Short bit about my game.
The players are on their way through a forest they are a bit familiar with. They know that it is haunted by fairies, and they have dealt with fairies several times in the past.
From the bottom of Red Cap Peak they can see the dungeon entrance because of the enormous field of flowers around it. They know exactly where they are going and start their walk.
Along the way, they meet a frighting old woman with a four pointed hat, letting out cries of distress and giving them a cold stare. They decide to talk to her, believing rightly that she is a fairy.
She tells the party that she knows a short cut where they are going. She takes off to lead the party and for some reason, they follow. I clearly point out that she starts following a game trail that goes strait away from the path they were on. She encourages them by saying, "come along, almost there."
One of the players asks if he can roll his "knowledge nature" skill to determine what he knows about this kind of fairy. He rolls a natural 19, for a total of 24 I think. I told him the truth, in the most blunt way I could:
"This is the kind of fairy that scares and misleads travelers."
He then communicates this to the group, but they follow her the rest of the way to the location: a random cave in the side of the mountain which she claims is a short cut into the dungeons.
The ranger doesn't check for track around it or anything, he just asks if there are any other cave entrances. I told him no.
He then lights a torch and walks into the cave to check it out.
This whole first and second level party almost got wiped out by the wolverine that came racing out.
Worse things happened later as a result, but that's enough for now.
When you have players that are making informed decisions that are so very terrible, do you let them do it? I find that I want to "play their turn for them" but hold it back when they have so much information.
Depends on the group, and their expectations.
Typical amusing case is a level 1 player group going straight to the dragon's hideout right away.
If the players are the types that object to be DM having an iron fist, then I'll just make the dragons's lair empty. Sometimes there might be a baby dragon or a weak wyrmling there.
If the players are the types that expect harsh punishment and consequences for their foolish actions, then I'll have the dragon fighting them when the players attack.
Quote from: Cranewings;397478When you have players that are making informed decisions that are so very terrible, do you let them do it?
Yup. Otherwise, in my opinion, there isn't a point in playing.
Seanchai
Quote from: Cranewings;397478When you have players that are making informed decisions that are so very terrible, do you let them do it?
You bet!
Those are much more fun than their terrible uniformed decisions!
Awesome story! I love the idea of fairies around the dungeon!
Quote from: Seanchai;397484Yup. Otherwise, in my opinion, there isn't a point in playing.
Yeah, there's really not much more to say about it than that.
Hmm, the Ranger not tracking to see what could actually be in the cave is just stupid play. If the party wipes as a result, so be it.
As for the rest, the characters knew the fairy was leading them astray, but is that really a reason not to go?
You said they were headed to a dungeon. I don't know if there was a mission or something important and possibly time-sensitive involved, but if not, then why not go?
Fairies are known for doing all kinds of strange things, and lots of times, if you defeat the trap they set for you or outsmart them in some way, you get a reward. Maybe they figure that if they keep going along with the fairies even if they know it's a trap, the fairies will get bored and leave them alone. There's lots of reasons why the characters themselves would have a legitimate reason to "fall for it". Without really knowing what the players were up to, it's hard to level a charge at them.
Did you discuss the actions with your players after the session and ask them what they were up to?
BTW - Taking charge of the characters saying "Nope, your characters wouldn't do that, I'm over-riding that." is one of the most heavy-handed things a GM can do. The only time I'd ever think of such a thing is when someone is playing someone else's character due to leaving early or something. Most of the time if the players are acting that disruptively, it's usually a sign that they're bored or just not engaged. Probably best to do something else if the players just aren't their normal selves that night.
Quote from: Seanchai;397484Yup. Otherwise, in my opinion, there isn't a point in playing.
Seanchai
Thirded.
Ideally as a GM, GM's don't kill players, players kill themselves.
This reminds me of a story a fellow gamer told me about his teenage years running D&D.
He had a homebrew campaign world which contained a place called the "Swamp of Doom." Everyone the PCs met told them: no one returns from the Swamp of Doom. NPCs had stories about how their friends, family, dogs, etc. went to the Swamp of Doom and never returned. Whenever they passed near the place, they'd see signs saying DO NOT ENTER THE SWAMP OF DOOM. He would tell players out of character that if they entered the Swamp of Doom, they would die... well, you get the picture.
He said invariably, one player would inevitably decide he was going to enter the Swamp of Doom. At which point he'd take the player's character sheet, tear it in up, and throw the pieces in the air yelling "No one comes back from the Swamp of Doom!"
Whether you consider this move assholish or funny (or both), I think there's a lesson there -- trying to dissuade players from making a bad choice can often have the opposite effect. Telling players there's danger doesn't often work, especially in a game where the over-arching goal is to kill things and take their stuff -- the instinct to turn away from something deadly is generally going to be diminished.
I agree that players should pay the appropriate price for making obviously dumb decisions; I think it's up to the GM to try to be consistent as possible in order to manage the players' expectations.
So I'm running a new D&D game for my group... and this just happened Sunday mind you so its fresh.
They are all 2nd level now, having entered a cave, walked along an underground river and fought almost literally hundreds of goblins (who keep running away when the fight turns against them). Recently the bugbears who 'own' the sunken castle the players are exploring have taken to joining the fight to keep the goblins 'in line'.
Having no where to retreat to, the players have more or less fortified on of the castle's towers as their default 'rest site'. I keep telling them that the longer they linger in the same spot, the more chances the gobling have to organize a defense... but nevermind that.
No. For once (I am a kind and generous GM) the players get attacked 'at night'.
The two characters with actual hit points and dark vision (the half orc barbarian and the dwarf fighter with tower shield) are on watch and they make their perception checks. 8 javalin tossing goblins with a bugbear down the corridor... the barbarian charges while the fighter starts to wake up the other characters.
Oh... he hears a second group down the other corridor! They've been flanked! He charges down THAT corridor to draw fire.
The barbarian goes on a bloody rampage, never missing, never failing to kill, backed by the gun mage (pulled from Iron kingdoms), so that side is relatively unimportant (the fleeing goblins lured him into a rock fall trap but that was more a nusiance. at second level he has 30 hp...)
Meanwhile the fighter and the bugbear exchange whiffs for a couple of rounds while the naked greatsword weilding cleric shows up. He's human, relies on a decent armor class and has a whopping 14 hit points. He gets hit in the face. Realizing that the ambush has failed the Bugbear decides to withdraw, to try again another day. He and the goblins retreat to 60 feet away, just at the edge of the dwarf's darkvision, outside his charge range and JUST at the limits of the dim light coming from the camp.
So the cleric charges. Naked. With half his hit points gone. Alone. The bugbear smashes him in the face and hauls his -3 hit point having ass into the darkness for dinner.
The player threatens to quit over the unfairness of it all, saying that was why he hated D&D.
I generously allow the dwarf to make a grapple check to tackle his character to keep him from running after the bugbear (and goblins!) into the darkness... where he can't see!... in a very tiny retcon.
Fuck that noise.
If I failed to describe something accurately, allowing a retcon isn't without reason.
A player doing something they know is foolish, expecting you'll bend over backward (or another direction entirely), just to "not ruin their fun", is a drama whore and should be promptly corrected or punted.
There's "heroic", and then there's "Just bloody stupid".
Your Cleric player was the later, not the former.
Spike, I have a player that is a good deal like yours.
Really illogical and very demanding. In one game, they were trying to get a scroll of unknown magical writings for a rogue. The player has exactly two spells, both of which he cast in front of the rogue. He thought he should just write those spells on a scroll and give it to the guy, claiming it was what everyone was after.
I didn't even let him derail the game with that one. There were just too many reasons it wouldn't work. The rogue's high intelligence, letting him remember the spells he saw you cast. The relative worthlessness of what you would be able to write making it odd anyone was ever looking for it. Your non-existent bluff skill vs. his likely sense motive. There were other things as well.
The other players already told him to go ahead, but they wouldn't be anywhere around when he tried it. I stopped him because I realized long ago that he is really just railing against authority and wants to do something wrong to start a fight. He wasn't mad that I just told him it was a stupid idea instead of letting him try it. He was mad that I didn't think it would work.
Anyway, that bit used up all of my GM helping players energy, which is why I let them follow the fairy into the cave.
It is hard to balance fun, difficulty, and story with players that are difficult and demanding.
Quote from: Spinachcat;397520You bet!
Those are much more fun than their terrible uniformed decisions!
Awesome story! I love the idea of fairies around the dungeon!
Brian Froud and Castle Falkinstine (spelling both wrong cause I'm too tired to look them up) are big influences on my gaming. I love fairies, especially as villains.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;397603Whether you consider this move assholish or funny (or both), I think there's a lesson there -- trying to dissuade players from making a bad choice can often have the opposite effect. Telling players there's danger doesn't often work, especially in a game where the over-arching goal is to kill things and take their stuff -- the instinct to turn away from something deadly is generally going to be diminished.
I agree that players should pay the appropriate price for making obviously dumb decisions; I think it's up to the GM to try to be consistent as possible in order to manage the players' expectations.
I'd agree with IM here, and I'd go a step further. While players will often have their PCs do stupid things - I find that at least as often, the GM will
want the PCs to do something incredibly stupid and consider it smart or at least reasonable.
A common offender is the GM who throws very deadly peril at the PCs expecting them to face it, and decides to be "nice" if he felt the PCs acted reasonably and doesn't let them die - perhaps by fudging dice, or perhaps by poor moves on the enemy's part, etc. The same GM later, though, uses the threat of deadly peril with a different tone and expects them to be driven down a different path.
For example, I was in a game where one of the PCs was kidnapped by an apparently well-organized enemy and used as bait to lure the others in. It was an obvious trap, yet the GM expected us to take it. My PC balked. He had no reason to think that they would let their bait live, and every reason not to walk into the trap. In general, I've seen plenty of PCs stupidly face certain danger lots of times like following the fairy in the OP. However, in general this was
desired by the GM.
In my experience, GMs don't want players to play sensible, intelligent characters. The times when I have done that as a player, I drove my GM up the wall in frustration.
I guess we drifted a little from the example of in the OP in which the GM clrealy signals "this is a trap" and the players check it out anyway. But in general, I agree; player characters can't really make realistic and informed choices a lot of the time because they generally live in a world of adventure and strange and of strange coincidences in which somehow things always turn out to be interesting and in which great dangers often turn out to be the most rewarding. And if they did make those sensible choices the game might turn out to be really, really dull.
No matter how sandox the campaign is, the GM still excercises a lot of editorial power, bringing to the foreground things which are of interest in an adventurous way and glossing over to boring, mundane bits. When is the last time you filed your tax return, went for a routine dental check up or simply drove your kids to school in a rolepalying game (unless of course these were just preambles to kidnappings, alien invasion or Nazi plots?).
If in a roleplaying game a child comes crying to a players, saying that there is a monster under his bed, there probably is a monster under the bed - the GM probably would not have bothered mentioning it otherwise. So you kind of want the players to be open to checking out the bed.
Quote from: Cranewings;397478When you have players that are making informed decisions that are so very terrible, do you let them do it? I find that I want to "play their turn for them" but hold it back when they have so much information.
It sounds like they had plenty of warning and got themselves into the mess fair and square. Assuming:
You didn't suddenly jump from scenario to sandbox style
They haven't been encounter-starved for the last three sessions
In other words, provided your players weren't compelled or trained to latch onto this morsel, it sounds like they deserved their fate. And based on your statements above, I think this is the case. I wouldn't beat yourself up over it; not every day is a victory. I wonder if several weeks from now they'll recall this encounter better and more fondly than one of their sackful of minor victories.
Thanks for sharing your tale too. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;397530Hmm, the Ranger not tracking to see what could actually be in the cave is just stupid play. If the party wipes as a result, so be it.
As for the rest, the characters knew the fairy was leading them astray, but is that really a reason not to go?
You said they were headed to a dungeon. I don't know if there was a mission or something important and possibly time-sensitive involved, but if not, then why not go?
Fairies are known for doing all kinds of strange things, and lots of times, if you defeat the trap they set for you or outsmart them in some way, you get a reward. Maybe they figure that if they keep going along with the fairies even if they know it's a trap, the fairies will get bored and leave them alone. There's lots of reasons why the characters themselves would have a legitimate reason to "fall for it". Without really knowing what the players were up to, it's hard to level a charge at them.
Did you discuss the actions with your players after the session and ask them what they were up to?
BTW - Taking charge of the characters saying "Nope, your characters wouldn't do that, I'm over-riding that." is one of the most heavy-handed things a GM can do. The only time I'd ever think of such a thing is when someone is playing someone else's character due to leaving early or something. Most of the time if the players are acting that disruptively, it's usually a sign that they're bored or just not engaged. Probably best to do something else if the players just aren't their normal selves that night.
I agree with that. If I was a player and some fairy tried to lead me in the woods I'd say: That way lies adventure and follow the thing.
Getting out of a trap is most of the time more fun than avoiding it.
A lot of this is tied to the lethality of the game you want to run and that the PCs sign on for.
Cranewings, do you feel that the PCs learned something from this? Did it help establish the consequence of player idiocy? I tell you true, that 80% of the PC death's that have happened in my GM career, or at least in the last 1/3 of it, have helped shape player expectations for the game we play.
And we've had a few players who, after maybe a long session of exploring very empty ruins, went over and above in their search for excitement. After this stupidy leads to PC death a few times, they start to understand that the smart survive.
Quote from: Saphim;397697I agree with that. If I was a player and some fairy tried to lead me in the woods I'd say: That way lies adventure and follow the thing.
Getting out of a trap is most of the time more fun than avoiding it.
A GM definitely needs to account for "plot hook reflex". Proper communication and all that.
I've been running into something of the opposite with my Earthdawn GM... he's been VERY effective at convincing me of the danger of various places/creatures/NPCs... and my PC, being rational and having a long-term goal other than accumulation of wealth, has responded with caution... to the point of frequently running away and evading things.
Yet the GM seems disappointed... "I figured you'd try talking to the horror a bit longer", "I'm surprised you didn't just fly into the ruins", "I'm surprised you didn't try to take the 'cursed' treasure."
The other PCs see the 'certain death' signs and rush on in... but mine argues it's a bad idea.
Maybe I've been playing CoC for too long...
Quote from: Novastar;397643Fuck that noise.
If I failed to describe something accurately, allowing a retcon isn't without reason.
A player doing something they know is foolish, expecting you'll bend over backward (or another direction entirely), just to "not ruin their fun", is a drama whore and should be promptly corrected or punted.
There's "heroic", and then there's "Just bloody stupid".
Your Cleric player was the later, not the former.
Oh I generally don't allow retcon's either, but I do allow more or less 'same round' take backs for the more gross stupidity. The Dwarf had higher initiative and hadn't acted, so allowing him to announce, after the same round impact of charging the uninjured bugbear (which, as a CR 2 critter is supposedly a challenge for a four character party of second level characters... supposedly), naked, alone and in the dark, to interrupt with a charge was just fine.
On the other hand, the second game session, where the three goblins tackled him into the water and grappled him to keep him from swimming... after ten rounds of drowning there was no way in hell he could go 'but I should have gotten an Attack of Opportunity!!!'.
Yes. He should have. I didn't deny it to him, he just failed to take it. Too late.
The amusing thing is that he is claiming he prefers Runequest because it is more forgiving/less lethal. I think he forgot how every character dropped to near death, saved only by the quick actions of their fellow players, at least once, if not multiple times, throughout the RQ campaign.
And I just flashed back to the most brutal sequence of critical hits I've ever inflicted on a single player in a single round. Chills, man... chills.
So here is a question:
How easy is it to train a new group of players, each with their own expectations of what is lethal, to play your game?
Historically, I usually end up killing at least two characters during the first month of any game I run. After that, usually the players can survive for months and months without another one.
I've already killed one guy's character in this game. They wanted to warn a town about a pending invasion. They took a boat down a river and then ran on foot through a goblin infested forest. Three of the four ran together. They encountered a pretty dangerous monster an overcame it. The fourth guy, a rogue with a shit constitution couldn't keep up, so he encouraged everyone else to go ahead without them... which they did without argument.
Now, the last guy isn't needed to deliver any kind of warning, could have gotten back in his boat and found a safe place to hide. Instead, he set off on foot through the woods at night alone. He encountered a group of 4 goblins, got run down, killed, and eaten. He complained, "I guess that's what I get for doing the heroic thing." I told him, "what heroic thing? They are the ones delivering the warning, they didn't need you to come. You could have left in your boat. Heroic, maybe. Not very tactical."
Quote from: Cranewings;397877So here is a question:
How easy is it to train a new group of players, each with their own expectations of what is lethal, to play your game?
Historically, I usually end up killing at least two characters during the first month of any game I run. After that, usually the players can survive for months and months without another one.
I've already killed one guy's character in this game. They wanted to warn a town about a pending invasion. They took a boat down a river and then ran on foot through a goblin infested forest. Three of the four ran together. They encountered a pretty dangerous monster an overcame it. The fourth guy, a rogue with a shit constitution couldn't keep up, so he encouraged everyone else to go ahead without them... which they did without argument.
Now, the last guy isn't needed to deliver any kind of warning, could have gotten back in his boat and found a safe place to hide. Instead, he set off on foot through the woods at night alone. He encountered a group of 4 goblins, got run down, killed, and eaten. He complained, "I guess that's what I get for doing the heroic thing." I told him, "what heroic thing? They are the ones delivering the warning, they didn't need you to come. You could have left in your boat. Heroic, maybe. Not very tactical."
Well you could tell them you don't want heroics.
Quote from: Cranewings;397877So here is a question:
How easy is it to train a new group of players, each with their own expectations of what is lethal, to play your game?
Historically, I usually end up killing at least two characters during the first month of any game I run. After that, usually the players can survive for months and months without another one.
I've already killed one guy's character in this game. They wanted to warn a town about a pending invasion. They took a boat down a river and then ran on foot through a goblin infested forest. Three of the four ran together. They encountered a pretty dangerous monster an overcame it. The fourth guy, a rogue with a shit constitution couldn't keep up, so he encouraged everyone else to go ahead without them... which they did without argument.
Now, the last guy isn't needed to deliver any kind of warning, could have gotten back in his boat and found a safe place to hide. Instead, he set off on foot through the woods at night alone. He encountered a group of 4 goblins, got run down, killed, and eaten. He complained, "I guess that's what I get for doing the heroic thing." I told him, "what heroic thing? They are the ones delivering the warning, they didn't need you to come. You could have left in your boat. Heroic, maybe. Not very tactical."
Well, first of all, since it sounds like this is your history, your playing a game with a steep power gain curve. Aside from everything else, I will tell you that makes it tough on player expectation when the power curve slope comes with an actual change in lethality.
Aside from everything else I am going to say, I view that as making it harder for the PCs to learn/harder for the GM to train their expectations. Because the lethality level changes.
The first thing about teaching new players is that banal, basic first issue. Communication. I make it very, very clear what the PC life expectancy is in Celtricia, and why. And I have this conversation early on, pre character gen. It sounds basic, but it really helps, or at least so I believe. For instance, if they understand that only one out of three player characters lasts more than 10 sessions, they respond to that.
During this, and during the first session, I stress the importance of teamwork to survive. I talk about a lot of other campaign specific stuff, as well, but that is the more important, i think.
If anything i said seems off or needs clarifying, please let me know.
Quote from: Cranewings;397877He complained, "I guess that's what I get for doing the heroic thing." I told him, "what heroic thing? They are the ones delivering the warning, they didn't need you to come. You could have left in your boat. Heroic, maybe. Not very tactical."
"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes?qt0433147)
Meh, stupidity kills.
And the leading cause of PC death is second-hand stupidity.