Somewhat related to my other question.
At this point, the players in my game have travelled through a Kobold Empire. They have killed Ogres for them. They have slain a Dragon and given them back control of an abandoned temple. They have been told that they were only allowed in because the Kobolds were tricking them into slaying the Dragon.
They have negotiated a reward (in gold and trade-rights) with the Kobold Ranger that was tracking them.
Now, they'll be heading to a nearby Duke, who will try to trick them into either doing dangerous jobs for the Kobolds without paying them for it.
At the end of the day:
- They will probably not get the gold they were promised
- There will most likely be no trading happening
- The players might end up risking their lives more, at no real reward
- The players might end up in the gladiator-pits if they play it badly
- They may have accidentally made the Kobolds realise that there is a human city across the river that's trying to grow in importance
- The Kobolds don't care if they or their friends get killed, and will not really help them unless it serves their own empire
Obviously, a lot of this is pretty bad. The players are pretty much outgunned and outwitted. They could cause the total destruction of the city they've been spending time building up. They could get locked in the gladiator-pits and face all its dangers. They will not get any of the stuff they were promised and they might even lose out on the reason they went to the temple in the first place if the Kobolds kick them out before they retrieve it.
But I also feel like this is something they're getting themselves into. The entire campaign is a sandbox placed on a frontier. There are no set goals, I don't really plan out the plot or world far in advance and the players are entirely free to take the story where they want. I never once suggested it would be a good idea to trade with this huge empire. I did tell them the Kobolds are xenophobic (to the point where the Gnome has been going around in a disguise for weeks) and manipulative. I even drove the point home with the Kobold Ranger telling them they were allowed access because the Kobolds were trying to get them to kill the Dragon for them.
If the next session ends badly for the player characters, how can I reïnforce that I'm just trying to portray the world fairly and this was all their own idea? I don't want them to feel bad (losing an rpg can also be fun) but I also don't want them to blame me for sticking them in an impossible situation. And ideally, I'd like to make them realise this without having to resort to out of game "Well, I did warn you here and here and here", because that tends to leave a bitter taste. Having the DM tell you after the game that you missed the cues is never fun imho.
Some information on the players: these are people I've known for around 10 years, because we do volunteer work together. However, most of them I only really see when we're working together or playing together, only rarely outside of these situations. This is the first game we've played together, although all have previous experience. We've been playing about once every 6 weeks for about a year.
– Aftermath –
Since we've played the previous session, I figured I'd share the conclusion. I took Wibbs' (and others) advice about expectations and signposting and started the new session by playing up the Ranger's lack of trustworthiness a bit more, which caused them to change plans and instead kidnap the Ranger.
Which turned into a very thrilling battle as the Kobolds (succesfully) managed to bust out their friend before scattering and leaving them alone from there on out. The players succesfully left the Kobold Empire and are currently plotting revenge (which I intend to let them have). Everyone had a great time and nobody felt bad, even though there were few rewards earned from this adventure.
Best Answer
For me this is largely about expectations, signposting and player agency.
The first point is expectations. How much was the tone of the campaign discussed before you started? Did you make sure the players were aware you were going for a world where their actions can have negative consequences and that you would follow through on these? This might sound silly, as I'm sure for a lot of people what I've just described is where the fun of roleplaying is, but you'd be suprised how many players have the expectation that they are never going to fail.
Then there are signposting, opportunies to spot the bad stuff and if it happens then do something about it. If I were a player and the only warning I got that something really bad was going to happen was right at the beginning of an adventure 3 months ago, then I think I would be entitled to be a bit frustrated. People have short memories and cannot be expected to be able to identify the important bits of information in everything you tell them as GM, let alone remember it for weeks/months at a time.
Lets take your first point as an example. Have they been made aware that the Kobolds renege on deals and have a reputation for not giving gold? When was this and by whom? Was it someone they had a reason to trust? If their only warning was a brief encounter with a minor NPC 10 weeks ago then you might want to think about reinforcing this somehow.
Assuming that you've given them plenty of warning and they still end up with no gold, the most important thing is to ensure that you provide a way of getting revenge and/or recompense. I know if I'd been doing a load of dangerous work and didn't get the gold I was promised that I would want to do something about it. The most important thing here is to give players the opportunity to act in revenge/response to whatever has happened to them. Maintaining player agency when something bad has happened to their characters is key in ensuring they don't feel hard done by or upset. There is nothing quite so bad as effectively being told 'Haha! You don't get any of the money you were promised and there's nothing you can do about it!'