Did I railroad?

[Majestic7]

That's another thing, they countered being sold into slavery with murder. That's like countering a slap to the face with a hammer to the knee caps. That's more than self defense to me. Hell, they killed off survivors lying broken on the ground after the battle! In the states there is a law about that. It's called necessary force: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1470/Justification-Self-Defense-Necessary-force.html

Well, you really shouldn't mix modern notions with pseudo-medieval world. Medieval justice - and justice systems in general close to the modern times - really mainly only fined or executed people as a punishment. Likewise the attitudes towards lethal force were much more liberal. I don't really know if concept of "self-defense" really existed in medieval times or if it was just plain out murder if you happened to kill someone, even if he attacked you first. However, the concept about sanctity of home has a very long history. If someone broke in to your home and you met him with axe to the skull, that was usually fine and okay since he was breaking the sanctity of your home. Many of the oldest surviving laws from Europe after the fall of Rome say this in one way or another.

Yeah, just rambling aimlessly, nothing about this has really any relevance to the topic. Anyway, in these case, it would be very plausible for the authorities see the characters as murderers and bandits, especially as they resisted the arrest.

 

[Paladin]

You really are a paladin, aren't you?

:wink:

The guy who played the cimmerian barbarian who rushed out and was killed has been with me for over 4 years and 80 sessions. Over that time he's seen more than 10 PCs killed b/c they did something stupid (including one tpk) and a handful more who were just unlucky. He should have known better. I think he did, b/c he never said 1 word of complaint and cheerfully created a new character. The complainer has been with me only 5 or 6 months, and maybe 10 or 12 sessions. He played the pict shaman who was the second guy to resist arrest, but lived. He's a munchkin who's used to power gaming and league play. The other two, who were quiet, have played with me 2 months and 8 years respectively.

In that case, I have less mercy for them.

Out of curiousity how do you handle the new PCs? Do they restart at the same level XP, reset to level 1, suffer an XP penalty, other?

I probably should have gave them at least some warning. From time to time I will let PCs bury themselves, but it's good practice to drop hints that what they are doing could turn out bad. If they balk afterward, at the very least you've gained the right to say "Hey, I gave you warnings here and here. It's not my fault you chose to ignore them."

That echos my feelings.

Concerning public flailings: To my knowledge the players do not visit this forum. At the very least, their identities have been protected. No one here knows who they are, nor do my email friends.

True. But identity need not be revealed to get your feelings hurt or spread strife/animosity amongst a gaming group.

Honestly, I have to hand it to you. I fully expected to be flamed myself when I opened the thread this morning. The civil discussion/counter to my points was refreshing. I appreciate it.

 

[Anonymous]

Just out of curiosity more than anything what were their alignments?

 

[Style]

Out of curiousity how do you handle the new PCs? Do they restart at the same level XP, reset to level 1, suffer an XP penalty, other?

Per the Savage Worlds rules, new characters created because an old character died start with half the xp of the killed character. There is nothing in the rules (that I know of) for characters who are new because you have a new player. My standard has always been you start with xp equal to the current lowest total in the party.

Honestly, I have to hand it to you. I fully expected to be flamed myself when I opened the thread this morning. The civil discussion/counter to my points was refreshing. I appreciate it.

Don't mention it. I don't come to message boards to argue. That is an exercise in futility. This article sums it up nicely (foul language warning): http://www.jaypinkerton.com/blog/archives/001160.html

(If you enjoyed that article, like to poke fun at the bible, and don't take religion too seriously, Jay Pinkerton's Back of the Bible articles are priceless: http://www.jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html )

Well, you really shouldn't mix modern notions with pseudo-medieval world. Medieval justice - and justice systems in general close to the modern times

Agreed. I wasn't trying to use modern law in my game, I was just (poorly) stating that slitting throats in the night to avoid working in a salt mine doesn't seem like self defense, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Style]

Just out of curiosity more than anything what were their alignments?

There are no alignments in Savage Worlds. Personally, I don't think the concept fits well in any sword and sorcery game, regardless of system.

 

[Majestic7]

Just out of curiosity more than anything what were their alignments?

There are no alignments in Savage Worlds. Personally, I don't think the concept fits well in any sword and sorcery game, regardless of system.

I don't think they fit in to ANY game. I've always hated alingments with a passion and the black & white abstraction they provide. Even in a game world which is really black and white regarding good and evil there are better ways to represent it than alignments. Especially as spells like Detect Evil and the like can be quite ridicilous.

 

[Krushnak]

I know amongst the norse they had a veiw that if the person died with a weapon in hand then it wasnt murder, but you probably would still have to pay blood money to the deceased's family if you cant get enough witnesses to say he attacked you unprovoked.

Anyway they didnt have to kill anyone, they could have just buggered off in the night instead they decided to murder and steal and payed the consequences for it. and if they really didnt want to leave hadramas alone they could have a been a bit smarter about it and ousted him as a sorceror or whatever else they want to frame him for, or simply murdered him in his home then buggered off again.

haha cloven i still remember about that silly pitfighter, classic example of what not to do.

 

[bradius]

Not railroading.

It appears your players don't have a healthy dose of paranoia and fear that tends to keep PC's alive. I suppose this could be thier wake-up call.

Remember that the PLAYERS are, for the most part, civilized, soft, pampered denizens of the most prosperous societies in history. Not hard-bitten barbarians, warriors... of the cruel and deadly Hyborian age. The PC's are denizens of that world.

What I do, as GM, on occassion, is if I note the Players are doing something very foolish, to have the characters make a wisdom check. If they succeed, I give them a hint that what they plan to do is dumb. I'm sure that, even if they fail the check, the fact that I had them roll for it means something they're planning or doing is silly.

 

[Scorpion13]

Not railroading.

It appears your players don't have a healthy dose of paranoia and fear that tends to keep PC's alive. I suppose this could be thier wake-up call.

Remember that the PLAYERS are, for the most part, civilized, soft, pampered denizens of the most prosperous societies in history. Not hard-bitten barbarians, warriors... of the cruel and deadly Hyborian age. The PC's are denizens of that world.

What I do, as GM, on occassion, is if I note the Players are doing something very foolish, to have the characters make a wisdom check. If they succeed, I give them a hint that what they plan to do is dumb. I'm sure that, even if they fail the check, the fact that I had them roll for it means something they're planning or doing is silly.

Seconded. I do this every once in a while for players who arent well verse in Conan and The Hyborian Age. The ones that are usually know the score, the ones who only played DnD sometimes need a little nudging before theyre disemboweled corpse is hanging from a Turanian gibbet.

 

[Style]

I've since talked to one of the players who was quiet at the session, and after some prodding from me he claimed that I railroaded them b/c I put them in a situation where their only options were to be taken advantage of or to commit murder. I told him that if he felt those were his only options that it was he who was setting limitations, not I. With out even trying I can think of 5 different options they had to come out of the situation with out resorting to slitting throats in the night.

After I told him this, he said "But what about after we'd committed the murders? At that point, we had no options. No matter what we did we'd have been hunted down and found guilty." My reply: "You can't make that statement. The option you chose led to you being hunted down by the law, but you don't know that all other options would have led to the same result. I can assure you that you had options that would not have led to your capture. You chose to drive a slow moving stolen caravan down main roads into the heart of the lands where you just committed major crimes. Think about that. Do you really think that was the best option you had available?"

The whole thing reeked of a whiney child throwing a tantrum, just as the complainer during the session had. I wanted to tell him to grow up, and "Don't give me shit because you made stupid choices" but he was upset, so I chose my words carefully.

 

[Krushnak]

"But what about after we'd committed the murders? At that point, we had no options. No matter what we did we'd have been hunted down and found guilty."

"Why should I have to suffer the consequences for my bad choices?"

 

[Style]

"But what about after we'd committed the murders? At that point, we had no options. No matter what we did we'd have been hunted down and found guilty."

"Why should I have to suffer the consequences for my bad choices?"

lol.


Another email from a friend:

No railroad here. To me this is stellar GMing, the smart bad guys use their resources effectively and the world pulls no punches. It's also excellent GMing as the GM kept the perspective of what the NPCs actaully say and the logical conclusions of that observation, not what the GM knew to be true.

To me the PCs failed to ask themselves WWCD (What would Conan do?) Probably after freeing the slaves Conan would have got off the road and headed overland, to maybe better avoid the bandits and any friends of the merchant who got away. Freeing the slaves may have opened up some gratitude (connection to local tribe maybe) and certainly made them harder to track or catch.

Later, I told Mike how the player had accused me of enjoying watching the players suffer.

I hate it when my players don't succeed. Does that mean I put them in a sand box, where all the sharp pointy things have been removed, and they can't hurt themselves? No. If there is no risk, then the reward is cheapened. If there is no realism, If the players feel they can do what ever they want with out consequence, the stories just become silly, and the overall experience is lessened.

Agreed. Sandbox mentality here. Instead of facing the possibility that they are not as creative or ingenious as they might like to think they blame the GM. The scene Style described sounds very much like Conan, a world where civilized dogs can stand behind false words. That rocks.

 

[Sutek]

The next time a player or anyone else tells you "sorcerers suck" or "scholars are wussies"...tell this story.

Sheesh. Ever heard of the "set the former slaves free" plan?

Nice, well executed plot, man. I think I might use it myself...

 

[Diabolus]

You railroaded when you decided to make it a hundred knights.

A smaller "anti-bandit force" would have served just as well and still give the characters the quandary of dealing with being labeled as criminals and whether to attempt to clear their names or choose the option to become outright outlaws by attacking the law. That could escalate into the larger war parties.

When I ran Slaver's Caravan, Hadramas tormented the PCs for many many levels after they fled his camp and he was nothing more than an Expert with money and connections. There's nothing wrong with sic-ing the authorities on players, but I think a heavily armored military unit was just a bit overkill.

 

[Style]

You railroaded when you decided to make it a hundred knights.

Here's a copy/paste directly from an email I sent to the players:

"Railroading is lack of options, or where all options lead to the same result. This was not the case. For example, after being warned of betrayal by Jonas, there were many options besides slitting throats in the night. (Which by the way is in no way self defense, sorry.) After committing the murders, there were many options other than driving a slow moving stolen caravan into the heart of the country where the crimes were committed. When the squadron of knights were spotted on the horizon, there were options besides pulling over and letting them surround you. The only point that there were no options for the characters was when they were surrounded by the knights. At that point, they were going to either be killed or arrested, and they had no way out. Admittedly, I didn't have to have Hadramas return with such a big stick, with numbers that were unbeatable by the PCs; however, I don't feel bad about doing this. I didn't force the PCs to take a slow moving stolen caravan into the heart of the land they were wanted in. The squadron of knights were a part of the world. They were hunting for mercenaries in the area, regardless of what decision the PCs made on the caravan's return trip. They were not made up after the fact to railroad the PCs. And it in no way killed the story. In fact, I feel we have a good Conan story going right now."

You're right in that 100 knights was overkill, but 100 armed and armored men is perfectly reasonable for hunting down bandits. In fact, I believe that's the exact number the Zamorian government sent out to bring down the bandits in Conan the Invincible. They weren't all knights, just an officer or two, but there were 100 of them.

Regardless, if the PCs are surrounded by 100 armed and armored soldiers or 100 armed and armored knights, the end result was the same: they either get arrested or die resisting.

Since 100 armed and armored soldiers is a completely legitimate response from the Argossean government, and the PCs had no chance against it, it's small quibble to complain that they were knights instead of soldiers. At least in my mind.

 

[Style]

The next time a player or anyone else tells you "sorcerers suck" or "scholars are wussies"...tell this story.

I use the Savage Worlds rule system. It may not be a fair comparison. Although players complain about magic users getting the short end of the stick in SW too (relative to D&D).

Nice, well executed plot, man. I think I might use it myself...

Thanks! Other than the player back lash, I'm pretty pleased with it. Plus, it leads nicely into DDA1, which I'm starting tonight.

 

[Diabolus]

When the squadron of knights were spotted on the horizon, there were options besides pulling over and letting them surround you. The only point that there were no options for the characters was when they were surrounded by the knights. At that point, they were going to either be killed or arrested, and they had no way out.

Like? What were thier options?

Admittedly, I didn't have to have Hadramas return with such a big stick, with numbers that were unbeatable by the PCs

Ding Ding Ding

Regardless, if the PCs are surrounded by 100 armed and armored soldiers or 100 armed and armored knights, the end result was the same: they either get arrested or die resisting.

What did you think would happen once you unleashed a force the players could never beat on them? Was the hope that they would try to run away from the guy that can find them as a bird or with divinitions and has a throng of mailed knights at his beck and call?

I'm not saying it was wrong, heck, railroading is a good storytelling technique, if you have a great idea about the characters being slaves and having to plot their escape (say from the arena as mentioned earlier), they have to lose their free status somehow - you railroad them to that event.

But it was a railroad. Sure the events and character choices up to the point that you brought out the military unit were not, but once you played that card, it was a trump card.

 

[Style]

When the squadron of knights were spotted on the horizon, there were options besides pulling over and letting them surround you. The only point that there were no options for the characters was when they were surrounded by the knights. At that point, they were going to either be killed or arrested, and they had no way out.

Like? What were thier options?

They had the option to run. A few men on horses do have the ability to get away from a large group of men on horses, as they can more quickly traverse the wilds than a large force.

Admittedly, their only options at that point where to either run, or stay and get arrested, but that is the consequence of their actions. They committed mass murder and robbery, in front of many witnesses, and then just went about their business like nothing had changed.

Go across the street and blow your neighbors brains out. Be sure to do it in front of a bunch of witnesses, and make sure it's very clear it was not self defense. If you can do it while they're sleeping, that would really be good. At that point, do you have options? Sure. Are they limited to running, hiding, or getting arrested? Yes; however, it is the consequence of your actions that led to your limited options. No one forced you to kill your neighbor.

OK, you kill your neighbor in front of witnesses, and decide to act like nothing has changed. You go back to your house and sit on the couch. You hear a police siren in the distance. At that point, do you have options? Yes, you can still choose to run.

It's a matter of there being realistic consequences for actions. If the DM doesn't create consequences for PC actions, they're not doing their jobs.

What did you think would happen once you unleashed a force the players could never beat on them? Was the hope that they would try to run away from the guy that can find them as a bird or with divinitions and has a throng of mailed knights at his beck and call?

The knights were not at his beck and call. They would have only followed Hadramas so far. Certainly not beyond the borders of Argos.

If faced with an unbeatable force, yes, the hope is you're smart enough to run. It's called living to fight another day.

As far as beating an enemy who has polymorph and divinations goes, you do that the same way role-players have been doing it for 30 years. After all, it's pretty common for a party of PCs to have an enemy with those two resources available. It's the players' jobs to be creative and come up with a way to overcome their foes.

I'm not saying it was wrong, heck, railroading is a good storytelling technique, if you have a great idea about the characters being slaves and having to plot their escape (say from the arena as mentioned earlier), they have to lose their free status somehow - you railroad them to that event.

I didn't care if the PCs became gladiators. If we never made it to DDA1, that was fine with me. I had the module ready in the event that they chose a path leading to it, but I was perfectly willing to discard it and run a different adventure had they made other choices. I had actually brought three different modules with me that night, as I did not know which path the players would choose, and had no intention of forcing them down one.

it was a railroad. Sure the events and character choices up to the point that you brought out the military unit were not, but once you played that card, it was a trump card.

I have never GM'ed a world where there was nothing in it the PCs can't beat. That's complete sandbox mentality if the PCs can do whatever they want, and at no point encounter something they can't overcome with force. Even Conan couldn't defeat everything he faced. Even Conan had to run away. If you run a realistic world, there will be things within the PCs can not defeat.

Putting an unbeatable force into play is NOT railroading. If you were king, would you send a force to stop bandits that you think COULD be defeated? If so, why? You want to stop bandits, you send something that can take care of it. 100 armed men is a reasonable size for a force to deal with bandits, with Conan the Invincible giving the number validity. The PCs put themselves in the position of being bandits, and there are consequences for those actions.

At some point, after a slew of poor choices, the characters must be held responsible. The PCs put their heads in a noose, and then jumped off the gibbet. At that point, I saw little reason not to let them hang.

 

[Majestic7]

A shame about those lost posts, this thread lost many as well. However, I really don't think what Diabolus talks about fulfills definitions of railroading. Railroading means, at least in my ears, forcing the players to go to a certain place, do something in a certain way or end in a certain conclusion. Sending a hundred horsemen against the players is not railroading. It might be being unfair to them, especially if those hundred horsemen are not plausible in the situation, but it is not railroading as long as they could have avoided those hundred horsemen if they had wanted to. Thus what Style described here was definetely not railroading. In this situation, according to the limited information based on these posts, those hundred riders don't seem too unplausible either. Only thing that might be slightly unplausible is to have a powerful sorcerer waste his time at petty slave scams, but maybe there are some good explanations for that as well?

Anyway, as a player, I'd rather enjoy to play in a group with a GM who would make the world really react to the actions players take - to remind that at least in the civilized world, you can't just do anything you want without it coming back to haunt you. So I think what Style did was just good gamemastering, not railroading.

 

[Style]

A shame about those lost posts, this thread lost many as well.

Are they officially gone forever?

Only thing that might be slightly unplausible is to have a powerful sorcerer waste his time at petty slave scams, but maybe there are some good explanations for that as well?

He's actually not tremendously powerful. Keep in mind it's a different rule system. If you do the conversion, he's the equivalent of a 3rd level Conan D20 character. The PCs are the equivalent of first level characters.

His only motivation for the slave scam is greed. Is that plausible for a low level sorcerer/merchant? Certainly plausible for a pure merchant. Maybe not so much for a sorcerer in Howard's Hyborian age.

Speaking of greedy magic users, the guy doing all the complaining about railroading is playing a Pict shaman. If you're familiar with Savage Worlds, his character has greed as a major hindrance. He's taking greed to new extremes. The other PCs were living it up, and all bought whores. That was too pricey for him, so he bought a hot meal for a smelly homeless woman in exchange for sex. I couldn't make this stuff up.