[DitV] "Send 'em to Four Bridal Falls!"

[Vaxalon]

Liminaut, I don't think it's appropriate to punish the players for choosing something that you as the GM don't agree with or see as a cop-out.

[JMendes]

Ahey, :)

Heh. I don't see those as punishments at all. Rather, some could work out to be quite interesting 'towns' indeed.

Start small, maybe do nothing the first time some NPC gets sent to Bridal Falls, then do something minor next time, then escalate, escalate, escalate. :)

Sure, it's all about the players making judgement calls, but hey, the GM is a player too, isn't he?

Cheers,
J.

[Claudia Cangini]

Ahey, :)

Heh. I don't see those as punishments at all.

Well I do. It's exactly the same thing as saying "you know, guys? You made poor judgement and now I'm gonna rub your nose in it."

Rather, some could work out to be quite interesting 'towns' indeed.

Yes, the kind of Towns where the character come back after a while discovering all their work amounted to nothing and things are worse than before.
I wouldn't say this is in the spirit of the game...

Sure, it's all about the players making judgement calls, but hey, the GM is a player too, isn't he?

Cheers,
J.

Absolutely correct.
And he has the duty, exactly like all the other players, to make things the most enjoyable for everyone.

If the GM has a problem with "sending people to Bridal Falls" it would be better for everyone if he speaks out loud his mind.
Otherwise it seems to me we're on the road to illusionism.

It never ceases to surprise and amaze me how roleplayers leave as last choice the one that seems the most obvious to me: is there a problem? Let's TALK about it.
(this is not especially meant for you, J.)

[Bret Gillan]

A lot of talk, even the best intentioned talking, turns into out-of-character browbeating ("You guys aren't playing the way I want you to play") and depending on what kinds of games your players are used to being in, the players may see that as a cue to modify their behavior when their behavior may not be the problem. As in this thread, the "Send'em to Four Bridal Falls" judgment is totally within the rules and totally cool, even though I perceived it as a cop-out. Talking about this out-of-character may have been perceived as, "Uh-oh, we're making the GM mad, we'd better not do this anymore," even if that hadn't been my intention.

Talking to the players is always a good idea, but I'd rather go into such a conversation with my head on straight about the game and its rules.

[Valamir]

Yes, the kind of Towns where the character come back after a while discovering all their work amounted to nothing and things are worse than before.
I wouldn't say this is in the spirit of the game...

Actually, isn't sending the Dogs back to a town to see the result of their judgement right there in the rule book?

[Claudia Cangini]

Actually, isn't sending the Dogs back to a town to see the result of their judgement right there in the rule book?

I don't think so...
Anyway the issue has been discussed quit thoroughly here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20125.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18652.0

[Claudia Cangini]

A lot of talk, even the best intentioned talking, turns into out-of-character browbeating ("You guys aren't playing the way I want you to play") and depending on what kinds of games your players are used to being in, the players may see that as a cue to modify their behavior when their behavior may not be the problem. As in this thread, the "Send'em to Four Bridal Falls" judgment is totally within the rules and totally cool, even though I perceived it as a cop-out. Talking about this out-of-character may have been perceived as, "Uh-oh, we're making the GM mad, we'd better not do this anymore," even if that hadn't been my intention.

Talking to the players is always a good idea, but I'd rather go into such a conversation with my head on straight about the game and its rules.

Well but why should your players fear angering the GM?
If I couldn't talk openly about my tastes in gaming with my fellow players I'd feel I have a communication problem.

And I think the issue shouldn't be "You guys aren't playing the way I want you to play" but "You guys aren't playing the way I want to play".
So the question is: can we have fun together? Or are our tastes in gaming too much afar?

[Bret Gillan]

I don't disagree with any of that. But what I'm saying here is that my intention in posting here was to make sure I understood the game correctly, though, and talking to the players is unnecessary because my problem was a problem with my understanding of the rules, not a problem with our communication. "Talk to the players!" works fine as a solution if not talking to your players is the problem. My problem was misunderstanding the game and how it should be played.

[Lance D. Allen]

A furtherance on Blankshield's point...

When someone was sent back to Bridal Falls (Or Vineyard, as it was called in our slight-twist on the canon setting) in our game, it wasn't a cop-out.. It was the judgement. Our judgement was this: You are a sinner, but you can be saved. Your continued presence in this town would be harmful to it, so rather than leave your rehabilitation to the Steward as is usually the way, we will send you on to Vineyard, the center of our Faith, so that those who have been Stewards and Dogs before us can help you find your right place with the King, and allow you to return to the flock.

Sending someone to Vineyard (Bridal Falls) wasn't ever punishment. We hung people, or shot them on the spot, or declared their punishments to be carried out by the Steward and the community. Sending them on to the hub of the Faith was removing them from the town and allowing them to start anew.

Which isn't to say that it was always the wisest choice, of course. But it wasn't a punishment.

[Claudia Cangini]

I don't disagree with any of that. But what I'm saying here is that my intention in posting here was to make sure I understood the game correctly, though, and talking to the players is unnecessary because my problem was a problem with my understanding of the rules, not a problem with our communication. "Talk to the players!" works fine as a solution if not talking to your players is the problem. My problem was misunderstanding the game and how it should be played.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be uncooperative.

Actually I started posting in answer to Liminaut and not your initial message (about which I basically agree with Vincent so I've not much to add).

I didn't mean to hijack the thread. If I've given you this impression I beg your pardon.

Best!

[Liminaut]

Liminaut, I don't think it's appropriate to punish the players for choosing something that you as the GM don't agree with or see as a cop-out.

When I wrote "Think about things from the NPC's point of view" I meant that absolutely, positively, literally.  Would the character _want_ to go back to Four Bridal Falls?  In Wolfen's case, the answer is probably yes.  Bret's original post, it sounded like the character would probably not want to go back.

Given that the character doesn't want to go back to Four Bridal Falls, what are the logical outcomes of that event?  Maybe the fellow hitches a ride back east or something, or maybe something more cinematic happens.

You and Claudia have a very good point that if a second "town" like this was done in a spirit of punishing the players the game would go south very quickly.  And I can see from the language of my post (especially "see if they send somebody off to Four Bridal Falls again") that you could have thought that was my intent.  But I really was coming from a "Think about things from the NPC's point of view" perspective.

Look at it this way.  You write up a town, including "What happens if the Dogs do nothing".  The players come in, look around, ... and leave.  They do nothing.  A few months later, they decide to come back to the town.  What stage is the town in?  The original write-up or the "if the Dogs do nothing" stage?

[Vaxalon]

Read it again, Liminaut.

It doesn't say "What happens if the Dogs do nothing?"

It says "What would happen if the Dogs never came."

The Dogs came.  So the "What would happen if the Dogs never came" doesn't happen.