment had pointed to the immediate storyline being finished. The party went into the dungeon, killed the bad guys, and got the artifact. In 99% of D&D games, that would have constituted a successful completion of an episode/storyline/adventure/whatever you want to call it. The logical next step would have been to start on getting the artifact repaired, and that would constitute another episode/storyline/adventure.

Was there any hint from the DM that things might not yet be complete, in terms of retrieving the artifact? No.

Was there any hint from the DM that they shouldn't think of repairing the artifact yet? No.

COULD the DM have provided such hints, if he'd thought to do so at the time? Yes.

WOULD such hints, delivered properly, have been detrimental to believability? No.

Therefore, can the DM complain if the players get pissed off at having to start all over again? No.

Are you finished putting up those strawmen yet? Gawd, I hope not.




> By any standards other than the completely absurd genre convention you may be attempting to introduce, it is abundantly clear that the climax of the game has not yet happened.




The climax of THAT PARTICULAR ADVENTURE, namely going into the dungeon, killing the bad guys, and finding the artifact, had occurred. Even if you don't believe me, the evidence of the players' reactions, who were the immediate audience for this narrative, is more than sufficient to demonstrate this. However, do continue attempting to justify a blatant anticlimax in narrative terms, if you wish. Next step: proving that black is white, and then getting yourself killed at a zebra crossing.



> Hong, for people who think that remembering what happened last week is a requirement of being an effective player, this is not "out of the blue."




As you said yourself, they remembered quite well what happened last week. You can continue arguing with yourself if you wish; however,

1) given no indication (direct or indirect) that the gnomes might betray them (and don't start on that "Diplomacy doesn't work on the others" whine again, because it's absolutely irrelevant);

2) given no indication that their expectations that the current plot arc was over might be wrong;

I see absolutely no reason to believe that their reactions were anything other than what should have been expected.


----------



## Darkness (Dec 6, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> ... my preferred method of pacing is to end my sessions on a high note and leave major plot twists to the next session.



 I like cliffhangers and shocking revelations at the end of a session, and trying to clean up the resulting mess in the next session.  Of course, many of my campaigns are horror and even those that aren't tend to be dark.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> In my experience, when people have been newly convinced of something, it does not occur to them that others like them will not be easily convinced thereof. You are expecting that the gnomes who have just been bamboozled by the characters are going to immediately think through how the characters' plan could go wrong.
> 
> When you have been very successfully charmed by someone, you do not think "Oh -- I've just been convinced of this because this person is so damned charming," you think "Those arguments are so sensible and convincing." I therefore see no way, aside from the NPCs actually being conscious of how the Diplomacy skill mechanic works, for the gnomes not to anticipate these highly persuasive arguments wouldn't be equally effective on the other gnomes.



I just wanted to reiterate that because I think you are right, but applied to situation still wrong.

Yes, people tend to think very highy of arguments that convinced them of a new opinion. Yes, people newly conviced might have unreasonable expectations of these arguments.

However, people working in a hierarchical organization also keep said hierarchy in mind. In my job, I have heard more than one very sensible suggestion by a customer, so much so that I felt his suggestion was logical and should be okayed. Still, knowing that I had no power to accept the suggestion, I have always said, "That sounds reasonable to me, Sir, but I'll have to speak with my superior first."
Or, the other way round, "Yes, Boss, I think that's a good idea, but I'll have to run it past the client first."

So, the gnomes should have said, "Guys, I think we should try our best to help you. We could transport the artifact for you. But I can't promise anything before I've talked to the Head Gnome. I'm sure he'll agree, though." 

As to why the gnomes didn't say something like this, see other posts, especially swrushing.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Obviously, a player can leave unhappy for any number of reasons. It could be they left because of a misunderstanding with another player. It could be they left unhappy because of an unfortunate emergency call. There are any number of reasons they could leave unhappy.




But it is impossible for them to misinterpret or react unreasonably to anything you do. 



> If a player leaves a game i run unhappy with ME, the GM, then i do conclude that I have made an error and my first and immediate focus is on figuring out two things.




This _was_ what I was saying. Sorry I phrased it poorly. This is where you and I completely disagree. The idea that it is impossible, under any circumstances whatsoever, for a player to reach an unreasonable unjustified conclusion about something you as the GM have done strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. What it says to me is that you believe that all players in all RPGs are reasonable and rational 100% of the time. 

You seem to believe that your behaviour as GM, alone, disregarding all other factors in a player's life is in complete and sole control over whether your players are having fun during your game. It's as though you believe that you can suspend normal human psychology for the duration of the games you run. You can only control (and this to a more limited extent than you think) what goes into a player's ears; you cannot control what happens inside their heads.

I don't know whether you have noticed this but the GM is having a dispute with only one person in his game: his fiancee. Everyone else we have heard from thinks he acted reasonably -- everyone else's account is congruent with his. But his fiancee has significantly different views not only about whether he acted reasonably in this session but about how he acted in all the previous sessions. 

Now, look at what the first thing is that she objected to in her post: it wasn't how the gnomes behaved; it was the fact that he identified her as his girlfriend instead of his fiancee. Has it occurred to you that what we are witnessing here is a relationship dispute sublimated into the game? 

If a couple is having a fight and it spills over into the game, it cannot be automatically inferred that the GM has failed as a GM; he may have failed as a fiance but that's a separate issue.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> However, people working in a hierarchical organization also keep said hierarchy in mind.




How do you infer the gnomes have a hierarchical organization? All we know is that the gnomes with whom the characters interacted did not have sole decision-making power. It may be that the gnomes were non-hierarchical collective that democratically over-ruled these individuals.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

NPC said:
			
		

> I really like swrushing's ideas on how the story could have been improved.




But what if that variant on the story didn't please Noelani either? Based on swrushing's reasoning, her not being happy would still be 100% his fault.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 6, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But it is impossible for them to misinterpret or react unreasonably to anything you do.



Not what i said, but thats getting common in your posts.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> This _was_ what I was saying. Sorry I phrased it poorly. This is where you and I completely disagree. The idea that it is impossible, under any circumstances whatsoever, for a player to reach an unreasonable unjustified conclusion about something you as the GM have done strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. What it says to me is that you believe that all players in all RPGs are reasonable and rational 100% of the time.



Which is, of course, not what i said, but thats fine. Its fits your pattern.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> You seem to believe that your behaviour as GM, alone, disregarding all other factors in a player's life is in complete and sole control over whether your players are having fun during your game.



Ok, now this is getting silly. DIDn't i *start* by listing at least two situations where they left unhappy that weren't GM issues? geesh.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't know whether you have noticed this but the GM is having a dispute with only one person in his game: his fiancee. Everyone else we have heard from thinks he acted reasonably -- everyone else's account is congruent with his. But his fiancee has significantly different views not only about whether he acted reasonably in this session but about how he acted in all the previous sessions.



His initial post indicated the mood at the end of the session.  "Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy, though a few of the players are, understandably, quite upset." 

Thats not what i would paint as a good result. YMMV. His didn't.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But what if that variant on the story didn't please Noelani either? Based on swrushing's reasoning, her not being happy would still be 100% his fault.




Again, a misinterpretation.

But, hey, making an onoging series of "slightly off to the extreme side" reiterations of someone else's points is a pattern I recognize, and I think I know how to handle it.

if you don't see the merits in my points, thats cool. If you do, thats cool too. But i really doubt I can change your mind, but clearly others have been listening, so all is good.

Enjoy your games, both on and off the forums.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Before I get to responding specifically to Hong, I have to begin by asking those people who feel games always must end on a high note and that suffering a severe setback in your quest is equivalent to it being ruined whether they think the last chapter of the _The Two Towers_ would have been a bad thing for a GM to do. (If you've only seen the movie, don't answer this question -- the movie ends at a different point than the book.)



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Each of these options is plausible, but they lead to different challenges for the DM to handle, and have vastly different consequences if the DM doesn't get things right. Since the choice of which path to follow is ultimately up to the DM, it's also their responsibility to make sure they can handle the potential fallout. It's simple risk management: if you don't think you can handle something, don't do it.




I think it's abundantly clear that the GM did not anticipate this "fallout." So the point you're trying to make here doesn't make any sense. 



> IME, players tend to retain a lot less information from one session to the next, than the DM does. The DM is immersed in this all the time, in planning each adventure, keeping track of NPCs, figuring out how various organisations react to events, and so on. The players turn up each week, kill monsters, angst about their misfortunes, and go home. If they're particularly committed players, they might also write fanfics about their characters' exploits, or search for new crunchy bits that will allow them to cause even more mayhem. However, that comes nowhere near the volume of information that the DM is going to have.




I'm not talking about remembering whether an NPC has a mole on his left cheek; I'm talking about recalling who people are that you have had multiple interactions with. Every player in this game remembered who the gnomes were. So why are you arguing that it was unreasonable for the GM to expect them to recall this? Clearly it was reasonable for him to expect this because they all did.

As for your movie-campaign comparison, you're now making a completely different argument than you were in the previous post and are accusing me of making the one you were. I suppose I could spend 15 minutes clipping and quoting here but as I've succeeded in getting you to change your position, I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.



> And yes, as a general rule there should be a climax (read: big fight) at the end of each session (although like all general rules, deviating from it occasionally is fine -- just don't make a habit of it). It would appear that your sense of dramatic pacing needs work.




Yes. But you were arguing that the dungeon battle where they recovered the artifact was the climax of the campaign. We're not discussing pacing internal to episodes (or at least we weren't until you shifted your position again). You argued that it was without a doubt true that the battle they had with the possessors of the artifact was the climax of the campaign. I produced strong evidence to the contrary. You then argued that this wasn't what you were talking about at all. 



> That constitutes the NEXT plot arc. I guess it's a good thing you're not a storytelling DM.




Oh yeah -- my players will all confirm I never tell stories.   Whereas your description of the last episode you ran seems o so story-oriented. The climax of LOTR is in _Return of the King_; there are climactic moments in the other two books but the campaign/story has the one actual climax. 



> Getting back to this particular scenario, everything about events up to this moment had pointed to the immediate storyline being finished. The party went into the dungeon, killed the bad guys, and got the artifact. In 99% of D&D games, that would have constituted a successful completion of an episode/storyline/adventure/whatever you want to call it. The logical next step would have been to start on getting the artifact repaired, and that would constitute another episode/storyline/adventure.




So, in your view _Return of the King_ is a totally separate storyline from _The Two Towers_. _The Two Towers_ should end on a high note because the reader deserves a payoff, right? Hong, I'm not going to belabour this argument any further because your shifting positions and terminology make you too much of a moving target. To produce an equivalent of the nonsense you just spewed in the above paragraph, let me offer some roughtly comparable phrasing. 

"Of course they've been waiting too long; obviously an hour/week/month/whatever you want to call it is too long a time to wait." Episodes, storylines, campaigns and adventures are all actually different things. In order to establish what the hell you are talking about, you have to decide which thing you are referring to. One moment, the unit of time under discussion is 35 episodes; the next, it's 1; the next, it's 50. I don't know what to do here. 



> Was there any hint from the DM that things might not yet be complete, in terms of retrieving the artifact? No. Was there any hint from the DM that they shouldn't think of repairing the artifact yet? No. COULD the DM have provided such hints, if he'd thought to do so at the time? Yes.




Yes. It's so important to prevent players from being surprised. God they _hate_ that. Some people actually come to games because they enjoy surprising and unexpected things happening. Now maybe that's not what your players are into but I'd hazard a guess that the majority of D&D players kind of like it when there are plot twists and surprises. 



> Therefore, can the DM complain if the players get pissed off at having to start all over again? No.




Right -- because when people lose the object of their quest, they "always" have to start over again. Hong, could you please name ONE story about a quest where people lose the object of the quest and are forced to "start all over again." I've now provided 5 different examples of the genre convention of people losing the object of their quest near the climax -- you have not provided one single counter-example. 



> Are you finished putting up those strawmen yet? Gawd, I hope not.




On that subject Hong, tell me: how many times have Ambrus or I suggested that the players are going to be "starting all over again"? 



> However, do continue attempting to justify a blatant anticlimax in narrative terms, if you wish. Next step: proving that black is white, and then getting yourself killed at a zebra crossing.




So, you feel that it is a wrong and peculiar thing in a narrative for the protagonist to suffer a major setback? What kinds of stories do you read?



> I see absolutely no reason to believe that their reactions were anything other than what should have been expected.




You mean the reactions of the 3 players who agreed with the GM? Yes. That was quite a reasonable thing to anticipate.


----------



## hong (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But it is impossible for them to misinterpret or react unreasonably to anything you do.




This post was brought to you by the letters W, T and F.



> This _was_ what I was saying. Sorry I phrased it poorly. This is where you and I completely disagree. The idea that it is impossible, under any circumstances whatsoever, for a player to reach an unreasonable unjustified conclusion about something you as the GM have done strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. What it says to me is that you believe that all players in all RPGs are reasonable and rational 100% of the time.




Welcome to Chip on the Shoulder Hour with Foosie!

Nobody ever said that it's impossible for players to be wrong or unreasonable. A DM who uses that as their starting assumption when things go wrong, however, is a DM with an overrated sense of self. In particular, a DM who continues to hold to that assumption despite all indications to the contrary is a DM who is clearly compensating for one too many beatings in the school playground as a child.



> Has it occurred to you that what we are witnessing here is a relationship dispute sublimated into the game?




Has it occurred to you that you are reaching?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2004)

*The Title of this Thread*



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> What rot! Of course the DM's enjoyment of the game is relevant to whether people enjoyed it. The DM is not a standup comic. He's not a paid actor. He's a person trying to enjoy the game too. The fact that he has a different job in the game doesn't make his enjoyment of it any more or less important.





True.  However, neither the title of the thread nor Ambrus' first post suggested that this was the question at hand.

Moreover, while they might have altered their position later, Ambrus' first post makes it clear that there was more than one player dissatisfied.


RC


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Obviously, a player can leave unhappy for any number of reasons. It could be they left because of a misunderstanding with another player. It could be they left unhappy because of an unfortunate emergency call. There are any number of reasons they could leave unhappy...
> 
> If a player leaves a game i run unhappy with ME, the GM, then i do conclude that I have made an error






			
				hong said:
			
		

> Nobody ever said that it's impossible for players to be wrong or unreasonable.




Most people would only conclude that they had made an error if they considered their player's unhappiness with their conduct to be reasonable and rational. 

So, apparently I'm putting words in people's mouths now. swrushing, hong, how was I to interpret the swrushing quote to which I was responding other than in the way that I did? swrushing gave two examples of a player leaving unhappy -- in neither example did the player blame the GM for his unhappiness. He then made an unqualified statement that if the player left unhappy with him, this unhappiness _must_ have been caused by an error on his part.

swrushing, perhaps you would like to qualify the above statement to which I responded in my previous posts. The position you clearly articulated in your previous post was that if a player blamed you for how the game went, that blame was correctly applied. If you are now abandoning that position or feel that I have misinterpreted your language, I'm very pleased. And if so, I would like you to answer the following question:

How would you go about determining if a player was blaming you unreasonably or unjustifiably for their not enjoying the game? 



			
				swrushing said:
			
		

> His initial post indicated the mood at the end of the session. "Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy, though a few of the players are, understandably, quite upset."
> 
> Thats not what i would paint as a good result. YMMV. His didn't.




If you think an episode ending on a sombre note is the equivalent of a failed episode, that is really unfortunate. It must limit your ability to tell an emotionally compelling story. _The Two Towers_ ends on a sombre note; but this sombre note is part of the larger structure of a great narrative that deepens one's commitment to the story and makes the climax more fulfilling. So the idea that one episode ending on a sombre note is equal to a narrative failure is really problematic if you're interested in story telling.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> True.  However, neither the title of the thread nor Ambrus' first post suggested that this was the question at hand.




Yes. But if you yourself are not enjoying your own game, that also makes you a bad DM. 



> Moreover, while they might have altered their position later, Ambrus' first post makes it clear that there was more than one player dissatisfied.




Ambrus, in his first post, feared that his other players had the same opinion as the one he lived with. Turns out that fear wasn't founded.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 6, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> swrushing, perhaps you would like to qualify the above statement to which I responded in my previous posts.



In case i wasn't clear... i am done with responding to your repeated misrepresentations of others' positions. Misinterpreting to the extreme side others' positions is a classic trolling bait and i feel i have made myself clear enough to everyone who was really listening.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> If you think an episode ending on a sombre note is the equivalent of a failed episode, that is really unfortunate. It must limit your ability to tell an emotionally compelling story. _The Two Towers_ ends on a sombre note; but this sombre note is part of the larger structure of a great narrative that deepens one's commitment to the story and makes the climax more fulfilling. So the idea that one episode ending on a sombre note is equal to a narrative failure is really problematic if you're interested in story telling.




LOTR was originally one novel, split into three sections by thepublisher iirc.

Whats the difference between TT ending that way and a scenario ending that way?

First, when i finish LOTR: TT I pick up the next book or i turn the page and I proceed with the continuation. I do nto sit and stew in my own juices for a period of time. This is very different from ending a game session on such a note where the players wait until next week or whenever the next session begins.

Second, the dark end in LOTR was not handled as a failure BY ME, the reader, but merely a dark turn in the story. I never made the decisions to enter Shelob's lair. In the game in question, the session ended with them "in defeat" and that defeat painted as "by their own hands" so to speak. It did not end with "Oh crap, frodo is in a fix" but with "oh crap, we screwed up" at best or "oh crap, you hosed us" at worst. You, or at least I, do not want to end a session and let things fester on those terms.

Again, i think i described the benefits and possibilities of having a planned and well thought out reversal occur in mid or early session launching immediately into the dramatic follow ups well enough for anyone who was willing to consider it in my earlier post.

The Gm seemed unhappy or at least unsettled at having his session end so negatively as well.


----------



## hong (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Before I get to responding specifically to Hong, I have to begin by asking those people who feel games always must end on a high note and that suffering a severe setback in your quest is equivalent to it being ruined whether they think the last chapter of the _The Two Towers_ would have been a bad thing for a GM to do.




There is a parody thread on these forums pointing out the ways in which LotR would have been different if it was a D&D campaign. Hint 3: all good parody contains a kernel of truth.



> I think it's abundantly clear that the GM did not anticipate this "fallout." So the point you're trying to make here doesn't make any sense.




Oh dear.




> As for your movie-campaign comparison, you're now making a completely different argument than you were in the previous post and are accusing me of making the one you were. I suppose I could spend 15 minutes clipping and quoting here but as I've succeeded in getting you to change your position, I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.




Yes, yes. "My evidence is my refusal to show my evidence"; they all get to that point eventually. I think you missed a step in the middle, though, viz: "I can't understand you, so you must be wrong". Oh, my mistake, you didn't.



> Yes. But you were arguing that the dungeon battle where they recovered the artifact was the climax of the campaign.




I was? OH YES, I WAS. FOOSIE SAID IT, SO IT MUST BE TRUE.

You seem to have trouble understanding how an overarching storyline can be composed of multiple underlying plot arcs. Why is this?



> We're not discussing pacing internal to episodes (or at least we weren't until you shifted your position again). You argued that it was without a doubt true that the battle they had with the possessors of the artifact was the climax of the campaign. I produced strong evidence to the contrary. You then argued that this wasn't what you were talking about at all.




No, Foosie. You produced strong evidence to knock down your strawman, as is your wont. This being the climax to that specific plot arc in no way invalidates the possibility of there being a subsequent plot arc, all contributing to an overall storyline. It's called an episodic campaign structure, and is something that fits seamlessly into the usual D&D scheme of things, so much so that most players expect it (or something like it) without even thinking about it. You know this, yes?



> So, in your view _Return of the King_ is a totally separate storyline from _The Two Towers_. _The Two Towers_ should end on a high note because the reader deserves a payoff, right?




Does it often take you several months to finish reading The Two Towers?



> Hong, I'm not going to belabour this argument any further because your shifting positions and terminology make you too much of a moving target. To produce an equivalent of the nonsense you just spewed in the above paragraph, let me offer some roughtly comparable phrasing.
> 
> "Of course they've been waiting too long; obviously an hour/week/month/whatever you want to call it is too long a time to wait." Episodes, storylines, campaigns and adventures are all actually different things. In order to establish what the hell you are talking about, you have to decide which thing you are referring to. One moment, the unit of time under discussion is 35 episodes; the next, it's 1; the next, it's 50. I don't know what to do here.




Your predilection for overcomplicating matters by turning simple English words into jargon is your problem, not mine. However, I'll use small words because I'm JUST THAT NICE.

Campaign is long. Long campaign with story is like work. Having story is fun, but still work. Work is good, if succeed at the end. Succeeded at the end, but DM then take success away. No good.

It really is that simple. The players felt they had finally achieved the objective of several previous sessions (up to 35) of adventuring, only to have it snatched away from them after they'd put in all that effort.

INHERENTLY, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TAKING THE MACGUFFIN AWAY. HOWEVER, it's not something a DM should do without thinking through all the possible consequences, and also structuring the flow of events so that players don't feel discouraged if/when it happens. A DM who doesn't do their homework is a careless DM, as I might have said before.

Perhaps you'd like to turn that into a strawman as well, assuming there's that much straw in Toronto.



> Yes. It's so important to prevent players from being surprised. God they _hate_ that. Some people actually come to games because they enjoy surprising and unexpected things happening. Now maybe that's not what your players are into but I'd hazard a guess that the majority of D&D players kind of like it when there are plot twists and surprises.




You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a surprise that grabs people's attention and makes them more interested in continuing the game, and one that simply makes them annoyed. This is despite swrushing, among others, explaining the difference to you in very clear terms, along with ways of ensuring a positive outcome rather than a negative one. Why is this?



> Right -- because when people lose the object of their quest, they "always" have to start over again. Hong, could you please name ONE story about a quest where people lose the object of the quest and are forced to "start all over again." I've now provided 5 different examples of the genre convention of people losing the object of their quest near the climax -- you have not provided one single counter-example.




You keep saying "near the climax". I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.



> On that subject Hong, tell me: how many times have Ambrus or I suggested that the players are going to be "starting all over again"?




So why do you think they were feeling down? Flat beer?



> So, you feel that it is a wrong and peculiar thing in a narrative for the protagonist to suffer a major setback?




Which part of



			
				hong said:
			
		

> NPCs can and will betray the party in any campaign.




and



			
				hong said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean it's something that happens without making damn sure you know what you're doing.




did we fail to understand? Furthermore, which part of



			
				hong said:
			
		

> If you mean that I'm suggesting the DM must always follow genre, then of course not.




and



			
				hong said:
			
		

> However, it does put an onus on the DM to plan ahead if he's doing things differently, because unless clear information is given to the contrary, then the players will be expecting something other than what actually transpires.




did we also fail to understand? (That was referring to staging climaxes at the end of a session, but the general point still holds.)



> What kinds of stories do you read?




Good ones. More to the point, what kinds of stories do you tell?



> You mean the reactions of the 3 players who agreed with the GM? Yes. That was quite a reasonable thing to anticipate.




Which part of 



			
				Ambrus said:
			
		

> Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy




and



			
				Ketherian said:
			
		

> It really sucks,




did we fail to understand? Or am I to suppose you have now decided that Ambrus really decided to come here to complain about a great ending to the session, and how all his players bar one liked it? Looks like it, seeing how you've already started banging on the "Ambrus has issues with his fiance" drum.

Yes, most of the players are willing to give the DM a break. Bully for them. That speaks volumes for their reasonableness (and Ambrus's; if he really was a crap DM, no doubt they'd be less generous), but it doesn't change the fact that things could have been handled much better.


----------



## hong (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> How would you go about determining if a player was blaming you unreasonably or unjustifiably for their not enjoying the game?




By looking at the reactions of the other people around the table.

By reexamining what emotional kicks (to use Robin Laws' terminology) that player likes (or says they like), and whether I'm providing them.

By talking to them, between sessions. Very often, just giving someone the chance to express their concerns is enough to take the heat out of the immediate situation.

By going over past events in the time we've gamed together, how much they've complained before, and the outcomes in each instance.

By looking at whether that person tends to be a stubborn, argumentative type in the first place. Some people are naturally more high-maintenance than others, although they may be a stellar player in most other respects.


----------



## hong (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> How do you infer the gnomes have a hierarchical organization? All we know is that the gnomes with whom the characters interacted did not have sole decision-making power. It may be that the gnomes were non-hierarchical collective that democratically over-ruled these individuals.



 In which case, it becomes "Guys, I think we should try our best to help you. We could transport the artifact for you. But I can't promise anything before I've talked to the collective. I'm sure they'll agree, though." Same underlying principle, once you cut through the obfuscation.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> How do you infer the gnomes have a hierarchical organization? All we know is that the gnomes with whom the characters interacted did not have sole decision-making power. It may be that the gnomes were non-hierarchical collective that democratically over-ruled these individuals.



 Which would still make it a somehow strcutured organzisation.

"Well, we sure agree that we could and should transport your artifact to safety, but we'll have to vote on it, of course. Still, a majority vote should be no problem, since your arguments are really sound."
"I will help you. First thing in our next meeting - no, I'll specifically call in a meeting so that we can vote on it. Promised."

Do you want to run me through all examples of possible hierarchies/structures where the gnomes have no say, enjoying to remain as unflexible and unrelenting as possible, or do you actually read and listen to arguments?

I mean, as soon as the gnomes in question cannot decide alone on the transport, some sort of hierarchy is implied, because the gnomes are not on top of it. And it's only sensible that they would comment on that.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Berandor, if you're working with the idea that structure=hierarchy, that's fine. I just couldn't tell what was going on here. All hierarchies are structures. Not all structures are hierarchies. Now that I know where you are coming from, I think we can let this point rest.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

swrushing,

I think it is unfortunate that while you are willing to continue this debate you will not actually respond to the central issue here. In previous posts, you seemed to articulate the view that if a player blamed his GM for not having a good time at the game, that this blame must have been reasonably applied. In two iterations of messages, I attempted to get you to confirm that this was your position. It seemed to me that you did indeed confirm this. It now appears, in part due to some imprecise language on my part, for which I happily accept blame, that this is not, in fact, your position. 

Although I do not anticipate that we will reach full agreement, I continue to hold out the hope that we can, at least, determine the precise nature of our disagreement. I therefore appeal to you to answer two questions that I hope will offer some clarity:

1. Do you believe that a player who blames their GM for their non-enjoyment of a session is always correct in assessing blame? (I'm anticipating that you will answer "no" but I want to check.)
2. If you do indeed acknowledge that it is possible for a player to unreasonably or unjustifiably blame their GM for their non-enjoyment of a session, what are some reasonable tests for determining how reasonable the player's opinion is?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Yes. But if you yourself are not enjoying your own game, that also makes you a bad DM.
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> Ambrus, in his first post, feared that his other players had the same opinion as the one he lived with. Turns out that fear wasn't founded.





First off, I am absolutely with you on the "The DM must have fun running the game" bandwagon.  I DM, almost exclusively, and have done so for about 25 years.  I put a lot more effort, and money, into my game than any one of my players, or even than all of them combined at any given time.  (Through the years, the sheer volume of players means that they probably spent more altogether on books, by this point, though!)  You hardly have to convince me of this.

Ambrus was clear that his players (plural) were feeling down at the end of the session, and that some of them (again, plural) felt a bit strongly about this.  Upon reflection, some of those players decided that they weren't going to let this prevent them from enjoying Ambrus' game.  Indeed, they felt that they needed to defend him from the deconstruction going on in this thread.

Our information available to decide whether or not the behavior (re: gnomes) was justifiable or not remains fairly scanty.  Several questions asked of Ambrus remain unanswered.  One of my own, ie, why the PCs could not go to the Church for help in shipping the artifact, seems to me to be relevant.  The fact is that, although I asked this question several times, and though other questions were answered around this time, this question was not answered.  Now, maybe this is because some upcoming plot thread hinges on the answer, and therefore Ambrus cannot answer.  Or it may be that he is simply not answering on the grounds that it may incriminate him.

Ambrus' question was, "Am I a cruel DM?"  The answer is, clearly, "No."  If the question was, "Am I a good DM?" I would argue that, based upon what I have read here, the answer is clearly "Yes."  I would enjoy playing in Ambrus' campaign.

Equally true, though, it is clear that the answer would be "No" if the question was "Did I handle this gnome betrayal thing in the best possible way?"  Moreover, I would contend that there is enough evidence to conclude that Ambrus' DMing would be improved by working more on his NPC skills.  It is my contention that the "simulationist" view that NPCs are "self-interested" fails to understand real human interactions, and by doing so fails to actually simulate human behavior.

In general, people like to believe that they are doing the right thing.  This is true of nearly everybody, irregardless of their "alignment".  Some people, though, believing that they have done things which can never be forgiven, try to do as many bad things as possible, to "prove" that it was "in their nature" and therefore not their fault.  Gods help you if your Sense Motive check doesn't differentiate between the two.

Real people who screw over people they like feel badly about it, and usually try to make it up in some way.  Real people who need the approval of their superiors to make a plan stick usually know this.  In order to make screwing people over palatable, most people rely on either an "us vs. them" mentality or simply dehumanize their victims.  I.e., among some D&D groups, "They're only NPCs" is the mantra of so-called CN PCs.

As to the specifics of Ambrus' game, we only have details about two PC/NPC interactions.  In one, the gnomes who couldn't make a decision clearly thought they could make the decision, and the PCs were tricked into giving them the artifact.  In the other, the PCs made a deal with the Church, but the supposedly LG Abbess who Geased them was under a vow of silence, and therefore (despite writing out a charter...quills and parchment presumably being handy) didn't tell them that little detail.

In both cases, the DM had a front man (or party of gnomes) who dealt with the party.  In both cases, the DM declared that the front man (or party of gnomes) was sincere, but didn't know what was going to happen.  In both cases, the decision maker is conveniently unable to interact with the party, even though in one case the party is in the same room with her.  To my mind, this suggests a pattern.  Moreover, this suggests a pattern specifically designed to counteract the high Diplomacy and Sense Motive skills of the party.

In my experience, few groups contain as many high-Charisma characters as Ambrus'.  Few groups contain as many players who have chosen to purchase as many ranks of social skills.  This indicates that Ambrus' players, having gamed with Ambrus before, _knew_ that they were going to need these skills.  And, having paid for these skills, they do have some reasonable expectation that they are going to be useful in the game.

_Despite this_, Ambrus has a player who feels special for having his character Geased...something that I would consider requisite of a DC 30 Diplomacy check in and of itself.  From Ambrus' posts we have seen the level of work he has put into his campaign world to make it interesting and internally consistant.  At least one player specifically mentions this as his strength as a DM.  

So, clearly, there is a lot of really, really good stuff going on in Ambrus' game.  Ambrus is a good DM.  He is not a flawless DM, though, and this is one area that the evidence suggests he could improve in.  

The question is not black and white.


RC


----------



## Berandor (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> swrushing,
> 
> I think it is unfortunate that while you are willing to continue this debate you will not actually respond to the central issue here. In previous posts, you seemed to articulate the view that if a player blamed his GM for not having a good time at the game, that this blame must have been reasonably applied. In two iterations of messages, I attempted to get you to confirm that this was your position. It seemed to me that you did indeed confirm this. It now appears, in part due to some imprecise language on my part, for which I happily accept blame, that this is not, in fact, your position.
> 
> ...



 1. No
2. If he blames me, then I will examine what I think about my performanbce. Was I tired/hectic/etc.? Do I think he's right? If yes, then I try to improve. Of no, then I think about the other players' reactions. What I know of the angry player. Is he easily upset? Does he like to whine or critisize? Is he going through a phase of stress or something similar that I know of?
If I can determine a plausible source for his discomfort after I ruled out myself, then I'm fine. If not, then it has to be either something I don't know of, or I really did wrong but didn't notice. I can only find out by talking to him and the other players, if necessary.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Hong, 

Let's try to see if we can, at least, identify the substance of our disagreement. There seem to be several issues at play. So, I'm going to try and identify them thematically:

1. Campaign Narrative Structure

Whenever I have used the term "climax," I have been applying it to the campaign as a whole. When you have used the term, you have variously applied it to individual episodes, perceived story arcs within the campaign, the campaign as a whole up to the current moment and the entire campaign. First, let me define campaign as I am using it here. If you wish to substitute another term you like better, feel free to do so. Just tell me what it is. 

When I say "campaign," I am referring to the period beginning with the characters agreeing to go on the quest and ending when the artifact has been repaired and returned to the gods. While there are, within this, climactic moments, the actual campaign only has one climax. To compare this to Lord of the Rings, while people can identify the victory at Helm's Deep as a climactic moment, it is not, itself, the climax. The climax of the story is when the ring is destroyed. 

So, when I use the word "climax," I am referring to a unique event in the campaign that has not yet taken place. Where we are right now is at a setback following a climactic scene. Let me again draw your attention to the Two Towers by way of comparison:

Just before the end of the book, there is an exciting climactic battle in which Shelob is defeated. This is immediately followed by a significant setback, Frodo, naked, nearly dead and in the hands of the orcs. The book then ends. The term people typically apply to a setback situated as it is, right at the end of the narrative, is "cliffhanger." 

Is it your position
(a) that what the GM has done somehow is not a cliffhanger?
(b) that cliffhangers are inappropriate in RPGs and that therefore if setbacks are to take place, they cannot happen during the finale of an episode?
(c) that cliffhangers are only appropriate in RPGs if they have no emotional effect on the players?

Footnote: When I say "episode" I mean a single gaming session.

If you feel that my omission of the "story arc" term from this discussion has harmed it, please let me know.

You have also used the term "episodic campaign structure"; in the particular episodic campaign structure that I prefer, there are a lot of setbacks and cliffhangers. 

2. Dramatic Tension

You and swrushing have taken the position that to wait for "several months" for a cliffhanger to be resolved is demoralizing. There are two essential problems with this position: (a) it does not describe the campaign we are discussing, (b) it is not true for most people.

First of all, let's establish that this game runs weekly. That means that in a week, the process of recovering from the setback will begin. This is roughly the equivalent of a cliffhanger in a TV series where the viewer waits one week, two weeks and sometimes the whole summer to see how the protagonists are going to extricate themselves from this situation. So, what you are actually saying here is that while a week of fretting builds the dramatic tension for those of us wondering what Ethan has done to Claire and Charlie on Lost, this tension is a veritable cancer for D&D players. I just don't buy it. I don't have the highest opinion of people in our hobby but I do think that they have a more sophisticate relationship with stories than the average prime time ABC viewer. 

Of course, there are situations where after a terrible setback and ensuing cliffhanger, people wait as much as a year to see how it works out. Of course I'm thinking of the Lord of the Rings movies -- you know where people had to wait over 300 days to see what happened after Gimli declared, "the fellowship has failed" and the put Boromir's corpse in the Anduin. Most of the people who endured that year were young kids -- many older kids and adults who had not read the book went out and purchased it to deal with the tension. But the little kids waited a whole year. 

Of course there wasn't a book I could even read to discover what was going to happen after Han Solo was frozen in carbonite but I patiently waited for three whole years for Return of the Jedi to come out -- from when I was 8 until I was 11. Did I feel sombre or discouraged when I walked out of the theatre at the age of 8? Of course. Did this make Empire a bad movie? No. In my eight year old mind, it was the greatest movie anyone had ever made in the history of the human race.

So, why is it Hong, that children watching movie serials can handle emotionally sombre cliffhangers and gamers can't? Why do you assume that because the players felt sombre right after the episode that this made them all want to quit the campaign?

3. DM Prescience

You have finally conceded that perhaps it is reasonable for the characters to lose the object of their quest under certain circumstances. But you argue that those circumstance occur only when the DM has thought through "all the possible consequences." I have to disagree -- it is only incumbent upon the DM to think through probable consequences. Perhaps you are unaware of all the choices your players can theoretically make and all of the emotional states that each and every one of them could experience at any moment of the game. I would suggest that if you truly understood how enormous (nigh infinite) a range of possibilities this is, you would revise your statement to be the same as mine: it is incumbent upon the DM to think thought probably outcomes. 

As we have already established, the DM did not expect his fiancee to react in this way. Having a high opinion of Ambrus and anyone he might choose to marry, I am inclined to think that this surprise was reasonable. 

4. "It really sucks"

This part of the argument belongs under the dramatic tension header but I thought I'd make a special section for it by way of emphasis. I think the question is what sucks. It sucks that "Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy." But that does not mean that the Two Towers sucked or that the chapter "The Choices of Master Samwise" sucked. It sucked that Han Solo was frozen in carbonite; this did not make the Empire Strikes Back suck.

5. Testing Player Reactions

I am pleased that you have kindly provided (along with everyone but swrushing who steadfastly refuses) a reasonable set of criteria for evaluating whether a player's reactions are reasonable. Through no fault of yours, your criteria cannot, by themselves, deliver us a verdict on whether Noelani's reactions were reasonable. There are two main reasons for this:
(a) None of your criteria are directly linked to the DM's performance; all simply measure player reactions without reference to what the DM has done. I might have included such things as: was there a deus ex machina or were rules misapplied? You have chosen not to take that approach.
(b) Most of the questions you ask cannot be answered with the information posted to the thread. But here's a brief survey of what we can answer:
1. By looking at the reactions of the other people around the table: This seems like a reasonable standard. We have the reactions all but one of the players. They indicate that the DM did not behave unreasonably. 
2. By reexamining what emotional kicks (to use Robin Laws' terminology) that player likes (or says they like), and whether I'm providing them: Unknown.
3. By talking to them, between sessions. Very often, just giving someone the chance to express their concerns is enough to take the heat out of the immediate situation: This is what precipitated the thread. By this standard, the DM did behave unreasonably.
4. By going over past events in the time we've gamed together, how much they've complained before, and the outcomes in each instance: Unknown.
5. By looking at whether that person tends to be a stubborn, argumentative type in the first place. Some people are naturally more high-maintenance than others, although they may be a stellar player in most other respects: Unknown.

So, we have 3 unknowns, 1 yes and 1 no. Based on your own test, how can you possibly conclude that Ambrus behaved unreasonably?


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Swrushing,

I'm not going to repeat stuff that I've put in the thread responding to hong. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that I respond to some of the points you make about LOTR in the post immediately preceding this one and the comments I make here follow on from those. 

But before I get to that, I realize that there is a third question you are refusing to answer that I thought I'd remind you of: if Ambrus had done exactly what you recommended and Noelani had still reacted the way she did, would that then make your recommended course of action a mistake?

You state that there should not be emotionally sombre cliffhangers in RPGs because 



			
				swrushing said:
			
		

> Second, the dark end in LOTR was not handled as a failure BY ME, the reader, but merely a dark turn in the story. I never made the decisions to enter Shelob's lair. In the game in question, the session ended with them "in defeat" and that defeat painted as "by their own hands" so to speak. It did not end with "Oh crap, frodo is in a fix" but with "oh crap, we screwed up" at best or "oh crap, you hosed us" at worst. You, or at least I, do not want to end a session and let things fester on those terms.




This seems to be a problematic position for two reasons:
(a) you seem to be arguing that because players are more invested in their characters than they are in characters in novels, it is only appropriate to put sombre cliffhangers in novels and not in RPGs;
(b) you seem to have reversed your position on whose fault the failure of the party was. I have been arguing with you for at least five pages concerning your assertion that what happened to the PCs was completely out of their control. 
(I anticipate you are now going to use your rhetorical tactic of refusing to respond to this essentially true statement because I have lost some of the nuance of your various wordings of this position as you did when I trapped you regarding the reasonableness of player disapproval.)

I really hope that this isn't true of gamers. I really hope that the emotional maturity of the average gamer is sufficient to tolerate their character suffering an unresolved setback for a whole week.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 6, 2004)

Re: "If a player leaves a game i run unhappy with ME, the GM, then i do conclude that I have made an error..." 


			
				swrushing said:
			
		

> and i feel i have made myself clear enough to everyone who was really listening.



No, you certainly haven't.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you think an episode ending on a sombre note is the equivalent of a failed episode, that is really unfortunate. It must limit your ability to tell an emotionally compelling story. _The Two Towers_ ends on a sombre note; but this sombre note is part of the larger structure of a great narrative that deepens one's commitment to the story and makes the climax more fulfilling. So the idea that one episode ending on a sombre note is equal to a narrative failure is really problematic if you're interested in story telling.



And that's the crux of the matter. My players and I are friends first, gamers second, and storytellers third (a way distant third). Our games would be considered videogamey hack and slash by many. After the Big Boss Fight, Evil has been thwarted for another session, and everyone goes home happy.

As a DM, I could, if I wanted to, pit them against a horde of opponents much too powerful for them, have them all captured, and end the session with them in chains and heading for slavery. However, my players wouldn't like that, and they wouldn't like it so much that it might ruin the game. And that's why FireLance's big idea for today is: Know your players.

Ending a session on a sombre note is tricky, and I'm not sure that I will be able to pull it off. Yeah, there's all that dramatic tension, but you have to mix in a bit of hope, too, or your players may not bother to show up for the next session, or get frustrated, as one or two of the OP's players did. Even in the example you brought up, 



Spoiler



Frodo was captured by Orcs, but the One Ring was still in Sam's possession


.


----------



## NPC (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But what if that variant on the story didn't please Noelani either? Based on swrushing's reasoning, her not being happy would still be 100% his fault.



If you read swrushing's reply, you'll find that he was talking about his performance as a DM, not particular plot twists that some PCs might like, and others dislike.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

Raven, 

It's a pleasure to slip into a more civil tone in dealing with one of the posts on this thread. 

A few points in response to your latest post:
1. I think there is a distinction between people feeling "down" and people concluding that the thing that made them feel this way was a mistake. (See my Empire Strikes Back rant above)
2. I agree with you that there are some unanswered questions that make it difficult to really render any conclusive judgement. 
3. While I agree that the GMing of the gnomes was sub-perfect, so is everything we do. So I addressed myself to the question: does this seem more error-ridden than solid competent GMing usually is?
4. I agree that like the theory of the profit-maximizing term, rational self-interest is almost never true individually and almost always true generally.



> Real people who screw over people they like feel badly about it, and usually try to make it up in some way.




Or, in the alternative (as I know from bitter experience), suddenly decide that if they have screwed you over, they mustn't have really liked you after all. 

6. Just a minor correction: the cleric casting the geas was, in no way, unable to interact with the party. 
7. If we assume a normal rate of level progression, we can guess that if Ambrus's party started at first level (and I suspect they started the quest a little higher), they should be 7th or 8th level by now. If the person making the Diplomacy check was an 8th level bard who started with a Charisma of 16 and maxed-out their Diplomacy skill, we can expect a Diplomacy check of +15 (+4 Cha, +11 ranks). Of course if they have 5 ranks in Know-Nobility or started with a Cha of 18, they would have a +17, both, +19; higher than 8th level... Such numbers are not that uncommon. I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the Diplomacy table in the PHB -- it seems a little weird to me that a Bard, Paladin or Rogue who has invested sensibly in the skill could start making NPCs abandon their own agendas by rolling 10 or better once they reach 10th level or higher; at least Bardic music has saving throws.

Anyway, that's just what came to mind after reading your post.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 6, 2004)

NPC said:
			
		

> If you read swrushing's reply, you'll find that he was talking about his performance as a DM, not particular plot twists that some PCs might like, and others dislike.




That's good NPC because that's also what I was talking about. So, to rephrase again, if Ambrus had done precisely what swrushing instructed him to do and Noelani was still unhappy with his performance as a DM, would following swrushing's advice still have been a "mistake"?


----------



## FireLance (Dec 7, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> That's good NPC because that's also what I was talking about. So, to rephrase again, if Ambrus had done precisely what swrushing instructed him to do and Noelani was still unhappy with his performance as a DM, would following swrushing's advice still have been a "mistake"?



Yes, it would have been a mistake. But to be fair to swrushing, he doesn't know Ambrus's players, so he doesn't know any better than you or I what would or would not work with them.

That said, I don't see what's the big deal about admitting that a mistake has been made. DMs will try stuff in the game, and if it doesn't work, he should take note of it and move on. Mistakes happen. The DM doesn't have to beat himself up over it, but neither should he whitewash over it and ignore the fact what he tried didn't work.

From personal experience, I once set up a scenario in game (we were playing Planescape) where the party was verbally abused by a squad of Mercykillers (a gang that holds to the philosophy that all lawbreakers must be punished). One of the players didn't like the Mercykillers' attitude and decided to attack them. The party was hopelessly outnumbered and a TPK resulted. Could I have handled it better? Of course I could have. Were the players upset? You bet they were. Did I make a mistake? Of course I did. But at least I acknowledged it and learned from it and I'm sure my handling of games has improved as a result.

To absolve the DM of all responsibility when a game goes wrong or a player is unhappy is just as ludicrious as the proposition that a DM is entirely to blame when a player does not enjoy a session.


----------



## hong (Dec 7, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> 1. Campaign Narrative Structure
> 
> Whenever I have used the term "climax," I have been applying it to the campaign as a whole. When you have used the term, you have variously applied it to individual episodes, perceived story arcs within the campaign, the campaign as a whole up to the current moment and the entire campaign. First, let me define campaign as I am using it here. If you wish to substitute another term you like better, feel free to do so. Just tell me what it is.




I have noticed that when unable to make a cogent reply, you have a fetish for retreating to technobabble. Why is this?



> Is it your position
> (a) that what the GM has done somehow is not a cliffhanger?
> (b) that cliffhangers are inappropriate in RPGs and that therefore if setbacks are to take place, they cannot happen during the finale of an episode?
> (c) that cliffhangers are only appropriate in RPGs if they have no emotional effect on the players?




It truly is fascinating that after 10 pages of this, you are still none the wiser.

Cliffhangers done well, is good.
Cliffhangers done badly, is bad.
This cliffhanger done badly.

No buildup.
No foreshadowing.
No context.
Pulled out of DM's ass on spur of the moment, without any planning at all.

Simple!



> You have also used the term "episodic campaign structure"; in the particular episodic campaign structure that I prefer, there are a lot of setbacks and cliffhangers.




Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with that, _if done right_.




> Of course there wasn't a book I could even read to discover what was going to happen after Han Solo was frozen in carbonite but I patiently waited for three whole years for Return of the Jedi to come out -- from when I was 8 until I was 11. Did I feel sombre or discouraged when I walked out of the theatre at the age of 8? Of course. Did this make Empire a bad movie? No. In my eight year old mind, it was the greatest movie anyone had ever made in the history of the human race.




See above, O eight-year-old mind.



> So, why is it Hong, that children watching movie serials can handle emotionally sombre cliffhangers and gamers can't? Why do you assume that because the players felt sombre right after the episode that this made them all want to quit the campaign?




At least when this thread is finished, Toronto won't have to worry about all that excess straw forming a fire hazard.

Nobody said they'd all want to quit the campaign. One badly executed session won't kill most campaigns, this one included. However, that doesn't mean that if this sort of thing happens repeatedly, the DM doesn't risk their players eventually going elsewhere. Of course, there are some DMs who like living on the edge, but I like to think that's a conscious choice, not simply a byproduct of mulishness.



> You have finally conceded that perhaps it is reasonable for the characters to lose the object of their quest under certain circumstances.




Spin, my little people, spin! Are you finished arguing with yourself yet?

I never said that it was unreasonable for characters never to lose the object of their quest. I said that the execution of the plot twist was wanting. That you apparently are unable to distinguish between the idea and the execution is nobody's problem but yours.



> But you argue that those circumstance occur only when the DM has thought through "all the possible consequences." I have to disagree -- it is only incumbent upon the DM to think through probable consequences.




All == probable for all practical purposes. Trust me, I'm a statistician.



> Perhaps you are unaware of all the choices your players can theoretically make and all of the emotional states that each and every one of them could experience at any moment of the game. I would suggest that if you truly understood how enormous (nigh infinite) a range of possibilities this is, you would revise your statement to be the same as mine: it is incumbent upon the DM to think thought probably outcomes.




... or the DM could simply have more social skills than a walnut. I think I might have mentioned this before.



> (a) None of your criteria are directly linked to the DM's performance; all simply measure player reactions without reference to what the DM has done.




Because at the end of the day, the DM's performance is rated according to the reactions of their players. Learn this.



> (b) Most of the questions you ask cannot be answered with the information posted to the thread. But here's a brief survey of what we can answer:
> 1. By looking at the reactions of the other people around the table: This seems like a reasonable standard. We have the reactions all but one of the players. They indicate that the DM did not behave unreasonably.




Ah, right. So Ambrus DID come here to complain about how everyone liked the game.



> So, we have 3 unknowns, 1 yes and 1 no.




Only in your world, where the colour of the sky is undetermined, but possibly a fetching shade of purple.



> Based on your own test, how can you possibly conclude that Ambrus behaved unreasonably?




The issue is not whether or not Ambrus behaved unreasonably. The issue is what caused the ill-feeling that is self-evident to everyone (except you, apparently) and how he can best fix that. Do stop tilting at windmills.


----------



## hong (Dec 7, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Or, in the alternative (as I know from bitter experience), suddenly decide that if they have screwed you over, they mustn't have really liked you after all.




Funny, that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> A few points in response to your latest post:
> 1. I think there is a distinction between people feeling "down" and people concluding that the thing that made them feel this way was a mistake. (See my Empire Strikes Back rant above)





I agree with you here.  I'm not even sure that the people who are arguing with you are completely averse to the idea.




> 3. While I agree that the GMing of the gnomes was sub-perfect, so is everything we do. So I addressed myself to the question: does this seem more error-ridden than solid competent GMing usually is?





Hey, Ambrus _asked_.  

Within normal tolerance?  Yes.

Handled the best way possible?  No.

Liable to make the PCs unlikely to trust NPCs in the future?  Yes.

Liable to make the PCs willing to help NPCs in the future?  No.

Damage control on the last two points needed?  Yes.

Should the DM claim mea culpa and rewrite history?  Absolutely not.




> 6. Just a minor correction: the cleric casting the geas was, in no way, unable to interact with the party.





It is my understanding that the PCs were not warned about the geas because of her "vow of silence."


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2004)

It might be useful to recap what actually happened at this point, because it is covered over the course of several posts and several pages.  Here’s what happened in Ambrus’ game, from my understanding….and using a lot of cut-and-pasting.  Feel free to correct me if I've missed anything important.

For the last 35+ sessions, the party has been embroiled in a quest to recover an artefact.  They've successfully played through the Banewarrens adventure (at the end of which Ambrus placed the artefact).  This adventure is taking place in a city built on an airborne island of stone high above the earth.  The city is gearing up for a war, and is taking special precautions related to items going into and out of the city.  The artefact is about the size of a large chest.  It has an antimagic field, which prevents it from being teleported or plane shifted.  We are informed by one of the players that the artefact is “the most valuable thing in the world.”

Naturally there are other factions outside the party who want the artefact for their own ends. These include a branch of a LG church, a group of heretical demon-worshippers, and a “seemingly neutral group of gnome and dwarf psions trying to fulfil an ancient prophecy.”

The party's investigation into the gnome's activities (tunnelling into the dungeon) led them to seek out a high placed member of the LG church, a cardinal, who they befriended, and whose help and advice they wanted.  In trying to help the PCs on their quest, the Cardinal has cast numerous spells (restorations, cures, break enchantments, raise deads, communes) for free (except for the material costs).  At one point, he suggested to the party that it would be in their best interest to form/join a holy order, sanctioned by himself, dedicated to this “holy” quest (recovering the artefact). He told them that it would help shield them from the crown if they were ever apprehended doing something seemingly illegal. 

(In Ambrus’ campaign, as in the real-world Middle Ages, ecclesiastics have their own legal system separate from the state's legal system.  As members of a holy order they could simply claim to be on church business and somewhat exempt from state prosecution.)

Together they penned a charter for their new holy order incorporating the party's gods and philosophies rather than just the Cardinal's god (which is quite progressive and somewhat unorthodox for the Cardinal's church).  After dark they went to the cathedral to seek out the blessing and advice of an ancient elven anchoress (a religious recluse under a vow of silence) who lives entombed in a small cell in the floor of the cathedral. Together they prayed and each read through the party's newly scribed charter (including the Cardinal).  This charter had no mention of the party being geased as a result of forming this order.

As each of them finished reading the oath "to retrieve and return to the gods the [sought out artefact]" she cast a silenced geas on each of them. She did it because she'd been waiting for a group of heroes to fulfill this quest on her behalf, but she was weary of putting her complete faith in a group of strangers she'd just met.  Because of her vow of silence, she did not warn the characters that she was going to do this.  The cardinal didn't know the anchoress was going to cast geas beforehand so he didn't warn the party.

At least one player felt that the geas was coercive.  At least one player stated that he felt the geas made the adventure feel special, as though the party was sanctioned by the gods.  Ambrus states that it did not occur to him that casting Geas/Quest might be considered cruel.

After the party was all geased, the Abbess used an unseen servant to lift out of the floor a king's ransom in donations and tithes she'd collected over the previous century (60 000 gp worth) for the party to use as they saw fit during the quest. A shopping spree ensued shortly thereafter.

Ambrus has toned down the effects of the geas to make it more player friendly. They've never suffered any damage from it. They actually took a ten day week of down time to re-equip and have some magic items made. The first few days nothing happened except for a general feeling of anxiousness, the next few days brought a growing sense of unease and anxiety. Only by the end of the week did they start suffering any ill effects in the form of nausea. It all disappeared as soon as they resolved to head back into the dungeon the next day.

The anchoress is LG and will most likely remove the geas if it becomes life threatening and she is told about what happened.  It is uncertain whether or not the players had any means of knowing this.

(Continued Next Post)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2004)

(Continued From Last Post)

On the way out of the dungeon, the party successfully repelled an ambush by the demon-worshipping faction. They then met up with some of the psion gnomes in the dungeon with whom they'd developed an alliance of sorts (though both groups originally started on the wrong foot when they first met, resulting in some gnome deaths).  They did have a few violent conflicts with this faction. But the party did try to make it up to them by helping to pay for some of the gnomes to be raised later. After that, relations were a bit tense but some characters on both sides tried to champion the idea of cooperating.

The party decided to trust the gnomes because they wanted their help getting the artefact out of the city above secretly.  The gnomes had a flying ship waiting at the docks for just this purpose.  They did talk about what they were going to do with the artefact briefly. The gnomes admitted truthfully that they wanted to bring it back to their venerable dwarf lady messiah (which the party met at the beginning of the campaign, fought briefly and remained dubious about) while the party stated their general intention of carrying it through a portal into a fairy realm to ask a PC's fairy-queen/goddess' opinion about it. They never really resolved these opposing plans but did generally agree that their first concern was getting the artefact safely out of the city.

The group didn't cast any divination spells to determine the general truthfulness of the gnomes.  They did do a sense motive check when one of the gnomes told us his plan. He was really clear what he was going to do, about the crates and getting us onto the ship, etc.  The PC in question rolled a very high check.  Although the gnome still seemed sincere, the PC still didn't trust them, and has been the voice of dissention against the gnomes from the beginning.

The party has several members with very high Charismas:  20, 19, and 18.  They made their intentions very clear to the gnomes.  They spoke to them kindly and reasonably, with at least one Diplomacy check of 30.  It was the contention of at least one player that “If we can't win people over to our side, no one can.”

The group did consider putting a pseudodragon familiar and/or a sprite cohort into the box but decided that there was just wasn't enough spare room in the crate for that.

Finally, the gnomes convinced the party that the only way to safely get on the ship and out of the city was to have all the party members (along with the artefact) placed into wooden crates and carried onto the ship.  It is unclear as to whether this was originally a PC’s idea or a gnome’s; posts vary on this detail.

According to Ambrus, it went something like this (paraphrasing):

PC1: We could have the gnomes carry us aboard in crates.
PC2: Alright but you and me should be locked in the same crate along with it. (two medium sized characters with the chest-sized artefact).
NPC: Whoa, there is a maximum size of crate that can be loaded onto the ship.
PC2: Well how big?
NPC gnome: Not much bigger than this (mimes a cube roughly 3-4 ft big)
PC1: Are the crates ready made? Is there any flexibility on their size?
DM: They have some crates ready made but they also have a supply of boards & nails and are able to build them to fit.


(Although the NPCs are apparently sincere at this time, one wonders why a larger crate cannot be loaded onto the ship.)


PC2: I know, we can have your (PC1) pseudodragon and the sprite cohort (PC3) inside the crate with the artefact.
PC1: No it won't fit with them.
PC2: Why? they're Tiny.
PC1: Yeah but they still take up room in the crate. There won't be much room in the crate aside from the artefact.
PC2: No they're Tiny. That's nothing.
PC1: No it'll be too tight for them. There's no room.
PC3: Sprite, in what crate do you want to go?
NPC sprite: With you of course! (he's madly in love with PC3).
PC1: Besides, I'll need to have my pseudodragon with me in my crate because [convoluted story-specific reason].
NPC: Well, you all could be in these crates for as long as a day. They'll be cramped. The big folk (the medium sized PCs) should only be loaded one to a crate. You'll need room to move a bit and we'll load you up with some waterskins, bread and cheese and a chamber pot. Though the others (the small sized PCs) can fit in the same crate if they want.
PC2 and PC4 (the small sized PCs) decline this offer.
NPC: You'll have to be perfectly quiet the whole time.
PC3: How long will we be in there?
NPC: We'll load you in the crates tonight after dark. You'll then be carried to the docks during the night, probably wait there for a bit until you're loaded into the cargo hold and then you'll have to stay put until well after we've left port, which should be sometime tomorrow morning. It could be as long as 24 hours.
PC3: But how will we get out?
NPC: We'll break you out when it's safe.
PC3 remains dubious about this plan.
PC1 then gives the gnome a series of instructions on how his crate must be kept close to the artefact crate at all times and how they should be carried together and loaded onto the ship simultaneously, etc.

(Continued Next Post)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2004)

(Continued From Last Post)

Most of the factions aren't entirely of one mind. The gnomes that the party was speaking to, for instance, were sincere and were even crated themselves alongside the party. It was the members of the faction who were responsible for loading the ship who actually made the decision to leave the party behind because they still don't entirely trust them and were afraid they wouldn't be able to stop the party if it insisted on taking the artefact elsewhere.

(Apparently, this faction had some means of determining which crates contained gnomes, which contained PCs, and which contained the artefact without having to check, and without thereby alerting the PCs.)

As mentioned earlier, the gnomes and the party have had a rocky relationship.  But members of both sides have tried to put that behind them and cooperate.  It is noted that the party killed 2-3 of the gnomes and paid to have an unspecified “some” raised from the dead.  At least one PC (Esme) was killed by the gnome faction.  The party has eventually won over most of the gnomes they've dealt with personally.  In the end, they were dealing with two gnomes, one who was already won over and one who was distrustful.  Pretty quickly, the party won even this holdover to their side (even though their long term goals differed).

Ambrus states that when the Sense Motive check was made the gnome was truthfully relaying his immediate intentions to the PC gnome (to go talk to the other gnomes involved, arrange a place for the PCs to hide and to arrange the crating details and then to return to retrieve the party). These two gnomes had been won over by the party and were sincere in their efforts. They had themselves crated up alongside the party. It was the members of the gnome faction who they had entrusted to load them onto the ship and their superiors (whom the party had never personally encountered) who made the final decision to leave the party behind.

Ambrus states that it didn’t occur to the gnomes the PCs dealt with that they might get overruled by their allies.  He also states that “the gnomes encountered the party and saw an opportunity they weren't expecting.”

The gnome faction did consider taking the PC gnome (whom they like and trust) with them but they were worried that the PCs would be able to track them down much easier if he was with them.  The gnomes knew that the party had formed some kind of secret order, but were unaware that they had been geased (the party hasn't advertised that fact).

Ambrus states that he “didn't really plan what happened.”  He didn't imagine that the opportunity to separate the party from the artefact would have presented itself so easily to the NPCs involved. The party has become one of the most powerful, unpredictable and dangerous factions involved in the race for the artefact.  One of the other factions simply couldn't ignore this opportunity to separate them from it when it presented itself.  What Ambrus did determine ahead of time was what each faction would do with the artefact if they managed to acquire it.

Later, after the party agrees to this plan, gets itself crated up (all in separate crates) and carried around by workmen, the party begins to suspect something is up. After half a day, they bust out of their crates only to realise that they are in a warehouse, still in the city, with their equipment but that the ship, gnomes and artefact are all long gone.

Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy, though a few (plural) of the players were quite upset. They had been fighting to recover this artefact for well over a year of gaming.  Returning to the surface made the party giddy with excitement.  Esme says:  “We easily could have found another way to leave the city, but we were so exhausted and fearful to be caught by the authorities…that when the gnomes offered their ship, I jumped on the chance and did not give to much thought to betrayal.”

Esme also says:  “It was a big disappointment to loose the artefact, after thinking we could trust the gnomes. It's disheartening and frustrating. I died and came back to recover the item. Noelanie has every right to feel the way she does.”  He goes on:  “hile Ambrus' decision might have been harsh, it was neither cruel, which implies malice and forethought, nor gratuitous, as demonstrated by his concern by our reaction. I think he is an impartial and fair judge of events. In this situation, events just got the better of the party. But I will not blame anyone in the group for feeling the way they do. it's only human.”

Ambrus summed up the way the group felt at the end of the session as follows:

"Have you ever seen Indiana Jones and the lost Ark?"
"Yeah, sure."
"Well, imagine that you're Indiana Jones and you've worked hard to get this Ark. Then, in the last ten minutes of the movie, nazis show up and snatch away the Ark right out of your hands. That's kind of how my players feel."

*pause*

"And you're the nazi?"
"Yeah... I'm the nazi."

(End Summary)


----------



## Ambrus (Dec 7, 2004)

Phew. Nice summary Raven. 



> Feel free to correct me if I've missed anything important.




Since Raven Crowking went to so much trouble to collect the entire story together in one place, the least I can do is volunteer some clarifications and answers to his questions Hopefully this'll help people's understanding of the situation.



> They spoke to them kindly and reasonably, with at least one Diplomacy check of 30.




There wasn't actually any dice rolled by anyone to win over the gnomes during the events in question. The "30" mentioned above was Noelani stating that she has a total diplomacy modifier of +30. I generally don't bother rolling diplomacy checks (I usually prefer to roll social skills in secret as the DMG suggests) unless the party is trying to win over a mortal enemy. Since the gnomes they met during this encounter were at least willing to talk to the party it's safe to assume that they (with a 30+ check) would eventually win them over as long as they were polite and reasonable. In hindsight, this easygoing roll-playing of the characters skills at the time may have, in part, led to the development of the situation.



> Finally, the gnomes convinced the party that the only way to safely get on the ship and out of the city was to have all the party members (along with the artifact) placed into wooden crates and carried onto the ship. It is unclear as to whether this was originally a PC’s idea or a gnome’s; posts vary on this detail.




The idea was first proposed by the gnome PC. I don't believe any of the players contradicted me in their posts. If I'm wrong please let me know.



> (Although the NPCs are apparently sincere at this time, one wonders why a larger crate cannot be loaded onto the ship.)




It was a logistics issue. The freighter itself was relatively small with limited cargo space, with small hatches through which to move the cargo and no crane nearby with which to move bigger crates. All the crates had to be carried aboard by hand. Also, since the cargo hold itself is small and somewhat rounded (because of the hull shape) larger crates mean more wasted space, which means less money for the merchant owner of the ship.



> (Apparently, this faction had some means of determining which crates contained gnomes, which contained PCs, and which contained the artifact without having to check, and without thereby alerting the PCs.)




For proper shipping, all of the crates were branded with serial numbers by the guild and registered on the ship's bill of lading. The faction simply noted the numbers on the crates that everyone occupied and later separated the crates by referencing the numbers.



> Overall, the tone at the end of the game was mostly melancholy, though a few (plural) of the players were quite upset.




Actually, I overstated the number of people who were openly upset at the table after the game when I originally posted. One person was upset (Noelani), one person voiced support for my actions (Esmé, who is a DM himself) while both Jebeddo and Ketharian kept their opinions mostly to themselves. Sorry about the confusion.

Also, I believe a while back Raven asked the question why the PCs didn't simply bring the artifact to their church allies in the city. Honestly I can't claim to fully answer this on behalf of the players. I believe the main reason is that the PCs were worried about the members of the church above the cardinal (a pontifex and some inquisitors) that they hadn't met and their unknown opinions concerning their quest. I think they feared coming into conflict with church officials while carrying a sacred relic and preferred to simply avoid any potential problems.

Since there's also been some conjecture about the party's current level, I'll reveal that they are all currently ECL 11. And although this particular story arc has taken up 35+ sessions, the campaign has actually been running for 58+ sessions.


----------



## Darkness (Dec 7, 2004)

Hey everybody,


This endless back-and-forth between a few dedicated posters doesn't seem to be going anywhere but it's certainly not getting any nicer right now.

While sarcasm and nit-picking aren't bad per se, throwing barbed comments around and overgeneralizing others' positions into the ridiculous (among other things) is neither nice nor polite. I don't want to see any more of that, nor other assorted crap. Thanks.


On a different note...


> I can be dissatisfied with a game because nobody performed oral sex on me during the session ...



Don't upset Morrus' grannie, please. Using a family-friendly example would have been just as easy.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 7, 2004)

Thanks Raven. Great work on producing the summary. It's very convenient to have all the data available in one place now. 

Darkness, I apologize for my colourful metaphor above. Also, as per your suggestion, I shall cease corresponding with Hong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Phew. Nice summary Raven.





Thanks.

There were a number of...somewhat argumentative...posts which seemed to be drifting away from what had actually happened.  After ten pages, a refresher as to the circumstances seemed appropriate.  It was also possible, now, to include later clarifications by both you and your players, to give the reader a fuller idea as to what happened.

I _still_ conclude that both of the PC/NPC encounters we are privy to include the general idea that NPC A is the front man while NPC B (whom the party does not get to interact with fully) makes the decisions.  While this is a pretty good way to foil Sense Motive checks, and is realistic (as anyone who has ever negotiated anything with an organization can attest), it really does increase the chances that these PCs will not trust other NPCs.

There are also some questions about the mechanics of what happened that the summary raises (such as how the deciding gnomes knew which crate was which), but the PCs do not know everything.  It's okay to have some questions unanswered.

It amazes me that some people require an "all or nothing" answer to how good a DM is.  Ambrus sounds as though he's a pretty good DM.  Like all of us, he has strengths and weaknesses.  No matter how prepared you are, or how quick a thinker you are, there are limitations to how "perfect" anyone's game can be.  Ambrus is clearly within normal tolerance.

As far as Darkness' comments go, there are methods of argument that try anyone's ability to respond politely.  It amazes me that those who use these methods regularly, even to the point of having some of their posts removed in some threads, have not received warning points.  Far be it from me to tell the moderators of this excellent site how to run their business, but it seems to me that when the same individuals repeatedly hijack threads to the general detriment of all, taking some small action would add to the general good.  There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about what lessons the DM teaches the players by his or her actions.  I believe that the same principle applies here.

Now, if the above comments merit a warning of my own, I will happily accept it.


RC


----------



## tec-9-7 (Dec 7, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As far as Darkness' comments go, there are methods of argument that try anyone's ability to respond politely.  It amazes me that those who use these methods regularly, even to the point of having some of their posts removed in some threads, have not received warning points.  Far be it from me to tell the moderators of this excellent site how to run their business, but it seems to me that when the same individuals repeatedly hijack threads to the general detriment of all, taking some small action would add to the general good.



I too wonder why several individuals seem so wrapped up in each other's disfunction.  There is a great button available in the Profiles - "Add X to Your Ignore List" - I've already made excellent use of that one!


----------



## Berandor (Dec 7, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, if the above comments merit a warning of my own, I will happily accept it.



You are warned.

Also, I didn't really see that many posts by diaglo...

(Note: I am no moderator. Make of that what you will)


----------



## Darkness (Dec 7, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As far as Darkness' comments go, there are methods of argument that try anyone's ability to respond politely.



 Yep. Feel free to use the handy Report Post button (and your Ignore List, if warranted) as needed. You can also directly e-mail or PM a moderator when you need a heated debate defused. 

If you decide to take matters into your own hands instead, don't hope for much understanding from a moderator if you escalate the situation by descending to a troublemaker's level yourself and we have to clean up after _you_ as well. Sorry. If we encouraged such vigilantism, the boards would rapidly degenerate to a very un-nice place.

If anyone wants to comment more on this topic, PM or e-mail me (i.e., let's not hijack this thread). Thanks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2004)

Okay, then, back to Ambrus.

Should a session never end on a downer?

I don't think ending on a downer is a serious problem.  I do understand, though, that some downers may seem so overwhelming as to demoralize the entire group.

Is it always the DM's fault when a player gets upset?

Well, obviously not.  However, it is almost always worth the DM's time to consider whether or not it is his fault.  When the game ends with all the players upset (even if some get over it later) enough to make the DM feel like the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, then it seems pretty clear that the DM in question should at least feel partly responsible.

A lot of the argument on this last point seems to be of the "DM's always responsible" vs. "What about player responsibility?" type.  Granted, a lot of people out there _never_ feel responsible for their actions, which can make people polarize on this issue.  The fact is that when a game degenerates, it is rarely (if ever) entirely the fault of one party.  Very likely, both the DM and the players bear responsibility.

A quick read-through of the summary I provided (which is all from posts by the DM or players involved, with some scant editting) demonstrates that the players did not make use of all the information that the DM provided.  It also demonstrates that the DM did not provide as much information as he could have.  In the latter case, there is sufficient grounds to believe that the DM _intentionally_ withheld information....but there is also sufficient grounds to believe that the players _should have known_ that this was the case.

From reading through these posts, I honestly believe that most of the posters actually hold a more moderate, less polarized, view than the last couple of pages would suggest.

Granting that Ambrus could have handled the reversal better, do we really believe that he handled it so badly that he should stop DMing or reverse the decision, as some suggested near the begining?  Or is this reaction merely the result of not having all of the information together at the same time?


RC


----------



## drnuncheon (Dec 7, 2004)

Here are my questions, and a bit of backseat DMing:

 Did the crated PCs have any chance to notice the betrayal?  It would seem to me that they'd be able to notice the other crates being loaded, people walking around the warehouse, etc - and when they weren't loaded it should have been obvious fairly quickly.  Now, would they do anything in time? That's a different question - they'd have to weigh the possible consequences of getting caught popping out too early with those of being possibly betrayed.

 Was this turnaround 'out of the blue'?  Well, clearly the DM thought it made sense.  It's not like the LG church suddenly turned around and betrayed them - _that_ would have been out of the blue, rather than a group of people that they have had problems with in the past.  Whatever hong or tac-9-7 or swrushing or fusangite or I says, we don't have all the data, and this is purely an opinion question.

 Was it bad DMing?  Apparently Hong thinks that Indiana Jones should have been able to pull the ark up out of the Well of Souls and take it back, because the 'climax' - finding the ark - had already happened.  Except that finding the ark wasn't the climax, no matter how much you expected it to be.  You can't identify the climax until you've seen the whole thing, and we and the players haven't seen the whole thing.  

 This could just be the scene where Marion and Indy have to break out of the Well of Souls after Belloq takes the ark, or where Indy goes after the Nazi convoy on horseback, or where he dives off of the freighter and lashes himself to the periscope with his whip.  Would Raiders of the Lost Ark have been nearly as good a film without any of that?  So, suspend judgement here until it really _is_ over.

 Now, what should you do? I disagree with tec-9-7 that you should reset - that never goes well and it just opens the door for everyone thinking about it as an option every time something goes wrong.  On the other hand, it behooves you to bring a quick end to this storyline if the players aren't having fun - I'd tell them out of game that that is what you are going to do.  It's a lot easier to live with something for 3 sessions than it is to know it's going to last for an indefinite time.

 I would say it's time to (spoilers cos the players read this thread) 



Spoiler



bust out/'borrow'/buy/whatever some _carpets of flying_ (or similar - they've got to have some way of getting to and from this floating city) and take off after the gnomish ship (which is slowed by the artifact enough that they can catch up).

 While on the ship - or maybe even before going there - they discover that the head gnomes of the expedition are being secretly controlled by the infernal faction, who was behind the betrayal all along! They are forced to try to defeat the gnomes without harming them unduly, breaking the infernal control, and then they can go on with their original plan.

 At somepoint, though, you need to reach payoff, which ought to be the Macguffin being used for whatever it's going to be used for, by somebody.  Preferably not the demons.  I don't know what the dwarven prophecy is, or how it relates to the aims of the LG church, but if the two can coincide that might be a good path to work towards.


 
 After this, definitely run a lighthearted, non-serious adventure to cool down.  No fate of the world, no dark plots - if you think you can pull off something comic, do it.  If not, give the players an easy opponent so they can feel good about their abilities - maybe somebody out of their past who gave them trouble the first time they met that they can now beat handily, showing how much they've improved and grown.

 J


----------



## Ambrus (Dec 7, 2004)

Since Raven Crowking went to so much trouble to collect the entire story together in one place, the least I can do is volunteer some clarifications and answers to his questions. I've edited my post following his summary with my comments so that they'll all be together for easy reference. Hopefully this'll help people's understanding of the situation.

Since there's also been some conjecture about the party's current level, I'll reveal that they are all currently ECL 11. And although this particular story arc has taken up 35+ sessions, the campaign has actually been running for 58+ sessions.


----------



## Quasqueton (Dec 7, 2004)

> Ambrus summed up the way the group felt at the end of the session as follows:
> 
> "Have you ever seen Indiana Jones and the lost Ark?"
> "Yeah, sure."
> ...



Might I point out that the nazis did, in fact, snatch the Ark away from Indy. Actually happened a couple times.

They took it from Indy and then sealed him up in the tomb.
They took it off the ship and put it on the sub.

And remember how the movie ended?

"We have top men working on it right now."
"Who?"
"Top. Men."
<scene of Ark in crate being stashed in a crowded warehouse>

And don't forget the very first artifact we see Indy "find". Bellock (sp?) took it from his very hands right at the exit from the cave.

Quasqueton


----------



## fusangite (Dec 8, 2004)

Dr. Nuncheon,

Glad to have you aboard. In my own defence, 



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Whatever hong or tac-9-7 or swrushing or fusangite or I says, we don't have all the data




I do make that point about incomplete data myself about once per page. Also in my own defence, at no point do I state that a player is 100% responsible for how a game makes her feel. I have merely staked out the position that GM responsibility for a player's feelings is _less than_ 100%. 

I think you provide some excellent and positive advice to aid Ambrus on his way.

Ambrus,

Is there anything more we can do on this thread that would actually be helpful to you or would you just like it to go away at this point? 

I had actually formed the impression you had left in disgust a few pages ago prior to me advancing the theory I had been harbouring that the argument was, in part, a sublimated relationship dispute. I hope I didn't cause offence. (To you or your fiancee at least. )


----------



## Ambrus (Dec 8, 2004)

> Ambrus,
> Is there anything more we can do on this thread that would actually be helpful to you or would you just like it to go away at this point?




Helpful? I'm not certain what exactly might be helpful to me at the moment. All of the interesting opinions offered by the ENworld collective have been helpful to me thus far. I've read every single post and they've given me a great deal to think about. I'm still blown away by the amount of debate my simple post has generated. In many ways the debate has moved beyond the scope of my game and taken on a life of its own. I'm curious to read what people have to say about it all. If people want to let the thread die that's cool. If people feel the desire to keep talking about it, well, that's cool too; I'll keep reading.  



> I had actually formed the impression you had left in disgust a few pages ago prior to me advancing the theory I had been harbouring that the argument was, in part, a sublimated relationship dispute. I hope I didn't cause offence. (To you or your fiancee at least. )




Actually I had stopped checking the thread last Wednesday when it slipped down onto the third page. It was only by accident yesterday morning that I noticed that the thread had continued to receive posts totaling over 200+. I was quite astounded and spent a few hours yesterday catching up. As for your theory, well, my fiancee and I would like you to know that you are in error. For what it's worth, she still claims I'm her favorite DM.


----------



## ZSutherland (Dec 8, 2004)

*Wow!  Uberthread!*

Ambrus,

Thanks for posing the question, even if you didn't intend to generate this kind of response.  It was a fun read.  Personally, your campaign sounds like a blast, and I'm generally with the moderate opinion here (as a DM).  Yes you could have handled it better, but I don't think your handling of it was either cruel or enough to end your DMing career.  I will share a personal anecdote that's similar.  In what my players (3 years later) are still calling the best campaign I ever ran the following situation occurred.

The city of Shantel (hometown of all 5 PCs) is being besieged by Grimosh the Lich (20th lvl cleric/wizard) and his army of undead, half-dragon/half-trolls, and various orcs, goblins, etc.  He has arrived outside the city with his army and offers the city 3 days to surrender unconditionally.  The PCs are 5 level at this point and Grimosh has been their major antagonit from the start.  The reached the city before him, bringing news of his impending assault and so are on the city's walls to hear his offer.  The NG dwarf cleric of Moradin, seething with righteous anger at the undead abomination below him defiantly fires off a searing blast, which against all odds breaks SR and causes a slight wound to the archlich.  Said lich proceeds to throw a blade barrier up right behind the cleric and then pound him with fireballs until well done.

Killing that character was completely my call.  I gave him no real chance to escape or survive.  He did it knowing there was not a high enough level cleric in the city to raise him from the dead.  I didn't feel sorry for one second.  He was, of course, quite upset.  My fiancee (happily now my wife) was also quite upset.  We got past it.  As is our custom, he was allowed to make a new character with minimum exp for the level he died at plus RP exp earned for the session where he lost his character.  I gave him bonus RP exp for such a dramatic and in character response.  My fiancee's bard used the character's death to rally the city to their own defense.   He made a new character that he claimed later to enjoy more thoroughly.

However, he left the game upset.  I nearly spent the night on the couch because my fiancee was upset.  While I agree that swrushing's point of view is an excellent general rule, it is not always the case.  To this day, I adamantly state I made the right call as the DM (other players agreed at the time as well).  Given distance and some DMing experience of her own, by wife now agrees with me.  Since he ceased playing with us about a year after that campaign ended due to work and other personal issues, I don't know if the player in question did.  The moral is that his character didn't die because the player or character made a mistake.  His character died because he the player and his character made a decision, and the world reacted in the most reasonable fashion. 

Could I have handled it better?  Perhaps.  Maybe I should have left a way out for him, or provided a way for him to resurrected.  In hind sight, I don't think so.  A few of my players wanted me to reverse my decision, but I refused and told them to take it in stride and move on.  As a result of role-playing out their character's emotions of the issue, Grimosh became fixed in their minds as a great example of what a bad guy should be.  They hated him, but having gotten it out of their systems, the were no longer mad at me.

Here's hoping you can pull something similar.  Give the PCs the chance to vent their anger where it belongs - on the gnomes.  Let them have their satisfaction and recover their item on their own, and then carry them on to the end of the campaign.  If you learn from the understandable mistake you've made and build it into what seems to be an otherwise very good grasp on DMing, chances are good that in a few years, you'll all sit down to play, and while you're breaking out the books and paper, one of your players will say, "You remember those stupid gnomes?  Jerks!  We really gave it to them!"  (more probable commentary editted for Eric's G-ma.)

Good luck,
Z


----------



## Berandor (Dec 8, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, she still claims I'm her favorite DM.



So there are others?


----------



## Darkness (Dec 8, 2004)

ZSutherland said:
			
		

> ... Killing that character was completely my call. I gave him no real chance to escape or survive. He did it knowing there was not a high enough level cleric in the city to raise him from the dead. I didn't feel sorry for one second. ...
> 
> Could I have handled it better? Perhaps. Maybe I should have left a way out for him, or provided a way for him to resurrected. In hind sight, I don't think so. ...



 I agree with your call. Of course, you could have had the lich polymorph him into a frog or send him to another plane (among other other things; there are lots of options that require that other PCs to do something to get him back) instead of killing him outright but that you didn't is fine as well.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 8, 2004)

On the lich call...

My preference and choice as Gm would have been to do something that provoked more story for the character. 

Whisking the character to another plane, where later on in his downtime the lich pops in and begins training his new lackey, or somesuch. comes immediately to mind, althoug i would of course need more specific knowledge of character and player for the particulars.

Its not out of genre for a character to pull some stunt in the face of overwhelming force as a show od defiance. if every heroic character who spat insults in the eye of overwhelming adversaries died right away, those myths and legends would IMO become a lot duller.


----------



## Darkness (Dec 8, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> if every heroic character who spat insults in the eye of overwhelming adversaries died right away, those myths and legends would IMO become a lot duller.



 On the other hand, if every cocky PC who unncecessarily messes with mortal danger can be assured to only get a slap on the wrist for his troubles, the players will quickly learn not to take anyone or anything seriously.

Heh. Playing devil's advocate, here; I don't disagree with swrushing. My point is that:

The optimal course of action for the DM depends on the campaign, the character and the circumstances.
Further, that, while encouraging heroism is generally a good thing, there are other important considerations as well.
Lastly, that tragedy doesn't have to be a bad thing even if it comes at the expense of a PC's life.


----------



## tec-9-7 (Dec 8, 2004)

ZSutherland said:
			
		

> To this day, I adamantly state I made the right call as the DM (other players agreed at the time as well).  Given distance and some DMing experience of her own, by wife now agrees with me.  Since he ceased playing with us about a year after that campaign ended due to work and other personal issues, I don't know if the player in question did.  The moral is that his character didn't die because the player or character made a mistake.  His character died because he the player and his character made a decision, and the world reacted in the most reasonable fashion.
> 
> Could I have handled it better?  Perhaps.  Maybe I should have left a way out for him, or provided a way for him to resurrected.  In hind sight, I don't think so.  A few of my players wanted me to reverse my decision, but I refused and told them to take it in stride and move on.



The primary difference is that you didn't come here on the board and ask for feedback on this particular decision.  I'm certain if you had, you'd have gotten more-or-less the same responses from more-or-less the same parties as Ambrus.  When you come out in public and ask for comments/criticisms, you'd better be prepared for both the good and the bad.

I don't _think_ anyone here (myself included) has said that Ambrus is a bad DM - I don't think he is - for the record, I don't think he's even a cruel DM as he asked in the post title, as I think real cruelty would have been more premeditated.  I DO think he showed poor judgement _in this instance_, and as he asked for opinions, I gave mine.  I think, as several others have rather elloquently stated, the problem is that the game ended w/ players pissed off at him, rather than characters pissed off at NPCs; and whenever that happens, I think it's a good idea for the DM to stop for a minute, look at what happened, and fix it.  Sadly there aren't that many DMs who are willing to look at something and say "Boy, I blew it" and then fix the issue.  Maybe it's ego - I dunno.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 8, 2004)

If there is one thing that is clear from the past several pages of posts, it is that there is no monolithic opinion on the part of Ambrus's players concerning his performance as GM during the episode in question. We might want to refrain from language implying such.


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 9, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If there is one thing that is clear from the past several pages of posts, it is that there is no monolithic opinion on the part of Ambrus's players concerning his performance as GM during the episode in question. We might want to refrain from language implying such.




?

If you are referring to tec-9-7's previous post, he is correct.

IIRC at the time the session ending there were several players who were upset/unhappy with the Ambrus' actions.  After time and reflection, 3 came (some of those actually always felt that way) came to the opinion that his actions weren't all that bad and were in fact fine with them.  There is still one that no-one has spoken of, except Ambrus who said the one who was the most upset had talked to her.

There is a difference between what people feel at the moment and what they end up feeling after time has sorted things out in their minds.

We need to keep these two time periods distinct if making statements/drawing conclusions from them.

I for one am interested to know how he resolved the issue here.  He definitely needs to do (have done) something to aid the PCs in recovering the artifact.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 9, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> IIRC at the time the session ending there were several players who were upset/unhappy with the Ambrus' actions.




Being upset with the _outcome_ of a game does not equal being upset with _the GM's actions_. I don't see a clear statement that those upset with the outcome blamed Ambrus unanimously. 



> After time and reflection, 3 came (some of those actually always felt that way) came to the opinion that his actions weren't all that bad and were in fact fine with them. There is a difference between what people feel at the moment and what they end up feeling after time has sorted things out in their minds.




Here we have no disagreement.



> We need to keep these two time periods distinct if making statements/drawing conclusions from them.




Again, I completely agree.


----------



## tec-9-7 (Dec 9, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> ?
> 
> If you are referring to tec-9-7's previous post, he is correct.



Of course I'm correct.  Some here apparently have serious reading comprehension problems.  As a refresher, here's what I said -



			
				tec-9-7 said:
			
		

> the game ended w/ players pissed off at him, rather than characters pissed off at NPCs;



This is factually correct.  Ambrus's fiancee was pissed off at _him_. and another player who was not there for the session, but who's character was there was pissed off at _him_.  That is two players, and playerS (plural) is what I said - nothing more; nothing less, and nowhere in this monstrosity have I seen any of the persons who disagree w/ Ambrus's handling of the situation even attempt to claim that all the players involved were of one mind.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 9, 2004)

tec-9-7 said:
			
		

> This is factually correct.  Ambrus's fiancee was pissed off at _him_. and another player who was not there for the session, but who's character was there was pissed off at _him_.  That is two players, and playerS (plural) is what I said - nothing more; nothing less, and nowhere in this monstrosity have I seen any of the persons who disagree w/ Ambrus's handling of the situation even attempt to claim that all the players involved were of one mind.




I'm sorry tec-9-7. I wasn't aware we were back to the 1+x=2 argument. I thought you were making a generalization about the group as a whole. My apologies for inadvertently placing a "the" infront of the word "players" in your post. 

Ambrus, I can't seem to find (probably because of the huge volume of the thread and my limited patience) how the player you feared would be annoyed actually reacted. Did she blame you too in the end?


----------



## swrushing (Dec 9, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if every cocky PC who unncecessarily messes with mortal danger can be assured to only get a slap on the wrist for his troubles, the players will quickly learn not to take anyone or anything seriously.



Absolutely. We do not disagree here. However, to my mind, there is a world of room between "you PC is killed" and "a slap on the wrist" in which many GMs play and run games every day. I certainly did not think the alternative i suggested was a slap on thw wrist.

If the PCs are instructed by the Gm that "those types of defiant gestures will result in character death" they will obviously refrain from doing so. hopefully, none of the players was silly enough to bring into this campaign any of those classic "disrespect authority" or "not totally in control at all time" character archtypes because they are probably a brief, character-in-passing and not destined to be a star.

If I did want to teach this lesson to my PCs, perhaps as a part of showing this particular NPC "monster" had no sense of proportionate response and had no personality aspects which might lead him to anything but the most direct overt responses, then i would have had a known rebellious NPC do the deed. this is the classic redshirt-dies-to-establish-the-degre-of-danger.

But, i don't usually have characters such as liches play the role of monsters (the rather simple killing force you have only the option of killing or be killed by) and instead usually have them play the role of characters/antagonists (more detailed motivations and reactions) so I tend to have the lich's response be more one of any number of story/drama producing varieties, such as "One among the sheep with spine. excellent! he will make an excellent herald for my demands." or any number of not-necessarily-pleasant but also not just "this ones dead, pull another out of your backpack" end-of-stories/drama.

I treat the PCs as the stars, not the redshirts, and I think most of my players can attest to that not meaning they just get slaps on the wrist.

otherwise, they wouldn't be calling me "Stevil" and having me on their voice tag cell phone as "Evil Bast..." 





			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> Heh. Playing devil's advocate, here; I don't disagree with swrushing. My point is that:
> 
> The optimal course of action for the DM depends on the campaign, the character and the circumstances.





Agreed. 100%


			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> [*]Further, that, while encouraging heroism is generally a good thing, there are other important considerations as well.



Agreed 100%


			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> [*]Lastly, that tragedy doesn't have to be a bad thing even if it comes at the expense of a PC's life.



Agreed, but for my tastes and IMX, the situations which benefit from PCs death are fewer and farther between than i think the frequency of PC death seems represented on these boards typically.

IMX the occurance of PC death often serves to REDUCE the drama, to reduce the importance of the PCs, and to reduce player interest and investment in their characters and not to create the INCREASE in sense of danger. A redshirt death can serve as an alert, can serve as a "pay attention, this is serious" especially if you have NPCs woven into the story as "characters" as opposed to resources and their demise strikes a number of chords _inside the game world or *in-character*_, but a PC death strikes other chords entirely and actually IMX tends to strike a lot of chords _outside of the game world and *out-of-character*_, which makes a huge difference in result.

But, of course, the particulars would vary from game to game, Gm to Gm, and players to players. Some players I know would be much happier as a player to have their PC killed and bring in a new guy ("I got a backpack full of them") instead of ever having to roleplay their character under any mental influence or captured. I once had to deny a player the option of joining one of my games because he was a "never get captured" **player** and the genre, Stargate Sg-1, features capture as a reasonable occurance. It would have been a horrible mismatch of player and game style otherwise.


----------



## Ambrus (Dec 9, 2004)

> Originally Posted by *Berandor*
> So there are others?




Yes. The missing player is the storyteller of a medieval japan hengeyokai campaign (white-wolf) in which Noelani plays. Esmé DMs a D&D Forgotten Realms campaign set in the Endless Wastes in which Noelani, Jebeddo and I play together (Ambrus is my PC's name). Ketharian runs a HARN campaign which none of us play in. My campaign is a D&D campaign set in a home-brewed campaign setting called Gramarye.



> Originally Posted by *fusangite*
> Ambrus, I can't seem to find (probably because of the huge volume of the thread and my limited patience) how the player you feared would be annoyed actually reacted. Did she blame you too in the end?




I haven't actually spoken to her about it. She just got back from a trip to Europe (the reason for her missing the last session) and has been recovering from that ordeal (she really liked Rome and the Sistine chapel). Noelani spoke to her about the game briefly and said that she was "disappointed and annoyed" at the developments.

Our next session is this saturday.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 9, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Yes. The missing player is the storyteller of a medieval japan hengeyokai campaign (white-wolf) in which Noelani plays. Esmé DMs a D&D Forgotten Realms campaign set in the Endless Wastes in which Noelani, Jebeddo and I play together (Ambrus is my PC's name). Ketharian runs a HARN campaign which none of us play in. My campaign is a D&D campaign set in a home-brewed campaign setting called Gramarye.



I thought you had used "DM" as a euphemism, which caused me to make a stupid unfaithfulness-joke.


----------



## Ambrus (Dec 9, 2004)

> I thought you had used "DM" as a euphemism, which caused me to make a stupid unfaithfulness-joke.




Get your mind out of the gutter trash monkey.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2004)

Man, I wish everyone in this thread lived in Toronto.  The gaming we could do.....


RC


P.S.:  This made me want to game with you people so much that I have decided to start a play-by-post:  http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110029


----------



## fusangite (Dec 10, 2004)

But unfortunately, I'm the only other Torontonian. Further OT, Raven, my D&D group is looking for new players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But unfortunately, I'm the only other Torontonian. Further OT, Raven, my D&D group is looking for new players.





Really?

What part of the city, and how often do you play?

(Perhaps you should email me at ravencrowking at hotmail dot com)

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2004)

Oh, and on a more related note, did anyone here get the most recent issue of Dungeon?  In it, there's an article on DMing style (Mastering the Game, pp. 82-84) that made me think of this thread.  The author (Mr. Monte Cook) suggests that one should not try to be a moderate between a "referee" or "guide" style DM.  Clearly much of the polarization on Ambrus' question is dependent upon how one leans between these two styles.

Personally, I do moderate between the two.  I believe that I do so successfully, and that it's not nearly as hard as Mr. Cook suggests.


RC


----------



## Ambrus (Dec 12, 2004)

*The latest session*

For those who are interested, I thought I'd update the thread with the events from our latest session, which ended just a little while ago.

The game started with the party regrouping after busting out of their crates in the warehouse off of the docks. They kicked around some possible courses of action when the gnome PC (Jebeddo) received a mysterious telepathic vision. I should mention that he's received these visions on a handful of previous occasions, each time getting a few clues which have helped the party during their quest, even if the party remains ignorant of the visions' source. The vision led him to understand that the source was grateful for the party's help in acquiring the artifact, it was sorry for what it felt it had to do and revealed to him where a small stash of magic items belonging to a dead elven wizard was located in thanks.

After the vision ended, the party discussed it's meaning until a lone whistling gnome transporting another crate arrived at their warehouse (the PCs jokingly asked if it happened to be the crate containing their missing artifact). The gnome was one of the lower ranking members of the guild that the gnome faction uses as a front for its operation. He also happened to be one of the gnomes who happened to have helped nail their crates' shut. He was perplexed to see the PCs out of their crates and the ship gone. After expressing his shock and confusion to the PCs, he explained that the guild hadn't finished loading the ship yet, that they were still transporting cargo to the docks (which is what he was doing), that he had been told by other guild members to load the PCs' crates last and that the ship wasn't supposed to leave for another hour and a half. According to him, the ship should still have been docked, a half dozen crew members should have been around doing the loading along with a few imperial soldiers keeping watch nearby. He had no explanation for what had gone wrong with the gnome/PC's plan.

The PCs decided to contact their allies in the church within the city. They ended up at a small temple overseen by a sympathetic Abbess (a friend and ally of the cardinal). Together they spoke about some possible options while the Abbes helped heal the party. Finally they settled on casting a variety of spells which they didn't have prepared (since they intended to be on the ship when they prepared their spells). They used their social skills, found what they needed fairly quickly and bought a scroll of Divination, two scrolls of Scry as well as a scroll of Teleport. The Divination was cast by Noelani first with the goal of discovering the best way to find the artifact. As a reply she received the cryptic response "Know best when to parley and when to stand defiant, but make haste for your quarry may soon disappear down a winding path". The two Scry scrolls (one divine the other arcane) were to be used concurrently by both the sorcerer and the cleric (Esmé and Noelani) so each could try to scry the gnomes they suspected to be on the ship, and if successful, teleport to them directly. Both targets were in fact on the ship, but Noelani's happened to be within the anti-magic field projected by the artifact while Esmé's target made his saving throw.

Deciding to give up on their scrying tactic, they instead dipped into their slush fund (they still have a large sum of gold and gems they found while in the dungeon), applied their considerable social abilities to finding even more powerful magics and succeeded in purchasing scrolls of Discern Location and Greater Teleport. In case anyone is wondering why such powerful scrolls are available for purchase at a moment's notice, please keep in mind that the party happens to be in the capital city of a large thriving empire founded millennia ago by a mageocratic society. The campaign is high-fantasy, most nobles are wizards and magic is a readily available commodity.

After regrouping at the abbey and discussing some points of strategy, Esmé read the Discern Location scroll, pinpointed the ship's location and then read the Greater Teleport scroll as everyone joined hands. Within moments the party materialized on the bow of the ship, lost their footing (a balance check was in order since the ship was moving at high speed) and ended up in a heap on the deck (except for the halfling who made her check). We ended the session with some members of the gnomish crew taking notice of the surprise arrivals (at first they thought they'd hit something in mid air) while the party regained it's footing. We're to pick up the action at the beginning of next session with the PCs choosing whether they want to parley or fight with the gnomes.  

The mood was considerably more upbeat at the end of this session.


----------



## Asmo (Dec 12, 2004)

Thanx for the update!

Asmo


----------



## tec-9-7 (Dec 13, 2004)

Yes Ambrus, thanks for the update.  That sound's like a reasonable way to have handled the situation.


----------



## tonym (Dec 13, 2004)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> ...We're to pick up the action at the beginning of next session with the PCs choosing whether they want to parley or fight with the gnomes.




I hope the PCs kill all the gnomes!!  Then crash the ship into the anchoress' temple!!  Ka-BLAM!!

Haha, just kidding.

Thanks for updating the thread, Ambrus.  Skillful solution.  

Tony M


----------



## fusangite (Dec 13, 2004)

Good work Ambrus. It looks as though you incorporate a lot of the constructive input on the thread and made excellent use of the online community here. Very different from the thread where I did this where I was eventually convinced by the lameness of the arguments against my hanling of the game that I'd done a good job and then proceeded to heap verbal abuse on the people I'd asked for advice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2004)

Bravo.


RC


----------



## Sir Elton (Dec 13, 2004)

It seems to me that you are a very good DM.  My advice is to bring closure to the campaign as soon as possible, and it looks like you are gearing up for that.  As for the Gnomes stealing the MacGuffin and the Lawful Good Faction, may I suggest an ending where the Gnomes, the Party, and the Lawful Good faction wins.

 Take a page from Daggerfall, where the heroes can give the MacGuffin to various factions.  In Daggerfall, if you give it to the King of Worms, he becomes a God.  If you give it to any other faction, then the Underking finally dies and the MacGuffin goes inert.

 Something like that.  So, maybe the Dwarven Queen wants it so that she can finally die; give it to her and she dies and the Gods take it and reward the players.


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 13, 2004)

I echo the sentiments that you handled this well.

It really seems that you (most likely) rekindled your players' desire to finish the quest and reengaged them into the story.


----------



## Mr Gone (Mar 29, 2005)

I was GMing with a bunch of friends, and for the first game of a WoD campaign, I had them all make up new, intricately designed characters. I was really impressed with the level of forethought they all showed, and they had their characters have elaborate, fleshed out relationships with one another. They assumed we were going to be playing Vampire or the like. In the first game session, I purposely killed every PC, and the game became Wraith. The PCs have still yet to forgive me.


----------



## Brenthias (Jan 25, 2016)

I don't even trust gnome PC's...I think you were in the right as DM. I would rather plan things out myself, but it seems that you played the situation correctly.


----------

