I finished LMOP today with my PCs as a first time DM and players. Unfortunately, they went total greed hungry and totally off RP and killed Nundro Rockseeker.
Basically, the PCs were able to convince Grundren when they rescued him to up the ante to 49% of Wave Echo earnings. At the time I didn’t think much of it as they wouldn’t be coming back to Phandalin and they rolled nat 20s. Also, I’ve been dropping hints about HOTDQ throughout the campaign. We have one PC moving to another country end of this month and so the Wave Echo was rushed here and there. When they rescued Nundro from Wave Echo cave they tried to force his hand to give them another 49% even through he said he was grateful for the rescue and his brother Grundren handles the finances. So I had Nundro walk away saying he’ll find his way back to Phandalin and one of the PCs threw a javelin and killed him. They brought his body back to Phandalin and tried to convince Grundren it was the Black Spider, which he didn’t believe. I even had Sildar walk up and notice it was a javelin wound. The PC who killed him, confessed and said that the other PCs were not involved. The PC who killed him is also the PC that is leaving. I originally was going to have him stay in Phandalin and take over as Town Master since he was the noble fighter, perfect ending, right? But now he is in jail.
Since 3/4 PCs went along with this crazy greedy bullying murder, I want to punish them but don’t know how at the moment any ideas??
I was going to transition to HOTDQ by have Sildar hire them to help transport Glasstaff to Neverwinter. I also tied in the forge of spells needing affinity stones to work which the map they found in the book showed them where the wizards hid them before the orcs decimated them in the Wave Echo Cave. So they will have some side adventures before reaching Greenest.
Any insight will be grateful. I’m still irked about how they ended the campaign today. Thanks for your time
I think you need to have an out of character, person to person, conversation with the players and discuss just how you want your campaign to go. They apparently are willing to play against type (we used to call this “anti-RPing” back when I played) and they are not taking the scenarios you put in front of them seriously. This would not be a problem except that you, the DM, want them to take these scenarios seriously. There is a disconnect between what they want and what you want. This needs to be resolved out of game first, before you make any decisions about in-game resolution. Have a polite conversation with your players explaining your expectations for your game sessions and how they are ruining it for you when they don’t take things seriously and RP appropriately for their characters. Find out what they want in a game and why they are doing this. Maybe most of them would rather play a more serious game also... or maybe not. But one way or another you need to solve it as players first, and then worry about whether there may be some in character consequences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As a DM, you let this get out of hand. Sorry, but on the face of it, that's how it looks. Nat 20's aren't a licence to do anything. But anyway. To solving the mess rather than harping about it. 1: The PC who is leaving has confessed becoming the perfect foil. Execute him for murder. Pretty straight forward. 2: You want to punish the characters in game for doing something you didn't like? No. As soon as you, as DM, start thinking about "Punishing" characters, you've lost direction. There should be no punishment, just possible consequences. And unless someone has evidence that the rest of the party was involved (speak with dead comes to mind) it seems like the perfect crime. So what real world, logical consequences would there be? 3: THE REAL PROBLEM. You (the person, the dm) don't like what your players did. You don't like the game they're playing. Like Bio said, have an out of game chat with them. There needs to be an understanding between everyone, players and DM about the game and the way it's played. Either you haven't had that, or you have and the players have moved away from what you agreed upon. You need to reset the boundaries. But this is an issue between people, and not something that you as God should transfer to their characters.
On a separate note. You're players now have possible access to a BUNCH of money eventually. So make them responsible for the debts as well. The first time they return to Phandalin in expectation of all that sweet sweet gold, Gundren hits them with a huge bill. Setting up a mine costs a lot of money. Hiring dwarves. Relocating them from their current mountain homes.,Materials. All the work involved in shoring up and restoring the existing structure before you can even THINK about mining for ore. If they don't like it, maybe Gundren offers to buy their shares back off them and absorb the debt.
@MajorPuddles you are correct and I’m definitely learning from this experience as first time DM. I have yet to establish a talk with my players but will soon. All of us kind of dove in not really knowing what to expect since we never played. That being said I think some expectations moving forward will help all of us and I may scrap HOTDQ from Phandalin if they just don’t feel like their invested in their pre-gen PCs.
I appreciate the insight and possible ways to have them fee the burden of owning 49% of the mines. Always learning and thanks again for the input.
Situations like that one are exactly what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild was created to resolve. I’d say that the party just acquired Nundro’s family as an equal partner in their 49% of the mine, defined as his family gets half of the earning and they get to split the other half of the earnings. On top of that, nothing happens in a vacuum. Word of their misdeeds are going to follow them and they’ll pay the price in numerous ways, starting with disadvantage on any diplomacy/persuasion checks where the other person has heard of what they did.
I’d tell them that since his brother was killed that he will need to spend a lot of money to get the mine running. His brother was the one who had cheaper labor and they will not work for free and he needs to hire someone to replace his brother. Tell them it’s $10,000 gold or some large amount they don’t have to get it up and running or the players could sell most or all of their share to a mining company that’s willing to pay the up front startup costs.
I think this was mentioned already, but I will reinforce the point. Your life as a DM will be much simpler if you stick to the rule that NAT 20’s only matter for combat and death saves. Even if you table rule that all NAT 20 checks succeed, it doesn’t have to mean absurd, over the top, throw out all NPC judgment success. Remember that a 20 is only for something that is “hard.” I would have put convincing the rock seekers to give up a substantial portion of their haul at least “very hard (25).”
I think if you are a very experienced DM, you don’t have to lead the story to the Tiamat module. An irresponsible party can very well run a campaign in breaking-bad style: their actions will have consequences and even if they look like have gotten away with it, everything is only going downhill.
But if you can’t run that kind of campaign, an out of game meeting is needed.
Thanks. Experienced DM, not so much, but eager to learn to provide a better gaming experience for my players, YES! I have learned much from everyone’s shared knowledge already. And I think the nat 20s is another lesson to retain and reconsider how that impacts NPCs moving forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey DMs,
I finished LMOP today with my PCs as a first time DM and players. Unfortunately, they went total greed hungry and totally off RP and killed Nundro Rockseeker.
Basically, the PCs were able to convince Grundren when they rescued him to up the ante to 49% of Wave Echo earnings. At the time I didn’t think much of it as they wouldn’t be coming back to Phandalin and they rolled nat 20s. Also, I’ve been dropping hints about HOTDQ throughout the campaign. We have one PC moving to another country end of this month and so the Wave Echo was rushed here and there. When they rescued Nundro from Wave Echo cave they tried to force his hand to give them another 49% even through he said he was grateful for the rescue and his brother Grundren handles the finances. So I had Nundro walk away saying he’ll find his way back to Phandalin and one of the PCs threw a javelin and killed him. They brought his body back to Phandalin and tried to convince Grundren it was the Black Spider, which he didn’t believe. I even had Sildar walk up and notice it was a javelin wound. The PC who killed him, confessed and said that the other PCs were not involved. The PC who killed him is also the PC that is leaving. I originally was going to have him stay in Phandalin and take over as Town Master since he was the noble fighter, perfect ending, right? But now he is in jail.
Since 3/4 PCs went along with this crazy greedy bullying murder, I want to punish them but don’t know how at the moment any ideas??
I was going to transition to HOTDQ by have Sildar hire them to help transport Glasstaff to Neverwinter. I also tied in the forge of spells needing affinity stones to work which the map they found in the book showed them where the wizards hid them before the orcs decimated them in the Wave Echo Cave. So they will have some side adventures before reaching Greenest.
Any insight will be grateful. I’m still irked about how they ended the campaign today. Thanks for your time
I think you need to have an out of character, person to person, conversation with the players and discuss just how you want your campaign to go. They apparently are willing to play against type (we used to call this “anti-RPing” back when I played) and they are not taking the scenarios you put in front of them seriously. This would not be a problem except that you, the DM, want them to take these scenarios seriously. There is a disconnect between what they want and what you want. This needs to be resolved out of game first, before you make any decisions about in-game resolution. Have a polite conversation with your players explaining your expectations for your game sessions and how they are ruining it for you when they don’t take things seriously and RP appropriately for their characters. Find out what they want in a game and why they are doing this. Maybe most of them would rather play a more serious game also... or maybe not. But one way or another you need to solve it as players first, and then worry about whether there may be some in character consequences.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Very well put and appreciate the sound advice.
As a DM, you let this get out of hand. Sorry, but on the face of it, that's how it looks. Nat 20's aren't a licence to do anything. But anyway. To solving the mess rather than harping about it.
1: The PC who is leaving has confessed becoming the perfect foil. Execute him for murder. Pretty straight forward.
2: You want to punish the characters in game for doing something you didn't like? No. As soon as you, as DM, start thinking about "Punishing" characters, you've lost direction. There should be no punishment, just possible consequences. And unless someone has evidence that the rest of the party was involved (speak with dead comes to mind) it seems like the perfect crime. So what real world, logical consequences would there be?
3: THE REAL PROBLEM. You (the person, the dm) don't like what your players did. You don't like the game they're playing. Like Bio said, have an out of game chat with them. There needs to be an understanding between everyone, players and DM about the game and the way it's played. Either you haven't had that, or you have and the players have moved away from what you agreed upon. You need to reset the boundaries. But this is an issue between people, and not something that you as God should transfer to their characters.
On a separate note. You're players now have possible access to a BUNCH of money eventually. So make them responsible for the debts as well. The first time they return to Phandalin in expectation of all that sweet sweet gold, Gundren hits them with a huge bill. Setting up a mine costs a lot of money. Hiring dwarves. Relocating them from their current mountain homes.,Materials. All the work involved in shoring up and restoring the existing structure before you can even THINK about mining for ore. If they don't like it, maybe Gundren offers to buy their shares back off them and absorb the debt.
@MajorPuddles you are correct and I’m definitely learning from this experience as first time DM. I have yet to establish a talk with my players but will soon. All of us kind of dove in not really knowing what to expect since we never played. That being said I think some expectations moving forward will help all of us and I may scrap HOTDQ from Phandalin if they just don’t feel like their invested in their pre-gen PCs.
I appreciate the insight and possible ways to have them fee the burden of owning 49% of the mines. Always learning and thanks again for the input.
Situations like that one are exactly what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild was created to resolve. I’d say that the party just acquired Nundro’s family as an equal partner in their 49% of the mine, defined as his family gets half of the earning and they get to split the other half of the earnings. On top of that, nothing happens in a vacuum. Word of their misdeeds are going to follow them and they’ll pay the price in numerous ways, starting with disadvantage on any diplomacy/persuasion checks where the other person has heard of what they did.
Professional computer geek
I’d tell them that since his brother was killed that he will need to spend a lot of money to get the mine running. His brother was the one who had cheaper labor and they will not work for free and he needs to hire someone to replace his brother. Tell them it’s $10,000 gold or some large amount they don’t have to get it up and running or the players could sell most or all of their share to a mining company that’s willing to pay the up front startup costs.
I think this was mentioned already, but I will reinforce the point. Your life as a DM will be much simpler if you stick to the rule that NAT 20’s only matter for combat and death saves. Even if you table rule that all NAT 20 checks succeed, it doesn’t have to mean absurd, over the top, throw out all NPC judgment success. Remember that a 20 is only for something that is “hard.” I would have put convincing the rock seekers to give up a substantial portion of their haul at least “very hard (25).”
I think if you are a very experienced DM, you don’t have to lead the story to the Tiamat module. An irresponsible party can very well run a campaign in breaking-bad style: their actions will have consequences and even if they look like have gotten away with it, everything is only going downhill.
But if you can’t run that kind of campaign, an out of game meeting is needed.
Thanks. Experienced DM, not so much, but eager to learn to provide a better gaming experience for my players, YES! I have learned much from everyone’s shared knowledge already. And I think the nat 20s is another lesson to retain and reconsider how that impacts NPCs moving forward.