Who was in the wrong here?

>>54895204
>Blackbagging an NPC for something that happened sessions ago, and refusing to say why it happened
>Showing consequence
Was it autism?

First John Wick, then later you for reposting this yet again

>>54895204
well campaign was coming to a close anyway so I kinda think this is kinda cool, yes it enforces the universal rule of "actions have consequences" but it adds just a bit of mystery to that previous campaign and could lead to plot-hooks in future campaigns in that setting, especially if those events were important enough to be remembered in songs and stories.

Maybe that makes me an asshole GM for saying that.

>>54895277
I disagree. Generally speaking anything which infringes upon player agency ruins the fun.

File: 2-6.jpg (169KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x790px

Consequence was deserved, player deserves an explanation. If the player is able to resume playing the rogue later in the campaign or in a future campaign as part of an escape, then just tell the player that the PC is preoccupied but will be returned to him in a later chapter. If he's just been blackbagged then you owe your player an explanation.

Or we can just not fucking communicate like adults, whatever.

>>54895304
This. It'd be one thing if the PC in question was ruthlessly murderhobo'ing random guards he didn't like, but this was done during an interrogation that may have been entirely justified for the PC's behavior. Doing "rocks fall" to a player just for a single sleight like that is a dick move.

Reminds me of all the threads we have on /tg/ where a GM comes to bitch about players, only to have one or more of said players find the thread and clear the story with what REALLY happened. Not only is deliberately hiding context a really poor form, but the author of the image in the OP is being a mega cunt for doing it in a published format. It just reeks of a salty GM trying to get back at someone he, as others have said, chose not to simply communicate with like a fucking adult.

>>54895204
There's nothing wrong with players facing bad consequences for dumb behavior in game but it should either be immediate or be shown to be clearly linked to the mistake they made. Having the rogue get blackbagged several sessions after he killed the guard and not specifying who seized him and why is retarded as there's no discernible link to his prior actions. It's like trying to discipline a child by making them sit in a corner for something they did two weeks prior. The child, like the player, isn't going to make the link.

>>54895304
>>54895397
okay fair enough, one incident is more deserving of a warning than a full-blown blackbagged character. But you gotta admit having either an important NPC or (with the express permission of the player) a PC just disappear mysteriously during the climax of a previous arc makes for some good intrigue, you've gotta admit!

>>54895204
Definitely the GM. This doesn't show the "reasoning" used to make the decision, which is apparently that the world is always to be a reflection of the PC morality. It's not even that the people affected by our rogue killed him. It's that our rogue's morality is now THE ENTIRE WORLD'S morality, and thus people drag each other into dark corners and shank them when they don't need to.

Needless to say, unless you've got something extremely narrative or which the PCs are literally Gods that affect everyone, it's a dumbass assumption to make.

>instagibbing players with no save

>>54895595
Can be justified in certain circumstances. Not these ones, but if you, I don't know, overload a nuclear reactor and then hang around in it for the meltdown, I'm instagibbing with no save on your character's dumb ass.

>>54895204

what a douche

>>54895204
>Player agency removed for muh actions have concequences
Delete this.

>try to teach players that their actions have consequences
>do so by creating consequences that are deliberately divorced from the player's actions so I can be a smug cunt about it
>players still don't understand
>pat myself on the back anyway

>>54898285
That's pretty much Wick in a nutshell. The man's actually pretty smart but he's a bit like... uh... Ayn Rand. An interesting premise with an idea you can agree with but the resolution is "thus you must be the biggest dick you can be."

Which is a shame because he loves some pretty cool ideas, like the city in the box. You just have to literally shift through a landmine of literal land mines that makes the Tomb of Horrors look fair and impartial.

Some example Wick-isms:

Infecting a person who's immune to all diseases with a super disease and make him "immune to the cure."

Taking a character who has super-luck to survive almost anything... by forcing them into even worse situations that will almost guarantee their death.

Kill a player's grandma and act smug when no more players write characters with the dependent disadvantage (meaning that they're less likely to provide NPCs that the character is initially invested in making them more than just a murder-hobo)

>>54898982
a player character's grandma*

There's no proof (yet) that he killed anyone's grandma

>>54895204
>And than my Rogue effortlessly murders them all in one round of combat

>>54895204
>you don't know
>a game where the character you're playing is not considered a seperate entity from you the player, down to the characters stats determining what you can even perceive in the game world
>GM blackbag has the same effect as the player dieing but with 0 player agency or explanation
GM is a fuckwit

>>54895204
>Poochy died on his way to his home planet
Yeah no. There's consequences and then there's the GM acting like an autist.

>>54895204
This >>54898285

Actions having consequences is fine. Actions have weird long-term karmic retribution where you don't even know what happened sucks and isn't even a consequence, since you don't know what caused it.

There needs to be a clear cause and effect if you want the player to learn.

>>54895471
No, it doesn't make for good intrigue when the DM's response to any questions is "UUUUUU DON'T NUUUUUU", Good intrigue would be having the player roleplay and act through his kidnapping even if it was impossible odds in order to bring some life into it. By refusing to answer any questions and just treating it as "it happens, sucks to be you! XD" the GM is actively denying intrigue,

>>54899117
>No, it doesn't make for good intrigue when the DM's response to any questions is "UUUUUU DON'T NUUUUUU",
Well as I also said, you need the express permission of the player for this to work well and not just some obscured punishment for a slight, because if you pull the latter the players are more likely to cry bullshit. Buuuut... maybe a session or two earlier, pull the player aside and say "Hey Jeff, I know you were looking to retire your Rogue, Well I had this idea and was wondering if I could use the character for that plot instead?" That way it's fair.

>>54899190
Yeah, that sounds pretty good.

You're a better man than Wick is, anon.