I fired my PCs

[Ruslan]

You know the situation. It's standard in a D&D game. PCs get a quest from a questgiver. Then they start haggling, or bargaining, call it as you may, trying to get the best conditions possible.

"1,000 gp, is that all you can do?"
"We need a few potions of healing to get there"
"We encountered opposition and are back in town to regroup. Give us stuff."

Can't exactly begrudge them for looking out for the best interests for their PCs, but I also have to look out for the best interests of the NPCs. And often, I felt I did not, because I just wanted to keep the game going. Whatever, take this potion, just get on with the game. But last game, things came to a head. The PCs were playing out "let's renegotiate the compensation" minigame, when the questgivers stepped away for a huddle, then came back, and pointedly told the PCs "you're fired". They were in a bit of a shock, discussed the possibility to outright murder the questgivers for this insolence (they were in the middle of a city, so that plan was quickly rejected).

Felt pretty good actually. To the players honor, after the initial shock, they took it alright, didn't throw a fit, found something else to do, and the session ended well. [at least I think it ended well. I'll be sure when I see them come back to the next session, hehe]

[hymer]

My PCs are usually extremely polite and reasonable. They are far more likely to waive their fee than ask for an increase. And, my being such a bleeding-heart (and proud of it), being polite and reasonable tends to end up doing more good for the PCs than being jerks and penny-pinchers.
It's very noticeable with a new player, who is still looking for any excuse to kill people to get their stuff. The rest of the party react with horror to his faux pas.

Anyway, shaking things up a bit every now and again is a good thing. I think it'll turn out to be a good experience for your group.

[LibraryOgre]

Reasonable response, every once in a while.

[Keltest]

Reasonable response, every once in a while.

Indeed. In my group, they tend to be receiving quests from phenomenally powerful people (the Queen of the Elves, the local Archmage, etc...) so bargaining typically takes the form of "is there anything you can spare to make sure this gets done right?" more than "we want more coin for this job." Not sure if that means theyre smart, or that I need to give them more mundane quests every once in a while.

[Geddy2112]

Good on you for not letting the PC's run amok as gods, and good on your group for taking it so well.

Reasonable response, every once in a while.

Indeed, it is possible to get fired from a job, or told that your fee is simply too high for the job and they will find somebody else. It helps the PC's know their general "going rate"

"is there anything you can spare to make sure this gets done right?"

This is probably the best way to go about it, just like writing a grant. And they don't need to know you spent the extra gold on stuff you did not use...

[FlumphPaladin]

This is probably the best way to go about it, just like writing a grant. And they don't need to know you spent the extra gold on stuff you did not use...

Scholarships too!

[themaque]

Do they qualify for unemployment?

Spoiler

Show

Did you kill this week?

[Fizban]

It helps the PC's know their general "going rate"

It'd help if I knew their general "going rate," I've been asked that question and what is even an answer? Best I could think of was some percentage of your current net worth, like if you've got 10,000gp in magic items you aren't likely to move for anything less than 1,000gp in guaranteed payment. There's also the question of where that cash is supposed to come from, as it's effectively bonus cash outside of the looting which should already keep them at WBL+10% for consumables (speaking DnD 3.5 anyway). So does that mean questgivers only offer payment when the DM knows the loot is below standard, and the payment is equivalent to the defecit? But that means any job that will have appropriate loot is a job that won't offer a reward, so mercenary PCs might not bother starting it. And where is the questgiver getting the money anyway? How much cash does a DnD noble have?

For more of my thoughts on the matter, see this post, and this post.

I kinda do like the thought that mercenary adventurers tend to end up with gruntwork jobs clearing out monsters that have little or no treasure, while heroic parties that will help for free loot all the cool stuff.

And yeah, when I negotiate for more pay it's basically the same "well I'm gonna need this and this to do it perfectly, you buying materials?" We were actually talking to a professor of some sort who said he'd bill it to the research department and told us to get whatever we needed once I supplied a list of scrolls.

[Mr. Mask]

Yeah, I think you handled this right. It does make me ponder the situation, all the same.

One thing I thought might be good for this, was to let some kind of negotiations roll give the players hints for whether they can go further or are going too far. Another potential final solution, is for the employer to lose his temper and say, "It's 1,000 gold, or you can shove off and find a better job!". Where the players are penalized by losing any gains they won in negotiations for getting too greedy, along with losing influence with their employer.

[FlumphPaladin]

Did you kill this week?

"'Stand-up philosopher??' Oh! You're a bull**** artist!"

[JeenLeen]

Yeah, I think you handled this right. It does make me ponder the situation, all the same.

One thing I thought might be good for this, was to let some kind of negotiations roll give the players hints for whether they can go further or are going too far. Another potential final solution, is for the employer to lose his temper and say, "It's 1,000 gold, or you can shove off and find a better job!". Where the players are penalized by losing any gains they won in negotiations for getting too greedy, along with losing influence with their employer.

I agree with this. Not sure what system you're using, but some sort of skill check or Perception/Wisdom check to notice before they get fired.

Also, kudos to the players for handling it well, and to you as DM for being willing to derail the quest for in-game consistency. I hear a lot of 'bad gaming stories' here on the boards, but this sounds like everyone handled it really well.

[GungHo]

More than once, I've had my quest giver tell someone they're not running a charity or that they should know better than to haggle with the king. I've even let them do the quest and had them get screwed over in the end because they were rude to someone when they should have known better. My players sometimes get mad, but I do explain to them (repeatedly) that the NPCs are "people" and not candy machines and they, just like the PCs, will sometimes make rash decisions.

[goto124]

Were the PCs (or players) really that rude in asking for more rewards?

[Ruslan]

To clarify, I don't think the PCs were rude, or jerks, or anything like that. Like I said, they were looking for their best interests. But in this particular case, I didn't think it was to the benefit of the questgivers to give in to their requests. The questgivers were also nonhuman uber-logical emotionless beings, who tend to think a lot, but once a decision is made, act on it quickly, so when the negotiation reached an impasse, I saw it fit to resolve the problem with a quick swipe ...

[The Fury]

There's a good lesson here-- just because the quest-givers hired you doesn't meant they can't hire someone else. Negotiation might be sound business, a PCs gotta look out for his or her interests, but quest-givers gotta look out for theirs too.

[Slipperychicken]

playing out "let's renegotiate the compensation" minigame

If it was me, I'd let them know OOC that for each quest they get exactly one roll to negotiate compensation. One standardized roll, none of this "I roll to get 100x the asking price", I'd assign the asking price, and they get an extra 5% for every 5 points they beat the questgiver's charisma roll, while the questgiver reduces the compensation by an equivalent amount if he wins. That represents the entire negotiating process. After it's settled, the negotiation is finished and the PCs can take it or leave it. No ifs, ands, or buts. If they still want to try to renegotiate, they get "fired" and the questgiver finds someone else to do the job.

I find the game is enhanced when you can minimize the time spent on haggling. Get it done in one roll and move on to the actual gameplay.

[Anonymouswizard]

If it was me, I'd let them know OOC that for each quest they get exactly one roll to negotiate compensation. One standardized roll, none of this "I roll to get 100x the asking price", I'd assign the asking price, and they get an extra 5% for every 5 points they beat the questgiver's charisma roll, while the questgiver reduces the compensation by an equivalent amount if he wins. That represents the entire negotiating process. After it's settled, the negotiation is finished and the PCs can take it or leave it. No ifs, ands, or buts. If they still want to try to renegotiate, they get "fired" and the questgiver finds someone else to do the job.

I find the game is enhanced when you can minimize the time spent on haggling. Get it done in one roll and move on to the actual gameplay.

This is definitely how to do it in a system lacking a good social combat system. For example, if I'm running Qin and the PCs get the very nice sum of 300 yuan plus supplies to guard a caravan from one state to the next, then they get one roll to attempt to increase the amount.

However, you also have the fact that the PCs have to realistically get paid more for the job than they would just doing normal work. If the party consists of a warrior, a noble, a diviner, and a rogue, then you have to offer more than their day wages if you want them to go to the mansion three days out of town and dispel the evil spirits. The warrior might earn 8 SP a day just from random guard work, so he'll be happy to do it for as little as 30 gold plus looting rights, while the diviner might earn 3-4GP a day just reading people's fortunes, and so will require a retainer of at least 40GP, and the noble might vary depending on what he's giving up to help people, from next to nothing while nothing's on to thousands of GP when the king comes to town. All example costs given assuming this is more dangerous than their day job.

This, 'non-adventuring income' is more important on the reward level then wealth owned in my opinion, especially if looting is allowed in this adventure. The characters will want to know 'is it better for me than whatever job I'm currently doing', with a reasonable buffer for increased danger.

[veti]

I've never really done "adventuring for money". As I see it, one of two things will be true. Either:

1. it's a wild world, there's plenty of experience and loot to be had just by roaming the countryside looking for it, or
2. it's not, and you need quality leads to find your way to the XP&L.

In case 1, adventurers have plenty of work and a steady income at, probably, minimal risk. How much extra would you have to pay them to devote themselves exclusively to your mission, which is likely significantly higher risk, for several straight days? The answer, as I see it, is "almost certainly more than they're worth". Just going by what I'd charge to risk my neck on someone else's behalf... no measly "1000 GP" is going to cut it, multiply that by 20 or throw in some rare magic or quest items and we'll talk.

In case 2, either the PCs want to go out and take risks - in which case minimal pay is in order, really little more than covering expenses and providing necessary support as you would to a regular, full-time employee - or they don't, in which case pay is probably not the way to go, you need to use threats.

Either way, "Here's 1000 GP to check out the ruined tower" just sounds - silly. Split six ways, it's not even enough to cover the potions/other consumables you're likely to use.

[Slipperychicken]

Either way, "Here's 1000 GP to check out the ruined tower" just sounds - silly. Split six ways, it's not even enough to cover the potions/other consumables you're likely to use.

There's a whole tower worth of loot in there, and the PCs are certain to make bank from sacking the place. That's implicit in the arrangement. It can be made explicit too. "X gold, plus rights to whatever you find in the tower" is one arrangement that also helps alleviate moral concerns about selling the tower's contents.

There's also a practice from Shadowrun which may be useful here; having rewards presented as per-person sums instead of lump sums. It saves math and gets right down to the information the players need. That is "what number do I write on my sheet?". Just figure out in advance what happens to a PC's share if he dies on the mission, like whether he willed it to anyone, it goes toward a resurrection fund, or if it gets split between the rest of the party.

[Geddoe]

Now the PC's look into the quest seriously to figure out what the questgiver's goal was. Then they set about making sure that it never happens out of spite. Could be a fun story.

[Fizban]

This, 'non-adventuring income' is more important on the reward level then wealth owned in my opinion, especially if looting is allowed in this adventure. The characters will want to know 'is it better for me than whatever job I'm currently doing', with a reasonable buffer for increased danger.

How much extra would you have to pay them to devote themselves exclusively to your mission, which is likely significantly higher risk, for several straight days? The answer, as I see it, is "almost certainly more than they're worth". Just going by what I'd charge to risk my neck on someone else's behalf... no measly "1000 GP" is going to cut it, multiply that by 20 or throw in some rare magic or quest items and we'll talk.
. . .
Either way, "Here's 1000 GP to check out the ruined tower" just sounds - silly. Split six ways, it's not even enough to cover the potions/other consumables you're likely to use.

having rewards presented as per-person sums instead of lump sums.

Anonwiz and veti have presented conflicting viewpoints: the answer hinges on what job you actually do. I think it is generally assumed that Adventurers don't consider risking their lives in combat to require a rich hazard pay, but as a life-risking job the bar is still set far above any normal day job or they wouldn't bother. I'm actually a bit confused by veti's, since it sound to me more like simple spite. Sure, the world is full of adventure. . . and here's one that pays better.

Chicken has it right, my example was based on an individual. If you wish to hire four individuals it will of course require four times as much money, adventurers get expensive quick. This is a big reason why it's annoying to have no frame of reference for how much a questgiver could be paying.

[Anonymouswizard]

Either way, "Here's 1000 GP to check out the ruined tower" just sounds - silly. Split six ways, it's not even enough to cover the potions/other consumables you're likely to use.

Imagine a game that isn't D&D. One where you're likely to start out with less than 100 gold of equipment between the party. One where you aren't garrunteed of being able to find potions in the town you're in. Suddenly that 166.66GP sounds a lot more reasonable. Especially if gold is actually worth enough that you can buy a few Cure potions and an antidote with that money. It's entirely about context.

Plus, looting rights. As long as you don't take the furniture, the doors, and the window frames nobody will mind that much.

[Mr.Moron]

Imagine a game that isn't D&D. One where you're likely to start out with less than 100 gold of equipment between the party. One where you aren't garrunteed of being able to find potions in the town you're in. Suddenly that 166.66GP sounds a lot more reasonable. Especially if gold is actually worth enough that you can buy a few Cure potions and an antidote with that money. It's entirely about context.

Plus, looting rights. As long as you don't take the furniture, the doors, and the window frames nobody will mind that much.

Or even just editions of D&D that aren't 3.P. You can definitely run 5e like this and I have. Things are surpsingly easier to deal with when a single 2nd-level adventure fighting nuisance monsters for a small town isn't expected to net you 3 lifetimes of normal income. 1,000gp is a fortune in everyday people terms.

Trying to get PCs on a WBL track to interact economically with NPCs without it turning degenerate is somewhere between hard and impossible.

[Hamste]

Rights to loot the ruined tower though is inherently given unless the person actually owns the tower and even if in this example they did most of the times the quest giver actually doesn't own the loot rights to what ever you killed unless they negotiated that as part of the deal (for example In retrieval quests they inherently negotiate the loot rights of the macguffin). It is not part of the reward as it is something that you would have done anyways in most cases. The reward is to entice you into the dungeon as you don't actually know if there is loot or not. Ooc it is obvious that there will be loot as it is a game assumption but IC you don't know if this random tower will be picked clean and is filled with monsters that don't carry loot by the time you get there.

Of course it is completely ok for an npc to fire a PC if they try to renegotiate a deal or walk away if they become too demanding.

[Slipperychicken]

Rights to loot the ruined tower though is inherently given unless the person actually owns the tower and even if in this example they did most of the times the quest giver actually doesn't own the loot rights to what ever you killed unless they negotiated that as part of the deal (for example In retrieval quests they inherently negotiate the loot rights of the macguffin). It is not part of the reward as it is something that you would have done anyways in most cases. The reward is to entice you into the dungeon as you don't actually know if there is loot or not. Ooc it is obvious that there will be loot as it is a game assumption but IC you don't know if this random tower will be picked clean and is filled with monsters that don't carry loot by the time you get there.

Not necessarily. It's a benefit from doing the job. If the PCs don't investigate the tower, they don't get the loot. Assuming the PCs are rational and have a value at which they will accept the job, then they'll accept it as long as the sum of both components of the reward (direct payment and expected value of loot) equal or exceed that value.


Let's say it takes 50$ to convince me to break into my friend's room. My friend accidentally locked himself out, and says he'll give me 20$ if I do it, and he tells me that the room contains about 30$, which I can freely take. That's still $50 in total compensation, even though my friend only gave me $20 directly.

[Fizban]

Trying to get PCs on a WBL track to interact economically with NPCs without it turning degenerate is somewhere between hard and impossible.

That really depends on what you mean by "NPCs." If you mean individual villagers then sure, but random villagers aren't supposed to be hiring adventurers. People of power, lords and leaders hire adventurers. If we go by the only 3.5 rules I've ever seen to allow the extrapolation of a cash value for stuff like that, the PHB2 Affiliation rules, we see that even an organization with city-scale reach has at least 6,000gp worth of assets available, up to 36,000 if they're just sitting on their hands unopposed. There is no "hire adventurers" executive power because the rules are means for player integration rather than DM-side world building, but those values are enough to entice anyone up to 10th level.

[Mr.Moron]

That really depends on what you mean by "NPCs." If you mean individual villagers then sure, but random villagers aren't supposed to be hiring adventurers. People of power, lords and leaders hire adventurers. If we go by the only 3.5 rules I've ever seen to allow the extrapolation of a cash value for stuff like that, the PHB2 Affiliation rules, we see that even an organization with city-scale reach has at least 6,000gp worth of assets available, up to 36,000 if they're just sitting on their hands unopposed. There is no "hire adventurers" executive power because the rules are means for player integration rather than DM-side world building, but those values are enough to entice anyone up to 10th level.

Well at this point we're arguing taste right? That a band of heroes might interact with a villager, or a small-time merchant, or officers of the town guard and get rewards or gifts that are useful and/or relevant at the time is pretty common.

As you point out the WBL track shoots "Adventurers" out of reach but all from the highest of the highest, even at a low levels. However the kind of things a 2nd-4th level Adventurer might deal with aren't really the concerns of the highest-of-the-high. They're not fighting city scale threats, or taking out armies. They're busting up goblin tribes, dealing with a wayward bugbear or any number of things that couldn't be 6000gp worth of trouble even if left untouched for years at a time. They're also the sort of thing that low level NPCs (Warrior Mercs) could handle with sufficinet numbers while still coming at 1/10th the price point. The only place "Nobles & Powerful organizations only" can make a lick of sense from a narrative sense is once you're out of levels, if not approaching mid levels.

Secondly having a strict WBL track just narrows possibilities. In 5e if I'd like I can have PCs rolling in gold and magic items from level 1, and still have the game mostly work. In 5e if we'd like, we can keep the economic scope of what adventuring gets you rather small and fighting demons to save the world doesn't necessarily line your pockets in any great capacity. You can within in RAW, RAI, and intended tone right it either way. A strict WBL confines you to exactly one path, and that one path doesn't even make a ton of sense for all levels of play.

[Beleriphon]

On the notes of wealth and pay. Lets take a page from The Witcher. Geralt takes jobs for peasants who pay him paltry sums, but also works with Kings of the Realms and Emperors of All. They pay on different scales, but they also ask for different things. At one point Geralt comments some soldiers tried doing a job themselves and got stomped on while if they'd hired him he'd be the only one dead if he failed, and he's a profession monster killer so he'd probably wouldn't fail (note he doesn't).

[Keltest]

On the notes of wealth and pay. Lets take a page from The Witcher. Geralt takes jobs for peasants who pay him paltry sums, but also works with Kings of the Realms and Emperors of All. They pay on different scales, but they also ask for different things. At one point Geralt comments some soldiers tried doing a job themselves and got stomped on while if they'd hired him he'd be the only one dead if he failed, and he's a profession monster killer so he'd probably wouldn't fail (note he doesn't).

It should be noted that Geralt is perfectly willing to accept being underpaid to do a job if he genuinely doesn't think that the people hiring him can afford it. he has no problems bullying cheap peasant leaders into tripling his pay if he knows they have the cash stored away for it.

[Jay R]

There is no reason to ever stop asking for more, unless the answer is sometimes, "No," with consequences.