Help. My players. Oh god. Decisions. They should not be allowed to make them.

So, I'm running a pathfinder campaign that has a homebrew world and story built off the all of the backstories (I required at least a page to work with) of the characters in the campaign. This means, of course, that killing a character is a pretty serious deal, since it heavily changes the entire way the world is built. I'm trying REALLY hard not to kill them, but they aren't making it easy. I don't want to do things like flat out say "Are you SURE you want to do that?", when a player makes some phenomenally bad choice... but it's getting absurd. Recently they have encountered a badly wounded devil (the party has no evil characters, mind you), healed it (slightly, just so it could talk), asked it what is up to... BELIEVED EVERYTHING IT SAID... AND NOBODY MADE A SENSE MOTIVE ROLL. Now they're *helping* it. I did not plan for this level of bad ideas. What am I supposed to do with these people?! This is only one example of a series of terrible, terrible choices. They're not bad on purpose, they're really trying... but I feel like it would ruin the game to just flat out tell them they're a bunch of naive twits and handhold them for the rest of the campaign. Ideas?

Let them help him. Just before he finishes his goal have angel provide some heavenly guidance/help. For instance Movanic Deva. "Their rare visits to the Material Plane are usually to help powerful mortals when a great menace threatens to plunge an entire realm into evil."

If your players want to run a certain way, let them run that way. As the DM, I do not feel it is my job to make the players run exactly where I want them to go or do what I would do. If they make poor choices, have the world react in a reasonable way. From what it sounds like, your world has no consequences for making bad choices, so why should I stop making bad choices? If this ends up killing them, see how they react. If they don't get it, you can still take a break from the session and explain what happened out of game. Either way, as long as you are coddling them, why should they "learn"? Just my 2 cents.

I'd run with it. I don't see why helping the devil would get them killed automatically. I would think that the devil wouldn't mind having a group of gullible minions. It might take the campaign in an interesting direction. I wouldn't worry about trying to kill them or keeping them alive. Just try to run your game world in a believable manner and see if they can stay alive. (This part is pretty playstyle dependent.) PS Sense motive to detect a lie is typically a passive roll that is asked for by the GM (or rolled in secret). They might be under the metagame assumption that since no dice were rolled, the thing must have been telling the truth.

AaronJer said: So, I'm running a pathfinder campaign that has a homebrew world and story built off the all of the backstories (I required at least a page to work with) of the characters in the campaign. This means, of course, that killing a character is a pretty serious deal, since it heavily changes the entire way the world is built. I'm trying REALLY hard not to kill them, but they aren't making it easy. I don't want to do things like flat out say "Are you SURE you want to do that?", when a player makes some phenomenally bad choice... but it's getting absurd. Recently they have encountered a badly wounded devil (the party has no evil characters, mind you), healed it (slightly, just so it could talk), asked it what is up to... BELIEVED EVERYTHING IT SAID... AND NOBODY MADE A SENSE MOTIVE ROLL. Now they're *helping* it. I did not plan for this level of bad ideas. What am I supposed to do with these people?! This is only one example of a series of terrible, terrible choices. They're not bad on purpose, they're really trying... but I feel like it would ruin the game to just flat out tell them they're a bunch of naive twits and handhold them for the rest of the campaign. Ideas? You can choose to see their ideas as terrible. Or you can choose to see their ideas, as I do, as terribly fun . Some practical solutions: 1. Don't base your campaign on character backstories - base it on something you can all buy into and figure out what that is before you put pen to paper. In fact, don't ask for backstories at all. Ask the players to show you who their characters are during play, not tell you before play. If you've come up with a premise prior to play that everyone buys into, ask how their characters fit into that premise and how they know each other. 2. Don't play for stakes that you can't live with. Negotiate the stakes on a roll before you roll it and make sure everyone's clear on what it means and that, win or lose, the outcome is fun for the players (even if it sucks for the characters). 3. Don't judge the choices of the players. You present problems, they present solutions. You break their solutions into mechanics appropriate to the game system and test their solution with dice according to the rules and you do this in an impartial way. 4. When you're not sure where the players are taking a given situation, stop and ask them what they have in mind. What is their goal and intent? How can it be made fun for everyone at the table (including the DM)? What fun challenges would they like to interact with along the way? Where do they see this going, and what do they expect success or failure will look like? What you're describing, essentially, is a situation in which you are not on the same page as your players (and vice versa). That's pretty much the root cause of every problem we have at the table. So get back on the same page with them with an out-of-game conversation and then more forward from there. Good luck!

The thing is you have made assumptions about what you think it is, should be, or how it should go. If I was a PC, i'd think it was pretty cool to heal up a devil. Basically because now a Devil owes me a favor. Being that they are lawful we make an agreement, "Devil, you will help us in a significant fashion whenever we call on you as payment. One time, k?" You've set it in your mind the Devils are evil,(yeah, they are) that they should not be helped by the PCs (except you set it up as wounded, so instead of being afraid if it, they help it.) Your scenario. You created the problem. Despairing and saying players are "naive twits" that need "handholding" is and comes off as really nasty and counterproductive to being a fair and impartial DM. If I'm a player in your game, I find out you called me Naive Twit on a hugely public forum of 1000s upon 1000s of players and it's a scenario problem you designed, I'm bailing as a player and letting everyone know you're an amateur and need to get a clue. You created the scenario, you seem to be jacked off they didn't choose "We kill it." Was it the idea that you wanted them to say, "Yeah, we killed a devil?" NOW they can say, "Woo hoo, we helped a devil!" Your job, believe it or not is to now work out a plausible result from that point. - The devil might not reform, but might be a source of jobs in the future as the players go evil. - The devil could burn them thus teaching them a lesson about messing with devils. - The devil could ignore them, and have the PCs go to a good town where they are calling for help "From a devil" thus the locals think there's a big wave of devilry going on AKA free publicity for the Devil faction, and it draws the forces of good away from where the dark forces really want stuff to happen. - All sorts of other things. I know you were looking to scapegoat your players and have the rest of the DMs chime in with stuff like "Whacky players! What a bunch a idiots!" in a "woe-is-me-as-misunderstood-DM-scenario", but I'm not doing it. Own it. Revise the twits remarks in public and your mind, and figure out where you went wrong, and gain a skill level in DMing.

Don't point a gun at something you're not willing to see destroyed. In other words, if the PCs can be killed permanently, don't hinge the structural integrity of your game on them. If you don't want to kill them, don't make it anything's goal to kill them, and make it clear to the players that the game is not about killing them. Ask for their buy-in and help with this, because if they're not bought-in then in the best case they won't enjoy the game and in the worst case they'll make a deliberate effort to make you regret your choice. Show runners tend not to want to kill their characters either. Granted, in their case the characters do exactly what's expected of them, but sometimes real-life intervenes and a character has to go away. For that situation, writers have what some call "trapdoors," little back-up plans to keep the show and even the story going basically intact. Every main character on Babylon 5 had an aid or friend who could step into the main character's shoes if necessary. Han Solo was frozen in case Harrison Ford had decided he'd had enough. There are always more up-and-coming officers in Star Trek. What you need is not to block the player decisions, but to have "trapdoors" for each of their characters, and then probably trapdoors for those trapdoors. It might be too late for this game, but keep this in mind the next time you want the game heavily tied into the cast of characters. Good luck.

Honestly, the only thing you should do with them is let them go all the way with it. When my players do incomprehensibly bad decisions, I let it play out until the bitter end. They want to punch a ghost? Let them see how much good it is when their fists are going right through it! They want to firebomb the Fire Elemental? Sit back and anjoy looking at them wasting their time! They just called the Prince a questionable word for homosexual? Let the blood hunt commence! Now if you really want to make them understand that what they're doing is a collosal mistake, start dropping a few hints or have some scenarios that play out with some... questionable decisions on the part of Mr Horns 'n' Flames. I wouldn't suggest something too obvious though. Well, unless they are literally one step away from death, like "Yeah, I will lay down on that comfortable altar bathed in blood. What could possibly go wrong?"

Whatever advice you do end up taking, AaronJer, just remember that this is a game we all play in our free time and that any outcome of a decision the players make for their characters should be fun and interesting. If it is not fun and interesting for the players (even if it totally sucks for the characters), then we are wasting valuable free time on stuff that is not fun and interesting. If you're not sure how to make an outcome fun for the players regardless of success or failure, ask the players what they think and use what they give you. Failure can be loads of fun, sometimes even more than success. That said, the only thing we shouldn't be risking is anyone's fun.

I had a PC once that allowed the soul of a demon to occupy his body with the agreement that it would be released upon finding a new vessel to inhabit. Was it obvious that it could just overpower the PC and take over? Duh. Did it? It tried, every once in awhile, but my PC was already pretty high on the willpower scale, so it usually ended in stalemate. It won, once - ate quite a few points of CON - but did that stop me? No. "Woefully bad" decisions can turn out to be great story points, so long as you remain open-minded. If they're kicking doors in for potential fights, then let the fights be horribly one-sided for Benny Hill-like antics. Gets some laughs. Serious games usually turn into a joke really quick if the GM continues to look at their players like they've suffered several blows to the head in their childhood. If I get that vibe from a GM, I immediately roll a Barbarian and respond to nearly everything with "club", "axe", or "headbutt".

Pavlos S. said: Honestly, the only thing you should do with them is let them go all the way with it. When my players do incomprehensibly bad decisions, I let it play out until the bitter end. They want to punch a ghost? Let them see how much good it is when their fists are going right through it! They want to firebomb the Fire Elemental? Sit back and anjoy looking at them wasting their time! They just called the Prince a questionable word for homosexual? Let the blood hunt commence! Now if you really want to make them understand that what they're doing is a collosal mistake, start dropping a few hints or have some scenarios that play out with some... questionable decisions on the part of Mr Horns 'n' Flames. I wouldn't suggest something too obvious though. Well, unless they are literally one step away from death, like "Yeah, I will lay down on that comfortable altar bathed in blood. What could possibly go wrong?" Do other people find that their friends enjoy it when made to look foolish? "They make themselves look foolish!" That's true when they're doing something in the real world. In the game world, the effects of actions are decided by consensus. Usually that consensus is "The rules," but if someone seems to have a misunderstanding of the Rules, or any other consensus, it might make sense to let them blunder into the consensus (which they're not currently part of), but I don't see how that is going to increase trust at the table and make the consensus any more viable.

Paul U. said: Pavlos S. said: Honestly, the only thing you should do with them is let them go all the way with it. When my players do incomprehensibly bad decisions, I let it play out until the bitter end. They want to punch a ghost? Let them see how much good it is when their fists are going right through it! They want to firebomb the Fire Elemental? Sit back and anjoy looking at them wasting their time! They just called the Prince a questionable word for homosexual? Let the blood hunt commence! Now if you really want to make them understand that what they're doing is a collosal mistake, start dropping a few hints or have some scenarios that play out with some... questionable decisions on the part of Mr Horns 'n' Flames. I wouldn't suggest something too obvious though. Well, unless they are literally one step away from death, like "Yeah, I will lay down on that comfortable altar bathed in blood. What could possibly go wrong?" Do other people find that their friends enjoy it when made to look foolish? "They make themselves look foolish!" That's true when they're doing something in the real world. In the game world, the effects of actions are decided by consensus. Usually that consensus is "The rules," but if someone seems to have a misunderstanding of the Rules, or any other consensus, it might make sense to let them blunder into the consensus (which they're not currently part of), but I don't see how that is going to increase trust at the table and make the consensus any more viable. Why should I find something fun when my bad decisions end with the hand of god saving me? I am standing by that belief and it reflects in both my playstyle and GM style. If you drink from a bottle marked "POISON OF DEATH," do not look surprised when the convulsing commenses. Honestly, when I'm playing a game where there is no window of failure or making a complete fool out of myself, I quit on the spot. I expect the GM to do this to me when I'm a player and I expect my players to accept it when I'm the GM. I want the game to have consequences for whatever is happening Now let's leave it at that please. Threads tend to shift into that kind of argument very often on Off-Topic.

Why should I find something fun when my bad decisions end with the hand of god saving me? I don't know, since no one is suggesting that should occur. Honestly, when I'm playing a game where there is no window of failure or making a complete fool out of myself, I quit on the spot. I expect the GM to do this to me when I'm a player and I expect my players to accept it when I'm the GM. I want the game to have consequences for whatever is happening Of course, but not having foolish failure is not the same as having no failure. Failure can be enjoyable, but not all of it is. if you enjoy being made to look like a fool, you should be given that, or leave the game. My question is why people would assume that people enjoy being made to look like fools, or why the risk of it would lead to a fun time. In my experience, both in and out of games, making someone look foolish or just threatening to ends badly.

I'm happy to leave it at that as long as everyone understands that "interesting consequences" doesn't mean "no consequences" as Pavlos S. has just implied. There should definitely be consequences for helping out this demon or for any other action in an RPG. But those consequences should be fun and interesting to the players otherwise they are a waste of valuable play time. What is or is not fun and interesting to the players will vary as they are preferences (and thus neither objectively right nor wrong).

As others have said, I would just go with what kind of chracter you had in mind for the Devil NPC (does he have use for minions, does he maybe give them something as thanks since he is lawful and then go on his merry way destroying stuff, etc.). Its part of the world now, so roll with it :) Maybe they even want to play that way or like a story about turning evil? Or being used by evil and then revelation, hilarity ensues? Maybe chat with them about that as well as the use of sense motive (that you will never ask for it).

Never say you don't want to kill characters. Even if you don't, never, ever say it, especially not where your players can read it. Beyond that, full agreement with just about everything posted here. It's not necessarily even a bad decision, especially as a devil can actually provide them with considerable resources they'd otherwise not be able to attain quite so easily.

The Unethical Llama said: Never say you don't want to kill characters. Even if you don't, never, ever say it, especially not where your players can read it. Beyond that, full agreement with just about everything posted here. It's not necessarily even a bad decision, especially as a devil can actually provide them with considerable resources they'd otherwise not be able to attain quite so easily. Why not tell players what the stakes actually are? Honesty breeds trust, and trust makes for better games. I don't think that's a controversial stance. What happens if the players know the GM doesn't want to kill them? Do they wreck the game for themselves and the GM, or do they talk it out and find out how failure they enjoy can be a real option? I agree that it's not necessarily even a bad decision. No decision a player makes in good faith is likely to necessarily be a bad decision, because they are making it with the intention of it having a good outcome. If the only possible bad outcomes would be boring for all (or any) involved, then the players intention, or something like it, could easily be what comes about. I'm talking good faith here. No drinking poison or jumping of cliffs just to give the GM conniptions, though even those can be made interesting.

Aron, As a gm, you have more knowledge than anyone about what's really going on in your game. The players DONT have that kind of power, and because this is the internet, they have no way of watching your eyes, your face, your hands and your body language, as you tell them the narrative so you're going to lose %80 of the message between where you're sitting and where your players are. Alot of guys don't understand that and it causes some serious problems with the game, but that's the price you pay for doing tabletop over the web. I propose you don't complain about your players and allow them to be safe to make lots of mistakes and enjoy making them pay for them. (yes enjoy it) Ease up on them and I would go as far as to have this post taken down. If I found out my gm was complaining about me publicly for anyone to see it would be the last time I sat at their table.

@Headhunter - in your original response, #2 and #4 are points that I had to learn the hard way. I once let a poor DM decision (mine) kill one of my favorite characters in a game my group had been invested in for over a year. It wasn't that she shouldn't have died, it was that I didn't communicate the "obvious" risk to her player. Ultimately, my friend bailed on the campaign and I haven't played with him since. Knowing the stakes of a situation is very important. I even missed a verbal cue from that same player about how they were all getting tired of the particular scenario. But alas, I didn't take heed. Needless to say, a great campaign died the death of every other great campaign before it. I so wish I had listened back then. At any rate, I think your advice is right on track.

Bill U. said: I propose you don't complain about your players and allow them to be safe to make lots of mistakes and enjoy making them pay for them. (yes enjoy it) And find ways for them to enjoy it too, to increase their ability to be safe making lots of mistakes.

Paul U. said: The Unethical Llama said: Never say you don't want to kill characters. Even if you don't, never, ever say it, especially not where your players can read it. Beyond that, full agreement with just about everything posted here. It's not necessarily even a bad decision, especially as a devil can actually provide them with considerable resources they'd otherwise not be able to attain quite so easily. Why not tell players what the stakes actually are? Honesty breeds trust, and trust makes for better games. I don't think that's a controversial stance. What happens if the players know the GM doesn't want to kill them? Do they wreck the game for themselves and the GM, or do they talk it out and find out how failure they enjoy can be a real option? I agree that it's not necessarily even a bad decision. No decision a player makes in good faith is likely to necessarily be a bad decision, because they are making it with the intention of it having a good outcome. If the only possible bad outcomes would be boring for all (or any) involved, then the players intention, or something like it, could easily be what comes about. I'm talking good faith here. No drinking poison or jumping of cliffs just to give the GM conniptions, though even those can be made interesting. I like remaining honest with my players myself, which is pretty much exactly why I advise against fixed promises like that. They know I'm not usually out to flat out kill them, but there are only so many things you, as a GM, can do, while maintaining a freedom of choice for your players, to prevent the inevitable. Eventually, unless it's really not that kind of game*, someone is going to bite the bullet. I've also had players tell me that statements like "I'm not out to get you folks" are either suspense killers, or just seem weird to them personally, so I like to avoid putting myself, as a GM, in the potentially boring or strange corner and instead prefer a more constructive ping of player interests. You can sneak lethality in there quite easily. Examples: What do you folks expect out of this campaign? Action? Drama? Horror? Mystery? Thematically, where do your interests lay in particular? Is character creation something you enjoy or just a tedious thing best gotten over with quickly? Do you prefer epic cinematics or gritty realism? Or a mix between the two? Basically, just probing the waters without outright promising anything finitely out of character, beyond doing my best to make sure everyone has a good time, has served me a lot better than making promises I might end up having to break because IC went a way I did not see coming at all. It does that quite a bit, come to think. *(there are probably systems out there for political, superhero etc.. RP where death is a very minor occurence? I'm not sure. Probably!) On second thought, maybe the "strange" corner isn't so bad... >:-D

Rob M. said: I once let a poor DM decision (mine) kill one of my favorite characters in a game my group had been invested in for over a year. It wasn't that she shouldn't have died, it was that I didn't communicate the "obvious" risk to her player. Ultimately, my friend bailed on the campaign and I haven't played with him since. Knowing the stakes of a situation is very important. Yes, knowing the stakes and agreeing to them. But this story is interesting, because it's clearly not about there being deadly and challenging risks in the world or not, but more about GMs putting obstacles in the game and expecting the obstacle to be seen as an obstacle, not something to be engaged. The GM wants the players to run from an "obviously" impossible threat; they stand and fight and are killed. The GM wants the players to kowtow to the king, who is surrounded by menacing guards; they attack him and are killed. The GM wants the players to have to think without their weapons and puts them in a well policed town; they start punching people and are arrested. The GM wants them to sneak into and out of a dragon's lair: they try to fight the dragon and are crisped. The players are considered foolish, and deserving of their fates, despite no one having much fun playing out those fates. What if the GM just told the players what the expectations were, and got their buy-in (or their alternative suggestions)?

Bill U. said: Aron, As a gm, you have more knowledge than anyone about what's really going on in your game. The players DONT have that kind of power, and because this is the internet, they have no way of watching your eyes, your face, your hands and your body language, as you tell them the narrative so you're going to lose %80 of the message between where you're sitting and where your players are. Alot of guys don't understand that and it causes some serious problems with the game, but that's the price you pay for doing tabletop over the web. Excellent point. Rob M. said: @Headhunter - in your original response, #2 and #4 are points that I had to learn the hard way. I once let a poor DM decision (mine) kill one of my favorite characters in a game my group had been invested in for over a year. It wasn't that she shouldn't have died, it was that I didn't communicate the "obvious" risk to her player. Ultimately, my friend bailed on the campaign and I haven't played with him since. Knowing the stakes of a situation is very important. I even missed a verbal cue from that same player about how they were all getting tired of the particular scenario. But alas, I didn't take heed. Needless to say, a great campaign died the death of every other great campaign before it. I so wish I had listened back then. At any rate, I think your advice is right on track. Thanks, and thanks for the anecdotes to drive the point home. Sorry to hear about your friend in any case.

I'm a big fan of "If PCs have (or think they have) script immunity, the game has no teeth." This does not mean kill the player characters off. It does mean challenge them throw difficulties at them and let their success be measured by their enemies that they take on and best. I like plot twists and challenges of all sorts, but never just vanilla "combat-as-drama." All good points above.

Trollkin said: I know you were looking to scapegoat your players and have the rest of the DMs chime in with stuff like "Whacky players! What a bunch a idiots!" in a "woe-is-me-as-misunderstood-DM-scenario", but I'm not doing it. That's not what I want at all. I want actual thoughts on how to deal with it. I find it all completely hilarious, I'm not upset at all, but it's causing the game to stop too often. So, for everyone saying I shouldn't insult them on the internet, don't worry, they are big boys, they can handle it. We've all had good laughs about how amazingly dumb they've been so far. I should be more clear on the problem this is causing me, I guess. I know that players are likely to do things you never expected, or decide something irrelevant is incredibly important even if you never bothered to give it a name... and I try to prepare myself for that. The issue is that I can't figure out where to go with players when they do something like that, and the campaign just has to sort of stop for a while. What I was looking for was suggestions on what I even do with a story in a situation like this, because I want the campaign to continue, and I'm just sitting here dumbfounded instead of making content. So far, many people have given good suggestions (I don't want to say which ones because the players are possibly reading this), and I'm getting back on track again. Headhunter Jones said 1. Don't base your campaign on character backstories - base it on something you can all buy into and figure out what that is before you put pen to paper. In fact, don't ask for backstories at all. Ask the players to show you who their characters are during play, not tell you before play. If you've come up with a premise prior to play that everyone buys into, ask how their characters fit into that premise and how they know each other. The whole point of the story is that the players didn't want to have any idea what or who might be a bad guy or menace of some sort. They wanted a mystery, not a "There is a big problem/dragon/treasure, go fix/slay/steal it.". I see now that, in the reverse, this makes them think a devil *might* be a good guy. Basically, I've just decided to let the consequences play out. I've made it very clear that the public finding out they are associating with a devil would be drastically bad, even if the devil itself doesn't drag them into Hell. It was incredibly funny every other time they did something like this. For example, they rendered their one silver weapon useless (through no prompt of mine whatsoever, mind you) right before confronting a vampire, and the characters (not the players) were absolutely furious with each other, that was a good laugh. Mouse said: I would just go with what kind of chracter you had in mind for the Devil NPC (does he have use for minions, does he maybe give them something as thanks since he is lawful and then go on his merry way destroying stuff, etc.) That's just it, I didn't have anything in mind. The party contains mostly good characters and paladins and stuff. I am completely flabbergasted that they're even talking to it. They basically encountered the aftermath of a battle between vampires and devils, the intention was to investigate the scene, not revive the losers. I managed to wing it and make it look intentional, but when the session was over I was all "Oh, sweet Jesus, where do I go with this?!", but now I have an idea. The funniest thing about it is that the devil is terrible at lying, and it made up a really, really stupid story as to why they shouldn't kill it, and they just totally believed it even though it's very obviously just making shit up to avoid getting killed while it is disarmed, has around 1 hit point, and is completely surrounded. The only saving grace for the players is that it is just a soldier, and very bad at scheming. At least I can imagine the paladin's deity facepalming as hard as I am.

AaronJer said: That's just it, I didn't have anything in mind. The party contains mostly good characters and paladins and stuff. I am completely flabbergasted that they're even talking to it. They basically encountered the aftermath of a battle between vampires and devils, the intention was to investigate the scene, not revive the losers. I managed to wing it and make it look intentional, but when the session was over I was all "Oh, sweet Jesus, where do I go with this?!", but now I have an idea. The funniest thing about it is that the devil is terrible at lying, and it made up a really, really stupid story as to why they shouldn't kill it, and they just totally believed it even though it's very obviously just making shit up to avoid getting killed while it is disarmed, has around 1 hit point, and is completely surrounded. The only saving grace for the players is that it is just a soldier, and very bad at scheming. At least I can imagine the paladin's deity facepalming as hard as I am. That all sounds like you DID have something in mind, or at least have a lot of notions about how things and people "should" react, and you rely on those notions and are surprised when they don't pan out. You assumed they wouldn't talk to the devil or believe the devil's story, and they did. Why would the paladin's deity (or, more to the point, you) "facepalm"? You see the players as doing something wrong or stupid, but there's nothing you said that gives them any clue that they should see it that way, and if you simply decide it's not stupid and set certain undeclared details to support that decision then suddenly it's not and the players look like geniuses rather than weirdos.

AaronJer said: The whole point of the story is that the players didn't want to have any idea what or who might be a bad guy or menace of some sort. They wanted a mystery, not a "There is a big problem/dragon/treasure, go fix/slay/steal it.". I see now that, in the reverse, this makes them think a devil *might* be a good guy. Basically, I've just decided to let the consequences play out. I've made it very clear that the public finding out they are associating with a devil would be drastically bad, even if the devil itself doesn't drag them into Hell. It was incredibly funny every other time they did something like this. For example, they rendered their one silver weapon useless (through no prompt of mine whatsoever, mind you) right before confronting a vampire, and the characters (not the players) were absolutely furious with each other, that was a good laugh. To be clear, you can have a campaign that is premise-based, not based on the characters' backstories, and still contains mysteries. But that's fodder for another thread. Big surprise, I agree with Paul here. If you haven't established that the devil is incontrovertibly evil and they assume it might be a good guy, then there's nothing stopping you from just accepting their assumptions as 100% true. This devil IS a good guy and he does need their help. There are plenty of examples of this in literature, the general theme of redemption if not this thing specifically. In an AD&D 2e adventure called "The Deva Spark," a turn of events leads to a demon becoming the vessel of an angel's soul or "spark" and it begins a strange transformation and literal journey through the planes while the PCs chase and help or hinder it while it engages in internal conflict. Something similar may be going on here. Fun and interesting consequences of the PCs choices ensue. On the subject of not knowing how to handle their decisions, I would add that it's totally okay to ask your players for their ideas as to what comes next if they stump you with their choices. Chances are they have at least some notion of how it might play out or else they wouldn't have made the choice in the first place. Level with them and ask for their help, then accept what they offer and add to it. This has the effect of increasing their engagement with the game (people love their own ideas being used) and takes the burden off you.

It should be noted that in Planescape/Faerun etc., as per RAR, outsiders who change alignment due to sufficient character development also change type. So, if they, say, successfully redeem the devil, his appearence and powers as well as planar allegiance will shift accordingly. I'm unsure how it is in pathfinder, but I imagine a similar mechanic may well exist, since it's based off 3e.

I mean I didn't have anything in mind for what kind of person the devil was supposed to be. It wasn't supposed to be a person, it was supposed to be dead, it just didn't happen to quite die by totally random chance. I could have, and probably should have just fudged the numbers and killed it, given that its odds of survival, now that I have calculated them, were about 1 in 70,000. Now I'm finding ways for the incredibly lame excuse it came up with to not be killed to be at least somewhat true. It's now lying by omission instead of flat out making shit up. That'll make the players feel much less retarded later on, but probably still be hilarious. I also can't wait to see how they try to hide its giant devil wings so that they don't end up with the local army chasing them down, or if that's even occurred to them.

Headhunter Jones said: To be clear, you can have a campaign that is premise-based, not based on the characters' backstories, and still contains mysteries. But that's fodder for another thread. What I meant is that if all the players agree on the campaign's setting and story, I'd already be giving too much away for the tastes of the players. They also don't know each other's backstories except for what they have told each other or seen in game. They wanted to not know each other, or much about the world, but have a lot to explore. I share information with specific players that should already know it, and they are honorable enough not to share it outside the game, so their characters end up explaining how things work to other characters as often as I do, and they only bring it up when it's relevant. i.e., only the paladin and inquisitor recognize types of undead, and only the pixie (bless you, honeysuckle, bless your daft little pixie head) knows how fey creatures work. None of this is based on anything from 3.5 or pathfinder, either, so there is no metagaming, unless they recognize something incredibly obscure from 2e, which none of them have played.

In that case, I do have to ask: is it reasonable within the established setting and perception of the setting, if the player characters themselves cannot truly know what a devil is, for the NPCs to react in such a negative manner as alluded to above? If your NPCs, in this case, know more than the player characters, you will have to prepare a very solid "Why?".

Hmm...there is some quote that goes "all plans are great until the first shot fired." I think that holds pretty true to GMing. I'd run just run with it (as it seems you're planning on doing). Sure, you can change the world so the lie is partially true, but it isn't necessary. It would also be interesting to see how the characters react when they find out that they were totally conned. It sounds like you have some great players. I'd just focus on managing the world, sit back, and watch what your PCs do. What I mean by that is put yourself in the NPCs shoes and decide what you would do and have the reactions based on that. If they don't find out about some plot point, just advance that plotline based on what would happen if the PCs are not involved. I like your idea of playing it out. I bet the results will be interesting. I might just throw out another tidbit I came across. If you have a reckless party, the chance of TPK is pretty high. If you have a high stakes plot (meaning a lot is riding on the PCs) and they all die, it can be fun to fast forward a few years and play in the aftermath. This type of thing can be awesome. I might add, there is something particularly satisfying about running into the thing that killed the old group when you are much higher level and obliterating it with the new group.

Tree Ant said: PS Sense motive to detect a lie is typically a passive roll that is asked for by the GM (or rolled in secret). They might be under the metagame assumption that since no dice were rolled, the thing must have been telling the truth. It's a good assumption to have. If I'm not doing something which very obviously requires a roll (eg, combat) and the GM doesn't ask me for a roll, I'm going to expect to participate in some narrativist storytelling, and take everything at face value. Saying "I roll for sense motive!" every few minutes is not fun. There are some exceptions. For example, pretty much any conversation in a game of Paranoia is going to have at least one lie in it. Then again, the game is called Paranoia! Of course everyone is going to do what they can to kill you, steal your money, and put the whole blame for the incident on your clone (who is obviously commie mutant scum, and needs to be exterminated by The Computer).

Oh, no, they know what a devil is. That's one of those things that some players are already aware of. In fact, the paladin explained to everyone else exactly what a devil is. He explained that they are, at best, completely amoral, selfish and cruel... and then proceeded to heal the devil. I really just don't understand why he did that, or why everyone else was okay with it, but I know it isn't willful stupidity, that's the pixie's job. I'm not counting on players to use sense motive unless the person they are talking to is super cagey, I'm never going to prompt them to, because that's just literally telling them they are being lied to, but I think I'm not expecting much from the players to assume that an infernal fiend might not have their best interests in mind. In fact, I found it so funny that I added the white card "Believing everything the devil tells you" into my custom Cards Against Humanity deck

AaronJer said: Oh, no, they know what a devil is. That's one of those things that some players are already aware of. In fact, the paladin explained to everyone else exactly what a devil is. He explained that they are, at best, completely amoral, selfish and cruel... and then proceeded to heal the devil. I really just don't understand why he did that, or why everyone else was okay with it, but I know it isn't willful stupidity, that's the pixie's job. I'm not counting on players to use sense motive unless the person they are talking to is super cagey, I'm never going to prompt them to, because that's just literally telling them they are being lied to, but I think I'm not expecting much from the players to assume that an infernal fiend might not have their best interests in mind. In fact, I found it so funny that I added the white card "Believing everything the devil tells you" into my custom Cards Against Humanity deck I don't know why he did that either, but since we agree it's not willful stupidity, you're in a good place to find out in an honest way, without coming across as trying to talk the player out of it, or offer disincentives, what the player had in mind and then what you can do to protagonize that choice. That is, you can find what sensible risk the player thought he was taking, and then make sure it is a sensible risk. If you're counting on the players at all, you're counting on them, and probably too much. I agree with not prompting them, but not because that reveals they're being lied to. I'm personally all for revealing to the players that the characters are being lied to and then letting them use Sense Motive rolls (or any other justification, even very flimsy ones) to bring their characters onboard with that knowledge.

If I find out what they're thinking before it gets them dragged kicking and screaming into hell, I'll let you know. Three of the players have actually now split away from the other five to stay away from the devil, so they're not all insane at least. I was beginning to think they were all being controlled by some kind of hive mind overlord that was making them actively self-destructive. Also, they finally managed to get the silver weapon unstuck from the golem they accidentally attached it to, so things are falling into place falling slightly closer together.

Okay then. Well and good. A few scenarios come to mind: - The devil appearance is a mask, a cloak a curse for a good paladin or whatever your backstory was for it it's reason not to get killed. It or he was on a mission to hell. - It is a test by the PC's god to show the quality of Mercy. How that god got the devil soldier to show up is up to you. - the devil has forsaken it's allegiance to the forces of hell and does wish to repent as seen in Paul and HHJones ideas. I don't yusually go there, but redemption is a strong theme. - this seems to be a case of a frankenstein supernatural horror story, where in the end, because they friend up with this devil, they are ostracized from society and have to go somewhere else, as that devil will never be trusted, nor those with him or it. Again, i like the changed-up idea of a paladin befriending a devil. It speaks to prejudice and going against social convention and potential redemption, and all sorts of things.

If I find out what they're thinking before it gets them dragged kicking and screaming into hell, I'll let you know. You control whether or not it tries to drag them to hell, or even wants to, so that's largely up to you. Three of the players have actually now split away from the other five to stay away from the devil, so they're not all insane at least. The point I'm trying to make is that none of them are insane unless you decide they are. The don't think they're insane, so if you look at the situation the same way they do, this whole issue goes away. I was beginning to think they were all being controlled by some kind of hive mind overlord that was making them actively self-destructive. I thought you agreed that they're not being willfully stupid. Also, they finally managed to get the silver weapon unstuck from the golem they accidentally attached it to, so things are falling into place falling slightly closer together. Again, it sounds like you have something in mind for how these characters should act and proceed. You're clearly not on the same page as the players.

AaronJer said: I'm not counting on players to use sense motive unless the person they are talking to is super cagey, I'm never going to prompt them to, because that's just literally telling them they are being lied to, but I think I'm not expecting much from the players to assume that an infernal fiend might not have their best interests in mind. In fact, I found it so funny that I added the white card "Believing everything the devil tells you" into my custom Cards Against Humanity deck Have you considered just rolling in secret? That works pretty well. Especially in roll20 when you have the /gr or /w function. (With actual dice it just requires phantom rolls when nothing is happening.) I don't think you're expecting too much either. I would just have the devil act the way you think it should act, and let the dice fall where they may. I wouldn't stress about them dying or looking foolish. Characters die, and sometimes look foolish even when they make good decisions. &*^@ happens, and it happens with greater likelihood when they make bad decisions.

Have you considered just rolling in secret? That works pretty well. Especially in roll20 when you have the /gr or /w function. (With actual dice it just requires phantom rolls when nothing is happening.) "Phantom rolls" are no small thing. It's about actually trying to trick them, with decoys. It "works" by increasing the suspicion the players have of the GM which, even if it solves the "problem" of players metagaming, creates other problems. If the players don't want to metagame, they won't. If they do want to metagame, find out why. Trying to manipulate players to circumvent metagaming is something known to cause issues. I don't think you're expecting too much either. I would just have the devil act the way you think it should act, and let the dice fall where they may. I wouldn't stress about them dying or looking foolish. Characters die, and sometimes look foolish even when they make good decisions. &*^@ happens, and it happens with greater likelihood when they make bad decisions. In this case (and most other cases, particularly ones in which the players are acting in good faith) the GM decides whether or not a decision is bad. And I would not be so blase about making characters look foolish or dead. Just because it can happen doesn't mean the players would enjoy or even accept it.

Paul U. said: Have you considered just rolling in secret? That works pretty well. Especially in roll20 when you have the /gr or /w function. (With actual dice it just requires phantom rolls when nothing is happening.) "Phantom rolls" are no small thing. It's about actually trying to trick them, with decoys. It "works" by increasing the suspicion the players have of the GM which, even if it solves the "problem" of players metagaming, creates other problems. If the players don't want to metagame, they won't. If they do want to metagame, find out why. Trying to manipulate players to circumvent metagaming is something known to cause issues. Sure, if you are doing it to try to prevent metagaming, I agree, it is a bad idea. But nothing in my post suggests this. We both agree that problems with players are best handled out-of-game. When I GM, I don't do this since I tend to be pretty casual about it; I just ask them to make the roll and then they don't metagame if they roll low. But the OP already told us he doesn't want to do this. I have played in many games where everyone is a little more hardcore about reducing the amount of out-of-game knowledge available to players. It plays just fine, but fundamentally changes the feel of the game (which is good or bad depending on taste). The pros and cons of this could be its own thread, but it is no more dishonest than a writer putting a plot-twist in a book. I'm not going to bother replying to the other point since that topic has been discussed to death. I only put it in this thread for balance-of-perspective reasons.

Well, anyway, metagaming is definitely not an issue here. My players actually yell at me to shut up if I start talking about the game outside of a session so that I don't give anything away. If that leaves me on a different page then them, then I have no idea how to do anything about it. I know that the GM technically has complete control over everything that happens, but the players in this session would probably be more annoyed if I Deus Ex Machina'd them out of a certain death that is their own making than if I just let them die. I had to make one radical change in the character of the devil they rescued to make it not a guaranteed death sentence for the players to interact with it, but that was okay, because I hadn't planned on them even talking to it, and they didn't interact with it long enough to realize it had been changed. If the devil now turns out to secretly be a good guy (or even just not particularly evil) at this point, nothing could rationally explain what it has already done. More than one of my players is a published author, and the rest are all very good fiction writers in their own right. They will notice, and they will get mad, I really can't get away with much retconning even if it is in the name of keeping them alive. Basically, I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping they betray the devil before it runs out of reasons not to betray them. At the very least I have a complete control over making the signs that they should betray it really obvious.

What's wrong with just letting your players make the calls they want to make, watch the story unfold and having the world react in a reasonable way? Why do the players need to follow a certain path of action that you deemed to be optimal? Maybe they want to make a poor choice because their characters actually would do just that. Most of my characters do something horribly stupid from time to time and occasionally that gets them killed and that's fine because that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Aparantely all your players are incredible writes, so why not let them do what they want and watch what happens. If you keep trying to force people down the exact path you have in mind, they will inevitably rebel against that.

Well, anyway, metagaming is definitely not an issue here. My players actually yell at me to shut up if I start talking about the game outside of a session so that I don't give anything away. If that leaves me on a different page then them, then I have no idea how to do anything about it. What are they concerned about, when it comes to you giving things away? But, you don't have to talk to your players about the game content, just their approach to it. You seem to think that they're being goofy and stupid. I believe that to be unlikely, and that it's more likely that they just see the game and the events in it differently from you. Talk to them, in general terms, about how they see their characters and their actions. Ask them if they believe they're being suicidal or whatever it is you're assuming. If they do, fine, you're right so just enjoy it. If not, you've got a starting point to figure out what the players are really up to, and to think about how to handle that. I know that the GM technically has complete control over everything that happens, but the players in this session would probably be more annoyed if I Deus Ex Machina'd them out of a certain death that is their own making than if I just let them die. Here's the thing: there's nothing certain about death here. Sure, this situation should lead to more adventure, but there is no hard and fast rule that interacting with a devil will or should lead to certain death. It can lead to anything. I had to make one radical change in the character of the devil they rescued to make it not a guaranteed death sentence for the players to interact with it, but that was okay, because I hadn't planned on them even talking to it, and they didn't interact with it long enough to realize it had been changed. I don't follow this. Unless you had explicitly told the characters about the devil's personality, then you didn't "change" anything. The devil's personality was always what it is now. And if you haven't explicitly told them that then the devil's personality can still be whatever you want it to be. Sure, every scene the devil's in is going to establish things and narrow down the plausible fiction, but nothing is written in stone until after it's stated, and most things aren't written in stone even then. Playing as if the stuff that's in your head is how things must be is what is putting you in a corner with how you deal with the players. If the devil now turns out to secretly be a good guy (or even just not particularly evil) at this point, nothing could rationally explain what it has already done. First of all, I doubt those are the only two options. Second of all, you're the GM and you have the entire fiction at your disposal. The only time nothing can work is if you say it can't work. If you don't want anything else to work, that's one thing, but that's your choice. More than one of my players is a published author, and the rest are all very good fiction writers in their own right. They will notice, and they will get mad, I really can't get away with much retconning even if it is in the name of keeping them alive. If you haven't established a fact, then establishing some other fact isn't retconning. And what you describe is "buy-in" or lack of it. If they're really writers, then they'll know that nothing in a story is unassailably true, and that nothing works unless the audience is bought into it. On the other hand, if the audience is bought in, then almost anything can work. Star Trek is a prime example of this: it's full of atrocious holes, but its fans happily overlook them. If the players would see that death is the only entertaining option, then of course give them that. After you kill the characters, ask them honestly if they saw any other way that could have played out. Since they're writers, I bet you'll get a lot of other ideas you could have used, and it will be a shame didn't ask for those ideas in advance. Basically, I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping they betray the devil before it runs out of reasons not to betray them. At the very least I have a complete control over making the signs that they should betray it really obvious. No, you don't. You can't control how people see and interpret things. All you're doing is setting yourself up to be more baffled by these players when they don't understand what you're driving at, and to find them more and more stupid when you have to all but explain to them what's going on. But wait a second: they'd be mad if you changed an unestablished fact about the devil to save them, but they're fine with you basically telling them what to do to be saved? The only difference I see is that in the latter case, their original idea is completely nullified by your prodding them to do what you expected.

What's wrong with just letting your players make the calls they want to make, watch the story unfold and having the world react in a reasonable way? Not all reasonable way are interesting or entertaining. When it comes to roleplaying "the reasonable way" usually turns out to mean "the way that will teach the players a lesson."

the thing with RPGS are is if you give your players choices, the will choose what they thinks is best or most fun. I mean, Players don't "actually" need a "GM", there just there to be a narrator/ make sure things don't go out of hand. There only other job is to play the NPC's. Other then that, players can do whatever the frak they want as long as they got the power to do so. Let just take all these RPG video games. One of my cousin deside for one of his fable(RPG game for those who don't know)account, he was going to be a demon. Why? because that was a choice he had and he never did that before. so he did it because of that. If you didn't want the players to ally a devil, then you shouldn't of have option of "ally with devil".

double posted viva mistake oops

Stmpeng MK.1 tankman said: the thing with RPGS are is if you give your players choices, the will choose what they thinks is best or most fun. I mean, Players don't "actually" need a "GM", there just there to be a narrator/ make sure things don't go out of hand. There only other job is to play the NPC's. Other then that, players can do whatever the frak they want as long as they got the power to do so. Let just take all these RPG video games. One of my cousin deside for one of his fable(RPG game for those who don't know)account, he was going to be a demon. Why? because that was a choice he had and he never did that before. so he did it because of that. If you didn't want the players to ally a devil, then you shouldn't of have option of "ally with devil". A very good point. A response I often see to that point is "I don't have a preference, I just want there to be realistic consequences to the choices they make." But almost every time I see that, it's clear from the GM's choice of consequences (and the GM always has choices - especially if the player choices are being made in good faith - and is always the one making that choice) that the GM really does have a preference. There may be no malice in that preference, the GM may not actually prefer to present the players with an outcome they dislike, and simply want to present a "realistic" outcome, but the desire for realism, and the type and degree of realism are preferences the GM has.

AaronJer said: So, I'm running a pathfinder campaign that has a homebrew world and story built off the all of the backstories (I required at least a page to work with) of the characters in the campaign. This means, of course, that killing a character is a pretty serious deal, since it heavily changes the entire way the world is built. I'm trying REALLY hard not to kill them, but they aren't making it easy. I don't want to do things like flat out say "Are you SURE you want to do that?", when a player makes some phenomenally bad choice... but it's getting absurd. Recently they have encountered a badly wounded devil (the party has no evil characters, mind you), healed it (slightly, just so it could talk), asked it what is up to... BELIEVED EVERYTHING IT SAID... AND NOBODY MADE A SENSE MOTIVE ROLL. Now they're *helping* it. I did not plan for this level of bad ideas. What am I supposed to do with these people?! This is only one example of a series of terrible, terrible choices. They're not bad on purpose, they're really trying... but I feel like it would ruin the game to just flat out tell them they're a bunch of naive twits and handhold them for the rest of the campaign. Ideas? In the army, they told us over and over there were no bad squads, only bad squad leaders. If the party is consistently "screwing up", maybe its not all of them, maybe it's you. Try changing up what you are doing and see if it changes what they do.

kudos Daniel B.