Stepping on player agency [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

hemming

2014-02-19, 02:43 PM

So I have a player that is very active at the table - she likes being the party leader and often makes the bulk of party plans. The other players are pretty passive and are ok with her taking the lead in developing plans for the party most of the time. She is also a very creative player who likes to look for interesting solutions to problems.

Our game benefits from her being in it and I appreciate the level of investment she has in her character

My problem is, she likes to take the most complex and convoluted plan possible - and I sometimes know these plans are doomed to fail

As a DM, I would rather tell the players that a plan isn't going to work than have them go through with a long frustrating session in which they all die. I allow for a variety of approaches to a problem - but not every approach is going to work. I'm not trying to push my players toward a specific approach, but away from the worst approaches

If I don't let her get her way, she becomes defensive and argumentative. If I try to steer them away from her suggested approach, she shuts down and stops contributing.

This is my fault as a DM as well - I could do a better job of providing my players with adequate background information to give them a better context for approaching a problem. I sometimes just feel like the player isn't really trying to work with me - like the player wants me to tweak the game so that her plans always work out.

Am I the problem in this scenario? How should I approach this issue?

Here is an example of what I'm talking about - There's 150 pirates on an island. The players can assault them, negotiate with them or engage in subterfuge but want the island for themselves and want to open up trade routes. The player who likes to plan wants to scare the pirates into thinking the island is haunted and then become allies with them by showing up and busting ghosts - while still getting the pirates to leave the island and stop raiding area trade routes. The PCs are not powerful enough to consistently illusion a vast number of pirates into believing there are ghosts - If this did work out somehow and the PCs managed to convince the pirates to let them bust said ghosts, the pirates would undoubtedly react by attacking the PCs after the 'ghosts' were eliminated for an easy TPK. When I try to point out problems with the plan, the player becomes argumentative and defensive

Flickerdart

2014-02-19, 02:50 PM

Wisdom and knowledge checks: the players might not know it won't work, but their characters have lived in a world where these abilities exist for their entire lives. Tell them on a successful check (with a pretty low DC) that their characters know the plan is doomed to fail.

Brookshw

2014-02-19, 02:57 PM

"are you sure you want to do that?"

Let them try. Either a) pull your punches and have the pirates go for enslaving then selling the party or b) campaign ends on the graveyard.

SowZ

2014-02-19, 02:59 PM

Darrin

2014-02-19, 03:16 PM

My problem is, she likes to take the most complex and convoluted plan possible - and I sometimes know these plans are doomed to fail

This is pretty standard behavior for a PC. I'd be more surprised if the PCs didn't come up with something crazy/stupid that was doomed to fail.

As a DM, I would rather tell the players that a plan isn't going to work than have them go through with a long frustrating session in which they all die.

I allow for a variety of approaches to a problem - but not every approach is going to work. I'm not trying to push my players toward a specific approach, but away from the worst approaches

Cue PCs making "choo choo" noises.

If I don't let her get her way, she becomes defensive and argumentative. If I try to steer them away from her suggested approach, she shuts down and stops contributing.

The root problem here is you have two conflicting expectations. You're expecting a certain level of realism that matches the theme/style of your campaign world. She expects a game that rewards creative thinking and Rube Goldberg/Wiley E. Coyote-style solutions. She would probably be much happier with a cinematic-style game, such as Toon, Feng Shui, Spirit of the Century, etc.

This is my fault as a DM as well - I could do a better job of providing my players with adequate background information to give them a better context for approaching a problem. I sometimes just feel like the player isn't really trying to work with me - like the player wants me to tweak the game so that her plans always work out.

Am I the problem in this scenario? How should I approach this issue?

It sounds like the style of game your players want to play isn't the style of game you want to play. So you need to talk to them directly about your "realism" requirements and get their buy-in for that style of game, or you need to decide on a different kind of game to play.

The player who likes to plan wants to scare the pirates into thinking the island is haunted and then become allies with them by showing up and busting ghosts

Ok... this makes it a lot clearer. You've got a player that is insisting on playing the game like it's a Saturday morning cartoon (more specifically, a Scooby Doo episode). If she's the *only* player that wants that type of game, then I'd suggest taking her aside, pointing out how this is driving you batsnot nuts, and then work out how to fix this. You can guide her towards spells/feats/items/PrCs that are better able to do this sort of thing in a fantasy campaign without bending realism *too* far (well, mostly Factotum/Chameleon). If she agrees to cut down on the Scooby-Doo-isms, then you agree to work more with her to make sure she gets her "MacGuyver Moments".

If the rest of the players want the same kind of game she does, then you're odd man out, and you should consider switching to a RPG system that fits the play style favored by the majority of the group.

hemming

2014-02-19, 03:53 PM

You may be surprised. I am such a player, and while I have died many, many times, it is totally worth it for the equal number of times we pulled something off that was so incredibly unlikely that the DM had to just sit there and stare for a bit. Sure, trying to raid an entire space base with just six people, a coat hanger, and a fake beard might fail 9 times out of 10. But that 10th time? They'll remember it forever.

Also, what are they doing telling you their plans?

I feel like the players will get frustrated/depressed if I allow them to frequently fail. I don't leave the room when my PCs make plans.

However, maybe I should just give both a try and see what happens.

Per Darrin - I feel pretty strongly that creating a world in which most problems have multiple solutions but not every action/solution is viable is not railroading. That is just basic world building. Railroading is using in game elements to provide the PCs with only one course of obvious action and pushing them into it (or) being reactionary and foiling character plans by changing situations on the spot bc the PC actions didn't go along with your expectations. I try to stay away from the former and never engage in the latter. But yeah, cue PC choo choo noises.

Common DM problem - things are more clear in my head and I think the PCs have a better understanding of context than they do. I often have to make up for this by giving them more information (that I really wanted them to have in the first place) later on. I'm not a perfect DM and I need the players to work with me. This too, leads to accusations of railroading

SowZ

2014-02-19, 04:48 PM

I feel like the players will get frustrated/depressed if I allow them to frequently fail. I don't leave the room when my PCs make plans.

However, maybe I should just give both a try and see what happens.

Per Darrin - I feel pretty strongly that creating a world in which most problems have multiple solutions but not every action/solution is viable is not railroading. That is just basic world building. Railroading is using in game elements to provide the PCs with only one course of obvious action and pushing them into it (or) being reactionary and foiling character plans by changing situations on the spot bc the PC actions didn't go along with your expectations. I try to stay away from the former and never engage in the latter. But yeah, cue PC choo choo noises.

Common DM problem - things are more clear in my head and I think the PCs have a better understanding of context than they do. I often have to make up for this by giving them more information (that I really wanted them to have in the first place) later on. I'm not a perfect DM and I need the players to work with me. This too, leads to accusations of railroading

You probably know your players better than me. But it sounds like I have some commonalities with the leader type player. If she's like me, a big reason I play the games is to try mental gymnastics and Xanatos Gambits trying to get big rewards and do absurd things. I can play more low key games, but only if they are super story focused. Even then, I usually try crazy plans.

If a game follows WBL, and the DM tries to make every encounter hover around CR and we are stopped from going outside of that and taking great risks for greater rewards? I can screw around and have a decent evening, but I won't get into it. It doesn't sound like that is necessarily what you are doing, but I'm just saying. The more crazy plans I can pull off, the happier I am.

There is a campaign journal on these forums about this 5-7 level game set in a city with casinos and pit fiends and such and they made tens of thousands with clever plans. It sounded awesome.

Eldonauran

2014-02-19, 05:43 PM

I have a similar problem at times with my group. How I resolve it came about after much contemplation. Let the dice determine what is possible. When the roll of the dice, anything can (and often does) happen.

If my players want to go on a suicide mission, as much as I would try to dissuade them, they are the ones influencing the story. I am there to react and challenge them. Even as a player, I've been party to mad charges and impossible missions that should not have worked.

Segev

2014-02-19, 05:50 PM

One of my best friends has a number of ... house conventions, more than house rules ... when he runs any game. One of those is "ask three times." That is, if he thinks something will be an incredibly bad idea that will kill PCs or otherwise ruin their players' fun, he won't tell them "no." But he'll ask, "Are you sure you want to do that?"

If the answer is some variant of "yes," he'll ask again. "Okay. So here's what I'm hearing you say you want to do. Are you sure this is something you want to do?"

"Really sure?"

"Okay!"

Usually, players take the hint and think of something else, but it's still their choice.

dascarletm

2014-02-19, 05:51 PM

My suggestion would be to entertain the idea, and work with the characters in game to iron out the plan.

For the specific scenario...

There's 150 pirates on an island. The players can assault them, negotiate with them or engage in subterfuge but want the island for themselves and want to open up trade routes. The player who likes to plan wants to scare the pirates into thinking the island is haunted and then become allies with them by showing up and busting ghosts - while still getting the pirates to leave the island and stop raiding area trade routes.

Alright, here is the basic design of her plan, let's see the potential problems

The PCs are not powerful enough to consistently illusion a vast number of pirates into believing there are ghosts

To make an island seem haunted, and to scare yonder pirates, less is more. Actually seeing what you are facing is less scary than not knowing. Strange noises (ghost sound), lights in the distance (dancing lights), misplaced objects (mage hand/unseen servant) are all easily obtainable and should work.

If this did work out somehow and the PCs managed to convince the pirates to let them bust said ghosts, the pirates would undoubtedly react by attacking the PCs after the 'ghosts' were eliminated for an easy TPK.

I see this as being a problem too. It's not that the plan is shot, it's that the most crucial part is not thought out. This is where you can step in.

Allow for a Knowledge (local) to tell them that these pirates aren't your happy-go-lucky one piece pirates, they're ruthless. They kill people and enjoy it. Even people that help them. Alternatively bardic knowledge a story of these pirates being rescued by helpful adventurers and repaying them with death.

This being said, if they know any clever NPC they could give advice on how to salvage the plan, or they can work around this on their own.

When I try to point out problems with the plan, the player becomes argumentative and defensive

Point out problems in game instead of out of game. Do this by giving them facts that would lead them to come to the same realization you did. It's less fun if someone is told a plan wont work, rather than finding a snag and fixing it.

Amphetryon

2014-02-19, 06:11 PM

Point out problems in game instead of out of game. Do this by giving them facts that would lead them to come to the same realization you did. It's less fun if someone is told a plan wont work, rather than finding a snag and fixing it.
Be careful with this one. I've known more than one Player who would simply call this 'railroading in disguise.' The fact that you're pointing out problems with the plan in game - via Knowledge checks, discussions with various NPCs, or the PCs' recon - doesn't change the fact that, on a fundamental level, the DM is the one telling the Player that her plan can't work.

pwykersotz

2014-02-19, 06:15 PM

I second dascarletm. Letting players try things can be awesome and fun, and in-game knowledge really helps shape things. Besides, maybe they'll try it, it'll blow up in their face, and then they'll regroup to discuss it and come up with a plan that will work.

Also, if you're feeling kind and everything goes to heck, you can always have them captured instead of killed. Maybe the pirates suspect they're TOO dumb to be believed, it's obviously a clever ruse from a warship nearby. They'll need to be interrogated!

Be careful with this one. I've known more than one Player who would simply call this 'railroading in disguise.' The fact that you're pointing out problems with the plan in game - via Knowledge checks, discussions with various NPCs, or the PCs' recon - doesn't change the fact that, on a fundamental level, the DM is the one telling the Player that her plan can't work.

What? How? Why? Railroading in disguise just for letting them gain the benefit of what they've put skill ranks into? I suppose I could see that on REALLY heavy-handed DM's, but that is craziness.

dascarletm

2014-02-19, 06:25 PM

Be careful with this one. I've known more than one Player who would simply call this 'railroading in disguise.' The fact that you're pointing out problems with the plan in game - via Knowledge checks, discussions with various NPCs, or the PCs' recon - doesn't change the fact that, on a fundamental level, the DM is the one telling the Player that her plan can't work.

It really depends. In life, there is certain things a person living in the world would be expected to know.

Stupid example:
For example, I can reasonably expect if I were to try and hop the white house's fence and go streaking outside the oval office, I'd be tackled and taken to prison. Secret Security wouldn't find that "funny." If our world was being gamed in by someone unfamiliar with it, and thought that would be a good way to meet the president and become friends, I'd expect the GM to say something about it.

If the DM isn't stopping them, he's just giving them the information that the character's would have. As long as their stated course is allowed it isn't railroading. They are still able to try the plan, they're just discovering that these guys are ruthless, and it should be taken into account.

A DM shouldn't rewrite his setting so that a plan by the players is doable, and if players call that railroading then that's just them being flat out wrong.

jedipotter

2014-02-19, 06:43 PM

Am I the problem in this scenario? How should I approach this issue?

This is common. Your player just has the Epic Mindset. They are thinking that just with a tiny bit of effort they can change the world. They way most fiction does things. But RPG's are not like that. The game is not really set up for Crazy Wacky Epic Stuff....until your playing high level, of course.

You run into this kind of thing often: Castle full of bad guys....players start a fire and say ''they all see the fire and run as they think the castle is on fire...then we loot the castle!'' Oddly, the players always think this would work....but they would never fall for it.

And easy fix is to raise the power level of your game.

Another fix.....don't give them such 'huge tasks'. Also, don't give them big wide openings. For example make The Pirate Isle, home of pirates for 2,000 years. Site of the Shirie of the First Loot. Make it very clear it is The Place that Will Never Be Abanodned! So the players don't even try.

Brookshw

2014-02-19, 07:42 PM

.

There is a campaign journal on these forums about this 5-7 level game set in a city with casinos and pit fiends and such and they made tens of thousands with clever plans. It sounded awesome.

That's one of kaveman26 campaign logs, a great read like his others. If you liked it check out "the big one" campaign.

BrokenChord

2014-02-20, 02:56 AM

Be careful with this one. I've known more than one Player who would simply call this 'railroading in disguise.' The fact that you're pointing out problems with the plan in game - via Knowledge checks, discussions with various NPCs, or the PCs' recon - doesn't change the fact that, on a fundamental level, the DM is the one telling the Player that her plan can't work.

I present a different problem with this than the others; what is wrong with this? Railroading is specifically saying "nu, you can't do that" or alternatively allowing things but fiating away their value in some form or another. Giving your player all the hints that "unless the dice gods smile on you, and possibly not even then, this plan will only logically result in your deaths" is not bad, nor railroading if you allow it once they've heard you out. Frankly, anything less than this is probably not doing your players service, unless it's some sort of mercy campaign that cares more about the whole story being told with the same characters than maintaining tension and fear of death. That isn't a wrongbadfun playstyle or anything, but it should be established beforehand.

Drachasor

2014-02-20, 03:53 AM

hemming

2014-02-20, 05:58 AM

Hmm, well, you could advise they take the HPMR's Dumbledore approach. To paraphrase: A zany scheme does indeed have only a small chance of working. That's why it is important to have so many running at once.

She just needs to make sure there's a sufficient chance that one or enough of them will work to get them what they want. And to make everything so complicated that even if some are uncovered, then what exactly is going on can't be figured out.

Not a bad idea - point out that it is a high risk scheme and they should have a few contingency/back-up plans

Giving your player all the hints that "unless the dice gods smile on you, and possibly not even then, this plan will only logically result in your deaths" is not bad, nor railroading if you allow it once they've heard you out. Frankly, anything less than this is probably not doing your players service

I agree - when I am a player, I prefer a DM who does this

Another fix.....don't give them such 'huge tasks'. Also, don't give them big wide openings.

I usually don't give one big, huge open task - I was hoping it would be fun for them (still am!). It might end up being a failed experiment but I'm not giving up on it yet. This background info is prob superfluous but I'm giving it anyway: The island came into the game much earlier - the players LE patron gave them the resources to either take over the island and build a small base or expand their holdings in the city they live (each with its own benefits and drawbacks). The players chose the latter. The pirates moved onto the island a short time after and disrupted some existing trade relationships the PCs had established. This group is obsessed with finding new sources of income and increasing their property holdings - so they are highly self motivated to take the island back.

My suggestion would be to entertain the idea, and work with the characters in game to iron out the plan.

Allow for a Knowledge (local) to tell them that these pirates aren't your happy-go-lucky one piece pirates, they're ruthless. They kill people and enjoy it. Even people that help them. Alternatively bardic knowledge a story of these pirates being rescued by helpful adventurers and repaying them with death.

This being said, if they know any clever NPC they could give advice on how to salvage the plan, or they can work around this on their own.

Point out problems in game instead of out of game. Do this by giving them facts that would lead them to come to the same realization you did. It's less fun if someone is told a plan wont work, rather than finding a snag and fixing it.

Great post - thanks! The players have not yet determined to set sail so they are still in a position to gather information from the various NPCs they know around the city. I can have one of the NPCs they work with frequently suggest they find out more. Goal is just to allow them an opportunity to ask questions about the nature of these pirates - not steer them into or away from anything in particular. I use a lot of the cityscape rules for research/contacts/gather information

I also think that dealing with the problems in-game will be much more amenable to the player (and is really the right way to do it).

Crake

2014-02-20, 07:06 AM

Not all failure needs to lead to a TPK, and telling players when their plan is going to fail means that when you DON'T tell them the plan is going to fail, they're almost certain that, barring horrendous dice rolls, their plan is going to be a success. That ruins ALL the suspense of a plan.

Honestly, you can steer failures away from TPK, give the PCs an escape option, maybe they get knocked out instead of instantly killed, because the pirates want to have their way with them (no not that, I mean torture and "public execution" sort of things, ew, get your head out of the gutter [althoouuuggh... no, stop that]), or perhaps their plan just serves to turn the pirates into their mortal enemies, who will pay others for the party's's respective heads? You just need to get more creative.

Personally, unless the plan is REALLY flawed in a way the PCs might have horribly missed (which is 9/10 because they either misinterpreted something i said, or I said it wrong), then I let the players go with it, and let the cards fall as they may. An example was a player saw a dragon statue, and there was clear evidence that there was some kind of fire trap nearby, so he figured the dragon statue was a fire trap and was going to lop it's head off. He ended up circling the statue first, which, lucky for him, doing so had him enter an area which triggered the statue to awake and speak a warning to him. Had he just tried to lop it's head off, the ancient guardian red dragon construct would have blown him in the face with a stupid amount of damage and he would have instantly vaporized.

Edit: Ok sure, that's a bad example of being creative and having failure result in NOT a TPK, but it is an example of having the players deal with failure directly, instead of babying them.

hemming

2014-02-20, 07:53 AM

Sorry Crake - I just don't think we are talking about similar situations

I do not monitor my players and tell them every time a plan is going to fail and succeed. But occasionally (probably 3-4 times in 6 months of playing every week) I feel like this player is being disingenuous in playing the game by expecting me to change the world to fit her plans - and there is only a conflict when it is a plan w/ really big consequences. Otherwise, I let them do what they want.

Part of the problem is that I also feel like she is not earnestly engaging the world in character

The example you give is apples and oranges - of course I would allow a PC to get damaged or killed by a trap they didn't immediately figure out. What I don't want to do is have the PCs spend 8 hours in real time trying to carry out a plan that I think even their characters would know cannot work.

And this plan is really flawed in a way the PCs have horribly missed.

Fitz10019

2014-02-20, 07:58 AM

Are they evil pirates, or lovable scoundrél pirates? By talking to ransomed former captives, the party should be able to learn a lot about the pirates.

If evil, the party could learn that the pirates use zombies as oarsmen, and as cannon fodder when they take a ship. When captives' patrons or loved ones don't pay a ransom, the captive is returned zombified. You can't ScoobyDoo a cult of Nerull.

If neutral/lovable, the party runs their scam. At first it seems to work, but after a bit the head pirate shows up, laughs, and says he's run that scam himself back when his crew was a small as theirs. Now, who are they and what do they want? When he learns who their patron is, he sees the potential of an alternative revenue stream. If that sounds too railroady, give the scam a shot at success. If X% of the pirates fall for the scam, the leader has a mutiny on his hands.

It'd be great if the party skips the research and goes straight to the island with their fake voodoo, only to find the place crawling with undead.

--

Maybe the cinematic player's leadership has to fall on its face a few times to get the other players to contribute more.

Alternatively, push the party for a Plan B. Have the cinematic player make a persuasion roll, and then whichever player characters weren't persuaded have to brainstorm a plan B. Once there are two plans, let the players' opinions make the final call.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 09:25 AM

prufock

2014-02-20, 09:56 AM

Allow for a Knowledge (local) to tell them that these pirates aren't your happy-go-lucky one piece pirates, they're ruthless. They kill people and enjoy it. Even people that help them. Alternatively bardic knowledge a story of these pirates being rescued by helpful adventurers and repaying them with death.

This being said, if they know any clever NPC they could give advice on how to salvage the plan, or they can work around this on their own.

This is basically the advice I would give. The NPC asks "What if they just kill us anyway? They are pirates after all." I don't think it should be about telling players that their plans can't succeed, but giving them a realistic expectation of the risks.

Rejusu

2014-02-20, 10:56 AM

While I understand the part about the pirates double crossing them (I'm not sure why they think the pirates will abandon their hideout because the PCs did them a favour) the plan isn't that unworkable. All you need to do is fool a few of the pirates with illusions (the higher up the command chain the better, first mates and captains rather than swabbies) and then have the party face bluff the pirate commander. The work with the illusions should lower the bonus to the leaders sense motive check enough to be convinced.

Unless the pirates have some kind of democracy going on there isn't any need to illusion all of them, all you need to convince is the leader.

As for the inevitable double cross? Just engineer the situation so it's not a guaranteed TPK. This could be seen as pulling your punches but at least it lets the plan fail while giving the opportunity to try again. And simply letting her plans fail rather than telling her they're going to fail is probably the best approach. She or the party might learn from the failures.

hemming

2014-02-20, 10:57 AM

Maginomicon

2014-02-20, 12:24 PM

You could introduce a new aspect to the game: Inherent Character Knowledge

Characters have mental ability scores for a reason. Giving the players extra information based on their characters' mental ability scores will allow you to say "Yeah, but your character knows that _____, that ____, and ____, therefore your character has reason to believe that it's a bad idea." You can position this addition to your players as "Hey, I'd like to add into the game the feature of your characters knowing extra things about the world in which they grew up."

Personally, I do this through a homebrew system of passive ability checks and passive skill checks.

Darrin

2014-02-20, 12:57 PM

Feedback taken on the 'let them fail' front as well - if they still want to do something totally nuts in the end, then I'll try to just find a way for them to fail that is still fun and doesn't abandon the context of the game. I could be more flexible on this front and I really don't want to put the whole party in the graveyard.

Pirate/Dragon/King approaches the cell door, pulls out a key, and says, "By all rights, you should all be dead right now. But even though your madcap little plan didn't work... you showed quite a bit of pluck and flair for creativity. I like that. It shows a certain initiative and cleverness that I find woefully inadequate among my current underlings. But what to do with you all? Well, I have temporarily incapacitated the jailer, and if any of you ever breath a word about this conversation to anyone, I will deny it to your face, kill you all, raise you from the dead, deny it again just in case you didn't hear me the first time, and kill you all again. But as it turns out, I have a little problem, and your unique talents might just be able to provide a solution. Much like your previous plan, the odds of success are quite slim, but if you succeed, I might just be convinced to delay or set aside the inevitable death sentence you all so richly deserve..."

It takes a lot of creative thinking, but every suitably large authoritative regime has turncoats, double agents, and Xanatos-style schemers that might see the almost-TPK as an opportunity to use the PCs as a distraction or disruptive tool to promote a particular agenda.

Yes, it can be stretched far enough to break realism, but it sounds like your PCs really aren't demanding a strict adherence to realism. From a narrative standpoint, every action movie has moments when the heroes suffer a horrible, crushing, unthinkably devastating defeat. But there's always some unlikely event that pops up to move the story along: absent-minded jailer, a secret ally, a soft-hearted minion, etc. In a nuanced story, a sudden change in fortune can be both a "good" and "bad" result, sometimes both at once:

"New Villain" demands the PCs do something to earn their freedom, go on a suicide mission, take out a rival, submit to a geas, choose a hostage as collateral, etc. Overcoming this new obstacle presents new challenges which allows the PCs opportunities to earn more treasure, XP, allies, etc.

"New Ally" can rescue the PCs from certain death, but they "owe" him and can now be called upon for favors, support a new cause, must work off their "life-debt", and so on. Also, new allies can be kidnapped and thus may require rescue, or killed and thus require revenge, etc. and so forth.

The style of the game will shift from "gritty realistic medieval fantasy" towards "pulpy action movie derring-do", but the important part is to make sure everyone has a chance to enjoy the game and have fun.

NichG

2014-02-20, 01:10 PM

I think the key thing is to get the player used to the idea that 'plans don't always go according to plan'. You can do this without completely swatting them down, just by making a habit of having the party see obvious signs that their information/expectations/etc aren't being met once they arrive on the scene.

So for example, the party decides to go drum up some ghost illusions on the island. The pirates see the ghosts, look a little confused, laugh heartily, and then the moon hits them and it turns out they're all undead themselves. Or the pirates attack the ghosts matter-of-factly rather than fleeing/freaking out, and quickly discover that they're illusions. Heck, maybe they freak out... and bring forth their shaman to deal with it.

The point though is to have some obvious sign of 'okay, that failed' before the PCs are all-in. The best way to do it is to try to make sure its just situations and natural consequences, not 'I made this fail because I thought it was dumb', which can be difficult. Ideally what you'd do is specify some things about the pirates and not necessarily let the players discover all of them at once, and then as they get closer to running their scheme, the information presents itself and makes them re-think things.

Haggler

2014-02-20, 01:11 PM

If they have reasonable reasons to belive that the pirate are superstitious and would be scared of ghosts. And this is in fact the case. Then there is no reason the plan shouldn´t work, a lot of guile and teatrics can make up for lack of illusions and make the pirate belive there is a ghost they are so scared of they want it gone and are helpless to do anything about it themselfs.

If this is the case then I see no reason at all for the pirates to attack them afterward. seriously, why would the pirates dare attack mages so powerfull they can banish the souls of the restless deads. Imagien what they will do with pirates that raises arms agains them.

On the other hand the world is such that pirates and indeed most people are fairly familliar with magic and the supernatural and wouldn´t be to bothered by a ghost or to impressed by those that can defeat it. Then we have a comunications problem where your players obviously haven´t gotten a good grip of the fundamentals of the gameingworld.