|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 7:37AM
#31
|
|
|
Sounds like everyone in your setting is omniscient.The priest knows stuff he didn't researched and didn't cared about and everyone knows that he is the arsonist.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 7:44AM
#32
|
|
|
The DM needs to dish out realistic consequences for the players actions and enforce them, and they need to do this right at the start of the game, the very first time the players step out of line (I don't mean regular shinanigans that can be expected from adventurers)
The problem is that there is no clearcut way to asnwer what actually are realistic consequences. You feel that there are many important guests who spend a lot of gold to capture the culprit, the player might find it silly because you described as being part of a bad neighborhood and he went out of his way to prevent being recognized, meaning the authorities need to spend a rediculous amount of gold on magic to traverse him. You assume the fire goes out of hand. He assumes there are ample of spellcasters around that quench the flames with one wave of their hand (even more likely if you assume the PC is going to be captured). You assume he will be caught, he assumes his PC is skilled enough to get away. The fact is that when it comes to things like this there is no realistic outcome and your realistic reactions might very well be interpreted as the actions of a tyrant DM who cannot handle his plots being disrupted by a player. Or worse, you spend a full session on dealing with the player, who was at the center of attention regardless of what happens to his PC, so he might as well try it again because it was rewarded.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 8:41AM
#33
|
|
|
It's up to the DM to determine realistic consequences. Regardless of where the brothel is, the clients can be significantly wealthy or powerful. Being in the seedy end of town can simply be because they didn't want a brothel beside the temple.
As I stated at the begining, the DM should let the player know what he would realistically know. Such as the chances of the fire spreading, what resources the city has to dealing with the fire, how many and who might get killed in the building iteself, what sort of law/guards he can expect in the city, etc. and then below that the DM, without meta-gaming, should have them react realistically.
In short, these shouldn't be yanked out of nowhere, but already established elements of the city that the DM should first establish with the PCs.
Can the fire be put out? that depends on how fast the city guard can react, how many are patroling, how far away, will it take 30 minutes or an hour for them to get there and organize? Can it be put out magically? if so where is the magic user that does this? How long before he is brought in and what spells at his disposal.
When the crime is investigated, did anyone see him going to the fire, buying the kerosene? was he followed after lighting it? City has thieves guild who might see an opportunity for blackmail and who's members may frequent the establishment. What sort of security does the brothel have? He may not be away of the security, especially if things are dealt with descretely by the brothel owners.
How much will a rich nobleman pay if his sone gets murdered? How will the government act if a nobleman is assasinated like this? Or the military at the murder of it's officers? Will Martial Law be imposed? If they can't find the culprit what will happen to appease the angry mobs and general outrage, then what?
What about when the city blames the Dwarfs who live in the district and starts rounding them up? Or, since he did it in the name of the temple, what if the city blamed the temple and an angry mob torches it?
It boils down to establishing the elements and then playing them out realistically without meta-gaming.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 8:47AM
#34
|
|
|
Do let him do it, and do have consequences, but DO NOT use those consequences to teach the player a lesson. If you need to teach the player about how you like players and characters to act, that is a conversation to have outside of the game. Using the game itself to teach the lesson is passive aggressive, probably won't work, and will probably lead to an argument.
Obviously there should be consequences for actions in a game, but those consequences should only ever be intended to make the game interesting and challenging, for the amusement of the players. Using them to make the game boring for the players is a waste of everyone's time, including the DM's.
I 100% agree with Centauri.
I also find it rather disturbing how many DMs on here seem to be advocating an attitude that supports that the player is somehow not doing something "correctly" or "abusing his character" or should be dissuaded from this action.
That to me is quite telling.
Why? Because the DM is not prepared for it? Or because the DM is not prepared to represent the actual consequences in the game world for such an action?
If the PC wants to do it and is it risky that is the very nature of being an adventurer...mitigating risk. If it bites them in the butt, so be it...but do not do so simply BECAUSE...do not do it because the player is doing something "wrong" with their character. If they can get away with it...more power to them...if not, then the hammer has to come down if they're sloppy about it.
Very worrisome advice in this thread. Very worrisome indeed.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 8:50AM
#35
|
|
|
Also for people discussing what is "realistic" and such...
Looks like we come back full circle to the importance of randomizing things so as to prevent the DM from being arbitrary in his decision-making. Love when situations support my point of view. :P
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 8:54AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Set the precendent now, as brutally as possible, because I assure you this is just the beginning of your issues if you don't demonstrate the the world they are in will react to their actions and they can and likely will face the consequences of those actions.
You know that this isn't a popular concept on this board, but do you understand why?
It's because what you're saying here is "Play the way I want you to, or I will make this game as boring as possible for you. I will do everything, even make things up on the fly, to disempower your character, through capture, imprisonment and a slow death." Taking time and effort to make a game boring is utterly nonsensical on its face, and anyway it's not going to work. If the player goes along with it, and backs down, it will probably be under protest, and they'll be resentful and thereafter looking for some get backs. At best, the player will feel shut down and will tend not to offer ideas in the future, for fear of triggering this threat.
If the player doesn't go along with it, the DM has to make good. First of all, this might not succeed immediately, and the player will have been given license to cause even more carnage by laying waste to the guard and more of the city. If the DM does more, they threaten the own consistency of their game, by causing the players to wonder why these guards can take out a PC, but not a single orc, or why everyone is banding together to take out this one criminal. By this point, the DM can probably rightfully be accused of cheating to get their way.
Finally, even if you capture the character, all you've done is basically just told the player that they're not allowed to play. They have to sit there until you've decided to let them make a new character. See above where I mention resentfulness
And in-game torture? Wow, man. That's pretty messed up. What's the player going to care anyway? Can't they just make a new character.
Let me be perfectly clear: I'm NOT saying that there should never be consequences for character actions. Even when everyone is doing exactly what the DM wants, things should happen in the game world in response to what the players do. What I'm saying is that those things should always be interesting, at least to the players and DM, if not to the characters. Even imprisonment and death can be interesting with the players' explicit buy-in.
And I'm NOT saying that jerk players have to be pandered to. If you're not sure how to handle a character choice, or you just don't like their choices, talk to the player. Tell them this. Make your behavioral expectations explicit and explain the measures you'll take out-of-game to achieve those expectations.
Once you start using in-game measures to achieve those expectations, you've lost.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 9:29AM
#37
|
|
|
I think I would have turned to the other players and asked "Are you okay with your teamate torching a building, possibly part of the town, potentially killing innocents and making you accessories to his crime?" If they all said "Sure!" then let him do it, otherwise it is up to the other PCs to either pressure their friend to take another course of action or to stop him. I don't advocate PC vs PC, but in regular society we do this all the time: We influence those around us. There is some good roleplaying opportunities in this.
But I agree if this becomes an out-of-game issue (there is a lot of arguing, moving toward hard feelings, player feeling he is being bullied into not playing as he wants, etc.) then it should be discussed out of game. Otherwise I don't see any reason this action shouldnt be allowed and shouldn't add to the game overall.
And I will chime in: Consequences for characters is a good thing. Consequences to punish players is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 9:46AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I think I would have turned to the other players and asked "Are you okay with your teamate torching a building, possibly part of the town, potentially killing innocents and making you accessories to his crime?" If they all said "Sure!" then let him do it, otherwise it is up to the other PCs to either pressure their friend to take another course of action or to stop him. I don't advocate PC vs PC, but in regular society we do this all the time: We influence those around us. There is some good roleplaying opportunities in this.
But I agree if this becomes an out-of-game issue (there is a lot of arguing, moving toward hard feelings, player feeling he is being bullied into not playing as he wants, etc.) then it should be discussed out of game. Otherwise I don't see any reason this action shouldnt be allowed and shouldn't add to the game overall.
Allowing any kind of PC vs. PC stuff is generally asking for trouble. You're looking at Intimidate skill checks against other PCs, retaliation, alignment arguments, and other issues that constantly pop-up on this forum. If a player has an issue, talk about it as players. Otherwise it will become an out-of-game issue very quickly.
Once they've worked it out as players, then PC vs. PC stuff has a chance of working.
And I will chime in: Consequences for characters is a good thing. Consequences to punish players is a bad thing.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who believes this.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 10:00AM
#39
|
|
|
I've been the DM wielding the "Player-be-Good Stick," and I cringe when I think about those moments I helped ruin a perfectly good game because I didn't just talk to a player. Teaching someone a lesson, whether in real life or in a game, is a great way to alienate that person and create real life hard feelings.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 10:25AM
#40
|
|
|
Centauri, what consequences do you do to a group of players who invade a dungeon and try and take a horde of treasure from a Dragon?
Once a Player or group of players attack a town it really is no different then the dungeon, the elements of that town, just like the elements of a dungeon, will act accordingly.
I am an advocate to talking or dealing with a disruptive character, but those sort of house rules should be established at the beginning of play, and who you choose to play with. After you talk with a player, you need to back it up, and the most authority a DM has is generally directly in play, and realize that a DM doesn't always have the authority for out of game measures and out of game consequences without the backing up of the other players.
Moreso because I find that most players behave unrealistically because the world around them reacts unrealistically. They will burn down a brothel and half the city because the game world doesn't react the way it should. In short the DM is enabling poor decisions and unrealistically insane ideas (such as burning the brothel) You can say talk to the players, but in many cases it is really the DM that has enabled to problem.
The first part of my advice was to establish with the player what they realistically should knwo and expect from their actions. This in turn will generally influence a Player's choices. The fact of the mater is when he views the scenerio properly and sees what can happen, then the PC can take reasonable precautions and actions.
In short instead of enabling insane behavior from a lack of realistic responses the DM can encourage less extreme and more thought out plans. There is nothign wrong with the PC having his own goals or starting his own adventure hooks, and ridding the city of the more corrupt elements is a ligitimate goal. it is with the Burning down the city is the extreme the PC has reached, an extreme that has likely been enabled and created by the DM himself without realizing it.
Establishing first what the city resources are (such as the mage guild being miles away so no magical fire fighting will occur until too late, that the nearby buildings woudl most certainly catch etc etc) will be telling the PC what options he can take to successfully acomplish his goal without all the possible negative consequences.
Can he ensure everyone can escape by letting out an alarm? Did he make sure the exits were free? will the fire be stopped from spreading?
As for the Player facing the consequences and even death? I say he is an adventureer is he not. Do you expect them to be able to loot a dragons treasure without fighting said dragon too? or that the DM is metagaming for putting monsters and traps in a dungeon?
What do you think happens when the player stabs a city guard to death and the guard next to him says "oh dear me, you got your blade dirty, here, have a clean one" and hands his sword to the PC? I think it is less boring to have the guards act appropriately.
The reply that it is somehow boring to have the populace resist the PCs when they are rampaging and pillaging them is just as absurd as to have the monsters in a dungeon just lay down arms and take it when they get invaded.
|
|
|
