I think you did well enough. It's a little weird that he broke the sword (what weapon did he use? Must've been something wicked, like a vibro-ax?) in one hit.

Of course players will say afterwards that you sould've told them. After all this affects their game time. Yet this might be somewhat cathartic to them; they tried and you took them seriously, didn't just deny the outcome but made it reasonably hard. I believe this to be rather educational. You probably reinforced the thought that teamwork will go a longer way than rouge gameplay. I honestly would have felt a little cheated if a GM told me that this just wasn't going to happen. Now this makes sense in the context of the story.

Confronting him was a good thing too in my opinion. It's always easier to talk to players, especially if something went unexpectetly. Frustration occurs usually when something feels unjustified and personal. Ok, this was somewhat personal, but not becuase PC X was a ****, but because he was acting irresponsibly. Also I wouldn't be mad; it sounds like they got decent gameplay out of that and there is a reason to bring back a known NPC.

While there are many paths to take I feel like you did a reasonable thing. It wasn't patronizing, it was managable (albeit hard, as it should have been according to the given information) and it was possibly educational. If you managed to pack this in neatly with story and overall feeling of the adventure... Good job.

It wasnt a case of dropping a nasty enemy on him.

It was an attempt to allow him to try his plan, while putting something seinsible in his path to prevent him doing something that would broken me as a GM and throw the entire narrative off into the gutter where I couldnt cope with it, thus... breaking the game for everyone.

I am not capable to dealing with things that come from a total left field... if i was, i would be a far better GM. But im not.

He wanted to subdue the entire pirate band, force them to fly him to the authories to turn them in, and claim any rewards, while the rest of the party carried on with the mission, potentially leaving the party to "drop him entirely" from any payment, PERMANENTLY splitting the group.... or giving them a MASSIVE cash payout.

Both things I couldnt deal with as a GM. So i tried to create a situation where the player felt he was able to try his plan, but found it unattainable, rather than saying "Nope Player.. you cant do that". (Which has led to a huge argument in the past, an entire campaign ending).

you said it yourself, the player would have preferred if you had told him beforehand that his plan would cause problems for you. he would have come up with something else. conversation afterwards is good, sometimes before it's even better.

you wouldn't even have had to say "nope player, you can't do that.", but "please don't do that, because...". that would have been sufficient.

it's commendable that you don't want to restrict players, but you as a gm are important too. nobody should have to do stuff they don't enjoy. it's a game, it's supposed to be fun for everyone. don't forget that.

I think you did well enough. It's a little weird that he broke the sword (what weapon did he use? Must've been something wicked, like a vibro-ax?) in one hit.

Of course players will say afterwards that you sould've told them. After all this affects their game time. Yet this might be somewhat cathartic to them; they tried and you took them seriously, didn't just deny the outcome but made it reasonably hard. I believe this to be rather educational. You probably reinforced the thought that teamwork will go a longer way than rouge gameplay. I honestly would have felt a little cheated if a GM told me that this just wasn't going to happen. Now this makes sense in the context of the story.

Confronting him was a good thing too in my opinion. It's always easier to talk to players, especially if something went unexpectetly. Frustration occurs usually when something feels unjustified and personal. Ok, this was somewhat personal, but not becuase PC X was a ****, but because he was acting irresponsibly. Also I wouldn't be mad; it sounds like they got decent gameplay out of that and there is a reason to bring back a known NPC.

While there are many paths to take I feel like you did a reasonable thing. It wasn't patronizing, it was managable (albeit hard, as it should have been according to the given information) and it was possibly educational. If you managed to pack this in neatly with story and overall feeling of the adventure... Good job.

The PC was using a Vibroscimitar with a Serrated edge (He swapped it from his original Vibrosword with a Mono Edge, when I expressed concern at the Crit 1 effect it had).

The NPC had a basic Vibrosword.

The PC broke the NPCs sword on a Triumph result. Because the Player has specified that, as a former Padawan, he would ALWAYS prefer to disarm, subdue, and overpower an enemy before he considered killing them.

As a result, when he defeated said NPC, he lopped his hands off, rather than killing, and has forgone Critting him for this effect. So I may well bring said NPC back with cybernetic hands later.

And thanks for the complement, I think it went as well as could have been expected. The PCs plan was not so much irresponsible, he was trying to remove the ship from the later battle, and possibly turn in the pirates "as an act of good against evil" and prevent them attacking other innocents. So his motivations made perfect sense in the grand scheme of things.

It wasnt a case of dropping a nasty enemy on him.

It was an attempt to allow him to try his plan, while putting something seinsible in his path to prevent him doing something that would broken me as a GM and throw the entire narrative off into the gutter where I couldnt cope with it, thus... breaking the game for everyone.

I am not capable to dealing with things that come from a total left field... if i was, i would be a far better GM. But im not.

He wanted to subdue the entire pirate band, force them to fly him to the authories to turn them in, and claim any rewards, while the rest of the party carried on with the mission, potentially leaving the party to "drop him entirely" from any payment, PERMANENTLY splitting the group.... or giving them a MASSIVE cash payout.

Both things I couldnt deal with as a GM. So i tried to create a situation where the player felt he was able to try his plan, but found it unattainable, rather than saying "Nope Player.. you cant do that". (Which has led to a huge argument in the past, an entire campaign ending).

you said it yourself, the player would have preferred if you had told him beforehand that his plan would cause problems for you. he would have come up with something else. conversation afterwards is good, sometimes before it's even better.

you wouldn't even have had to say "nope player, you can't do that.", but "please don't do that, because...". that would have been sufficient.

it's commendable that you don't want to restrict players, but you as a gm are important too. nobody should have to do stuff they don't enjoy. it's a game, it's supposed to be fun for everyone. don't forget that.

That was my suggestion on page one. But it seems we were the only ones to feel that way.

I personally wouldn't have talked before or after... Just let him try ...

The only reason the player May have said something after was because you admitted to it after... that is if you initiated the convo... He gets to look magnanimous after the fact without a real reaction.

Of course If He initiated the convo with the gm, wondering why it failed, then it was a Case of a Player thinking they should always be able to win, But then He still gets to say He would have backed down and look good, In hindsight..

Me? I jsut don't care what the players Choose to do... They make their Choices... My setup stays as is.. Everyone Lives with the consequences of their choices.... I Find Better "stories" unflod this way than me trying to force my own agenda on the situation.

I personally wouldn't have talked before or after... Just let him try ...

The only reason the player May have said something after was because you admitted to it after... that is if you initiated the convo... He gets to look magnanimous after the fact without a real reaction.

Of course If He initiated the convo with the gm, wondering why it failed, then it was a Case of a Player thinking they should always be able to win, But then He still gets to say He would have backed down and look good, In hindsight..

Me? I jsut don't care what the players Choose to do... They make their Choices... My setup stays as is.. Everyone Lives with the consequences of their choices.... I Find Better "stories" unflod this way than me trying to force my own agenda on the situation.

did you even read what the problem was? the gm didn't want to split (as in "different parts of the galaxy"-split) the party because he felt uncomfortable doing that. nobody "tried to force their agenda". the answer for problems like that is communication, practically every time, and your advice is "don't talk". not only that, you can mindread and know what the player was thinking. that's... something.

they resolved the situation in a way that was ok for both parties, so obviously what they did was a good choice. for them. the only people that matter.

some advice: don't give other people advice on roleplaying.

Yes, Yes I did.. Just stating My personal Opinion on the situation. I personally never reveal my hand.

Some advice: Don't tell other people what advice they can give.

Your style isn't my style, My Style isn't your style.

I am not saying this is what HE should have Done, Just stating my own personal Read and way I would have Handled the situation.

You can Disagree with it, certainly. But Take your own advise about telling people what to do.

Please dont let this degenerate into an argument.

Everyone has their own opinion on how to GM, and everyone GM differently.

Some can sit down without any idea of a plan or plot, and make up fantastic stories on the fly.

Some need to create a vague framework and write notes

Some need prewritten adventures.

I am not one of those GMs who can run things without a good idea of where things can go, and the unknown and random stuff really throws me, and can (and has in the past) left me in a position where the story is so derailed, that I cannot see anyway forward.

Everyone has a style, and they will give advice on their own style. And thats not wrong.

Some of that advice will not be suitable to me, because my style is so different to theirs, but they are entitled to give that advice anyway, and I appreciate it all the same... sometimes within that advice can be a tiny tidbit of stuff that does help.

So please... advise away, but dont be getting to one anothers throats with "thats wrong, your wrong" because noone is wrong.

Cheers!

sorry.

No need to apologise

Sounds like you did well RebelDave. Personally I never like to say no to my players, I don't like them to see any rails or hidden agenda from me but feel like they are always making 100% free choices about everything, and everywhere they go is a fully fleshed out part of the world. I'd feel like admitting they had thought of something I didn't want them to do would be letting them see "behind the curtain". But then I'm pretty fanatical about preserving the illusion, I never talk to my players about my plans, even after the game. I'd have done much as you did, although maybe for different reasons.

Admittedly it helps that I play with a good group of veterans who are smart enough players to keep themselves on track. They don't tend to split the party, although they're also not unrealistic about that, for example they'll split up for shopping trips or what have you, but none of them are going to go off on their own adventure without the party.