When the PCs have the wrong end of the stick.

[WhoAmI]

In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.

What would you do?

1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

[Clawhound]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

That's what dreams are for. I'm sure that you have a cleric. Or better
yet, give the dream to a lawful good PC and have it be very vague.

If that's not workable, how about a wandering cleric who is a good
thinker. He can question the characters and point out flaws in their
logic. In fact, maybe a regular NPC can do this?

Make sure that they know what this NPC is capable of. "Be careful of X.
I saw him beat up a grizzly with his bare hands." or "I saw X summon a
celestial mastadon in order to rescue some kids in the frozen lake." You
get the idea. Let them know that this guy is out of their league. Also
establish his "methods." "You always know what he wants. He never stoops
to trickery. He doesn't need to. Not with that kind of power."

I'm sure that others will have good ideas.

And just because they attack the wrong guy isn't bad. It's just not
optimal. Let them get beat up. The NPC can take some of their stuff in
reimbursement. They'll think twice about jumping to conclusions next time.

CH

[Joe Auerbach]

ooh . . . I'm in favor of the losing stuff method.

They attack the npc. I' sure that durring the course of the fight
he'll want to know why they're attacking him. If they tell him, he can
certainly deny any involvment and then beat them willy. he takes some
of their things for his trouble and boots them to the curb (bandaged if
at all possible, because that's a nice effect). They reevaluate both
their prowess and their theory. Just make sure he doesn't take
anyhting they can't live without (ie not the wizard's spellbook or the
paladin's holy sword).

[Clawhound]

Post by Joe Auerbach
ooh . . . I'm in favor of the losing stuff method.
They attack the npc. I' sure that durring the course of the fight
he'll want to know why they're attacking him. If they tell him, he can
certainly deny any involvment and then beat them willy. he takes some
of their things for his trouble and boots them to the curb (bandaged if
at all possible, because that's a nice effect). They reevaluate both
their prowess and their theory. Just make sure he doesn't take
anyhting they can't live without (ie not the wizard's spellbook or the
paladin's holy sword).

Exactly. DEATH isn't the only outcome of combat. And immidiate
punishment lets you give sting to the defeat.

CH

[Ty]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

My suggestion might take a bit of work, but I would do this:

1. Have them observe a battle between the NPC and something really tough
(Ancient Red Dragon, Grand Master of Flowers, whatever) -- and have the NPC
win convincingly. Alternatively, another NPC can be singing songs about the
badass NPC's feats, but this won't be as impressive. Maybe they come across
the NPC busily skinning the dead Ancient Red Dragon.

2. If the players insist on taking the badass on, then let the dice fall
where they may. The key to slaughtering the entire party IMHO is "clean
hands". When they get all pissed off, you say "well, you *knew* that he was
a badass; you saw him slaughter that Ancient Red Dragon with your own eyes.
I thought you had some cool plan because it never occurred to me that any
sane party at your experience level would try to take him in a straight up
fight. Geez!" Then walk away, exasperated. With any luck, you'll escape
before they lynch you.

--Ty

[Kaos]

Post by Ty

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

I'm somewhat in favour of option 4, with maybe a slight modification
to the scenario if it's plausible: give the badass enough political
clout that they'll need some pretty damning evidence lest they find
themselves on the wrong side of legitimate authority. Not so much
that *no* amount of evidence will suffice, though.

That should encourage them to dig deeper, which in turn should reveal
their mistake. They may find *other* things to persecute the badass
for, which is wonderful foreshadowing for future campaigning...

Post by Ty
1. Have them observe a battle between the NPC and something really tough
(Ancient Red Dragon, Grand Master of Flowers, whatever) -- and have the NPC
win convincingly. Alternatively, another NPC can be singing songs about the
badass NPC's feats, but this won't be as impressive. Maybe they come across
the NPC busily skinning the dead Ancient Red Dragon.

Ick. May be a matter of personal taste, but that seems a bit like
using a sledgehammer to pound thumbtacks. If you can pull it off
without making it look forced, maybe.

Post by Ty
2. If the players insist on taking the badass on, then let the dice fall
where they may.

This part is ok, but give em an opportunity to back down as well.

[Keith Davies]

Post by Kaos

Post by Ty
1. Have them observe a battle between the NPC and something really
tough (Ancient Red Dragon, Grand Master of Flowers, whatever) -- and
have the NPC win convincingly. Alternatively, another NPC can be
singing songs about the badass NPC's feats, but this won't be as
impressive. Maybe they come across the NPC busily skinning the dead
Ancient Red Dragon.

Ick. May be a matter of personal taste, but that seems a bit like
using a sledgehammer to pound thumbtacks. If you can pull it off
without making it look forced, maybe.

Tactically that's probably a good time to attack. He's probably
flatfooted, possibly already damaged and (at least some of) his magic
depleted.

But yes, that's a little heavy-handed. OTOH, some players need that.

I once had a player say to me "please don't be subtle. It's wasted on
us. Just point us in the right direction and let us rip. We're not
suited to solving the problem in the political court, just give us a
princess to rescue and we'll be happy."


Keith

[Ty]

Post by Keith Davies

Post by Kaos

Post by Ty
1. Have them observe a battle between the NPC and something really
tough (Ancient Red Dragon, Grand Master of Flowers, whatever) -- and
have the NPC win convincingly. Alternatively, another NPC can be
singing songs about the badass NPC's feats, but this won't be as
impressive. Maybe they come across the NPC busily skinning the dead
Ancient Red Dragon.

Ick. May be a matter of personal taste, but that seems a bit like
using a sledgehammer to pound thumbtacks. If you can pull it off
without making it look forced, maybe.

Tactically that's probably a good time to attack. He's probably
flatfooted, possibly already damaged and (at least some of) his magic
depleted.
But yes, that's a little heavy-handed. OTOH, some players need that.

You'll recall that the original post indicated that the players seemed bound
and determined to take the NPC on. I assumed that this meant that the
players were immune to more subtle hints.

Post by Keith Davies
I once had a player say to me "please don't be subtle. It's wasted on
us. Just point us in the right direction and let us rip. We're not
suited to solving the problem in the political court, just give us a
princess to rescue and we'll be happy."

I think that there is something to that. In my experience, most GMs don't do
subtlety very well. Because *they* know what they're doing, they can easily
forget that the players do *not* know. The result is that the purportedly
subtle GM is merely vague and inadvertently hides the ball.

I can recall several discussions with GMs over the last 25 years in which I
(or some other player) said "we're not mind readers!". It even happened to
me once in a "subtle" political oriented campaign I ran. So I tend to err on
the side of obviousness, especially where the lives of PCs are in serious
danger.

But note that my example does not shoehorn the players into any particulatr
course of action. It merely makes a point -- the NPC is a real badass. I
would not interfere with the players' exercise of free will should they
decide to attack the NPC. This seems far more reasonable than dangling an
impossibly powerful evil NPC in front of them without any indication of how
tough he really is.

There's also a phenominon that I have observed. As I get older and my real
life gets more complex -- job, marriage, kids, mortgage, etc. -- I find that
I enjoy playing and running more exciting and straighforward games. My real
life is sufficiently complex that I don't crave "sophisticated" role playing
experiences. I just like to kill things. (Of course, I am fortunate in that
my players tend to like the same things. Few things can be as frustrating as
a disharmony between what the GM wants to run and what the players want to
play).

I analogize RPG adventures to movies, not novels. Movies have very limited
time (compared to novels), so the story must be stripped down to its
essence. I often find that purportedly sophisticated or subtle movies are
turgid and boring. The same with RPGs. IMHO, an RPG adventure must be
similarly stripped down and focused. Of course, this is only my opinion. I
could be wrong.

--Ty

[JB]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

It largely depends on what your players expect from the game. If I was
satisfied that it was an error on their part and not a communication error
on mine* I and they would be happy with option 1). Failing that option 3)
looks like a good choice.

* Or not necessarily even an error. Its very easy to think there are
sufficient clues pointing toward the truth but it's important to remember
that you already know the true situation and that can colour your
analysis. Many people recommend the rule of 3. If you think, for example,
3 clues are enough use 9.

[Tim Fitzmaurice]

Post by WhoAmI
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Leave them to it, if they go for the big bad guy let him capture them, and
give them the moral dilemma of doing something for him in return for their
lives. Make it assassinate the person who was plotting against them -
with or without an explanation to see if it tips them over the edge.

You can then have them get regular visits until they do the deed, this
suddenly roleplays them into the bad part of town/society and their nicer
associates may take offence, and whether the guy sticks to the deal once
the PC patsies do their job is entirly up to you and the NPC in question.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568

[freakybaby]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Have this baddie, help the party onto the right path. In fact let this
villian be the helpful baddie to lure them into some plot of this her/his.
Possibly have the villian send the PCs out to retreive some object that aids
the greater good, and have the PCs deliver said object to a force of of the
greater good so that force of good can use the object to defeat an advertsary
of this Villian they have the wrong idea about. Do all this to lure the PCs
into twisted plot of this villian. And if the PCs take the bait, keep doling
out the rope until the PCs are so tangled up in a web of their own making
(well mostly).

As part of the master plot of your vilian you could have her/him provide:
some healing (scrolls, wands or potions),

useful information

from time to time a few useful items (have them craft in such a fashion,they
do not work against your villian). Perhaps there is an additional secert
command word that shuts the item down until a different command word re-
activates the items,

possible safe hiding places if the PCs need a place to hide out,

or a "safe room" for PCs to talk freely without the fear of others scrying or
teleporting in. Of course your villian should be able to over come this
easily because after all it is her/his room.

[WhoAmI]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:52:16 -0500, freakybaby

Post by freakybaby

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Have this baddie, help the party onto the right path.

That, coincidentally is the function this baddie is supposed to
serve! They are supposed to approach the baddie and ask
questions. The baddie will then demand they get something for
him and will divulge the information they need as a reward - the
name of the perp!!

You must have sixth sense !!

Post by freakybaby
In fact let this
villian be the helpful baddie to lure them into some plot of this her/his.
Possibly have the villian send the PCs out to retreive some object that aids
the greater good, and have the PCs deliver said object to a force of of the
greater good so that force of good can use the object to defeat an advertsary
of this Villian they have the wrong idea about. Do all this to lure the PCs
into twisted plot of this villian. And if the PCs take the bait, keep doling
out the rope until the PCs are so tangled up in a web of their own making
(well mostly).

Well I wasn't going to go that far. The baddie only wants
something particular.

Post by freakybaby
some healing (scrolls, wands or potions),
useful information
from time to time a few useful items (have them craft in such a fashion,they
do not work against your villian). Perhaps there is an additional secert
command word that shuts the item down until a different command word re-
activates the items,

I like the way you think but I've already mapped this plot out.
I just vacillate as to how much I should be prepared to rewrite
it half-way through. Part of me says - that's cheating the PCs.
The other half says - rewriting it will produce a more
interesting adventure, but for whom (me or them) I can't be
sure.

Post by freakybaby
possible safe hiding places if the PCs need a place to hide out,
or a "safe room" for PCs to talk freely without the fear of others scrying or
teleporting in. Of course your villian should be able to over come this
easily because after all it is her/his room.

[Kaos]

Post by WhoAmI
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:52:16 -0500, freakybaby

Post by freakybaby

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Have this baddie, help the party onto the right path.

That, coincidentally is the function this baddie is supposed to
serve! They are supposed to approach the baddie and ask
questions. The baddie will then demand they get something for
him and will divulge the information they need as a reward - the
name of the perp!!
You must have sixth sense !!

Ahh. In that case, he's got some reason to smack them down but let
them live.

Post by WhoAmI
I like the way you think but I've already mapped this plot out.
I just vacillate as to how much I should be prepared to rewrite
it half-way through.

They confront him. Presuming it doesn't turn to blows immediately, he
flat out tells them they're fools barking up the wrong tree. Try to
give him something to back up his words - evidence he can use to prove
it's not him without tipping his hand.

If they still don't buy it, or it comes to blows anyway, what comes
next depends on how they fare.

1) If they beat him, they find in his loot even stronger evidence that
both proves it's not him and provides a new 'contact' which will
reveal the true villain, which they must now quest for.

2) If he beats them, he spares their lives in exchange for them doing
the service he was originally planning for them.

[freakybaby]

Post by WhoAmI
I like the way you think but I've already mapped this plot out.
I just vacillate as to how much I should be prepared to rewrite
it half-way through. Part of me says - that's cheating the PCs.
The other half says - rewriting it will produce a more
interesting adventure, but for whom (me or them) I can't be
sure.

If you need to re-work something, there is little that can be done about
that. Players tend to have a habbit of sooner or later foiling a DM's best
laid plans for her or his story-arc. Though in re-working your plot or
parts of your over all storey, think of the events that have changed how your
villian's plans have changed by those events. Change as little as possible
if you are worried about re-write will be cheating the PCs.

From there how would this villian react to these events and what steps will
he/she have to take to salvage those plans.

Is this villlian capable of changing parts of his overall plan or are they
somehow set in stone?

Has recents events, set something(s) into motion that your villian and/or PCs
are unaware of, how will these unknown factor(s) delevope and come into play?
To the benifit of whom will these unknown factor(s) be applied? Are the
events that set them into motion reversible?

Look at all the possibilities and work them in where they fit. In short
trying growing the plot before attempting to re-write parts of it, I have
always found that method somewhat easier that way.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by WhoAmI
That, coincidentally is the function this baddie is supposed to
serve! They are supposed to approach the baddie and ask
questions. The baddie will then demand they get something for
him and will divulge the information they need as a reward - the
name of the perp!!

By all means, let the baddie beat the crap out of them and only kill them
until they surrender; does this bad guy have a different M.O. than the one
they seek? Perhaps when they get the crap beaten out of them by a cleric
instead of a fireball-casting mage they'll realize they got the wrong bad
guy...

[DragonKat2Flame]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Three first, then if they are still CLUEless, One.
-Dragonkat

[Doug Lampert]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.

You should be running the game for all the players, that includes
you. IME finding decent players is easier than finding decent
games, so the GM's enjoyment matters at least as much as the other
players since if he quits it may be that everyone has to quit.

That said, your question depends on the players. I do not mind
losing the occasional character because something went wrong,
other players do. I do mind GM's who coddle me and make sure I
can never make a mistake, others don't. I LIKE worlds that are
real enough that there are things the PC's can't do (like attack
a real badass NPC) and where there are problems they don't need
to solve or that solve themselves given time, others assume if
a potential opponent is in the game that they are SUPPOSED to
attack it.

What do your players want/expect?

What did you tell them to expect?

What has the game lead them to expect?

Post by WhoAmI
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?

Yes.

Post by WhoAmI
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.

Never.

Post by WhoAmI
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.

If there are any knowledgable allied NPC's I would try to think
of one of them for whom it would be in character to pass a
warning.

Post by WhoAmI
4) Some other thing.

I would likely discuss the situation with them out of game. There
may well be an assumption clash going on here, and those make for
bad games and can sometimes be fixed outside the game.

Would it actually ruin anyone's fun if you simply TOLD the players
(not characters) what was going on and that they were after the
wrong target, and then let the players decide when/if their characters
catch on?

DougL

[Meagain]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

If the guy is that badass he will likely have flunkies that are as
powerful or more than the party. Have the flunkies soften the PC's up
and then when the badass walks in he can end the fight decisively while
sparing everyone and the flunkies as well. He can demand an explaination
as to why they attacked and when he discovers the misunderstanding set
them straight by telling them to take the information back to so and so,
his enemy whom he mistakenly thinks the party was sent by. He
confiscates some of the more obvious weapons possibly throwing them over
a cliff, down a hole, or into a body of water.

The PC's now have the information, the name of the badasses enemy, the
name of the guy they are really looking for, and must recover their lost
items as punishment for going after the wrong man.

[David Johnston]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Well if they recklessly attack the big bad then let the chips fall
where they may. If the big bad wins then he interrogates the
survivors in such a way as to make it clear that he is not who they
are looking for, then you let them escape. If they win then in the
post slaughter cleaning up of the mess let them find out they had the
wrong stick. If they move in more cautiously, let them overhear
something that points the way back to the real perpetrator. I would
avoid changing who the perpetrator actually is.

[Marc L.]

Post by WhoAmI
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?

Yes.

[BEN]

Post by WhoAmI
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?

Yes.

Darn Tootin'! No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing
up. If they go in guns blazing, and poor Fred the Merciless is studying
chess moves in his own private home, have him KILL AS MANY OF THEM AS HE CAN
before the rest escape (some will, don't underestimate players). Maybe
they'll stop cruising round like a bunch of trigger happy american soldiers
and test the waters a little next time.

If you have Ressurection in your campaign, he might be willing to trade
goods or services for the bodies.

[Michael Cule]

Post by BEN
If you have Ressurection in your campaign, he might be willing to trade
goods or services for the bodies.

Or turn them into his Undead servants and send them after their buddies!

[Zenobia]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:53:17 +0100, Michael Cule

Post by Michael Cule

Post by BEN
If you have Ressurection in your campaign, he might be willing to trade
goods or services for the bodies.

Or turn them into his Undead servants and send them after their buddies!

Thunderin' Thunu'u. The GM's Robin me of my character again
Vorodla Man.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they were
mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

[Zenobia]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:40:26 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they were
mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

I agree with you - now isn't that a surprise for someone who
thinks the GM should be 'God'? But only a God-like GM would
change the plot or give his players extra clues to stop them
messing up. The Knutsen school of GMing would positively abhor
such behavior.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Lookie! A "players suck" elitist going after the "GMs suck"
elitist!

Elitist is nothing like my GMing.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Zenobia

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they
were mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

I agree with you - now isn't that a surprise for someone who
thinks the GM should be 'God'?

You know what they say about stopped clocks.

Post by Zenobia
But only a God-like GM would change the plot or give his players extra
clues to stop them messing up.

Incorrect. The two concepts are nearly orthogonal.

Post by Zenobia
The Knutsen school of GMing would positively abhor such behavior.

True, but there's significant middle ground between "God GM" and
"Anti-GM."

[Zenobia]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:31:45 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Zenobia

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they
were mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

I agree with you - now isn't that a surprise for someone who
thinks the GM should be 'God'?

You know what they say about stopped clocks.

Post by Zenobia
But only a God-like GM would change the plot or give his players extra
clues to stop them messing up.

Incorrect. The two concepts are nearly orthogonal.

No. I don't see it that way at all. How are these concepts
nearly orthogonal? What is the precise degree of nearly? - are
they 88 degrees or 89 degrees? Or perhaps, if you can't be so
precise, can we have it to the nearest 10 degrees? Otherwise you
could start writing meanings rather than metaphors - but that's
not so easy to bullshit with is it?

Actually my disagreement goes further. because I don't see these
as ideas ( 'concepts' ) but as practical ways of gaming - things
people just do - not so much things they think.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Zenobia
The Knutsen school of GMing would positively abhor such behavior.

True, but there's significant middle ground between "God GM" and
"Anti-GM."

Do you mean the school of
Let's-stick-a-label-on-things-then-judge-people-according-the-the-label-given-to-them
school of GMing which you belong to?

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Zenobia
But only a God-like GM would change the plot or give his players extra
clues to stop them messing up.

Incorrect. The two concepts are nearly orthogonal.

No. I don't see it that way at all. How are these concepts nearly
orthogonal? What is the precise degree of nearly? - are they 88
degrees or 89 degrees? ... Otherwise you could start writing meanings
rather than metaphors -- [irony elided]

What metaphors? "Orthogonal" also means "independently varying." I
suspect that there's some weak correlation between GM power, plot
changes, and advice, but they're orthogonal for practical purposes.

Actually my disagreement goes further. because I don't see these
as ideas ( 'concepts' ) but as practical ways of gaming --

The former does not exclude the latter.

When do you plan to address my argument instead of (incorrectly)
attacking its form?

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Zenobia
The Knutsen school of GMing would positively abhor such behavior.

True, but there's significant middle ground between "God GM" and
"Anti-GM."

Do you mean the school of Let's-stick-a-label-on-things-then-
judge-people-according-the-the-label-given-to-them school of GMing
which you belong to?

Do you mean labels like "The Knutsen school of GMing"? Shoo, hypocrite.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Post by Zenobia
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:40:26 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they were
mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

I agree with you - now isn't that a surprise for someone who
thinks the GM should be 'God'? But only a God-like GM would
change the plot or give his players extra clues to stop them
messing up.

I guess we can add this to the list of things
you know nothing about.

-Bluto

[Zenobia]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:22:29 GMT, Senator Blutarsky

Post by Senator Blutarsky

Post by Zenobia
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:40:26 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they were
mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

I agree with you - now isn't that a surprise for someone who
thinks the GM should be 'God'? But only a God-like GM would
change the plot or give his players extra clues to stop them
messing up.

I guess we can add this to the list of things
you know nothing about.

I guess you can add what?

Or was the purpose of the post simply to massage your ego by
saying

Post by Senator Blutarsky
the list of things you know nothing about.

I rather suspect that's the case.

[BEN]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing up ....

I disagree, especially if the players are inexperienced or if they were
mislead by ambiguous descriptions of the scenario.

I guess I should qualify that a bit.

In the case of being (unintentionally) misled, then that is bad GMy and
should be rectified. Even those of us behind the screen screw up.

If players are inexperienced, then there is room for giving them slack. GM's
should tell players about things that their PCs can do or would know about.
e.g. In a religous city, a player with a native PC breaks a major taboo they
were not aware of. The GM should warn the player and give them a chance to
change their action.

But inexperienced players sould be expected to show common sense - insulting
the emporer will get them executed, and if they do so they deserve it. If
they do not realise the severity of the gaffe, they will learn a valuable
lesson about ettiquette on the chopping block. Their next PC will be a
little more cautious, and if they complain about you being unfair, explain
to them that you were merely playing the emporer correctly.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by BEN
Darn Tootin'! No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing
up.

Even if their character has an advantage that specifically says the GM
should? I'm thinking of the GURPS advantage Common Sense as an example
of this.

[David Meadows]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by BEN
Darn Tootin'! No responsible GM would ever stop their players from screwing
up.

Even if their character has an advantage that specifically says the GM
should? I'm thinking of the GURPS advantage Common Sense as an example
of this.

Does the Common Sense advantage say that the GM should *force* the player to
do sensible things? There are circumstances where you want or need to
over-ride what your common sense is telling you. While it's ok for the GM to
point out that "your character is doing something stupid", it's wrong for
the GM to actively prevent the character from doing so.

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:21:22 +0100, "David Meadows"

Post by BEN

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by BEN
Darn Tootin'! No responsible GM would ever stop their players from

screwing

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by BEN
up.

Even if their character has an advantage that specifically says the GM
should? I'm thinking of the GURPS advantage Common Sense as an example
of this.

Does the Common Sense advantage say that the GM should *force* the player to
do sensible things?

Nope. It requires the GM to share his opinion that the character is
being stupid, but the player may disagree.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:21:22 +0100, "David Meadows"

Post by David Meadows

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Even if their character has an advantage that specifically says the GM
should? I'm thinking of the GURPS advantage Common Sense as an example
of this.

Does the Common Sense advantage say that the GM should *force* the player to
do sensible things? There are circumstances where you want or need to
over-ride what your common sense is telling you. While it's ok for the GM to
point out that "your character is doing something stupid", it's wrong for
the GM to actively prevent the character from doing so.

I don't class that as screwing up. That's making an informed decision
and hoping your gamble pays off.

[Brandon Blackmoor]

You could have the badass NPC hand them their asses, and then have the
NPC mock them and give them a clue to the real bad guy: "As if I would
stoop to [doing X], like a lowly [real villain clue]. Fools. It would be
a mercy for me to destroy you now, but it will be more satisfying for
your incompetence to do it for me. Come back when you are worth killing,
if you survive that long."

bblackmoor
2004-10-25

[Ken Vale]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

Ah the good old "it is getting harder so we must be going in the right
direction" meme of gaming (I blame bad published adventures and linear
computer rpgs). I had this same problem too. I beat them within an inch
of their lives (and this was Champions not D&D), made it obvious that I
could have killed them, and then let them go with a warning from the
NPC's not to go any further into the desert. Then I told them, GM to
Players "you are going the wrong way, you missed a clue" and then let
them figure out what they missed and prepared other clues in case they
missed it again.
I like Brandon Blackmoor's suggestion, and I like the idea of having
henchmen deal with the PC's and have the BBG (Big Bad Guy) enter at or
near the end of the fight and demand to know what was going on.
Ken

[David Meadows]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?

[...]

Post by WhoAmI
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.

I would probably do #3. Give them enough information to make them believe
they can't beat the NPC, or at least can't defeat him without a lot more
power, preparation, and information. (If they're still stupid enough to
charge right in -- tough. They deserve what they get.) Hopefully they will
stop and take the time to prepare properly which, depending on the campaign,
might involve quests to gain more power, or doing jobs to gain favours they
can call in to help against the bad guy, or raising money to hire
mercenaries, or whatever. While they are doing all this preparation, clues
to the identity of the real bad guy should start to unfold. Hopefully they
are smart enough to pick up the clues. But if not, then again they deserve
what they get. Don't pull any punches.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

5) tell them explicitly OOC that they are barking up the wrong tree.

[Kaos]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:49:29 GMT, Robert Scott Clark

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.
4) Some other thing.

5) tell them explicitly OOC that they are barking up the wrong tree.

That would actually be option 4.

[Jim Davies]

Post by WhoAmI
In a game I'm GMing the PCs have the completely wrong idea. Just
because they've found a baddie they've decided in their minds
that the baddie is to blame for the incident they're
investigating. Now I favour role-play - as in 'method acting'
school - so it suits me fine to have them get nowhere in the
scenario but... they may get their fingers burnt badly by
attacking this powerful badass NPC. Being a responsible GM, I
understand that I should be running the game for them not for
me.
What would you do?
1) Leave them to it?

Badass NPCs have goons. Let them bounce off the goons for a while, and
they may pick up some information in the process.

Post by WhoAmI
2) Modify the scenario on the fly - perhaps to fulfill their
expectations.

Not in any fundamental terms.

Post by WhoAmI
3) Give out more clues as to the true identity of the perp of
the incident they're investigating. Give out stronger warnings
to lure them away from the badass NPC they're threatening to
attack.

Yes. Ideally they'd find clues while they're doing what they want to
do.

Post by WhoAmI
4) Some other thing.

Depends what's possible. Here I'm assuming that the culprit and the
NPC are both humans in town with the usual social contacts and
criminal organisations. That being so, they could stir up a mob war,
in that Badass thinks that they're Culprit's goons trying to muscle in
on his operation, and (having kicked their sorry asses all over the
shop) sends them back to Culprit with a message. Or whatever.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim