Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Neonivek]

but if it goes beyond consequences and into retribution, you are abusing your position as DM.

DM's should avoid consequences in general anyhow. As they railroad the party

I don't personally believe this... my experiences though tell me that players HATE consequences.

They also hate responsibility and connections.

---

Ok more seriously. It is how you present things.

Trust me: Even the lightest punishment will come off as vindictive if not handled well.

[Jimmy]

I support actions having consequences.

For example, in my current game an alchemist was offering a thousand gold to every person who accepted an experimental brew he'd created. Of course two of the players jumped at the offer of a thousand gold. Each day they now have to roll a Fortitude save, which only a natural 20 can cure them of the effects, and if they fail to cure themselves, a random symptom occurs, with a 25% chance it causes a detrimental effect.

Plus, it turns out the alchemist in question robbed the alchemist's guild to fund his unlicensed research project, so now the group has gained enemies within the guild. Seriously, if you get told the gnome NPC is named Tanstaafl, you should really take the hint and think twice about making easy money.

[Criptfeind]

roll a Fortitude save, which only a natural 20 can cure them of the effects

Not really a fort save then is it? Unless they both happen to have the same fort I guess?

[Jimmy]

There's specific abilities that allow you to reroll saving throws which couldn't be used if you were to make it a straight percentile dice roll, so that's specifically why I made it a Fortitude save. Plus there's always the option to choose to fail the saving throw if they actually like having the effects, which are mostly beneficial. Some of the nicer ones include invisibility, resist energy 30 or a +2 alchemical bonus to stats.

[Neonivek]

I support actions having consequences.

For example, in my current game an alchemist was offering a thousand gold to every person who accepted an experimental brew he'd created. Of course two of the players jumped at the offer of a thousand gold. Each day they now have to roll a Fortitude save, which only a natural 20 can cure them of the effects, and if they fail to cure themselves, a random symptom occurs, with a 25% chance it causes a detrimental effect.

Plus, it turns out the alchemist in question robbed the alchemist's guild to fund his unlicensed research project, so now the group has gained enemies within the guild. Seriously, if you get told the gnome NPC is named Tanstaafl, you should really take the hint and think twice about making easy money.

That is kind of not REALLY a consequence... at least not yet.

Well unless that guild was giving you lots and lots of money and now stopped.

A consequence has to effect your normal lives somehow. Even if it is as lightly has losing 1000 gold.

[SOLDIER First]

ok neon

[scriver]

How ie it not a consequence? What is a consequence to you?

[Harry Baldman]

I think what he means is that it's not a consequence if what you can't do anymore wasn't something you were going to do anyway. Which is a good point (in the vein of "oh no, some piece of shit I don't care about doesn't like me! whatever shall I do!"), but might be misplaced here, since a guild of alchemists is where you'll likely be getting your potions from.

I mean, they'll still sell them to you at a mischievous markup. They'll just be... a little milkier than the ones the Champions From Over There tend to have.

[Jimmy]

It's an excuse to have Bad Things^™ happen to the party. Like a party of hired enforcers with an alchemical golem raid their stronghold, or an alchemist poisoner start targeting their NPC cohorts and family. They can either seek to mend fences with the guild or take the fight to them, or ignore it and simply deal with the problems as they arise.

[kilakan]

I enjoy having actions have... effects in role playing games at the very least.  I mean, if burning down an Inn and starting a plague causes a bunch of mobsters to come after you because that inn was ran by one of their mothers then it feels like the world is alive.  If nothing happens from the things you do it feels like a poorly made RPG computer game, you know one of those ones where even though the world is being destroyed if you go back to the original town the sun is still shining and everyone says the same lines still.

[Jimmy]

Yep, I also gave my players an adventure hook early in the game when the innkeeper discovered a crate of whiskey was stolen from her storeroom. Players decided to ignore the adventure hook and run off to another location, but when they came back the next day the inn was burned down that night by a group of drunken goblins.

[kilakan]

I mean, I don't agree with the 'every time we ignore the railroad bad shit happens' scenario.  Especially the thing where you did the, hey you could roll a nat 20 and get over the effect otherwise I'm gonna fuck you up.  Like sure, drunken goblins could burn down the bar, or they could get into something with a merchant caravan, or the thefts keep happening so the bar goes out of business.  But if it's a sort of... Mass Effect thing I guess, where if we don't take care of every plot hook for everyone, everyone dies it's just as bad.

Heck, toss it up once in awhile where doing the weird things or ignoring stuff has a positive outcome.
EX:Missing princess isn't missing, she eloped with her true love.  You go out and kill the dragon, drag the princess back and she's sold off to the prince of a foreign nation she hates and it turns out you murdered her shape-shifting lover.:Not killing the dragon in this scenario would be a way better outcome.  Though sure, it means the party doesn't get hailed by the king as heroes but maybe said wizard-boyfriend helps them out in some otherway.

[Rolan7]

Though there should be some hints during the quest itself so the party doesn't kill a dragon just to get an out-of-nowhere "You were the baddies".  "You were the baddies" is good when the party didn't care to investigate, or even mechanically failed to investigate.

[Jimmy]

There's also been options for the group to accept a beheaded lich's quest to help him find his body, or more recently a quest to investigate the ruins of a necromancer's tower that was declared off-limits by royal decree. Both times the party decided not to accept the adventure due to the possibility of bad things happening. There's plenty of times when avoiding the quest results in a better outcome.

At the end of the day though, a DM's role is to create conflicts for the group. A story without conflict is a story without adventure.

[SOLDIER First]

Conflict: there is no conflict. All the races are in perfect harmony, trading and communicating peacefully. The PCs have to scour the realm for even a hint of bandits or goblin attacks.