thelevitator
Mongoose
I have recently had a bit of a revelation about my group's gaming style, and I'm curious to know what the average Conan game is like in this regard. I thought my players wanted a gritty and realistic game full of consequences for their actions, but I threw a plot twist at them Tuesday night and everyone got a little upset.
I'll try to make this as brief but concise as possible. We're playing a 3.5 campaign, but it's my bastardized attempt at more of a Sword & Sorcery game.
There are 2 metaplots in play at this point. The first is that the PC's began the game running for their lives in an orc/orog war against the humans. The other metaplot is that they accidentally unleashed a curse into the world by defiling an ancient tomb. They were unable to prevent the curse from "leaking out", but they did try and use it against the orcs by giving them the cursed treasure in the hopes of turning the tide on the war. Unfortunately, the curse grows out of control as is killing humans , orcs and orogs alike.
The party is discovered to be responsible for the curse but saves their butt in Adbar by volunteering to take the sorcerer Deridius to the tomb so that he can undo what they've done.
Here's the plot twist. Deridius has recently been bought by Trijjia, a woman scorned by the council of Adbar who is working with the orcs and orogs to topple their command of the region. The players at this point already knew about Trijjia and had foiled one of her attempts to destroy Adbar, so she had already become a recurring villain at this point. So, when Deridius hears of the PC's deeds against Trijjia, he hatches a plan to hand the party over to her. He claims to the High Council of Adbar that he can reverse the effects of the curse, and if the party is willing to escort him to the tomb, it will prove that they intended no harm and exonerate them from wrongdoing. The council eagerly agrees, because it's a win-win for them. They treat Deridius as little more than a lackey and don't really trust that the PC's were completely innocent with this curse. So they figure, send all of them to save the world. If they fail and get themselves killed, Adbar is rid of a bunch of people that they don't trust anyways. And if by some stroke of luck they succeed, the High Council is already poised to take the credit for their actions.
So, along the way, the party runs into some minor problems and Deridius realizes that the party is much more dangerous than Trijjia anticipated. So his plan changes and rather than try and take the PC's in a place of power, he is to lure them into an ambush by Trijjia.
Now for the fun part. A couple months ago, one of my players expressed that he didn't like the character class he was running and asked if he could switch characters. As it was the first time anyone had asked to change characters in more than 20 sessions I didn't see a problem with it. Well, he wanted to use a character from our tabletop group, but that was a problem, because that character was too high in level to be with the current party. So he agreed to wait until this group was experienced enough that his character wouldn't overpower them. He then had the idea that he wanted his current character, Kruug, to betray the party somehow because he thought it would be a good way to band the party together against a traitor. I told him I was working on a plot twist without going into a lot of details (the plot twist I mentioned above) and that it might be a good way to work Kruug out of the party.
So, I substituted Deridius as the traitor to be Kruug instead, thinking that this would kill two birds with one stone. It helps me accommodate a player that wanted a different character, and it gives me a plot twist to challenge the party.
So, I introduce the plot twist, and the party is ambushed by Trijjia and an veritable army of ogre mages. Kruug takes his cue and casts Colorspray on the party to affect his escape out of the deserted inn and into the awaiting arms of Trijjia. The party tries to escape, but two characters are knocked out by ogremages, while the third barely escapes with his life, getting Deridius (an NPC) killed in the process. Kruug was killed too in the fight, which was the character that the player was getting rid of.
At the end of the session, it's crickets, and feels very awkward. I then get lambasted as being "in cahoots' with one player to screw over the other players, which isn't even close to reality. They wrongly assumed that Mark and I planned this whole thing as a way to screw the party over, but they've since realized that they jumped to way too many conclusions. I had planned the plot twist of betrayal and capture before Mark came to me with the request to change characters. The original plan was to have Deridius, and NPC, as the traitor.
At first, my players tried to imply that it was the fact that Kruug was involved and they thought that the player was "in on it" from the beginning. Once I showed them that wasn't the case, the issue changed to, we were put in an unwinnable situation, where the only realy choice was capture.
Sorry for the long explanation but THIS is what I'm trying to get to. I basically found out that my players prefer an "Escape Hatch" style of game, where no matter what happens, and no matter what they do, there's always a way out of danger. I was really offended that they thought I was actually trying to screw their characters over.
The betrayal and capture was a plot point that was designed to fuel their hatred for Trijjia and give them an opportunity to get their revenge and either kill her or capture her and turn her over to Adbar, thus turning the tide on the orc war. I was stunned that my players actually thought I was putting their characters in some kind of unwinnable situation.
I've played in a ton of games where my player was captured and there was nothing I could do to avoid it. But I was always given the opportunity to escape. I just felt like after 20+ sessions of my players telling me how much fun they were having, suddenly changed because their characters were seriously challenged for the first time.
I once had a GM give me some very good advice. He said, if you want to make sure your players are having fun in your games, you must be absolutely sure that you are giving them what they want NOT what they think they want. He said that a lot of players claim they want a gritty and dangerous game, but as soon as their character is facing death, they jump up and down and accuse the GM of trying to kill them off.
I've never had to deal with this before this situation. So my really long-winded question is; what do players REALLY expect out of a Conan game? Do they truly want a gritty and dangerous game, or do they only want the illusion of danger and grit? What bothers me is that I was very up front with everyone on the type of setting and game it would be and everyone said that was what they wanted. Yet, the first time in more than 20 sessions that I put their backs against the wall, I get whaled on.
They have done nothing but compliment my GM'ing style and we've been together for almost 25 sessions, which kinda surprises me because this was my first attempt at an online group.
I'm dying to know what players who play Conan expect as far as the mortality of their characters. How in the heck do you have a grim and gritty game if the GM plays an "Escape Hatch" kind of game? How does a player in that kind of game ever know if it was their role playing and creativity that got them out of the mess, or the GM's conveniently-placed escape hatch? I think some players say they want the chance of character death, but what they really want is the illusion of the chance of character death.
I'm wondering if this "Escape Hatch" play style is a D&D thing, or if it even comes up in what's supposed to be a gritty game like Conan?
I'll try to make this as brief but concise as possible. We're playing a 3.5 campaign, but it's my bastardized attempt at more of a Sword & Sorcery game.
There are 2 metaplots in play at this point. The first is that the PC's began the game running for their lives in an orc/orog war against the humans. The other metaplot is that they accidentally unleashed a curse into the world by defiling an ancient tomb. They were unable to prevent the curse from "leaking out", but they did try and use it against the orcs by giving them the cursed treasure in the hopes of turning the tide on the war. Unfortunately, the curse grows out of control as is killing humans , orcs and orogs alike.
The party is discovered to be responsible for the curse but saves their butt in Adbar by volunteering to take the sorcerer Deridius to the tomb so that he can undo what they've done.
Here's the plot twist. Deridius has recently been bought by Trijjia, a woman scorned by the council of Adbar who is working with the orcs and orogs to topple their command of the region. The players at this point already knew about Trijjia and had foiled one of her attempts to destroy Adbar, so she had already become a recurring villain at this point. So, when Deridius hears of the PC's deeds against Trijjia, he hatches a plan to hand the party over to her. He claims to the High Council of Adbar that he can reverse the effects of the curse, and if the party is willing to escort him to the tomb, it will prove that they intended no harm and exonerate them from wrongdoing. The council eagerly agrees, because it's a win-win for them. They treat Deridius as little more than a lackey and don't really trust that the PC's were completely innocent with this curse. So they figure, send all of them to save the world. If they fail and get themselves killed, Adbar is rid of a bunch of people that they don't trust anyways. And if by some stroke of luck they succeed, the High Council is already poised to take the credit for their actions.
So, along the way, the party runs into some minor problems and Deridius realizes that the party is much more dangerous than Trijjia anticipated. So his plan changes and rather than try and take the PC's in a place of power, he is to lure them into an ambush by Trijjia.
Now for the fun part. A couple months ago, one of my players expressed that he didn't like the character class he was running and asked if he could switch characters. As it was the first time anyone had asked to change characters in more than 20 sessions I didn't see a problem with it. Well, he wanted to use a character from our tabletop group, but that was a problem, because that character was too high in level to be with the current party. So he agreed to wait until this group was experienced enough that his character wouldn't overpower them. He then had the idea that he wanted his current character, Kruug, to betray the party somehow because he thought it would be a good way to band the party together against a traitor. I told him I was working on a plot twist without going into a lot of details (the plot twist I mentioned above) and that it might be a good way to work Kruug out of the party.
So, I substituted Deridius as the traitor to be Kruug instead, thinking that this would kill two birds with one stone. It helps me accommodate a player that wanted a different character, and it gives me a plot twist to challenge the party.
So, I introduce the plot twist, and the party is ambushed by Trijjia and an veritable army of ogre mages. Kruug takes his cue and casts Colorspray on the party to affect his escape out of the deserted inn and into the awaiting arms of Trijjia. The party tries to escape, but two characters are knocked out by ogremages, while the third barely escapes with his life, getting Deridius (an NPC) killed in the process. Kruug was killed too in the fight, which was the character that the player was getting rid of.
At the end of the session, it's crickets, and feels very awkward. I then get lambasted as being "in cahoots' with one player to screw over the other players, which isn't even close to reality. They wrongly assumed that Mark and I planned this whole thing as a way to screw the party over, but they've since realized that they jumped to way too many conclusions. I had planned the plot twist of betrayal and capture before Mark came to me with the request to change characters. The original plan was to have Deridius, and NPC, as the traitor.
At first, my players tried to imply that it was the fact that Kruug was involved and they thought that the player was "in on it" from the beginning. Once I showed them that wasn't the case, the issue changed to, we were put in an unwinnable situation, where the only realy choice was capture.
Sorry for the long explanation but THIS is what I'm trying to get to. I basically found out that my players prefer an "Escape Hatch" style of game, where no matter what happens, and no matter what they do, there's always a way out of danger. I was really offended that they thought I was actually trying to screw their characters over.
The betrayal and capture was a plot point that was designed to fuel their hatred for Trijjia and give them an opportunity to get their revenge and either kill her or capture her and turn her over to Adbar, thus turning the tide on the orc war. I was stunned that my players actually thought I was putting their characters in some kind of unwinnable situation.
I've played in a ton of games where my player was captured and there was nothing I could do to avoid it. But I was always given the opportunity to escape. I just felt like after 20+ sessions of my players telling me how much fun they were having, suddenly changed because their characters were seriously challenged for the first time.
I once had a GM give me some very good advice. He said, if you want to make sure your players are having fun in your games, you must be absolutely sure that you are giving them what they want NOT what they think they want. He said that a lot of players claim they want a gritty and dangerous game, but as soon as their character is facing death, they jump up and down and accuse the GM of trying to kill them off.
I've never had to deal with this before this situation. So my really long-winded question is; what do players REALLY expect out of a Conan game? Do they truly want a gritty and dangerous game, or do they only want the illusion of danger and grit? What bothers me is that I was very up front with everyone on the type of setting and game it would be and everyone said that was what they wanted. Yet, the first time in more than 20 sessions that I put their backs against the wall, I get whaled on.
They have done nothing but compliment my GM'ing style and we've been together for almost 25 sessions, which kinda surprises me because this was my first attempt at an online group.
I'm dying to know what players who play Conan expect as far as the mortality of their characters. How in the heck do you have a grim and gritty game if the GM plays an "Escape Hatch" kind of game? How does a player in that kind of game ever know if it was their role playing and creativity that got them out of the mess, or the GM's conveniently-placed escape hatch? I think some players say they want the chance of character death, but what they really want is the illusion of the chance of character death.
I'm wondering if this "Escape Hatch" play style is a D&D thing, or if it even comes up in what's supposed to be a gritty game like Conan?