Lessons Learned in Game Tactics and Strategy

[TheQuestionMan]

Greeting Heroephiles, thank you for all your input and suggestions from Gamers and Tactics & Strategy. After reviewing them and adding a few of my own here is what happened.

Gamers and Tactics & Strategy
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45710

The PCs came across a Sheriff and his Armsmen collecting taxes from serfs who could not pay and were handling them ruffly. Our Heroes were offended and intervened. The Sherriff and his Armsmen fought back and were easily dealt a stinging and embarrassing defeat.

The Serfs were not as pleased with the situation as the Heroes expected saying that the Sheriff was not really all that bad compared to their Liege lord
, Baron Keld.

The Heroes continued on there way and detoured wide around the Baron's Keep, but the Baron could not allow the assault on his servants to go unchallenged and dispatched Sir William and his Retainers to arrest or kill them.

Having learned from the Sheriff what the Heroes were capable of the Knight selected a battlefield and waited. When the PCs came into view he issued his lord demands. The Heroes insulted and cajoled him.

Sir William and his 20 Armsmen charged.

A few fell to Spells and Arrows and the Heroes seemed immune to Missile Fire.

The Heroes all dismounted and prepared to receive the charge. A party of four Wizards a Dwarf Axeman and a Were Panther Weapons Master broke their charge.

Then Sir Williams Armsmen attacked them on foot. A Grand Melee ensued. The Dwarf and Were Panther where engines of destruction and the Wizards no less deadly for their Spells and Skills.

[GM Note: I precalculated the [B]Damage and Hit Locations of the Armsmens Attacks. Making it close and not so to eliminate the Heroes right away.]

Finally only the PC Warriors remained and Sir William demanded their surrender or their friends will be killed. The Warriors surrendered and the PCs were taken before the Baron and fined for their actions. [Were Guild and for Attacking the Baron's Men].

They paid and left, but vengeance is the only thing on their minds now and it seems they will repay the Baron of his mercy. [These Gamers hate to lose.]

I think I have inadvertently created a monster.



What do I do now?

QM

[copeab]

What do I do now?


Don't let the players read Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

Otherwise, if they keep fighting a numerically superior foe in terrain that lets the foe use that superiority to full effect, plus fight at a place and time of the enemy's choosing, they will keep getting beaten.

[OddHat]

What do I do now?


Hm.

So, did the PCs kill any of the Baron's men?

Because, if so, I think the main problem may be that he just fined the player characters and let them go. A dramatic escape from a dungeon or from a gallows would have been a better lesson as to the consequences of fighting someone on a battlefield they chose.

As to what to do now, I'd try to figure out why the Baron didn't just kill them. Maybe his advisor has some hidden use for the PCs, or heard a prophesy that made him pressure the Baron to keep them alive?

[CBikle]

I told you so.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd agree the Baron let them off very lightly. If they insist on going after a superior enemy with nothing evening the odds, I would not have the Baron demonstrate such mercy the second time.

If they do succeed, what does this re-attack do to their reputation? I wouldn't expect any mercy in the future from other enemies, since it's not repaid in kind by the PC's. In fact, it wouldn't seem unreasonable for other nobles to take action to eliminate these wild cards who don't play by the established rules of warfare - any one of them could be next.

Your PC's sound a lot like videogamers - NPC's exist solely to be background scenery and sources of information (the serfs), or to be killed by the PC's (the sheriff; Sir William and his men). Obviously, I don't have a ton of background to base this conclusion on, so I could be way off base.

Thinking on it, something feels wrong to me about the whole scenario, actually. How rough would the sheriff and his men be on the serfs? If the baron is significantly worse, and let the PC's off for killing his men and disrupting his tax collectors with a talking-to and a fine that was clearly well within their means, it seems unlikely the serfs have it all that tough, so attacking the sheriff and his men seems like serious overkill. The PC's would then seem to be in the wrong morallly for attacking and killing the sheriff, the baron's men, etc. Perhaps the Baron's mercy should be a tip-off that the serfs are misinformed - ie that the Sheriff was/is the real problem (corrupt, and not exercising his authority in a manner consistent with the Baron's goodwill, threatening them in the name of the Baron and pocketing the excess taxes himself).

It seems unlikely the Baron would condone injuring or killing the serfs if they legitimately could not pay their taxes, but would let the instigators of a rebellion off with a fine and a stern lecture.

[CBikle]

This whole thing started because you were (your words) "chomping at the bit to teach them a lesson" about strategy & tactics. Personally, I'm never too thrilled with games where the GM has an agenda and/or sets himself up as the player's adversary. I prefer a more neutral GM/referee.

Seems to me, the PCs tactics seemed to work out; they only lost because the Baron "threatened to kill the hostages".

That having been said, I think you can turn this around.

You could let this go on for a few more games, with the PCs sort of going the Robin Hood route and perhaps the Baron contacts/hires some of the PCs hunteds or other campaign enemies. These temporary alliances might escalate and spiral out of control which may lead to the Baron's death/dethroning/whatever.

After the dust settles, the Sean Connery-esque VIP knight guy shows up and absolves the PCs of their actions and throws the corrupt guys into the gulag or exiles them.

[CBikle]

I'd agree the Baron let them off very lightly. If they insist on going after a superior enemy with nothing evening the odds, I would not have the Baron demonstrate such mercy the second time.

If they do succeed, what does this re-attack do to their reputation? I wouldn't expect any mercy in the future from other enemies, since it's not repaid in kind by the PC's. In fact, it wouldn't seem unreasonable for other nobles to take action to eliminate these wild cards who don't play by the established rules of warfare - any one of them could be next.

Your PC's sound a lot like videogamers - NPC's exist solely to be background scenery and sources of information (the serfs), or to be killed by the PC's (the sheriff; Sir William and his men). Obviously, I don't have a ton of background to base this conclusion on, so I could be way off base.

Thinking on it, something feels wrong to me about the whole scenario, actually. How rough would the sheriff and his men be on the serfs? If the baron is significantly worse, and let the PC's off for killing his men and disrupting his tax collectors with a talking-to and a fine that was clearly well within their means, it seems unlikely the serfs have it all that tough, so attacking the sheriff and his men seems like serious overkill. The PC's would then seem to be in the wrong morallly for attacking and killing the sheriff, the baron's men, etc. Perhaps the Baron's mercy should be a tip-off that the serfs are misinformed - ie that the Sheriff was/is the real problem (corrupt, and not exercising his authority in a manner consistent with the Baron's goodwill, threatening them in the name of the Baron and pocketing the excess taxes himself).

It seems unlikely the Baron would condone injuring or killing the serfs if they legitimately could not pay their taxes, but would let the instigators of a rebellion off with a fine and a stern lecture.

This is weird territory here as this has the potential to be a really good scenario or a really bad one.

Basically, the PCs followed the plot hook and did what 90 % of what most PCs would have done in that situation, except that in this case, the plot hook was actually a baited trap that the GM put there, because he wanted a scenario where he could slap down the PCs.

I just don't think the PCs have done anything wrong so far and the revenge thing is just as justified as the Baron going well out of his way, to slap them down.

If QM wants this to go away, he has to introduce a 3rd party to either absolve the PCs actions and rule in their favor or the 3rd party has to be an even greater threat that makes the PCs and Baron forget their burgeoning rivalry.

[Cancer]

Yeah, this looks like you've set up a global mindset now that in order for you the GM to win, the players have to lose, and vice versa. From a player's point of view, this is about the worst situation to be in, because, of course, there is no possibility of gaining strategic surprise ("Your arms are too short to box with God"). About the only thing that could make this worse is to have characters with the Code Against Killing disad, and a situation that taunted them for it.

[bigdamnhero]

[These Gamers hate to lose.]
As opposed to every other gamer I've ever played with? :straight:

:D

But seriously. Did the players lose because they used poor tactics? Or because they walked into an ambush by an overwhelming force and "the dice turned against them?" If the later, then they really lost because they thought they were powerful enough that they could afford to piss off the Baron with impunity. I've seen this a lot, and not just among videogamers or novice RPGers. I think it comes from the assumption that all combats will be scaled to the power level of the PCs, so anything they encounter is by definition something they should be able to handle.

Usually, it only takes one good smackdown to wake such players up to the concept that there are more powerful things in the world than themselves. But if your players haven't figured that out by now...

Not to go all Kumbaya here, but it might be time to sit down and talk with your players about how they see the campaign and their role in it. "Look guys, the way I see this campaign is you guys are pretty bad***, but you're not gods. By all rights, the Baron should've had you all executed on the spot last week. I'm worried that if you keep walking around like you're invulnerable, sooner or later you're going to put me in a situation where I, as a writer, can't justify not kicking your ****es. So if you guys have a different view of the game world, let's talk about it." Maybe they really want to play a game where they are the baddest mothers on the planet and get to walk around ignoring all laws and authorities. (I take it none of these characters are "Lawful Good," to use D&D shorthand?)

The important thing, IMO, is to re-frame the conflict as PCs-vs-the-world, rather than players-vs-GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

This is weird territory here as this has the potential to be a really good scenario or a really bad one.

Basically, the PCs followed the plot hook and did what 90 % of what most PCs would have done in that situation, except that in this case, the plot hook was actually a baited trap that the GM put there, because he wanted a scenario where he could slap down the PCs.

I think up until the Baron let them off very lightly for their crimes against his barony (and roughing up a tax collector and attacking and killing the baron's men are definitely crimes against the barony), the PC's may have been justified. Typical "evil overlord" plot. But when the PC's are in the hands of the Baron and he lets them off with a fine, and one they apparenty had no diffculty paying, I have to question the "evil" nature of the Baron. And I think the PC's should be questioning his, and their own, motives as well.


I just don't think the PCs have done anything wrong so far and the revenge thing is just as justified as the Baron going well out of his way, to slap them down.

So if you aid a tax evader in dodging the tax man (lethally, it appears), and get slapped with a fine for doing so, the correct and appropriate action you should take is to attempt to kill the head of the government? That's basically where the PC's presently sit. The Baron has gone from King John in the first scene ("worse than" the Sheriff) to seeming a pretty reasonable, perhaps even unduly forgiving, guy based on his actions towards the PC's.

Had they won the battle, would they have let the Baron's men off so easily as he let them off? I suspect that the Baron's men would not have been permitted to pay a fine no greater than the wealth on their persons and then go free, with their arms and armor.


If QM wants this to go away, he has to introduce a 3rd party to either absolve the PCs actions and rule in their favor or the 3rd party has to be an even greater threat that makes the PCs and Baron forget their burgeoning rivalry.

Perhaps a chance meeting with a serf who was aware the PC's battled and lost, and is now hugely shocked to see them alive ("How did you escape the Baron's dungeons, good sirs?"), leading to the serf realizing that the Baron in person seems vastly more reasonable and forgiving than they ever would have expected might lead the PC's to look at this in a different light.

Or perhaps the noble Knight might somehow (tavern talk?) become aware of the fact the PC's are viewed quite positively, and the Sheriff quite negatively, by the locals, and investigate the Sheriff's corruption himself.

I'm kind of inclined to take the following approach:

- have the encounter with the serf. The players will either decide to investigate, and perhaps prove the Sheriff's corruption, or they will behave like videogamers and still want vengeance against the baron. If the former, you have a nice investigative scenario, wrapping up with absolution as the Sheriff's corruption brands him as the true culprit.

- if the latter, let the Baron once again demonstrate how the resources of a Barony are quite adequate to put down a half dozen insurrectionists, and again capture the PC's. This time, perhaps he's not so nice and sentences them to death for their crimes. At the gallows/headsman's axe, the Knight bursts in, and reveals the results of his own investigations into the corrupt sheriff. Maybe the players learn a lesson not in tactics, but in treating the NPC's as something more than adversaries to prove how tough their PC's are.

Or maybe they just carry on being the Knights of the Dinner Table, treating all NPC's as second class citizens because hey - they're NPC's.

[Supreme Serpent]

I waste the Baron with my crossbow.

[CBikle]

I think up until the Baron let them off very lightly for their crimes against his barony (and roughing up a tax collector and attacking and killing the baron's men are definitely crimes against the barony), the PC's may have been justified. Typical "evil overlord" plot. But when the PC's are in the hands of the Baron and he lets them off with a fine, and one they apparenty had no diffculty paying, I have to question the "evil" nature of the Baron. And I think the PC's should be questioning his, and their own, motives as well.

Unless the Baron is evil or is being manipulated by someone who is, I really don't even see a point to this scenario. We on the board know however, that it was somehow intended to teach the players a lesson in strategy & tactics, which dosn't seem to matter much now (if it ever did in the first place).


So if you aid a tax evader in dodging the tax man (lethally, it appears), and get slapped with a fine for doing so, the correct and appropriate action you should take is to attempt to kill the head of the government? Reading the initial post, I don't think the PCs killed the "tax thugs" in the initial encounter.



That's basically where the PC's presently sit. The Baron has gone from King John in the first scene ("worse than" the Sheriff) to seeming a pretty reasonable, perhaps even unduly forgiving, guy based on his actions towards the PC's.

He was only forgiving and "noble" because he won the fight. Perhaps the Baron was unaware of the "tax thugs" beating up on the serf, but the "pissing match" part of this was initiated by him because he felt he'd been embarassed.


Or maybe they just carry on being the Knights of the Dinner Table, treating all NPC's as second class citizens because hey - they're NPC's.

I don't think that's accurate. This whole thing started because the PCs interfered with an unjust beating delivered to an NPC from other NPCs

[bigdamnhero]

I waste the Baron with my crossbow.
:rofl: "...given out too much rep..." Thanks, Igor!

[TheQuestionMan]

Hm.

So, did the PCs kill any of the Baron's men?

Because, if so, I think the main problem may be that he just fined the player characters and let them go. A dramatic escape from a dungeon or from a gallows would have been a better lesson as to the consequences of fighting someone on a battlefield they chose.

As to what to do now, I'd try to figure out why the Baron didn't just kill them. Maybe his advisor has some hidden use for the PCs, or heard a prophesy that made him pressure the Baron to keep them alive?
Doh!!!

Wish I thought of that at the time.

QM

[TheQuestionMan]

I'd agree the Baron let them off very lightly. If they insist on going after a superior enemy with nothing evening the odds, I would not have the Baron demonstrate such mercy the second time.

If they do succeed, what does this re-attack do to their reputation? I wouldn't expect any mercy in the future from other enemies, since it's not repaid in kind by the PC's. In fact, it wouldn't seem unreasonable for other nobles to take action to eliminate these wild cards who don't play by the established rules of warfare - any one of them could be next.

Your PC's sound a lot like videogamers - NPC's exist solely to be background scenery and sources of information (the serfs), or to be killed by the PC's (the sheriff; Sir William and his men). Obviously, I don't have a ton of background to base this conclusion on, so I could be way off base.

Thinking on it, something feels wrong to me about the whole scenario, actually. How rough would the sheriff and his men be on the serfs? If the baron is significantly worse, and let the PC's off for killing his men and disrupting his tax collectors with a talking-to and a fine that was clearly well within their means, it seems unlikely the serfs have it all that tough, so attacking the sheriff and his men seems like serious overkill. The PC's would then seem to be in the wrong morallly for attacking and killing the sheriff, the baron's men, etc. Perhaps the Baron's mercy should be a tip-off that the serfs are misinformed - ie that the Sheriff was/is the real problem (corrupt, and not exercising his authority in a manner consistent with the Baron's goodwill, threatening them in the name of the Baron and pocketing the excess taxes himself).

It seems unlikely the Baron would condone injuring or killing the serfs if they legitimately could not pay their taxes, but would let the instigators of a rebellion off with a fine and a stern lecture.
The PC's seemed out for a taste of blood and ended up getting more than they bargined for.

I will admit it was poor planning oon my part for not imprisoning them. That would have been so totally cool. Maybe next time.

Damn

QM

[TheQuestionMan]

This is weird territory here as this has the potential to be a really good scenario or a really bad one.

Basically, the PCs followed the plot hook and did what 90 % of what most PCs would have done in that situation, except that in this case, the plot hook was actually a baited trap that the GM put there, because he wanted a scenario where he could slap down the PCs.

I just don't think the PCs have done anything wrong so far and the revenge thing is just as justified as the Baron going well out of his way, to slap them down.

If QM wants this to go away, he has to introduce a 3rd party to either absolve the PCs actions and rule in their favor or the 3rd party has to be an even greater threat that makes the PCs and Baron forget their burgeoning rivalry.
I guess I did go out of my way to put them into this encounter, but no plan every survives contact with the PCs.

Me a bad bad bad GM.

Hmmm... what next adopt a baby Terasque?

QM

[TheQuestionMan]

But seriously. Did the players lose because they used poor tactics? Or because they walked into an ambush by an overwhelming force and "the dice turned against them?" If the later, then they really lost because they thought they were powerful enough that they could afford to piss off the Baron with impunity. I've seen this a lot, and not just among videogamers or novice RPGers. I think it comes from the assumption that all combats will be scaled to the power level of the PCs, so anything they encounter is by definition something they should be able to handle.

Usually, it only takes one good smackdown to wake such players up to the concept that there are more powerful things in the world than themselves. But if your players haven't figured that out by now...

Not to go all Kumbaya here, but it might be time to sit down and talk with your players about how they see the campaign and their role in it. "Look guys, the way I see this campaign is you guys are pretty bad***, but you're not gods. By all rights, the Baron should've had you all executed on the spot last week. I'm worried that if you keep walking around like you're invulnerable, sooner or later you're going to put me in a situation where I, as a writer, can't justify not kicking your ****es. So if you guys have a different view of the game world, let's talk about it." Maybe they really want to play a game where they are the baddest mothers on the planet and get to walk around ignoring all laws and authorities. (I take it none of these characters are "Lawful Good," to use D&D shorthand?)

The important thing, IMO, is to re-frame the conflict as PCs-vs-the-world, rather than players-vs-GM.
Brilliant and thanks

Wish I had you guys as GMs though.

Sigh, back to the drawing board.

QM

[TheQuestionMan]

I'm kind of inclined to take the following approach:

- have the encounter with the serf. The players will either decide to investigate, and perhaps prove the Sheriff's corruption, or they will behave like videogamers and still want vengeance against the baron. If the former, you have a nice investigative scenario, wrapping up with absolution as the Sheriff's corruption brands him as the true culprit.

- if the latter, let the Baron once again demonstrate how the resources of a Barony are quite adequate to put down a half dozen insurrectionists, and again capture the PC's. This time, perhaps he's not so nice and sentences them to death for their crimes. At the gallows/headsman's axe, the Knight bursts in, and reveals the results of his own investigations into the corrupt sheriff. Maybe the players learn a lesson not in tactics, but in treating the NPC's as something more than adversaries to prove how tough their PC's are.
Damn your Brilliance SIR!!!

I feel so inadequet

QM

[Hugh Neilson]

Damn your Brilliance SIR!!!

I feel so inadequet

QM

It's a lot easier to get a good idea from dozens of gamers on a thread who have time to ponder the issue than to come up with one on the spur of the moment sitting alone behind the screen, :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Unless the Baron is evil or is being manipulated by someone who is, I really don't even see a point to this scenario. We on the board know however, that it was somehow intended to teach the players a lesson in strategy & tactics, which dosn't seem to matter much now (if it ever did in the first place).

I'm a bit lost as to how that encounter was going to be a lesson in tactics, I'll agree.


Reading the initial post, I don't think the PCs killed the "tax thugs" in the initial encounter.

I'm not sure whether they were killed. They were certainly beaten up, as I read it, and prevented from carrying out their lawful function. Whether the PC's were justified in this is tough to say, but they're well within reason to this point.


He was only forgiving and "noble" because he won the fight. Perhaps the Baron was unaware of the "tax thugs" beating up on the serf, but the "pissing match" part of this was initiated by him because he felt he'd been embarassed.

How "forgiving and noble" would the PC's have been had they won the fight? Would you really expect the "Evil Prince John" baron to let the PC's who have interfered with his tax collectors and killed many of his men off with a tongue lashing and a modest fine?

I don't see the "pissing match" you refer to. I see the medieval equivalent of the tax collecter, beaten up by some dissident/tax protecter calling in the police to deal with the illegal behaviour of the PC's.


I don't think that's accurate. This whole thing started because the PCs interfered with an unjust beating delivered to an NPC from other NPCs

That is where it started, and the PC's were on pretty solid ground at that point. When the lawful authority called on them to answer for their actions, what did they do? Explain the justice of their actions logically (even if expecting no great benefit to come of it)? "Sir Knight, we merely acted to prevent the unjust beating of a helpless and innocent man. If you are truly a man of honor, you would have done the same in our place."

No, I believe QM tells us they "insulted and cajoled him". So he followed his original instructions, to arrest or kill the criminals. Remember, he has no better way of knowing the PC's are not at fault than they have, at this point, of knowing the Baron is not some evil overlord. And their actions, killing many of his men, seem to back up that perception.

Yet, when the Baron has the PC's at his mercy, does he throw them in the dungeon? Does he have them killed as an example to others? Does he seize all their possessions and have them beaten for their effrontry? No - he fines them, apparently a pretty modest fine they had no difficulty paying, and sends them on their way, still (as I read it) fully armed and armored. At this point, I think the PC's need to question this whole "evil Baron holding the land in his vile grip" theory and ask what's really going on here.

With them now going back to draw more blood, I find it hard to see the PC's as having any claim to being "Heros". Murderers, cop-killers in fact, seems more like it. I'm tempted to use the "T" word, but I'll refrain.

[bigdamnhero]

With them now going back to draw more blood, I find it hard to see the PC's as having any claim to being "Heros". Murderers, cop-killers in fact, seems more like it. I'm tempted to use the "T" word, but I'll refrain.
The Political-Rant Thread Hijack Prevention Society appreciates your forbearance. :winkgrin:

I have noticed a lot of fantasy gamers tend to have a "we are above the law" attitude, far more so than in other genres. Maybe because the Unjust Lord is such a staple of the genre that we've come to expect it as the default. Maybe because it's harder for modern-day gamers to draw the Baron=Mayor, Guard=Cop equivilance. Or maybe just because so many "local" governments in fantasy games are such wimps that the characters can get away with it more easily.

[AliceTheOwl]

This sounds pretty similar to the game catastrophe I very recently experienced.

It was the second Fantasy Hero game I'd run, ever, not including the helping I'd done with a play-by-post (because I had a heck of a lot more time to ponder responses and bounce them off the regular GM), and the players were pretty pissed to learn that they weren't immortal or unbeatable. They took it out on the elven royalty who were hosting them, and who were VERY apologetic about the incident. One player made it a point to talk about how she scowled at all the elves she met.

So, I turned it around a little the next game, making it obvious that everything that went wrong was all the fault of one very manipulative member of royalty, who had a vendetta against the NPC who'd almost beaten them. They started plotting how to save the NPC from the evil guy, were momentarily thwarted by bureaucratics, and wound up uncovering the treachery. That and a huge combat where they got to stomp through mooks made them really pleased with that game.

There are still some remnants of resentment on their parts, however, because it was so difficult to show the traitor for who he really was, and because, well, nobody likes to lose. So I've been having my NPCs pepper in little suggestions that perhaps this should be worked out, and I've come up with several reasons why they'd want to be on the elves' good side.

It actually turned into quite the interesting side plot, IMO, and the players seem to enjoy playing it through (other than the losing part), so maybe you might want something similar? Turn this conflict around to show the Baron isn't at fault for their resentment, and make it a bigger plot seed than you'd intended?

[Manic Typist]

The hardest part about players and loosing:

Making sure that, if they loose, it is because they deserve to loose. Then, helping them to understand that.

If they loose because of you, it's bad. If they loose because of them but are in denial... that is bad.

So, you'd better be RIGHT, and able to prove it.

[bigdamnhero]

I've found it also can be helpful to remind the players that The Heroes Lose Round One, Come Back And Win The Rematch is a staple of every single one of their favorite genres. This isn't a videogame - just because they lose a fight doesn't mean they "lose" the game.

[incrdbil]

The Serfs were not as pleased with the situation as the Heroes expected saying that the Sheriff was not really all that bad compared to their Liege lord Baron Keld.

This could be a great lesson in "don't believe everything you hear". Maybe this was a resentful group of Serfs--or maybe the Sherrif who abuses them is the real reason they disliek the Baron--the Sherrif just blames everything on the Baron, and is actually being far worse with them than what the Baron would normally permit.


The Heroes continued on there way and detoured wide around the Baron's Keep, but the Baron could not allow the assault on his servants to go unchallenged and dispatched Sir William and his Retainers to arrest or kill them.

Sounds reasonable--a party orf armed men (bandits) assauled the Sherrif. Who knows just what the Sherrif actually told the Baron? (Sire--they threatened your serrfs, and when I tried to defend them, they used magic most evil and foul, and assaulted us!)



The Heroes all dismounted and prepared to receive the charge.

I have to wonder about the the PC's belief in their own expectations here--they've been ambushed, out numbered, and they decide to stick around and not run?


A party of four Wizards a Dwarf Axeman and a Were Panther Weapons Master broke their charge.

Four Wizards? Hmm, is part of the parties tactics problem a result of just relying on magical brute force?


[But, the Dice turned Against them and the enemies tactics quickly overwhelmed them.]

What were the tactics, just out of curiosity?


The Warriors surrendered and the PCs were taken before the Baron and fined for their actions. [Were Guild and for Attacking the Baron's Men].

At this point, the Pc's should have been wondering? If this is a cruel, eviul, opressive Baron..why are we alive?

It looks like a good scenario where the Baron has grown too distant from his people, relying on the Sherrif, and the Sherrif is abusing his power, and passing the blame 'due to the Baron's orders'. A great teaching tool to get them to start thinking at a level beyond video game plotlines.


They paid and left, but vengeance is the only thing on their minds now and it seems they will repay the Baron of his mercy. [These Gamers hate to lose.]

Well, wanting vengeance is one thing. Being dumb enough to try for it is another. Maybe a session later of perspective, or a few pointed questions from others (What, the Baron let you live? why would he do that?), thought might replace the desire for vengeance. But if they just want to charge in hacking and slashing, I'd have the big meeting as suggested above, a GM to player conversation of just what they really think they can get away with, because the players are eventually going to bring down a heavy reaction that makes sense in the campaigns continuity.

[Robyn]

I have to wonder about the the PC's belief in their own expectations here--they've been ambushed, out numbered, and they decide to stick around and not run?

You almost have to admire how they stand up for their beliefs here - they'd rather die than act like their world contained anything they could not handily defeat, even long enough to run for safety.

I said "almost". Since the players aren't going to die, just their characters, they should be tested for whether or not they'd feel a sense of loss. If the players aren't invested in their characters, no amount of "lessons" are going to make them care what happens; you'd need to start somewhere else.

[Supreme Serpent]

Of course, this could be a case of Lord Jekyll and Baron Hyde. :D

The good Baron is under a curse that periodically sends him into fits of madness and malevolence. When these fits strike him, he tends to do things like, oh, levy extra taxes, send his knights out to attack people, that sort of thing. When he recovers, he tries to alleviate the results as best he can without revealing his curse, so he can't just explain it and ask for help, as 'twould be unseemly. Besides, his wizard privately assures him that soon the curse will be lifted through the rituals and treatments the wizard is giving him. Of course, the treatments are a sham, and the wizard is part of the plot against the Baron. Eventually, his dark side will take over more completely, and will either fall in line with the plotters, or he can be removed more easily and a willing puppet installed in his stead.

So, reason for him to let the PCs off easy - he feels he's somewhat responsible for getting them into the situation, but he's not going to let them get off scot-free.

[tgrandjean]

*chuckles* Actually, I don't see it that you have a problem; instead you now have 1) a serious plot hook on your players 2) a reaccuring chance to aquaint your players with some simple strategy and forethought (maybe even a little diplomancy).
1) If the players are *****ing and moaning about their defeat in public this will attract attention. First, there are the mercenaries, professional soldiers and the like who will likely comment about not fighting on enemy ground, not giving the enemy the fight they're expecting, etc (i.e. a mouthpiece for you to give a little good advice... but gently... no one likes a lecture after having their *** kicked...). Second, there are those who will see the players as likely pawns to be used against the baron (or any other likely target that could reasonably (or unreasonably) linked to him). In other words, a good chance to spin off adventures. Third, somebody ought to mention if in fact the baron does or does not habitually practice mercy. There needs to be a little doubt in the players heads about what is actually going on. (Point of fact: You don't even really have to have a good reason for the baron's action. As long as the players are doing some speculating, you can always fit the plot to their needs.)
2) If the players have decided that the baron is now their target, nothing says that the baron can't take any interest in their actions. Spies, spies, spies. Manipulation, manipulation, manipulation. And that's not even mentioning the interest the surrounding powers have in the baron. More hooks to draw the players in.
3) If you decide that you really need to move the players along (i.e. you are getting tired of this arc) if you smash the players again, there is always the option of exile. Then the players can return after a period of time with all the power and experience that they have gained to finally finish the baron off (with all the complications that that action will unleash).

[The Monster]

Another possibility is to introduce a greater threat: the Baron as liegelord is supposed to protect the fief, fight for the king, etc., so the distraction and/or loss of men and materiel could let some other force become a present threat, perhaps even leading to the defeat of the royal army by a horde of barbarians/orcs/mole people, precisely because that baron was not in the battle line where he was supposed to be, or did not have enough men to accomplish his task (i.e., couldn't hold the position, couldn't break the flank guards, etc.). Now the PCs have to step in a nd ether somehow make nice with the baron and nobility, or become fellow refugees in a land being overrun by a hostile army. Then you'll have lots of opportunity for tactics and strategy. :D

Being a wargamer originally, and a military history buff since grade school (some 40 years ago), I'm pretty good at tactics. As GM, I use tactics as a game tool all the time, depending on the scenario, setting, and the PCs; in fact, I am reluctant any more to use the "one big monster" any more, because A) there are so fewer tactical choices with one thing than with a group, and B) unless you really build the thing to be invlunerable (which always seems like a cheat to me), the players will kill it way faster than you think possible, through luck or skill or both.

Keys to getting players to use tactics:
1) Provide settings that allow realistic tactics. I dislike dungeon crawls for precisely this reason: your choices and flow of action are so limited that it becomes reptitive. Maps, realistic intelligence on enemy numbers and abilities (remembering that "realistic" does not always mean "accurate!"), ability to get info by scouting, spying or asking around, and places that provide some choice about position, lines of fire, and the like.

2) Provide info useful to tactical planning. I'm not claiming to be the best tactician in the group, but when I'm the GM, I know more than anyuone else about the situation. If the characters are experienced or trained, they'll be aware of options that the players may not be, and should be given decent info. Having NPCs offer plans and advice can also help the game, as the info can be shared in character.

3) Reward the use of tactics. If the PCs come up with a half-decent plan, let it work, especially if they stick to it and make the appropriate skill checks. When planning a military-type encounter, I will make plans for the NPCs beforehand, so I know what they'll try to do. Then they can react to the PCs actiosn in an appropriate manner. Having NPCs who counter the PCs plans perfectly is just rude and bad GMing. One of the best sessions I ever ran was when two PCs snuck into an enemy camp, sabotaged their food supply, gained crucial intel, killed the two guards who discovered them (having observed the patrol patterns and made Stealth and PER checks along the way - as did the guards), and left, leaving no evidence of their passing except two dead bodies and a refrigerator full of rotting meat.

4) Remember that we're not looking for genius here; we're looking for tactics on the level of adventure fiction. Sending a flanking party comes across in many movies as a brilliant surprise maneuver, though it's a plan as old as combat itself. Unless the PCs are up against a foe already identified as a military genius, complex tactical acumen should not be necessary to acheive a good result.

5) As always, be fair. Plans don't always work; but let them go wrong for natural reasons - bad luck, poor intel, reasonable enemy action (oops - they put an extra sentry there after all!).

[Lil' Tweaker]

As for the Baron letting the players off too lightly...
He did it in order to facilitate his master plan! Now he intends to manipulate the Players as his pawns to X his rival X without implicating himself. Because he really is a lot more evil and craftier than anyone originally expected!
Remember, any plot worth setting up is worth being complicated and confusing!
-J

[Curufea]

It's a lot easier to get a good idea from dozens of gamers on a thread who have time to ponder the issue than to come up with one on the spur of the moment sitting alone behind the screen, :)
However, giving answers to these kinds of questions can help future on-the-spot decisions. I really do think that the GM has the hardest time in an RPG, and really needs a lot of wit. To be able to think quickly and solve problems as they arise, is basically a "primary skill". At least I've found it to be.

A PC needs only solve problems created by the GM. A GM needs to solve problems created by all the PCs :)

Although that sounds a bit too adversarial...
How about - There are more challengers to the story created by the GM than there are to the stories of the PCs?

Hence my insistance that games such as Baron Munchausen - creative storytelling games with frequent interruptions/involuntary plot changes, are such a good idea. They practice the wit.