PDA

View Full Version : Treaties and party conflict.



Talakeal
2014-05-28, 11:31 PM
So the following situation came up in my game this weekend and almost ended the campaign. Tell me what you think:

The party is trying to infiltrate the BBEG forces.

They arrange a recruitment meeting with the BBEGs strongest lieutenant under false aliases.

They thought that because that had not previously met said lieutenant face to face they would not be recognized and thus do not disguise their appearance.

They are immediately recognized as they didn't think the BBEG would provide their lieutenants with a description of the heroes who are currently trying to overthrow him.

The party quickly comes up with a cover story saying the purpose of the meeting is to establish a peace treaty.

The lieutenant is eager to much such a deal as it would mean the master can conquer the world unopposed. The players clarify that they only want to make a peace treaty with that particular lieutenant.

The lieutenant drafts a contract stating that no signer will ever attack another either directly or indirectly by helping their enemies in battle.

A ritual is performed to make the contract divinely enforced and unbreakable. The BBEGs lieutenant signs as do four of the six PCs. The other two refuse to sign a deal with someone they know to be extremely evil and working for their arch enemy.

The lieutenant who the players knew to be extremely evil, powerful, and treacherous immediately attacks the two PCs who refused to sign while the other four watch helplessly.

The two players alone are not strong enough to defeat an enemy who would be simple for the whole party and are killed. The lieutenant then leaves to tell the BBEG that his enemies are down to two thirds strength and vulnerable to attack.

Then the players stop the game to start screaming and throwing dice. The two dead pcs players blame the others for betraying them, well the other four blame me for tricking them into a no win situation.

The game breaks up for several hours while everyone calms down and i come up with some deus ex machina to undo the previous events.


Any thoughts?

nedz
2014-05-28, 11:53 PM
As Presented: the players have only themselves to blame, however:

The lieutenant drafts a contract stating that no signer will ever attack another either directly or indirectly by helping their enemies in battle.

The two players alone are not strong enough to defeat an enemy who would be simple for the whole party and are killed. The lieutenant then leaves to tell the BBEG that his enemies are down to two thirds strength and vulnerable to attack.

Hasn't the lieutenant just broken the pact here ?

Broken Crown
2014-05-28, 11:57 PM
The lieutenant then leaves to tell the BBEG that his enemies are down to two thirds strength and vulnerable to attack.

...

Any thoughts?

Wouldn't telling the BBEG that the PCs party is vulnerable count as attacking the PCs indirectly by helping their enemies in battle?

The wording is ambiguous. Does "helping their enemies in battle" mean:

1) Providing help to their enemies that will be useful in battle, or

2) Providing help, in battle, to their enemies?

If the former, the lieutenant is in violation of the contract. And the fight against the BBEG just got a lot more complicated.

---

Also: Really? The players agreed to that? They deserve what happened.

---

Also: Ninja'd.

Talakeal
2014-05-29, 12:05 AM
Wouldn't telling the BBEG that the PCs party is vulnerable count as attacking the PCs indirectly by helping their enemies in battle?

The wording is ambiguous. Does "helping their enemies in battle" mean:

1) Providing help to their enemies that will be useful in battle, or

2) Providing help, in battle, to their enemies?

If the former, the lieutenant is in violation of the contract. And the fight against the BBEG just got a lot more complicated.

---

Also: Really? The players agreed to that? They deserve what happened.

---

Also: Ninja'd.

The idea was that one side wouldn't stand there healing / buffing the other while being untouchable, not to sever all existing networks of support or communication.

Not only did the PCs agree to it, they came up with the terms.

Broken Crown
2014-05-29, 12:13 AM
In that case, it sounds as though the players tricked themselves into a no-win situation.

Thrudd
2014-05-29, 12:21 AM
So the following situation came up in my game this weekend and almost ended the campaign. Tell me what you think:

The party is trying to infiltrate the BBEG forces.

They arrange a recruitment meeting with the BBEGs strongest lieutenant under false aliases.

They thought that because that had not previously met said lieutenant face to face they would not be recognized and thus do not disguise their appearance.

They are immediately recognized as they didn't think the BBEG would provide their lieutenants with a description of the heroes who are currently trying to overthrow him.

The party quickly comes up with a cover story saying the purpose of the meeting is to establish a peace treaty.

The lieutenant is eager to much such a deal as it would mean the master can conquer the world unopposed. The players clarify that they only want to make a peace treaty with that particular lieutenant.

The lieutenant drafts a contract stating that no signer will ever attack another either directly or indirectly by helping their enemies in battle.

A ritual is performed to make the contract divinely enforced and unbreakable. The BBEGs lieutenant signs as do four of the six PCs. The other two refuse to sign a deal with someone they know to be extremely evil and working for their arch enemy.

The lieutenant who the players knew to be extremely evil, powerful, and treacherous immediately attacks the two PCs who refused to sign while the other four watch helplessly.

The two players alone are not strong enough to defeat an enemy who would be simple for the whole party and are killed. The lieutenant then leaves to tell the BBEG that his enemies are down to two thirds strength and vulnerable to attack.

Then the players stop the game to start screaming and throwing dice. The two dead pcs players blame the others for betraying them, well the other four blame me for tricking them into a no win situation.

The game breaks up for several hours while everyone calms down and i come up with some deus ex machina to undo the previous events.


Any thoughts?

Ouch. Well, if it were me, I would have scrapped the plan immediately when I was recognized and gotten out of there, or just attacked the guy.

Did you trick them into the situation? Was the meeting the lieutenant plan the only option available to them, or did they select this course of action on their own? Did the two characters that got attacked have a chance to escape before they got killed? Couldn't the four other characters have done something within the constraints of the contract?

In other words, if the players had more than one choice of action that had some chance of success, then they shouldn't complain. If they were forced into the situation, and if there was only one course of action that you had determined could succeed, and they failed to deduce what the one solution was (using disguises), then I can understand that they would be upset.

veti
2014-05-29, 12:27 AM
The idea was that one side wouldn't stand there healing / buffing the other while being untouchable, not to sever all existing networks of support or communication.

The idea may be that, but what does the wording say? That's what's important with contracts, particularly those with the devil, particularly particularly when they're divinely enforced.

Talakeal
2014-05-29, 12:32 AM
[QUOTE=Thrudd;17541127 Did you trick them into the situation? Was the meeting the lieutenant plan the only option available to them, or did they select this course of action on their own? Did the two characters that got attacked have a chance to escape before they got killed? Couldn't the four other characters have done something within the constraints of the contract?.[/QUOTE]

The location they were infiltrating was an extra dimensional training facility that is inaccessible without said lieutenants permission and it was supposed to be an infiltration rather than combat mission. Disguise wasn't strictly required, but i cant imagine it wouldn't be a component of most plans given the situation.
The idea to summon her was theirs, although it was suggested to them by another npc who had already gone through the training program when asked how he did it.
They might have been able to escape, but probably not. The enemy is a full caster and they are both melee types. They could have potentially won, but it would have been an uphill battle.
I don't know if they could have done something, they didn't try so it never came up.

Talakeal
2014-05-29, 12:34 AM
The idea may be that, but what does the wording say? That's what's important with contracts, particularly those with the devil, particularly particularly when they're divinely enforced.

I don't recall the exact wording, we didn't right it down ooc. We verbally agreed to it and afaik everyone was on the same boat except for one player who thought you could simply withdraw from a contract at any time after signing it for some reason.

JustPlayItLoud
2014-05-29, 12:44 AM
Assuming you personally didn't manipulate the wording to their disadvantage then I find this absolutely hilarious. Knowing PCs like I do (I've been known to do Munchkiny things like manipulate contracts from time to time) I don't believe there is any way the PCs were interested in mutual nonaggression. I'd bet money they intended to eventually manipulate the terms of the contract to their own advantage. Sometimes PCs are their own worst enemy.

Kol Korran
2014-05-29, 01:05 AM
I understand why they were upset- They thought they had a great plan and it backfired, some of the PCs acted like they betrayed (Even if they didn't) their comrades, and the enemy got one on them. This creates a somewhat lousy experience, of feeling like fools, betrayed, and incompetent.

But it's really their fault as far as I can understand. And part of playing major opponents smartly is playing them to their respective cunning, intelligence and such.

The only thing I would have played differently is that I would have allowed the other PCs to perhaps break the contract, but suffer some major consequences due to it (like the effects of a major curse/ quest spell that cannot just be overdone with a spell) and maybe give the lieutenant some advantage against them due to the contract as well. And have a really tough fight (As there was the lieutenant and also all of the forces there). Make it a retreating battle, an escape battle if possible, and later on having to deal with the consequences of the broken agreement.

Thrudd
2014-05-29, 01:31 AM
The location they were infiltrating was an extra dimensional training facility that is inaccessible without said lieutenants permission and it was supposed to be an infiltration rather than combat mission. Disguise wasn't strictly required, but i cant imagine it wouldn't be a component of most plans given the situation.
The idea to summon her was theirs, although it was suggested to them by another npc who had already gone through the training program when asked how he did it.
They might have been able to escape, but probably not. The enemy is a full caster and they are both melee types. They could have potentially won, but it would have been an uphill battle.
I don't know if they could have done something, they didn't try so it never came up.

So, they were given the mission to infiltrate this extra dimensional place, they didn't decide to do that themselves. And the lieutenant is the only way to access the location, so they didn't really choose this element of the plan either, they had to convince her somehow to let them in. And they clearly didn't have the information they needed to make a good plan regarding this, because they didn't know that they would be recognized as enemies on sight by someone that had never seen them before. Yes, some form of disguise probably should have been in order anyway, to infiltrate a place controlled by someone who knows what you look like, but PC's be trippin'.

Since it sounds like you really only had one course of action available, you probably should have somehow hinted to them to use disguises before it was too late, either through an NPC, an overheard conversation of random background mooks, or through an ability or skill roll of some kind. Otherwise, it's just a game of guessing what it is the DM wants you to do. Guess incorrectly: at best the game stalls, at worst characters die.

Were there any other conceivable plans that could have allowed them to succeed at this infiltration, besides being recruited (in disguise) by the lieutenant? Could they have found another way in on their own? Could they have ambushed her and taken her magic ID card to get them in? Could she have been successfully bribed with treasure or something else to betray her master?
I'm not asking could the players have tried these things, I'm asking if you would have allowed any of these things to potentially succeed, with the right preparation and die rolls.

Talakeal
2014-05-29, 01:39 AM
So, they were given the mission to infiltrate this extra dimensional place, they didn't decide to do that themselves. And the lieutenant is the only way to access the location, so they didn't really choose this element of the plan either, they had to convince her somehow to let them in. And they clearly didn't have the information they needed to make a good plan regarding this, because they didn't know that they would be recognized as enemies on sight by someone that had never seen them before. Yes, some form of disguise probably should have been in order anyway, to infiltrate a place controlled by someone who knows what you look like, but PC's be trippin'.

Since it sounds like you really only had one course of action available, you probably should have somehow hinted to them to use disguises before it was too late, either through an NPC, an overheard conversation of random background mooks, or through an ability or skill roll of some kind. Otherwise, it's just a game of guessing what it is the DM wants you to do. Guess incorrectly: at best the game stalls, at worst characters die.

Were there any other conceivable plans that could have allowed them to succeed at this infiltration, besides being recruited (in disguise) by the lieutenant? Could they have found another way in on their own? Could they have ambushed her and taken her magic ID card to get them in? Could she have been successfully bribed with treasure or something else to betray her master?
I'm not asking could the players have tried these things, I'm asking if you would have allowed any of these things to potentially succeed, with the right preparation and die rolls.

They are very noticeable epic level heroes. I would be surprised if a random dirt farmer didn't recognize them, let alone one of your arch enemies chief advisors.

Yeah, all of that stuff would have worked. They also could have gotten someone else whom she had already given access to to let them in or perhaps even gone after the place by force.

They weren't told to infiltrate the place per se. They were told that there was a student being trained who needed to be rescued at some point within the next year of game time. Although i assumed it would probably involve some form on infiltration when and how they did it was up to the pcs.

Thrudd
2014-05-29, 01:56 AM
They are very noticeable epic level heroes. I would be surprised if a random dirt farmer didn't recognize them, let alone one of your arch enemies chief advisors.

Yeah, all of that stuff would have worked. They also could have gotten someone else whom she had already given access to to let them in or perhaps even gone after the place by force.

They weren't told to infiltrate the place per se. They were told that there was a student being trained who needed to be rescued at some point within the next year of game time. Although i assumed it would probably involve some form on infiltration when and how they did it was up to the pcs.

Well then, it sounds like they had enough options that this whole thing is on their shoulders. And being epic level, there is really no excuse for holding their hands on anything.

Rhynn
2014-05-29, 08:02 AM
In that case, it sounds as though the players tricked themselves into a no-win situation.

Seriously. I have no idea how they didn't see this coming.

My first thought was "Oh, the BBEG is going to sacrifice the lieutenant to divine retribution to take the PCs out anyway" ...

DM Nate
2014-05-29, 08:14 AM
Seriously. I have no idea how they didn't see this coming.

My first thought was "Oh, the BBEG is going to sacrifice the lieutenant to divine retribution to take the PCs out anyway" ...

I think he was laughing too hard for this to even occur to him. Perhaps he's keeping them alive for further entertainment.

Friv
2014-05-29, 09:17 AM
I cannot imagine a situation in which the players should have signed individually if they didn't expect this outcome. The two players who didn't sign were kind of right - their party went ahead with a plan that put them in an astonishing amount of danger without their consent.

John Longarrow
2014-05-29, 09:44 AM
Talakeal,

The take away from this is that contracts need to be written out to avoid misunderstanding. I've had this problem in the past where I wrote down what I needed to say and players STILL didn't remember they were told something. It gets MUCH WORSE if they are trying to play with a contrat that they should have a copy of.

Kalmageddon
2014-05-29, 10:03 AM
I'm in two minds about this:

On one hand, your PCs undeniably trapped themselves by making some really stupid decisions. I can't imagine what they where thinking by signing something like that contract, expecially if the contract was not written down ooc but simply assumed to contain unambiguous wording on the conditions they agreed upon. Maybe they hoped the effect of the contract was on their characters and something like a dispel would have worked?

On the other hand, your PCs are epic level heroes. One would assume that they got to epic level because they are serious badasses that are above making stupid mistakes like not disguising thesmelves when meeting an enemy under false pretenses or signing a contract that is obviously and unambiguously screwing them over.
If I were the DM I would have flat out told them what they were getting into, simply on the basis that if the Players might not have thought about it, their epic level Characters should have. At most I would have required an easy intelligence roll (DC 5 or 10) to figure things out.

You didn't do anything like that? You didn't drop even a hint that their plan was flawed? If you didn't, then I'm sorry, but I'm with your players. Yeah, they might not be that good at the game, but the game is about having fun and they obviously didn't.
Not saying that they should succeed at everything they try no matter how silly, but as I said before, a hint on what they were doing wrong was in order, if anything to avoid the immersion breaking consequences of seeing these 6 big damn heroes acting like morons.

John Longarrow
2014-05-29, 10:24 AM
They are very noticeable epic level heroes.

Two fairly relevant questions.
Did they play their characters from low level up?
How long have the players been playing?

DigoDragon
2014-05-29, 11:10 AM
Here's an idea: An Inevitable shows up to bring both the lieutenant and the PCs to a neutral meeting spot. Another Inevitable rounds up the dead souls of the two PCs killed. The two Inevitables have been made aware by the divine power the contract was bound under that the current contract is flawed in its current form and that the lieutenant has broken his end of the contract by alerting the BBEG of the contact (an enemy of the PCs). The PCs are given the choice of either:

A) Revising the contract so that the original intent the PCs had would be the new contract. The dead PCs will be resurrected in order to sign the contract and the Lieutenant will be compelled to sign the new contract by the divine force that the contract was bound by. The same divine force will erase knowledge of the contract from the BBEG. In return, both parties will be requested to repay the cost of resurrections, either monetarily or through quests (this will tie up the Lieutenant for a while as he has to round up his half of the payment, and it makes for a good adventure for the PCs to atone by).

Or

B) The contract is made void due to its flawed nature. The lieutenant and PCs are returned to the point in time just before they sign the flawed contract and the contract is destroyed. Both sides are still ordered to pay a fee to the divine entity for resetting the time frame (This gives the PCs a chance to just work together, slay the lieutenant, and pay off the debt with the lieutenant's valuables. Meaning the PCs get no loot for this specific kill). Or the PCs could volunteer to quest for making the repayments, thereby the lieutenant is dismissed (with his share of the incurred debt).


Maybe this idea works, maybe not, but either way the divine power above the contract can be whatever force the DM finds appropriate and the quests could be used as a lesson that you don't simply bind contracts to deity forces lightly.

Gildedragon
2014-05-29, 11:44 AM
Avoid DEMs
Though having an inev show up and exact punishment ipso facto would be good. By killing party mates lt has indirectly harmed signatories. Geased into party service (temp replacement for 1 pty member) and an axiomatic outsider or one of the Lt's strongest advisors is likewise pressed into service. Terms: make reparations and bring the two to life, and radio silence between BBEG and Lt...
Lt realizes that he can't return to BB not after helping party

RFTD-blog
2014-05-29, 12:30 PM
I don't think you did anything wrong DM-wise. The PCs could have come up with a better plan with meeting the right-hand lady to the BBEG. You don't just go and meet that person without a plan...

But on the other hand, the scenario did seem a bit restrictive in how they could approach it. I'm not a fan of the private plane thing, but it does make rational sense within the game. Yet for technical purposes, it pigeonholes things a bit, so I wouldn't personally use it.

When the attack actually happened, why can't they break their contract? What game mechanics are enforcing it? Assumedly, magic. It's not "just because." Kol Korran had the best points on this:


The only thing I would have played differently is that I would have allowed the other PCs to perhaps break the contract, but suffer some major consequences due to it (like the effects of a major curse/ quest spell that cannot just be overdone with a spell) and maybe give the lieutenant some advantage against them due to the contract as well. And have a really tough fight (As there was the lieutenant and also all of the forces there). Make it a retreating battle, an escape battle if possible, and later on having to deal with the consequences of the broken agreement.

And finally, why is the contract not in writing? If you know the lieutenant is going to pull this trickery, you should definitely have it in writing! Not just for that session, but weeks down the line, are you and the players going to remember the exact wording? I know I wouldn't. Are you going to remember what spells were/would probably be on that contract? What if the PCs want to make a forgery some weeks later but don't remember what it even said? A simple contract of two-three sentences would take a few minutes to write, and if the players get a hand in designing it (as you said they did), it can also be a fun roleplaying discussion. John Longarrow put it well:


The take away from this is that contracts need to be written out to avoid misunderstanding. I've had this problem in the past where I wrote down what I needed to say and players STILL didn't remember they were told something. It gets MUCH WORSE if they are trying to play with a contrat that they should have a copy of.

When politicking starts killing your players, it's nice to have a written record why.

Tengu_temp
2014-05-29, 12:35 PM
I'm not sure who's dumber; the four PCs who wrote and then signed a contract that put them at a real disadvantage, or the two PCs who didn't expect the obviously evil bad guy to attack them for not signing it.

This really is a situation where the party should coordinate a little bit, instead of everyone doing their own ****.

Talakeal
2014-05-29, 12:58 PM
Two fairly relevant questions.
Did they play their characters from low level up?
How long have the players been playing?

Yes they did. The campaign has gone on for about nine years now on and off. I believe we just completed our 129th adventure with this group.


Talakeal,

The take away from this is that contracts need to be written out to avoid misunderstanding. I've had this problem in the past where I wrote down what I needed to say and players STILL didn't remember they were told something. It gets MUCH WORSE if they are trying to play with a contrat that they should have a copy of.

The problem wasn't with an understanding of the contract though. They all knew exactly what they were getting into, i think they were planning on infiltrate her school by force and forcing her to watch as they abducted or killed her students and then sat helpless as they killed her master. The whole idea of the contract being between individuals and not being able to attack or directly aid ones allies in the fight was their idea, they just didn't think through the co sequences of it working both ways.




But on the other hand, the scenario did seem a bit restrictive in how they could approach it. I'm not a fan of the private plane thing, but it does make rational sense within the game. Yet for technical purposes, it pigeonholes things a bit, so I wouldn't personally use it.

When the attack actually happened, why can't they break their contract? What game mechanics are enforcing it? Assumedly, magic. It's not "just because." Kol Korran had the best points on this:

And finally, why is the contract not in writing? If you know the lieutenant is going to pull this trickery, you should definitely have it in writing! Not just for that session, but weeks down the line, are you and the players going to remember the exact wording? I know I wouldn't.

This isn't d&d but rather my own home-brew system (check the link in my sig if you want to see more :))

Private planes are really rare. This is a mage academy based on the legends of the black school, where the devil teaches mortals black magic in exchange for the soul of the most promising pupil. Currently one of the students has the potential to be the greatest mage of all time, and needs to be swayed to the side of good, it would be catastrophic if the forces of darkness got his soul. The plane is extra-dimensional because it can be accessed by young mages across the room from anywhere, so long as they make the requisite oaths and learn the password from either a former student or the headmistress, said lieutenant who is an ancient evil arch mage.

The contract was based on spirit rather than intent. The no assistance clause was so one party didn't refrain from fighting directly but rather follows them around buffing and healing their opponents. It was not to force the. To break communications or stop talking to one another, if that was the case the enemy wouldn't have needed to attack anyone, the party would be effectively over and would likely tpk on their own during the next session.

The contract can be broken. The penalty for doing so is that the character loses half of their maximum "spell points" and cannot regain them until they make proper atonement or find a way to break the contract permanently. One of the players actually did decide to do this, but it was too late i. He fight to make any difference besides throwing his life away as well.

Again, it simply never occurred to us to write it out. While that might be fine advice for future sessions, it didn't really impact the situation here afaik, as it wasn't an issue with people not understanding the contract, but rather not thinking out its implications. And one player who didnt realize how contracts worked and thought one could simply withdraw from them at any point both in game and irl.

DigoDragon
2014-05-30, 07:30 AM
Avoid DEMs

Depends on how active divine beings are in the campaign. In some worlds like Forgotten Realms and Elder Scrolls, a high level party is quite likely to bump into a few of them in their adventures.

Amphetryon
2014-05-30, 09:05 AM
I'm in two minds about this:

On one hand, your PCs undeniably trapped themselves by making some really stupid decisions. I can't imagine what they where thinking by signing something like that contract, expecially if the contract was not written down ooc but simply assumed to contain unambiguous wording on the conditions they agreed upon. Maybe they hoped the effect of the contract was on their characters and something like a dispel would have worked?

On the other hand, your PCs are epic level heroes. One would assume that they got to epic level because they are serious badasses that are above making stupid mistakes like not disguising thesmelves when meeting an enemy under false pretenses or signing a contract that is obviously and unambiguously screwing them over.
If I were the DM I would have flat out told them what they were getting into, simply on the basis that if the Players might not have thought about it, their epic level Characters should have. At most I would have required an easy intelligence roll (DC 5 or 10) to figure things out.

You didn't do anything like that? You didn't drop even a hint that their plan was flawed? If you didn't, then I'm sorry, but I'm with your players. Yeah, they might not be that good at the game, but the game is about having fun and they obviously didn't.
Not saying that they should succeed at everything they try no matter how silly, but as I said before, a hint on what they were doing wrong was in order, if anything to avoid the immersion breaking consequences of seeing these 6 big damn heroes acting like morons.

This. As I read the OP, the Players failed to guess along with the DM, who didn't alter things to account for this fact - or, if he did, did not alter things to benefit the Characters - and the party suffered as a result. Couple that with what reads to me as a fundamentally different understanding of what the contract allowed and didn't allow, and I can see why the Players might throw some dice.

Broken Crown
2014-05-30, 10:27 AM
As for the throwing of dice: That's simply not cool. Screaming and throwing things when you don't get your way isn't socially acceptable behaviour for six-year-olds, never mind (presumably) responsible adults. These players need to grow up and show a little self-respect, as well as respect for others.

Gildedragon
2014-05-30, 11:16 AM
Depends on how active divine beings are in the campaign. In some worlds like Forgotten Realms and Elder Scrolls, a high level party is quite likely to bump into a few of them in their adventures.

Well yes, and literal gods coming out of Dwemer puzzleboxes or gnomish whatzits is not quite a DEM in a non-literal sense; esp if you got the quest from some strange telvani/mage. Then a god is probably the least weird thing you'd get out of the box

But the solution ought be derived from the situation, rather from out of it

---

Re: Possiblr Way Out

Half his spell points can mean half his scrolls and magic item charges too
Odds that he had some scrolls of Rez are not low. And even if there wasn't a rez, enough wealth in scrolls to buy one from a temple. Party has made a getaway, mage is suddenly encumbered. Pockets are full to the brim with scrolls, wands, etc.
war spells maybe (and thus requiring a feat) but a hieronian or cuthbertite temple would prolly like those.

Talakeal
2014-05-30, 11:25 AM
This. As I read the OP, the Players failed to guess along with the DM, who didn't alter things to account for this fact - or, if he did, did not alter things to benefit the Characters - and the party suffered as a result. Couple that with what reads to me as a fundamentally different understanding of what the contract allowed and didn't allow, and I can see why the Players might throw some dice.

There was ansolutely no misunderstaning of what the contract allowed. Everyone at the table was in perfect agreement of how it would work.

I am not sure what you mean by "guess along with the DM" though, could you please elaborate?

Kalmageddon
2014-05-30, 11:36 AM
There was ansolutely no misunderstaning of what the contract allowed. Everyone at the table was in perfect agreement of how it would work.

Have you explicitly told your players, ooc, what the consequences of the contract were going to be when it became evident that they were going to screw themselves over? Something like "ok guys, just to be clear, this is the situation you are getting into: *explanation follows*, are you sure this is what you want? Do you have a plan to get out of this situation?".

John Longarrow
2014-05-30, 11:42 AM
Talakeal
If they've been playing these characters for 129 sessions, they should by now have some idea how you run a game and what to expect. Unless this was really out of character for you as a DM, they should have known better.

jedipotter
2014-05-30, 12:20 PM
On the other hand, your PCs are epic level heroes. One would assume that they got to epic level because they are serious badasses that are above making stupid mistakes like not disguising thesmelves when meeting an enemy under false pretenses or signing a contract that is obviously and unambiguously screwing them over.
If I were the DM I would have flat out told them what they were getting into, simply on the basis that if the Players might not have thought about it, their epic level Characters should have. At most I would have required an easy intelligence roll (DC 5 or 10) to figure things out.

I very much disagree with this. The idea that epic equals great is just wrong. The characters, if they lived through years of adventures would be that, but the players will never be. The players are just go at playing a game, not anything like understanding reality or knowing how things are or other such important life knowledge. Playing a game does not give one practical, real life knowledge. And to make it even worse, a lot of what people think they know is pure Hollywood.




You didn't do anything like that? You didn't drop even a hint that their plan was flawed? If you didn't, then I'm sorry, but I'm with your players. Yeah, they might not be that good at the game, but the game is about having fun and they obviously didn't.
Not saying that they should succeed at everything they try no matter how silly, but as I said before, a hint on what they were doing wrong was in order, if anything to avoid the immersion breaking consequences of seeing these 6 big damn heroes acting like morons.

The idea that the DM would just sit there and baby sit the players is just so weird. So every couple of minutes the DM would go: "Sigh, roll and intelligence check''. The player would make the DC 10 check, and then the DM would say "You remember that fire is hot and if you stand in the middle of a bonfire then you will get burned and take HP damage.'' And the player would say "A right, DM, thanks." Every couple of minutes.... To tell the players ''if you jump in the ocean in full plate mail, you will sink like a stone'' or ''if you kill guard number 1, then the other 24 guards that are only twenty feet away will hear'' all the time? You would not even be playing the game any more, just telling the players lots of obvious, common sense sort of things.

Amphetryon
2014-05-30, 12:23 PM
There was ansolutely no misunderstaning of what the contract allowed. Everyone at the table was in perfect agreement of how it would work.

I am not sure what you mean by "guess along with the DM" though, could you please elaborate?

Thrudd's response (post #12) elaborates on the same concept; did you simply find the fact that I used slightly different phrasing sufficient to make my meaning less clear than his, or. . .?

No disrespect here - you've played with these guys a long time, so you're obviously doing a lot of stuff right - but I have read several of the stories of the problems (at least, they're problems as I understand your presentation of them) in your games and come away feeling like the principal cause of difficulties in your games is that you expect your Players to do one specific thing in response to a scenario, and responses that you didn't anticipate get punished, for lack of a better term.

Talakeal
2014-05-30, 12:41 PM
Thrudd's response (post #12) elaborates on the same concept; did you simply find the fact that I used slightly different phrasing sufficient to make my meaning less clear than his, or. . .?

No disrespect here - you've played with these guys a long time, so you're obviously doing a lot of stuff right - but I have read several of the stories of the problems (at least, they're problems as I understand your presentation of them) in your games and come away feeling like the principal cause of difficulties in your games is that you expect your Players to do one specific thing in response to a scenario, and responses that you didn't anticipate get punished, for lack of a better term.

I was t clear about the phrase "guess along with the dm", it could have meant several things and i wanted to be sure which before responding lest i find myself talking to a strawman.

Its not so much that i have one specific path, that is very rare, its just that they do things that are just plain weird or irresponsible without thinking of the consequences.

Like if their job is to get a magic item from a dragon hoard i plan half a dozen likely scenarios, say killing the dragon, negotiating with it, tricking it, robbing it in its sleep, finding an ally dragon to kill it for you, and distracting it while someone else grabs the item and runs.

The players will then instead insult the dragon and run back to their homes and hope the local militia will kill it before it incinerates them along with their civilian families and neighbors, or decide to collapse the mountain on the dragon without any thought of how they will then retrieve the artifact or even extract the companions in the mountain at the time.

If anything, the PCs are the ones who suffer from lateral thinking. They come up with a plan, and if it doesn't work perfectly despite the glaring flaws they either panic, give up, or get mad.

Beowulf DW
2014-05-30, 01:00 PM
If anything, the PCs are the ones who suffer from lateral thinking. They come up with a plan, and if it doesn't work perfectly despite the glaring flaws they either panic, give up, or get mad.

Then you need to have a talk to them about consequences within the world that you run. Just because something might seem obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to the players. That's not me going after you, that's just the way that people are. Make it clear to your players that they need to put more thought into what they're doing and how they're doing it. Some of them may be under the impression that just because they're main characters, things will somehow work out. They might not be on the same page as you, and they're certainly not on the same page as each other. Remind them that they're a team, and they to work as a team.

Talakeal
2014-05-30, 01:23 PM
Then you need to have a talk to them about consequences within the world that you run. Just because something might seem obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to the players. That's not me going after you, that's just the way that people are. Make it clear to your players that they need to put more thought into what they're doing and how they're doing it. Some of them may be under the impression that just because they're main characters, things will somehow work out. They might not be on the same page as you, and they're certainly not on the same page as each other. Remind them that they're a team, and they to work as a team.

I have, many times. It just makes them depressed and even more discouraged.

Rhynn
2014-05-30, 01:34 PM
No disrespect here - you've played with these guys a long time, so you're obviously doing a lot of stuff right - but I have read several of the stories of the problems (at least, they're problems as I understand your presentation of them) in your games and come away feeling like the principal cause of difficulties in your games is that you expect your Players to do one specific thing in response to a scenario, and responses that you didn't anticipate get punished, for lack of a better term.

Every single time Talakeal posts about his players, I go "holy crap, how can these people be so dumb and horrible!?" They're aggressively stupid and stupidly aggressive, and somehow they just never stop being either. Gah!

Also,


This. As I read the OP, the Players failed to guess along with the DM, who didn't alter things to account for this fact - or, if he did, did not alter things to benefit the Characters - and the party suffered as a result.

I get that this is like a school of GMing thought or something, but I find the idea that the GM should alter the established reality of the setting or have stupid ideas work just because that's what the players came up with it just silly.

In this case, the setting and characters seem to have reacted, to me, in a plausible and predictable way. The players were stupid twice over - first they came up with this ridiculous pact (because villains never break or get around pacts!) and then some of them refused it, and then they're all surprised at the obvious results.


Then you need to have a talk to them about consequences within the world that you run. Just because something might seem obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to the players. That's not me going after you, that's just the way that people are. Make it clear to your players that they need to put more thought into what they're doing and how they're doing it. Some of them may be under the impression that just because they're main characters, things will somehow work out. They might not be on the same page as you, and they're certainly not on the same page as each other. Remind them that they're a team, and they to work as a team.

I don't know how they've managed to not learn that consequences happen after so many bad consequences, but they seem pretty impervious to the idea, and my general impression of Talakeal's posts has been that they're pretty much hostile to the very idea of trying to do anything differently, and get angry when Talakeal explicitly tries to suggest that something else might have worked better.

Sometimes, I'm pretty sure Talakeal must be running a game for three-time losers in prison as some kind of volunteer work, or something. (Or community service. Or punishment for his sins.)

Kalmageddon
2014-05-30, 02:43 PM
I very much disagree with this. The idea that epic equals great is just wrong. The characters, if they lived through years of adventures would be that, but the players will never be. The players are just go at playing a game, not anything like understanding reality or knowing how things are or other such important life knowledge. Playing a game does not give one practical, real life knowledge. And to make it even worse, a lot of what people think they know is pure Hollywood.




The idea that the DM would just sit there and baby sit the players is just so weird. So every couple of minutes the DM would go: "Sigh, roll and intelligence check''. The player would make the DC 10 check, and then the DM would say "You remember that fire is hot and if you stand in the middle of a bonfire then you will get burned and take HP damage.'' And the player would say "A right, DM, thanks." Every couple of minutes.... To tell the players ''if you jump in the ocean in full plate mail, you will sink like a stone'' or ''if you kill guard number 1, then the other 24 guards that are only twenty feet away will hear'' all the time? You would not even be playing the game any more, just telling the players lots of obvious, common sense sort of things.

Wow... I'm not sure what I've just read... "The players are just go at play a game not anything like understanding reality"? Is this by any chance related to what happens to Gordon Freeman's brother (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHxyZaZlaOs)?

But it seems you are misunderstanding me or just plain making stuff up... I've never said to babysit the players "every couple of minutes", just that a DM should check with his players when he sees them doing someting weird/stupid that could have potentially campaign breaking consequences like the situation described in the OP.

Edit: Talakeal, seeing how you are ignoring my questions and this situation doesn't seem to be anything new, I guess that the purpose of this thread is just getting your back patted at how awful your players are. So, good luck with that.

Rhynn
2014-05-30, 03:09 PM
But it seems you are misunderstanding me or just plain making stuff up... I've never said to babysit the players "every couple of minutes", just that a DM should check with his players when he sees them doing someting weird/stupid that could have potentially campaign breaking consequences like the situation described in the OP.

This is a good idea in general (I find "Really? You do that?" tends to work), but the situations Talakeal's players create seem to be relatively complex (the stupid decision isn't just one thing, it's a bunch of things), and the GM may not see where something like that is going until they've got 90% of it done. (Some players will actually obfuscate what they're doing so the GM doesn't know until they spring their master plan into action, and boy are they gonna be mad if there was a huge glaring flaw they didn't spot.)

Also, I'm sure Talakeal will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his players get mad at "hints" like that?

I pretty much hate his players, and I've never met them, but I gave up telling him to ditch them ages ago. :smallamused:

Talakeal
2014-05-30, 04:01 PM
Edit: Talakeal, seeing how you are ignoring my questions and this situation doesn't seem to be anything new, I guess that the purpose of this thread is just getting your back patted at how awful your players are. So, good luck with that.

Chill man, i wasnt intentionally ignoring you, i just thougt other people had beaten me to the punch.

I dont like breaking character to give hints as it feels condescending and negates player agency.

My players are of differing oppinions on the matter, but one of them absolutely hates dm hints and has a standing policy of doing the exact opposite to spite me if i give him a hint. And i dont mean ne does this subtly, he flat out tells me and the other players what he is doing and why.

Kalmageddon
2014-05-30, 04:20 PM
Chill man, i wasnt intentionally ignoring you, i just thougt other people had beaten me to the punch.

I dont like breaking character to give hints as it feels condescending and negates player agency.

My players are of differing oppinions on the matter, but one of them absolutely hates dm hints and has a standing policy of doing the exact opposite to spite me if i give him a hint. And i dont mean ne does this subtly, he flat out tells me and the other players what he is doing and why.

I don't think it negates anything, it's just a way to be sure that they fully understood the situation before taking action. The DM might have everything clear in his head, but the players might misunderstand things. I think it's only fair to ask for confirmation when the players are about to do something that will have no good consequences for them whatsoever, unless they are doing it because they are missing out on key information in-character.

Like for example, take these two situations:

1- There's a wide river or acid in the way (just roll with it). None of the characters have acid resistence or enough hitpoints to survive crossing it by swimming. When prompted on "what do you do?" one of the players says "I jump in and swim to the other side".
This is an action that should be clearly sucidial both OOC and IC. Therefore as a DM I would ask "Are you sure you understand what you are doing? You are about to jump into a river full of lethal acid, without any protection" because chances are the player either misunderstood the situation or figured things differently with its mind filling the gaps. Maybe he figured the river is only ankle deep and he can run across it, burning only his feet.
So confirmation is in order.

2- Same situation in pt. 1 except the river of acid is disguised by an illusion as a normal river of slow moving water. This time if one of the characters jumps in I wouldn't say anything, because IC he has no reasons to think there is anything wrong in what he's doing, even if it's suicidal. i would let him roll his Will check to disbelief the illusion and done.

Of course, an acid river disguised with an illusion is a cheap way to get a character killed or hurt and I wouldn't actually use it unless it made sense in some way, but you get my point. When the caracter should know better, so should the player and if he doesn't it's right to let him know, with subtlety maybe, with a check if possibile, but somehow they must be made aware of the situation in a way that is 100% clear and unambiguous.

After all, if I was the player that is about to have his character melted in acid like a moron I wouldn't find it particularly fun to lose my character only because there was a misunderstanding ooc. Losing my character in spectacularly stupid ways is not the kind of player agency I would like in a game.

With that said, if your players are really that bad, I don't think there's much you can do about it. But I guess others have already said it before.

jedipotter
2014-05-30, 08:13 PM
Like for example, take these two situations:





I'll admit to doing the conformation. Like saying, ''ok, you drinkthe whole bottle that says 'poison' in one gulp?'' or ''ok, you swim across the massive river of acid that you just saw kill a storm giant in a couple seconds after he fell in?" But I'm not going to stop the game and say ''Um, Fred, the acid will do 10d10 damage a round and you need ten rounds to swim across..so your character would die..."

And illusions and other tricks are fair game. If your just going to save the characters, why even have the illusion or trick in the first place? DM: "Wait, roll a DC 10 check'' Player: "Got a 31!" DM-"You see the floor ahead is an illusion over a pit to the Abyss!'' Player-"Woah, we go around it!'' So why even have the pit?

Stormageddon
2014-05-30, 08:48 PM
The lieutenant is eager to much such a deal as it would mean the master can conquer the world unopposed. The players clarify that they only want to make a peace treaty with that particular lieutenant.

The lieutenant drafts a contract stating that no signer will ever attack another either directly or indirectly by helping their enemies in battle.

A ritual is performed to make the contract divinely enforced and unbreakable. The BBEGs lieutenant signs as do four of the six PCs. The other two refuse to sign a deal with someone they know to be extremely evil and working for their arch enemy.

The lieutenant who the players knew to be extremely evil, powerful, and treacherous immediately attacks the two PCs who refused to sign while the other four watch helplessly.

The two players alone are not strong enough to defeat an enemy who would be simple for the whole party and are killed. The lieutenant then leaves to tell the BBEG that his enemies are down to two thirds strength and vulnerable to attack.

Then the players stop the game to start screaming and throwing dice. The two dead pcs players blame the others for betraying them, well the other four blame me for tricking them into a no win situation.


Ok I can see both sides of the argument. The party was incredibly stupid by signing this contract.

The BBEG was not a signing member of this contract and is now free to attack the contract at will.

However I would argue that the lieutenant violated the contract.

"no signer will ever attack another either directly or indirectly by helping their enemies in battle."

The indirectly part is where the lieutenant trips up. The question is did the lieutenant indirectly help the BBEG (an enemy of the PC signing members) by attacking allies of the signing members?

"The lieutenant then leaves to tell the BBEG that his enemies are down to two thirds strength and vulnerable to attack."

Immediately the lieutenant leaves to tell a non signing member and enemy of signing members that the BBEG's enemies are weak and ready to chopped to pieces. Not that his enemies are destroyed, and peace is now attained... That sounds like bad faith.

Giving information to the enemy is helping the enemy in battle. There by helping the enemy of the signing party, or indirectly helping. I think the lieutenant should face the punishment.

Beowulf DW
2014-05-30, 11:08 PM
I have, many times. It just makes them depressed and even more discouraged.

...My condolences. May God have mercy on your soul.:smallfrown:

SiuiS
2014-05-31, 03:27 AM
Man, it's too bad no one thought to shield their allies with their body. You can protect someone in a fight without throwing a punch.

Paladin's dilemma; you are hiding refugees in your basement. You are not allowed to lie. The authorities ask you to your face, "are you hiding refugees?"

You don't say "yes" and then 'sorry guys I can't lie'. You say "I am not playing this game. I will not condone your genoicde through action or inaction. Go away."

icefractal
2014-05-31, 04:39 AM
Giving information to the enemy is helping the enemy in battle. There by helping the enemy of the signing party, or indirectly helping. I think the lieutenant should face the punishment.Quoting yours, but in reply to various posts saying this -

No, the lieutenant should not be considered in violation of the contract, because if she is, then the players are much more screwed. If indirect help violates it, then the players have the choice to either:
A) Violate it.
B) Stop opposing the BBEG (forever) and go do something else.

The lieutenant is an ally of the BBEG, so generally speaking the BBEG's enemies are the Lt's enemies. Opposing the BBEG helps the Lt's enemies, therefore. Contract violation! Unless we confine it to directly and immediately helping enemies that are currently in combat, in which case nobody's yet broken it.


So if the PCs are on the path to screwed, and you want to help them, just do it by another method. Some new problem occupies the BBEG's attention for a few weeks, preventing him from capitalizing on their weakness. Some unexpected allies make an appearance. Some existing allies come to help.

I mean, yes, the situation is a downer, because they're left feeling stupid and defeated. I don't think you can really change that - even some kind of DxM reversal would just be reinforcing how much they ****ed up.

However - these are epic-level heroes? The situation's not that bad then. Get the dead guys resurrected, come up with a new plan that doesn't involve fighting the Lt directly, and they're back in action.

Driderman
2014-05-31, 07:48 AM
I have to say, from the various posts the OP has made about his (mis)adventures with his gaming group(s?), he does come off as a rather "adverserial, literal jerk DM". Like say, the type of DM who would respond to the phrase "I run like a madman" with something like "okay, because of your crazy run you trip and they catch you". I'm seeing a lot of assumptions that the PCs should how the DM intends the scenario to play out, and the assumption that the PCs will be able to guess the solution the DM wants.

Roleplaying is, at the best of times, an exercise in mutual fantasy. The gaming group has to build the setting and the story together and since everyone will have their own, invidual picture of how things are in their minds eye, agreeing on specifics can be difficult. Specifics like whether to wear disguises or not.
When you, as a DM, let the PCs take stupid actions because "they should know better" or similiar, and then proceed to give them no-win situations because "that's what would have happened", you're taking away their agency and punishing them for not interpreting the information you may or may not have conveyed correctly (ie: as you imagined it in your head). That's shirking your "responsibility" as a GM in favor of what you construe as "correctional punishment", your job is fuse your vision and each individual players vision of the scenes and the setting to provide an entertaining story for everyone. Not punish them for "not thinking right".

Slipperychicken
2014-05-31, 08:03 AM
This creates a somewhat lousy experience, of feeling like fools, betrayed, and incompetent. \

They kind of seem like incompetent fools though, so it sounds more like a wake-up call in that regard.

Talakeal
2014-05-31, 01:12 PM
I have to say, from the various posts the OP has made about his (mis)adventures with his gaming group(s?), he does come off as a rather "adverserial, literal jerk DM". Like say, the type of DM who would respond to the phrase "I run like a madman" with something like "okay, because of your crazy run you trip and they catch you". I'm seeing a lot of assumptions that the PCs should how the DM intends the scenario to play out, and the assumption that the PCs will be able to guess the solution the DM wants.

Roleplaying is, at the best of times, an exercise in mutual fantasy. The gaming group has to build the setting and the story together and since everyone will have their own, invidual picture of how things are in their minds eye, agreeing on specifics can be difficult. Specifics like whether to wear disguises or not.
When you, as a DM, let the PCs take stupid actions because "they should know better" or similiar, and then proceed to give them no-win situations because "that's what would have happened", you're taking away their agency and punishing them for not interpreting the information you may or may not have conveyed correctly (ie: as you imagined it in your head). That's shirking your "responsibility" as a GM in favor of what you construe as "correctional punishment", your job is fuse your vision and each individual players vision of the scenes and the setting to provide an entertaining story for everyone. Not punish them for "not thinking right".

Nah, the internet likes to twist my wording to make it sound **** that, but i never put them in no win situations or twist their wording like that.

The problem is they get frustrated when there are negative consequences and then put themselves in a no win situation. For example in the above scenario the two party members could have defeated the bbeg. It would have been tough and required good thinking and maybe so e resource expenditure, but they chose to more or oess give up and die because they were mad (and moreso at the rest of the party thAn at me might i add).

I honestly cant remember ever playing word games to trip them up, and even for things like contracts and wishes i have a spirit of the law policy. My players on the other hand will always use my wording to get out of charm spells and such. For example if dominated to attack an ally they will swing once and then claim that the spell is broken because the enchanter just said attack, not keep attacking them until dead.

Punishing the players is stupid, and the only time i ever do that ks on the very rare occasions when they are acting especially munchkiny and trying to break the game and i get frustrated and lost my cool. I dont think this has happened in years, maybe decades because we have all grown up.

I do usually warn them when they are doing something obviously stupid, but if i am going to point out every obvious mistake they make that really does sound like i am playing their charactes for them and taking away their agency. And not having realistic consequences to actions takes away all challenge and breaks the game and immersion.

For example, if the players decide that, at level one, they want to kill an emperor and take over his kindgom or kill a great wyrm dragon and take his hoarde i would warn them, but i am not going to make the fight a pushover that level one pcs can win without absolutely brilliant tactics. Would you actually let them win these fights with a cr one encounter and reap the vast rewards that follow forever breaking any concept of wbl?

jedipotter
2014-05-31, 05:17 PM
When you, as a DM, let the PCs take stupid actions because "they should know better" or similiar, and then proceed to give them no-win situations because "that's what would have happened", you're taking away their agency and punishing them for not interpreting the information you may or may not have conveyed correctly (ie: as you imagined it in your head). That's shirking your "responsibility" as a GM in favor of what you construe as "correctional punishment", your job is fuse your vision and each individual players vision of the scenes and the setting to provide an entertaining story for everyone. Not punish them for "not thinking right".


If the players chose to do something stupid, it is not punishing them if you play it and it does not work out good for them. It was a stupid idea in the first place. The players never should have done it. And just as the players want to do something does not say you should bend over backwards and alter reality to they win.

Most of the game is ''no-win situations '', and that is fine. A normal game world has tons of places and people way too powerful for the current level of the characters. Unless your in a setting like Ebberon. The players can't just do anything. That type of game would be pointless. Why even play the game if you can do anything and always ''win''?

I guess some games some where have the intreperation problem. Where the DM says things like ''oh the dragon looks weak'' for a ''great wyrm with 100HD'', but most games are not like that. I'd say that most of the time, it's the players just getting too full of hot air. All too often the players think that they have god-like characters. Then they ignore common sense, and get caught with thier pants down.

And I'm all in favor of teaching common sense. It works great. The players will do something stupid, get burned, and then next time be a bit more wiser. This is how people learn.

dps
2014-05-31, 05:35 PM
And I'm all in favor of teaching common sense. It works great. The players will do something stupid, get burned, and then next time be a bit more wiser. This is how people learn.

Except Talakeal's players don't learn.

Talakeal
2014-05-31, 05:39 PM
Except Talakeal's players don't learn.

Seriously. If anything they just get more withdrawn and helpless and more likely to make mistakes in the future.

jedipotter
2014-05-31, 06:25 PM
Except Talakeal's players don't learn.

True...some people never learn. Like Thor always falling for Loki's illusions.....''will you ever not fall for that?"

Driderman
2014-05-31, 07:20 PM
If the players chose to do something stupid, it is not punishing them if you play it and it does not work out good for them. It was a stupid idea in the first place. The players never should have done it. And just as the players want to do something does not say you should bend over backwards and alter reality to they win.

Most of the game is ''no-win situations '', and that is fine. A normal game world has tons of places and people way too powerful for the current level of the characters. Unless your in a setting like Ebberon. The players can't just do anything. That type of game would be pointless. Why even play the game if you can do anything and always ''win''?

I guess some games some where have the intreperation problem. Where the DM says things like ''oh the dragon looks weak'' for a ''great wyrm with 100HD'', but most games are not like that. I'd say that most of the time, it's the players just getting too full of hot air. All too often the players think that they have god-like characters. Then they ignore common sense, and get caught with thier pants down.

And I'm all in favor of teaching common sense. It works great. The players will do something stupid, get burned, and then next time be a bit more wiser. This is how people learn.

All this is true yet, if it leads to people throwing tantrums (and dice), mistakes were made. Of course, if it's the same gaming group as he always complains about... :smalleek:

Narren
2014-05-31, 08:25 PM
All this is true yet, if it leads to people throwing tantrums (and dice), mistakes were made. Of course, if it's the same gaming group as he always complains about... :smalleek:

If adults are literally throwing tantrums and dice, the blame lies with them.

Driderman
2014-06-02, 04:47 AM
If adults are literally throwing tantrums and dice, the blame lies with them.

In this situation, where the DM knows he's working with these types of people and continues to enable that kind of behavior, I'm not sure I agree.
I mean, from the multiple threads Talakeal has started about how horrible his gaming group is, we know them to be just around the mental age of 10 or so (from his description) and Talakeal seems like a reasonably sensible individual, if a bit narrowminded on how to interact with his gaming group. So what we have is a bunch of infantile retards that keep acting the same stupid way they've always done, and a fairly resonable person who keeps DM'ing for them and choosing to ignore what he has already learned about his retard gaming-group will act.
I kinda put the "blame" Talakeal, his retard "friends" obviously don't know any better, but he seems to have enough sense that he should.

Thrudd
2014-06-02, 05:24 AM
Seriously. If anything they just get more withdrawn and helpless and more likely to make mistakes in the future.

Maybe it's time to try a different game, one that is more forgiving of their play style (if you want to call it that). Maybe a cinematic game, where the focus is on everyone telling an awesome story, and the plot moves along from scene to scene pretty much regardless of what they do. Characters only die if they want them to, or if they try really, really hard.

Driderman
2014-06-02, 11:17 AM
Maybe it's time to try a different game, one that is more forgiving of their play style (if you want to call it that). Maybe a cinematic game, where the focus is on everyone telling an awesome story, and the plot moves along from scene to scene pretty much regardless of what they do. Characters only die if they want them to, or if they try really, really hard.

That's probably a very good idea. Obviously, playing D&D together isn't really working out for this group so if they insist on continuing to play together maybe a new system and setting could change things up, provide a different experience. I'd suggest everyone agreeing on a system, involve them in the selection process even if they don't want to so that they can feel more invested in what game's been played.