"Rath" |
While I agree with the first scenario being unnecessary, if a PC is trying to stealth and gets a poor roll, there may be a repercussion. Broom catching on fire and what not is a bit extreme, but I could see the DM having a gust of wind catching the broom and jerk it in such a way as to have the PC let out a yelp while they try and regain control of their broom. Probably let the enemies roll perception with disadvantage due to the PC being in an unorthodox location for scouting.
AL DM |
Only if a stealth check is required to begin with.
Here, if the player hadn't rolled, the DM may never have even called for a check. But because the player tried to speed up game by making a roll before the DM had the opportunity to say "no roll is needed" or "yes, please roll," the player ended up getting punished with a low roll.
Heck, the DC could have been 5. With a roll of 3, and a decent dex or proficiency, she could have passed! But we'll never know, because the DM saw that low number on the d20 and decided it was bad enough to cause a magical reaction to alert every enemy within eyesight.
PBP games are slow enough to have to wait for the DM to make a decision on a DC, so a lot of times it's good that a player take the initiative and roll dice with a skill check request.
At a live table, I would request that players refrain from rolling unless requested, but in PBP, it could take days to resolve such a roll.
What makes that scenario bad isn't that she rolled low and alerted the enemy, it's bad because the DM didn't determine a DC for the check or even ponder if the check was needed at all. The DM just said, "Low roll, something bad should happen!"
Even that gust of wind is dubious, because if the player had never asked for a stealth check, that gust of wind may never have happened. If the player had kept their mouth shut, the DM could have said, "the flight was uneventful, you reach your destination." But because the player asked for stealth and then rolled, a gust of wind was created to explain the low roll.
That kind of DMimg teaches players to not do things in fear of getting punished for the randomness of dice. This is why it's important to set up the scenario before determining the results.
"Rath" |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand your point, and agree that the scenario you describe is excessive and supports the "Me vs Them" DM style many DMs develop.
When I used to run PBP games, if a save/check was needed like that, I as the DM would roll it for the PC. I also tend to adjust rolls to make an interesting and fun story, but that's why I limit my DMing mostly to homegames.
AL DM |
I hear ya. And I think we actually agree on these points.
One thing I've learned from DMing these games is that there's a very different style to DMing a PBP game vs a home game.
Home games tend to go fast, and little things like that go unnoticed or you stop caring quickly. It's also easy to backtrack, force a reply, and have a player driven game.
PBP games can have someone dwell on a single sentence for days at a time, and I've seen people quit over it. It's also difficult to force someone to be involved in the game. You can't just say, "Hey, players, what do you do?" And it's difficult as a player to figure out what checks to roll; you can't just say, "Hey DM, what if I do this?" Such conversations can derail a game something fierce.
It's better to have a PBP game be DM driven, where the DM provides options, gives skill checks, and still allows for players to be creative.
How I run these games is completely different from how I ran Out of the Abyss with my home group.
Waiting on one more player before we can move on in game.
"Rath" |
I'm perfectly fine with your push/non-push indications. It helps keep the story moving, and days without updates are a slow and insidious killer of PBP.
"Rath" |
Hey, if they are a commoner, 4 damage could potentially kill. I'll never understand taking a prisoner/giving an ultimatum over someone who has no significant connection to the party, and the "threat" relies on the party's good nature to actually matter.
"Rath" |
As for why these things happen? Well, that's because the world exists beyond the PCs themselves, and things can happen regardless if the PCs are there.
WOAH... If anything RPGs have taught me, is that the world destroying supermonster will wait until I've completed 50 side quests to level up before trying to win, and merchants will still try and fleece me of my money even when they are about to die to said supermonster...
:D
"Rath" |
If Rath's grouchy jerkdom gets too much for ppl, lemme know and I can tone it down. I don't want to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game just because I'm using my one non-good character.
Shoo Zahal |
No problem, Shoo can also answer :P I just brought the argument cause I thought it would add something different, so it's really me who started technically. But this can be fun, if you want to push further.
AL DM |
I think you guys handled PC strife very well.
I've done some good PC strife in the past; the key is to do exactly what you guys did - discuss it out of character.
When I do it, often times my OOC discussion with the other player is longer than the PC strife in game as we discuss where we want the conversation to go, who will "win" the debate, and where it will lead the PCs going into the future.
It gets really interesting when the other player starts giving good suggestions for your own PC's side of the argument. :)
If you're not talking to the other player(s) OOC, then you risk them taking it personally. And I've seen that happen, too.
Shoo Zahal |
It happens sometimes, we're all human (not a bad race to be, on the other hand :P). I hope it didn't eat much time and no one got bored.
Sati Fezim |
Hey, sorry for not posting the past few days. I left for a vacation and in the craziness of traveling I forgot to check on this game. I have to really get it into my routine that I have to post every day from now on! looks like some pretty intense RP went down while I was gone, too.
AL DM |
No worries!
I haven't really posted today. I'm getting sick and got slammed with work today. In addition to my normal work, I got assigned three new projects today. Plus I'm trying to fix my house so we can sell it. Hoping to get outside stuff done before it starts raining again.
I've lost every single weekend for the past three months due to rain, and I can't get the work done outside that I need.
Shoo Zahal |
I bet dealing with children can be way more exhausting than being sick ;)
Rest what you need (we don't want a dead GM after all :P)
"Rath" |
No worries here, you are still one of my most active games :D
"Rath" |
We're falling apart, as I threw out my back and am on high dosages of narcotics and muscle relaxers for a few days.
I think we need to establish what our goals and options are. Maybe its the meds talking, but I read Shadoo's post 3 times and still don't really understand what the first paragraph meant.
AL DM |
I'll do an update tonight outlining what your goals are, what you've discussed, and what I think are some viable options.
Since we have seven players, I'm going to say that the first three people to agree on a course of action is what we're going to do. Otherwise this game will drag on. We already have issues with people not posting to the agreed upon posting rate for this game. If we can get three to agree, that's good enough for me.
It'll be later today. I have to take my kids to gymnastics soon, which leaves me little time to post until after they go to bed.
Shadoo Mortimer |
Shadoo is a Paladin. I'm giving him some rationale as to why he'd agree with a plan that involves basically trickery and allowing a slaughter to happen. As much as some people simply want to move despite what their characters are, some of us still stop to think in terms of role-playing if it'd make sense (so, believe it or not, some characters aren't in fact just piles of numbers put together!).
With that said, I do agree we're slow, and I take responsibility in part for not quite keeping up with the post rate. If people prefer - and considering my lack of knowledge in 5E - I can step out.
"Rath" |
Oh, I have not problem with you playing more than a pile of numbers :D As I said, I just couldn't understand what your words were trying to convey. I do now, thanks for the clarification.
In terms of speed of posting, that happens unfortunately, and agree with DM that if we can get an agreement of a few on a course, that is the one we take. Rath will even go along with/not sabotage an attempt at diplomacy and talking with Sahnd, even though he thinks its a waste of time. Don't want his grumpiness ruining good roleplay for the good folk trying to convert someone to the light.
AL DM |
Don't leave Shadoo! (Unless you want to, of course). I was just trying to give my rationale for why I picked 3 instead of a full 7 consensus.
In another PBP game I'm a player in, we have a standard policy of "the first two to agree out of four is the direction we go." PBP games can get bogged down in arguments, so a policy like that helps speed things up. :)
As a side note, regarding paladins. In 5e, paladins don't have an alignment restriction. So you're no longer limited to the standard LG paladin type. It really depends on which Oath you take. The last two games I've run on here, the Vengeance Paladin has absolutely no qualms about killing first and asking questions later.
"Rath" |
How do you run combat v stealth? I've had DMs say that when you attack, you lose your hiding status and everyone can see you. Others have said that you can remain hidden until spotted.
Basically, can I see the goings on of the spoiler, or is Rath still oblivious.
Shoo Zahal |
Both Rath and I have a feat that ignores up to 3/4 cover, anyway. Which doesn't matter when you roll a 1, of course :P
"Rath" |
Hehe, yeah.
I'll be curious how this plays out, with half our group trying to talk in camp, and half the group in a battle. I had been curious if Shoo/Shadoo would try and talk the fight down.
DM: Are we going to try and work these fights/talks in combat timing as a whole, or will things be going on their own timeline and we'll just kinda squish them together once one side is done?
AL DM |
I was kind of having them go at the same time, but it's mostly so everyone can have something to do in game.
The scene with the battle is kind of a "secret" battle. The guard tried to let out a warning, but it happened at the same time as the talking group, so his warning got lost in the noise.
Once these two scenes are over, I'll do a major jump to the next scene to try and move the game forward.
Normally, I wouldn't try to force it, but this is AL and I don't want to drag it out too much. It's a balance between moving the game forward while also allowing everyone to be able to do what they want to do in character.
"Rath" |
OK, I think people are confused about what happened. I think AL DM is willing to handwave the combat, and just rule that those in the camp escape with Sahnd by going into the cave while the remaining bandits died to the kobold onslaught. Shoo and Rath helped the bandits kill kobolds for a time, so there will be less kobolds to deal with once we start in on that part of the module. At this point, the party is now gathered back together, in a cave, not under assault, and able to take a few minutes to talk to Sahnd. Am I correct DM?