Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Czar of Jesters 04-25-04, 12:30 AM	I'm cross posting this from the DM section, I wan't to see what some players think of what hapend. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226831
adrj 04-25-04, 02:18 AM	The player was totally at fault for the death.
Korhal IV 04-25-04, 02:45 AM	Well, he mouthed off, then deliberately spurned the guy. And he was still at fault for committing (or attempting to commit) a crime. You even gave him a fair chance to get away, I assume, as the sentry probably wasn't high level. Sorry, but them's the dice.
Sir Ferdinand 04-25-04, 03:38 AM	Depends on how experienced the players were. If they're still pretty new to the game, I think you set up a bit too complex task for them. I mean, it was you who made that looting thing and forced the players to take part in, so an inexperienced player might act a bit hastely, so it wouldn't have been all his fault. But if the player was experienced, then I would say it was all his fault.
Sproik 04-25-04, 05:14 AM	I'd have to say no. He was caught in an illegal act by an official who then tried to blackmail him. It looks supsiciously like there was no chance of not being caught. For whatever reason he decided not to trust the corrupt official, and made a run for it there and then. You promptly killed the character. Unless you quite bluntly stated to the player of the character that attempting to run at that particular moment would be fatal, there was little to indicate the penalty for running would be death. I don't know how much you emphasised the risk involved in escaping the party, but it certainly seems likely that it was not evident. I strongly suspect that the player in question did not like the set up, and arbitrarily decided he was having none of it. This would be a somewhat petulant course of action for the character - but that being said, I cannot say I am surprised. They started out in a compromising position, with no way out but to serve a very powerful NPC against their will - with no alternative but death. Who would not feel railroaded? It might have been a better idea to just explain before character creation that they had all been secretly released from jail and given a stay of execution, provided they perform certain tasks - it would be a lot easier for the players to swallow if they knew where they were coming from to start with.
Black Kitten 04-25-04, 08:16 AM	Yes, he deserved to die. The actions of the leader were a logical continuation of the rogue's behaviour. He did something that made him equal to the lowest skum on earth and if the leader had killed him in the start, that would have been justified. The rogue had been doing something that scentenced him to death at the moment he was caught. He refused his possibility on life, hence was killed. If any player of mine was to do something like that, he wouldn't even been dragged back, but dumped in the local sewer for the pigs and rats.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-25-04, 08:39 AM	<channels Samuel L. Jackson> Yes he deserved to die! And I hope he burns in hell! Seriously though, it would have been better to just say that all this stuff happened off camera, they were given a stay of execution, and go on from there. One: It can be percieved as railroading. However, it is often difficult to get parties together without railroading. (and the old and overused "you all meet in a bar" and "you are all from the same village, it gets attacked" routines get, well, old) Two: Having one PC mindwhammy another during his first interaction really does not help party unity. Nor does having one set of PC's be the "jailers" for another. Setting up a scenario that does this can lead to bigger problems than railroading ever could. In the group I am playing in now we almost lost our wizard before the first combat encounter. We had to collect our paladin, and were having a little difficulty convincing him to come along. After a few mere seconds, the wizard puts the paladin to sleep. When he comes to, he is understandably angry. However, our wizard (apparently not used to anything other than getting his own way quickly) doesn't want to put up with anything other than getting past this short part of the session right now. He is thinking of casting again (but instead uses some old archiac language to confer with another party member) The paladin hears a known wizard, speaking in some mumbly tounge, and promptly whacks him over the head. Hard.
cambric 04-26-04, 11:45 AM	Is usually required at the beginning of a party getting together, that's the only time I accept a DM railroading me. What that rogue did was plain and simple: stupid . What did he hope to accomplish if he had gotten away?? :confused: Cam
Kilamar 04-26-04, 12:35 PM	It was quite obvious that the DM would not let the Rogue run off, so it was dumb to try it anyway. On the other hand the DM provided a dumb setup to begin with. Using automatic group failure as a plot device is not a good idea, but can be used if pulled of well. Threatening to kill all the characters because of theft is quite rediculous and makes the szenario not believable. Kilamar
Beamup 04-26-04, 12:37 PM	Definite railroading, but in the context of the railroad, the rogue's death was reasonable.
Black Kitten 04-26-04, 01:45 PM	I think it was exactly the right kind of railroading to get everyone together. Good work of your DM and more origional than mine. i usually have the PC's know eachother and "be good friends" when we start.
kenlas 04-26-04, 06:49 PM	Why would the rogue run away from doing dirty work from a person of power? The opertunities later on would be enormous! Blackmail of the leader, get in the guys favor and do what ever the heck he wants, steal from the palace and run away later. Rogue that runs away from doing dirty work and not taking advantage of the situation is not much of a rogue at all.
Frodo Lives 04-26-04, 11:09 PM	I don't know if it was bad railroading or not, but I vote that yes the rogue deserved to die. I play in my games that PCs don't get treated any differently than NPCs. If an NPC hireling tried to run away in that situation there wouldn't be a single member of the group moaning about how unfair it is. If it isn't unfair for an NPC why is it unfair for a PC?
Sir_Jack_Sparrow 04-27-04, 10:31 AM	I think it was a lousy railroad, and like other posters ahve suggested there are about a billion things you could have done to stop the rouge without killing him. your killing him was reasoinable in game, but out of game isuspect you were upset cause he wasent towing the line and shoveling the coal into the train. Granted its ahrd to start an adventure off, however i have always found it works infinitely better if you give the players positive incentive as opposed to negative. you had them in the situation of do this or die, whereas it might have been much better if the big bad corrupt leader had laughed at them, said you guys are pretty resourceful, tell you what im letting you go, if you want to make some real money however come see me in the morning.
Utumno 04-27-04, 04:01 PM	Killing him execution style is kinda harsh. Maybe you should have just done something nasty like have this guy's uber powerful mage cast a spell that will kill him in a week if he does not bring the chest back intact.