I dunno, I'm just old-school.
It's usually among the first paragraphs in the DMG/GM manual of a game system that the DM/GM not only can cheat, but is encouraged to do so for the sake of fun at the table.
Hmm.... Since I've been playing this game since just about the time Gary Gygax discovered the joy of the Xerox machine... I'm pretty sure I'm "old school" myself.
Since you apparently did not understand my fundamental argument, let me repeat it for you.
For some of us having the GM cheat to save our ass is not fun. Some of us (and by "some of us" I mean "most of us who have played the game from the time a first level wizard could be permanently killed by a rat bite") believe that how well we actually play the game is important to our enjoyment.
One of the most enjoyable sessions I ever played ended in a TPK. The GM not only gave us no breaks, but seriously misplayed the "Darkness" spell and "Blindfight" ability in such a way that the encounter was virtually impossible to win.
Still, we took the BBEG down to 2 hit points before our last party member (my gnome rogue) bit the dust.
It was an epic battle. We still talk about it, several years later.
Sure I wish the GM had played the game right. But he didn't. And the result was the most tactically challenging, edge of the seat, every die roll in complete silence encounter I've ever been in.
Now, would it have been even more awesome if the GM had fudged that last die roll and my rogue ended up killing the BBEG and saving the party?
Yeah, probably. But you know what, my rogue rolled a one on his last shot and that was it.
So we rolled up new characters and started a new campaign.
When did I say anything about cheating to save a person?
I said cheat to make the story/encounter better.
That cheat can be either beneficial OR detrimental to the players.
Both my examples were taking the dice rolls that fell and tweaking them slightly.
In one, I said that the simple act of letting the knowledge check provide knowledge of the dance of ruin would have made that player feel awesome. He made the roll of 22, he got one piece of info, the DM decided to make that piece random. If he'd instead gave the dance info it would have been more fun for everyone.
That's not even fudging the roll, that's just deciding to give info instead of making it random.
In my second example, the fighter dies no matter what, but it's the difference between a throw away death and an epic death.
You don't fudge to save people, you fudge to increase tension, conflict, drama etc.
As a GM, you are simultaneously an story teller, the "computer", and a player.
You need to balance all three. All computer and player and no story teller is just playing a bad combat simulator. Conversely, all story and player and no computer just means you're probably rail roading people.
It's not your job to create the entire story, but it is your job to create opportunity for epic stories to emerge.
You can play the rules straight and still have GM flexibility. As many have pointed out the rules for knowledge checks are lacking in detail, that gives the GM a lot of flexibility. So saying that it might have been better to allow a party getting attacked by a high powered random encounter to know something actually meaningful on a successful knowledge check isn't necessarily suggesting that someone not play the rules straight.
You can play the rules straight and still have GM flexibility. As many have pointed out the rules for knowledge checks are lacking in detail, that gives the GM a lot of flexibility. So saying that it might have been better to allow a party getting attacked by a high powered random encounter to know something actually meaningful on a successful knowledge check isn't necessarily suggesting that someone not play the rules straight.
It is "actually meaningful" to know that Vrocks screech. What you seem to mean is "something that gives the party exactly the information they are looking for." That's not the same thing as "something actually meaningful."
As a GM, you are simultaneously an story teller, the "computer", and a player.You need to balance all three. All computer and player and no story teller is just playing a bad combat simulator. Conversely, all story and player and no computer just means you're probably rail roading people.
It's not your job to create the entire story, but it is your job to create opportunity for epic stories to emerge.
I don't think we have a disagreement in principle here Flesh, just in the details. You seem to be making arguments that suggest the GM should be far more active in making things happen to the benefit of the players than I think they should. The GM should do all of those things, but within the parameters where mechanics are meaningful, player skill makes a difference and there is no certainty of success.
How that is implemented is going to be different for every GM. Based on your comments I think you and I would run the same encounter differently enough to be noticed by experienced players.
Some will like your way better, some will like my way better. My way, imho, rewards player skill more directly. Just how I see it.
It is "actually meaningful" to know that Vrocks screech. What you seem to mean is "something that gives the party exactly the information they are looking for." That's not the same thing as "something actually meaningful."
But giving the dance info is an extremely minor "fudge" (arguably not even a fudge) that would have made the entire situation more fun for the players. It's not even like it would have prevented the dance of ruin, it simply would have made the wizard player feel like a badass.
It's such a minor change that would have been positive all the way around.
It's the difference between the wizard feeling that his skills were useful instead of now feeling like his very specialized skill was worthless even when used in the right frame of reference.
It's those kind of fudges I'm talking about. Tiny, minuscule pseudo-fudges that increase player happiness while not really changing a huge amount.
It's like if a rogue who's failed to hit ALL FIGHT finally gets set up for a sneak attack and brings the creature to 3 HP.
Fudge the bloody monster's HP to be 4 lower.
Super tiny fudge that creates a huge amount of player joy, and they'll never know it was a fudge.
Not at all unfair. Totally within your bounds as a GM, as well.
If you are consistent in how all your knowledge checks are run, then they know (or should know) the barrel their looking down.
This is especially true in light of the fact that they were fighting out of their depth -- if they are interested in fully reaping the rewards of an encounter 4 CR above their level, they should be fully interested in the risk involved. Doubly so if you warned people WILL die.
That being said, It should be in any GM's credo to "know thy players" -- some people insist on dying on the line and no quarter or the game isn't exciting -- some people are more in love with the story, the narrative, and their character... and the story coming to a bad end is extremely unfulfilling to them. If your group is entirely or primarily of one type or another -- a GM's first and most important job is to provide a good time, and should fire or fudge accordingly.
But all told, I'd stand on your side of the line. You never promised them a rose garden.
-V
It is "actually meaningful" to know that Vrocks screech. What you seem to mean is "something that gives the party exactly the information they are looking for." That's not the same thing as "something actually meaningful."
But giving the dance info is an extremely minor "fudge" (arguably not even a fudge) that would have made the entire situation more fun for the players. It's not even like it would have prevented the dance of ruin, it simply would have made the wizard player feel like a badass.
It's such a minor change that would have been positive all the way around.
It's the difference between the wizard feeling that his skills were useful instead of now feeling like his very specialized skill was worthless even when used in the right frame of reference.
It's those kind of fudges I'm talking about. Tiny, minuscule pseudo-fudges that increase player happiness while not really changing a huge amount.
It's like if a rogue who's failed to hit ALL FIGHT finally gets set up for a sneak attack and brings the creature to 3 HP.
Fudge the bloody monster's HP to be 4 lower.
Super tiny fudge that creates a huge amount of player joy, and they'll never know it was a fudge.
Even these examples you have listed here would probably not get past my smell filter Flesh. Especially if they happen frequently.
If I'm playing a wizard and I roll a 2 on a knowledge check and the ONE BIT OF INFORMATION I get about my enemy just happens to be THE ONE BIT OF INFORMATION that saves my ass, my IMMEDIATE reaction is going to be "geez, dude... what a friggin' coincidence...."
The only problem I have with leaving up to skill is this.
I have been playing pen and paper games since I was 11 years old. I am now 29.
None of my players have even close to that level of experience.
If it came down to their skill as players vs my ability to build encounters and play monsters effectively, they'd never win again.
I once "showed" my players what a dragon can do if a GM decides to play it intelligently.
They now understand that the only way they ever beat a dragon is if the GM lets them beat the dragon, as anyone worth half their weight in game books can win almost any fight if using a dragon, even a level appropriate CR dragon.
There are entire monster types that are nearly unbeatable if the GM decides to play them "full tilt."
Nurgle forbid a GM makes his own custom monster.
And I'm talking totally level appropriate encounters here.
I once built a CR3 half-giant psychic warrior would could do 43 damage, non-crit, in one blow.
That's a CR3 creature that can 1 shot a 3rd level anything, short of a high Con barbarian.
So as GMs, we're ALREADY fudging. We're already expected to play monsters as idiots and to not use all their abilities to our best.
GMs, in general, are the most rule savvy players at the table. We're the ones most capable of breaking the game. Most GMs I know were forced into it because other players refused to GM their munchkins. That's how I ended up "Lifetime GM".
Even these examples you have listed here would probably not get past my smell filter Flesh. Especially if they happen frequently.
If I'm playing a wizard and I roll a 2 on a knowledge check and the ONE BIT OF INFORMATION I get about my enemy just happens to be THE ONE BIT OF INFORMATION that saves my ass, my IMMEDIATE reaction is going to be "geez, dude... what a friggin' coincidence...."
In the OP's post, the wizard got a 22, not a 2.
Giving him crucial information on a check that SUCCEEDED in the first place is not even a fudge, it's more of an opinion on how knowledge works.
The OP gave random info with a 22. I consider a 22 high enough to get specific info related to the encounter at hand.
As I said a hundred posts or so above, upon seeing the Vrocks dancing, the entire group should have said: "Dancing demons? That can't be good!"
Before this thread, I was completely unaware of this ability. If one of my characters had seen dancing demons he would say something along the lines of:
Me: "That's bizarre! Why are they dancing? Knowledge Monkey! What's that dance? Why are they doing that?"
KM: "I have know idea."
Me: "Huh. Well, Michael Flatly Demons are scary but not that scary. If we ran away every time you failed a knowledge check we'd still be level 1. Let us do what we do, team! Yeargh!"
Every. Single. Time.
I'm not saying the failed roll killed the party, more likely a EL +4 encounter did that, but who the heck runs away every time they don't know what a monster's doing? That's ridiculous.
Some overly cautious groups might, but most wouldn't.
As I said a hundred posts or so above, upon seeing the Vrocks dancing, the entire group should have said: "Dancing demons? That can't be good!"
Before this thread, I was completely unaware of this ability. If one of my characters had seen dancing demons he would say something along the lines of:
Me: "That's bizarre! Why are they dancing? Knowledge Monkey! What's that dance? Why are they doing that?"
KM: "I have know idea."
Me: "Huh. Well, Michael Flatly Demons are scary but not that scary. If we ran away every time you failed a knowledge check we'd still be level 1. Let us do what we do, team! Yeargh!"
Every. Single. Time.
I'm not saying the failed roll killed the party, more likely a EL +4 encounter did that, but who the heck runs away every time they don't know what a monster's doing? That's ridiculous.
Some overly cautious groups might, but most wouldn't.
I think this is a question of context. If I was a member of a party and the knowledge monkey identified a bunch of ogres, and knew that they hit hard, but didn't know why they were dancing, I'd likely write it off and charge in.
If they were, however, extraplanar entities made out of the very fabric of chaos and evil, I'd be a little more wary. I'd rather be cautious, run away and be level 8 for another day than reckless and dead today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhhh, fromI dunno, I'm just old-school.
It's usually among the first paragraphs in the DMG/GM manual of a game system that the DM/GM not only can cheat, but is encouraged to do so for the sake of fun at the table.
The Most Important RuleThe is one rule which applies to everything you will do as a Dungeon Master. It is the most important of all the rules! It is simply this:
BE FAIRA Dungeon Master must not take sides. You will play the roles of the creatures encountered, but do so fairly, without favoring the monsters or the characters. Play the monsters as they would actually behave, at least as you imagine them.
The players are not fighting the DM! The characters may be fighting the monsters, but everyone is playing the game to have fun. The players have fun exploring and earning more powerful characters, and the DM has fun playing the monsters and entertaining players.
For example, it's not fair to change the rules unless everyone agrees to the change. When you add optional rules, apply them evenly to everyone, players and monsters. Do not make exceptions; stick to the rules, and be fair.
Granted, this isn't ancient-school, but I'd definitely say it qualifies as old-school and it very much speaks against cheating.
Perhaps you are not as old-school as you think you are.
And alientude violated the last paragraph by changing his rule for how he handled knowledge checks without getting everyone to agree to it. 'Course he wasn't playing by this rulebook. And he's retconning, which means, I assume, that he recognizes he was unfair.
Not at all unfair. Totally within your bounds as a GM, as well.
If you are consistent in how all your knowledge checks are run, then they know (or should know) the barrel their looking down.
Except that a player posted earlier that alientude made the knowledge check be random, which was out of the ordinary for the game.
So he wasn't consistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhhh, from
The Most Important RuleThe is one rule which applies to everything you will do as a Dungeon Master. It is the most important of all the rules! It is simply this:
BE FAIRA Dungeon Master must not take sides. You will play the roles of the creatures encountered, but do so fairly, without favoring the monsters or the characters. Play the monsters as they would actually behave, at least as you imagine them.
The players are not fighting the DM! The characters may be fighting the monsters, but everyone is playing the game to have fun. The players have fun exploring and earning more powerful characters, and the DM has fun playing the monsters and entertaining players.
For example, it's not fair to change the rules unless everyone agrees to the change. When you add optional rules, apply them evenly to everyone, players and monsters. Do not make exceptions; stick to the rules, and be fair.
Cheating in a game where no one truly wins or loses isn't necessarily "unfair". I mean, really, a GM never cheats. He fudges. He doesn't fudge for himself, he fudges for the enjoyment of the group.
I agree, fairness is important, but fairness doesn't automatically mean playing the dice where they land every time.
In fact, often dice can be unfair. Often a player can have a terrible night and roll bad constantly. His skill has gone out the window. His character means nothing. His game and enjoyment has become dictated by random chance. He is no longer having fun, regardless of how honest the dice rolls are.
Fair and honest aren't always synonyms.
Sometimes fairness necessitates dishonesty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flesh, I make up my own monsters all the time. When I don't make them up, I reskin them liberally, precisely to avoid this sort of metagaming by experienced players who have practically memorized the books.
I am currently running a campaign where the party is fighting demons. So far they have encountered exactly one demon that is exactly as described in the rule books. The rest have been reskinned to be unrecognizable or have been my own creations.
What we are talking about here isn't about GMs customizing campaigns. It's whether or not a PC should automatically gain precisely the knowledge they need about a very complex monster based on a knowledge roll that gives the PC ONE BIT of knowledge.
I play the game where skills matter and dice matter.
That's my last word on this. People can play as they like, but the OP in this regard was not "unfair" in my opinion. The bad things that happened were not entirely due to a single knowledge skill roll. There was more going on as I have outlined above. The way people are jumping on the OP here is ridiculous. The people saying that the GM should give the party exactly what they need even if they roll poorly are, in my opinion, playing with gloves on.
Fine, play that way. I'll keep playing where mechanics matter, skills matter, dice matter and players better be damned wary of dancing demons.
That is all.
I remember fighting a monster once. It flew into the party' midst, attacked with tooth and nail, and then used a darkness spell-like ability to conceal itself.
In the third round I thought to roll a knowledge check to identify it. The GM told me it's name, and then because I was 15 points over the check DC (over 30!) also gave me the following three details:
- It was a vicious little monster with highly damaging teeth and claws.
- It could fly.
- It could cast darkness as a spell-like ability.
Wait? What? I could tell that just by LOOKING AT IT! Isn't the skill supposed to give me USEFUL information?
The GM said that my textbook knowledge on a monster wouldn't change based on what I did or did not happen to observe first hand.
I felt like smacking the GM and storming out (but of course, I didn't).
The plain truth is that a great many GMs LOVE to screw their players on Knowledge checks.
(And just to be clear, I don't think that happened in the OP's case.)
I reskin [my monsters] liberally, precisely to avoid this sort of metagaming by experienced players who have practically memorized the books.
My players know the Bestiary like the back of their hand as well and I am often forced to do such things myself.
I once pitted my players against a single erinyes (and her summoned minions) in the middle of their home village.
For three hours, they didn't realize it was an erinyes even when she used familiar abilities such as flaming arrows and her lasso.
Why? Because I creeped them out with unfamiliar flavor. None of them had Knowledge (planes) and so none could roll to reveal its secrets.
I started off by describing her as a giant flying cocoon made of twisted iron coils. Whenever they made attacks against it with weapon or spell, one or two coils would unwind and deflect the attack (via DR or SR).
Finally, when they did manage to deal damage to her, the coils unraveled to reveal a black-winged angel hidden inside (the coils being a kind of "hair." She would have been beautiful if it weren't for her ritual scarification making her look like a mockery of something otherwise holy. The most gruesome part though? Her eyes. Where her eyes should have been there were simply empty sockets, as if she had torn them out with her own claws. Nevertheless, she would look at the PCs through those empty sockets as though she could see into their minds, their souls.
Every time they failed to bypass her DR or SR (which was quite often) I would describe it as the iron coils from her scalp reacting reflexively to intercept the attack. She would also "lasso" them with the iron coils from time to time, flying high and then dropping them to great effect.
She never spoke to them in mere words, but instead filled their minds with disturbing images via telepathy. For example, rather than tell them she was going to kill a baby at the orphanage in hopes of luring them into a trap, she would simply force visions of her ripping an infant and its crib to shreds. Since the PCs lived in the town and knew it well, they immediately recognized the baby, crib, and nursery that they envisioned, and knew where to go when the erinyes teleported ahead of them to set up her trap.
I don't know that it was scary, but it certainly was nerve-wracking for them. The PCs, in game and out, couldn't begin to guess what it was they were fighting. Only that it was a horrible manifestation of evil that couldn't possibly be of this world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* OP states he was berated not for the dretches raining down, or the dance of ruin itself, or for players dying in droves, but for how the knowledge check was handled.
* OP states he knew the player wanted to know about the Dance of Ruin.
* Player rolled a 22 versus a DC: 19
* DM decides that is a success, but that it garners a random bit of info.
* Player posts that random info from knowledge checks is not normal for the DM.
DM changed how he handles knowledge checks on the fly, without getting agreement from players, and for this monster only.
Would someone please explain to me how that is fair?
Flesh, I make up my own monsters all the time. When I don't make them up, I reskin them liberally, precisely to avoid this sort of metagaming by experienced players who have practically memorized the books.
I am currently running a campaign where the party is fighting demons. So far they have encountered exactly one demon that is exactly as described in the rule books. The rest have been reskinned to be unrecognizable or have been my own creations.
What we are talking about here isn't about GMs customizing campaigns. It's whether or not a PC should automatically gain precisely the knowledge they need about a very complex monster based on a knowledge roll that gives the PC ONE BIT of knowledge.
I play the game where skills matter and dice matter.
That's my last word on this. People can play as they like, but the OP in this regard was not "unfair" in my opinion. The bad things that happened were not entirely due to a single knowledge skill roll. There was more going on as I have outlined above. The way people are jumping on the OP here is ridiculous. The people saying that the GM should give the party exactly what they need even if they roll poorly are, in my opinion, playing with gloves on.
Fine, play that way. I'll keep playing where mechanics matter, skills matter, dice matter and players better be damned wary of dancing demons.
That is all.
And we agree on many things, but we seem to have one contention.
I think a 22 on a Knowledge (Planes) check while watching dancing demons is enough to identify that "that dance is a bad thing."
You disagree that 22 was high enough for that.
The Gm made a call. His call made the game night a "bad night" for most, as per his description.
One tiny change in his decision. A minuscule change that isn't even fudging the roll, as a 22 is a success, and he could have made that night "something to remember" for the wizard.
You see where I'm getting at?
He had two choices equally backed up by the rules, and he chose the "unfun" option. He made that roll of 22 effectively worthless. He made the wizard's choice of skills feel worthless.
He likely made that player himself feel worthless.
He could have increased awesome, and he chose not to fairly arbitrarily.
I reskin [my monsters] liberally, precisely to avoid this sort of metagaming by experienced players who have practically memorized the books.My players know the Bestiary like the back of their hand as well and I am often forced to do such things myself.
I once pitted my players against a single erinyes (and her summoned minions) in the middle of their home village.
For three hours, they didn't realize it was an erinyes even when she used familiar abilities such as flaming arrows and her lasso.
Why? Because I creeped them out with unfamiliar flavor. . .<snipped for length>
Nice. It would be fun to play in your campaign. O.o Scary, but fun. Great use of the Erinyes.
As for the OP's original question, which I didn't weigh in on; I've got little to add. . .except that when a player's use of it asks specifically what their X might be/mean, focusing on a particular observable aspect of the critter, to me that would be the bit of information they would get, and I don't think this is breaking or even 'fudging' the rules.
And some (not the OP) have suggested that it's perfectly fair for a successful knowledge check to only "reveal" what the party has already seen/observed with their naked eyes, or generic information about any demon ("Knowledge check! What are they and why might they be dancing!" Roll a 22; DM tells you "They're Vrocks; they're bird-like demons, as you can see. Demons are from the abyss and the great weakness of demons is either a holy or good weapon" - "Um, thanks, DM, but that's what you tell us every time we meet any kind of Demon. What about *Vrocks* - this specific demon - might we know?" - "sorry, you got your piece of information"). This, IMO, would make a mockery of investing precious skill-points into knowledge skills (especially since you need a whole range of separate ones in the party if you are going to be able to roll a KC on a range of critters). I can't say that OP was doing it right or wrong, though. But I will say a player ability - which includes a skill they invested precious skill points into - should be useful for them when used successfully in the context it was created/intended for, and it's not even "fudging" things in their favor if it is. It's "fudging" things against them if successful checks in specific instance/encounters is rendered moot/meaningless.
P.S. I also agree that it's not the DM's job to save the PCs from bad things resulting from bad decisions or failed die rolls. But it's also not the DM's job to make a successful die roll meaningless. Even having read everything in this thread I can't say that OP did that - but some of the defenses of his decision. . .well my disagreement is with some of the reasons people have given.
This is my last post in here, because it's pretty well settled with the group. I just want to point out one thing. This is only the second session I've GM'd for this group, though I've played with them for about 2 years now. Every other knowledge check done in this campaign has surpassed the DC enough to get all of the relevant bits of information. Therefore, while the player who posted (who has been the GM for the vast majority of the time I've played with this group) said the random determination of information goes against how I've done it in the past, he's wrong in that he has no relevant comparisons.
Like I said, this seems well settled in our group, so again, I thank the people who responded rationally for their opinions.
It's not for everyone. I think the author said when he play tested it in his home game there were 18 deaths before the campaign was concluded? Something crazy like that.
The book has 8 pages in the back reserved for obituaries.
^__^ Nice touch, I like it. Make the PCs sign off on the deaths.
One of the most enjoyable sessions I ever played ended in a TPK. ...
So we rolled up new characters and started a new campaign.
Yup. TPKs can be fun, but they also are a great way to kill a campaign. So if you are perfectly fine with ending the campaign on a meaningless random encounter, I would say not using any kind of GM discretion is the way to go.
One of the most enjoyable sessions I ever played ended in a TPK. ...
So we rolled up new characters and started a new campaign.
Yup. TPKs can be fun, but they also are a great way to kill a campaign. So if you are perfectly fine with ending the campaign on a meaningless random encounter, I would say not using any kind of GM discretion is the way to go.
There's nothing quite like the "What? You don't exactly agree with me? Why you must BELIEVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ALL I BELIEVE TO BE HOLY!!" argument.
Sheesh....
One of the most enjoyable sessions I ever played ended in a TPK. ...
So we rolled up new characters and started a new campaign.
Yup. TPKs can be fun, but they also are a great way to kill a campaign. So if you are perfectly fine with ending the campaign on a meaningless random encounter, I would say not using any kind of GM discretion is the way to go.
There's nothing quite like the "What? You don't exactly agree with me? Why you must BELIEVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ALL I BELIEVE TO BE HOLY!!" argument.
Sheesh....
Huh? I am agreeing with you that TPKs can be fun. But as you pointed out, your memorable TPK also marked the end of that campaign. I was just pointing out the most likely consequence to using TPKs, that is the end of the current campaign. Some folks may not like that, but others do.
TPK does not have to be the end of a campaign. It is up to the DM whether the PCs can come back through some plot device, or whether a new party of adventurers picks up where the old party left off, or even lead a new party of adventurers on a quest to find and resurrect the old party members. If the players liked their team so much, they can find a way to bring them back or continue in their honor. It is only the end of a campaign if everyone agrees not to continue, or if everyone lacks the creativity to keep it going :P
Flesh, I make up my own monsters all the time. When I don't make them up, I reskin them liberally, precisely to avoid this sort of metagaming by experienced players who have practically memorized the books..
There's no need to do that. Just say "You see a Large Skeletal Undead. Make your Ks Religion".
Flesh, I make up my own monsters all the time. When I don't make them up, I reskin them liberally, precisely to avoid this sort of metagaming by experienced players who have practically memorized the books..There's no need to do that. Just say "You see a Large Skeletal Undead. Make your Ks Religion".
I like to do it. I make my own minis too, plus I have a pretty large collection of D&D and MageKnight minis that I put to good use. I've been known to mod a mini here and there...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd call HAX on the summoning-bombs. You follow the rules like any of us, or tell us of such houserules in advance.
And DANCING in midair should demand for something more than merely hovering. Turning 180 degrees is a DC20 check. Performing an intricate ritualistic dance =/= hovering. Allowing them to do the dance while flying AT ALL is a huge boon, as it effectively voids any chance melee characters have to interrupt the dance.
The knowledge check, if prompted at the moment of the dance, should be relevant to the dance. If my GM started to "rule to win" against me, I'd roll two more knowledge checks, for each vrock, to see what I knew. You cannot "try again", but there is nothing that says that I cannot roll checks for another monster.
Work with me, and I will be gracious. Work against me, and I will put on my rules lawyer hat and put you in your place. You might be the GM, but the game is NOT yours.
Wow people are brutal on these forums.
Everyone just needs to chill, read where the OP said they are going to RETCON this fight and lay off. This isn't your game, this isn't your GM, this isn't your campaign setting, so let the GM do what they feel is fair in their game and stop crying foul with all the rules lawyering.
Uhm no. Pulling the "its not your game, isnt yoru GM, not your campaign so leave the poor DM alone" crap doesnt fly.
Dont want to take the heat? Dont post your questions to the general public. Once you put it in public domain, it becomes discussion fodder.
Its complete BS to fall back on "dont critize since its not your game" when you come onto a forum and post your campaign up and ask questions about it.
Thats just a flag on the play.
False.
The OP said they were doing a retconn (though most people don't like to do this), they are playing a very deadly game (which the GM told them in the beginning), rule #1 is that it is the GM's world and if the GM decides to throw an extra monster or two at a tough group that's well within their purview, and no matter what there are always different interpretations to the RAW for everyone so the rules lawyers decide they need to hop on and flame the OP as well with, "you should have done this or you should have done that or you are just wrong."
Plain and simple a lot of the forum members like to jump down the throat of some poor GM who just asked a simple question of fairness then later says, "thanks I am good and I don't need people piling on me anymore." When that happens, the rest of us should lay off and leave them alone as they fixed the fairness issue.
Again, I say to everyone who keeping piling on their BS to just back off as the issue was resolved.
I don't think there's anything "old-school" about fudging things to save players. If anything the DM used to be more adversarial. I remember a bit of Gygaxian wisdom that said something about writing down monster tactics in advance to show players if they complained about getting killed. Of course here, those tactics were not only written down, but published in one of the milestone adventures of our time, and that still isn't stopping people from crying foul.
I'd call HAX on the summoning-bombs. You follow the rules like any of us, or tell us of such houserules in advance.
And DANCING in midair should demand for something more than merely hovering. Turning 180 degrees is a DC20 check. Performing an intricate ritualistic dance =/= hovering. Allowing them to do the dance while flying AT ALL is a huge boon, as it effectively voids any chance melee characters have to interrupt the dance.
The knowledge check, if prompted at the moment of the dance, should be relevant to the dance. If my GM started to "rule to win" against me, I'd roll two more knowledge checks, for each vrock, to see what I knew. You cannot "try again", but there is nothing that says that I cannot roll checks for another monster.
Work with me, and I will be gracious. Work against me, and I will put on my rules lawyer hat and put you in your place. You might be the GM, but the game is NOT yours.
You know I make new monsters for my pcs to encounter every time, nobody really has a problem with it. What if I want a creature that 'almost' fits the bill, but isn't quite it, can I modify it a bit as a GM ? Sure I can, especially in this case, demons are creatures of chaos it is quite alright not to have them confirm to eachother exactly.
I doubt the vrocks encounter was optimized in lethality, it is jsut that 3 vrocks are a tough deal period, some flavorful changes do not really matter that much. It summons dretches instead of another vrock.. boohoo, seriously, as I see it, it took a possibly very tough encounter away from being a chance to summon an extra vrock 35% (x3) by allowing them to summon some dretches, makes the encounter one that is more predictable and most likely weaker.
The ability says dancing and chanting as a full round action, it doesnt say they can move or not, but they might suppose.. quite likely they have the option to move or stand still dancing, sure it could be more clear but it isnt too much of a stretch, neither does it say they have to be particulary good at dancing, sure as hell they don't have ranks in it, it does not force concentration checks, except that they stop doing it if they are stunned, dead, paralyzed or the like, for all we know it is just plain screeching chants and some rhytmic arm waving.
You know I make new monsters for my pcs to encounter every time, nobody really has a problem with it."New Monsters" are one thing, but see below:
I don't think there's anything "old-school" about fudging things to save players. If anything the DM used to be more adversarial. I remember a bit of Gygaxian wisdom that said something about writing down monster tactics in advance to show players if they complained about getting killed. Of course here, those tactics were not only written down, but published in one of the milestone adventures of our time, and that still isn't stopping people from crying foul.
Here we're not dealing with a "new monster" but with a tactic that is against the RAW.
DM's can and should be tough (I've said as much in other threads when people seem to have been saying it's a DM's job to cosset their players and/or protect them from the consequences of their own bad decisions or unlucky rolls). But a DM should be fair and consistent.
The Dreches here were not "a new monster" nor were the Vrocks. Nor was it an "innovative" use of summoning to have them summoned in mid-air and used as bombs. I don't blame the OP/DM for this - but I do fault the adventure writer, regardless of his credentials (argument from authority does have it's place, but even an authority can be wrong). Would you allow players to have their Summons appear in mid-air (consistency in applying the rule)? If not, then the monsters can't, either.
And "it's a deadly adventure" is no excuse. It should be deadly according to the rules. This is not that difficult to accomplish, even. In fact any adventure writer, and any DM, can kill a party according to RAW any time they really feel like it. But if you showed a player that written tactic - published and paid for with real money, even - and then the player showed the RAW and mentioned how it had been enforced on the players, the players would be correct.
I really dislike the idea "one set of rules for players, another set of rules for monsters" when it comes to things like this (monsters/NPCs break the rules in enough ways): it's lazy adventure design for one thing and it is a big generator of conflict at the table because when the players find out (and eventually they do), not only does the DM-player relationship become more adversarial, but rife with conflict because the players start to suspect (rightly!) that the DM isn't playing straight with them: it's like the House cheating at cards.
Kamel guru why don't you "put on your rules lawyer hat" and go put Greg Vaughn in his place on the ten page thread his adventure spawned. After all he only worked on the project for FOURTEEN YEARS, I'm sure he'll see that you are right and he should have used straight bestiary stat blocks instead of customizing everything to keep things surprising for seasoned veterans.
Porphy I thought you would be with me on this :p
Authority can most definitely be wrong I'm not trying to sound like everyone must kneel before Greg Vaughn because he is the President of D&D or something, I'm saying, can you see why someone might run an encounter he wrote as written, and not expect to get crucified for it?
Porphy I thought you would be with me on this :p
I'm with you in general. ^_^ - and I agree with your last point (see below).
I just think that if an effect works one way, it should work that way consistently unless there's a very good reason. What it seems like happened here - not with OP, but with the writing of the module - is the author had a kewl idea and just *forgot* the rule on summoning in mid air. For the moment. Because. . .kewl.
But I don't like that either as a player or a DM - if I'm not going to break rules or fudge things to keep them alive (when they don't deserve it), I don't believe in doing so to screw them over in the name of "anything goes if I can call it 'challenging'."
Authority can most definitely be wrong I'm not trying to sound like everyone must kneel before Greg Vaughn because he is the President of D&D or something, I'm saying, can you see why someone might run an encounter he wrote as written, and not expect to get crucified for it?
Definitely. I don't think it was OP's fault for running the encounter as written. I certainly don't mean to crucify him for it.
However - that said - if I was in his campaign, for example, and one encounter later I decided to summon some monsters in mid air, and he said "well, actually, now that I think of it, you can only summon monsters on a surface that can hold them," well I'd probably remember the previous encounter - but I'd certainly accept his ruling especially if he said "you know, you're right. that's how the module was written, though, and I didn't remember this at the time." Then we just move on; there's a billion rules after all.
Yeah I just looked up the Conjuration (Summoning) Rules and you are 100% right, I hadn't even thought about the surface requirement.
Could you maybe reason the Dretches are willing? Maybe the legions of the Abyss have more coordination then what you see between a mortal caster and an outsider summons.
Tsar Spoilers
Not exactly an auto TPK encounter for any party who isn't kind of tempting fate.
That's one of the reasons (among reasons) why I for one, despite my posts, am not critical of how OP ran the encounter.
Especially after one of the players posted and said his Char doesn't withdraw from encounters ("run away") - sometimes it pays to be cautious. In "notoriously dangerous adventures" the usual trope is it always pays to be cautious (until it don't. . .there's always at least one encounter in such modules that punishes caution).
Not that I want to fault the players, either: curiosity and not wanting to skip an encounter (especially in "epically dangerous adventures" where an encounter skipped might mean you miss out on getting the one thing you need to overcome a later encounter, and you never know which encounter might include the McGuffin which, if you don't get it, you're screwed).
It's just one of those encounters where a lot of things came together to a bad end, is all.
Wow people are brutal on these forums.
Everyone just needs to chill, read where the OP said they are going to RETCON this fight and lay off. This isn't your game, this isn't your GM, this isn't your campaign setting, so let the GM do what they feel is fair in their game and stop crying foul with all the rules lawyering.
Uhm no. Pulling the "its not your game, isnt yoru GM, not your campaign so leave the poor DM alone" crap doesnt fly.
Dont want to take the heat? Dont post your questions to the general public. Once you put it in public domain, it becomes discussion fodder.
Its complete BS to fall back on "dont critize since its not your game" when you come onto a forum and post your campaign up and ask questions about it.
Thats just a flag on the play.
False.
The OP said they were doing a retconn (though most people don't like to do this), they are playing a very deadly game (which the GM told them in the beginning), rule #1 is that it is the GM's world and if the GM decides to throw an extra monster or two at a tough group that's well within their purview, and no matter what there are always different interpretations to the RAW for everyone so the rules lawyers decide they need to hop on and flame the OP as well with, "you should have done this or you should have done that or you are just wrong."
Plain and simple a lot of the forum members like to jump down the throat of some poor GM who just asked a simple question of fairness then later says, "thanks I am good and I don't need people piling on me anymore." When that happens, the rest of us should lay off and leave them alone as they fixed the fairness issue.
Again, I say to everyone who keeping piling on their BS to just back off as the issue was resolved.
The OP asked if he was unfair. It's not flaming to tell him that we think he was. If he didn't want to possibly hear that he was in the wrong, he shouldn't have asked.
Whether written into their tactics or not, summoning creatures in mid-air is illegal and impossible unless those creatures can fly. Greg Vaughan is a wonderful writer, and I'm sure Slumbering Tsar is a great campaign. But even the great can make mistakes, and this tactic is just as RAW-illegal as the Black Monk trip-locking opponents, in spite of the fact that you cannot trip a prone opponent, even when they provoke an AoO in the process of getting up; or Treerazer using Vital Strike on a charge. Unless the DM institutes a house rule allowing players to use these tactics as well, it is unfair for him to use them.
I think it's fairly suspect to let them so easily dance in midair; Before the advent of Fly checks, I wouldn't have allowed that for any creature with less than Perfect maneuverability; as it is, I'd require some relatively difficult Fly checks. That's a difference of opinion, though; there's no clear ruling, like there is for the summoning business. After uneasy consideration, I let this one pass.
Now my understanding of how the Knowledge check played out is that the party engaged the Vrocks without knowing what they were, or initially using Knowledge checks to attempt to identify them. The wizard only attempted to do so when he saw them dancing, trying to figure out if he had knowledge of these creatures which would explain this bizarre tactic. His roll was successful, but the DM effectively turned the roll into a failure by refusing to give him information useful and relevant to the context that triggered the check. If the wizard had made a Knowledge check to identify the Vrocks initially, not learned about the Dance then, and been unable to retry when they started dancing, that would be fine. If the DM had set up a table beforehand of the order in which he gives out information about various monsters based on Knowledge checks, that would be one thing. If the DM had even established clearly from the beginning that all Knowledge checks would return randomly determined results when used for monster identification, that would be one thing. None of those were the case, according to the information we have. The DM, in the midst of a crisis situation for the players, and out of the blue from their perspective, severely weakened one of their tactical tools.
So yes, in balance, I think the OP was unfair, and that's what I say when I'm asked about it. That's not flaming. That's not jumping down the OP's throat, or hounding him. That's stating an opinion which he asked for. He opened his decision up for criticism, and that's my criticism.
Doing the dance in mid-air I did not see written into the adventure, but I do remember someone keeping campaign journals of actual play on a blog and describing this tactic, so maybe the op got the idea there.
Everyone saying summons don't work mid-air, I have to admit I had forgotten about that, and it does seem to be a bigger deal to me then having Vrocks summon Dretches. The latter only tweaks a monsters abilities to keep things surprising, the former actually tweaks the way a whole school of magic works.
Either way I agree with Porphy, the author was probably just prioritizing kewl over the letter of the law.
Not exactly an auto TPK encounter for any party who isn't kind of tempting fate.That's one of the reasons (among reasons) why I for one, despite my posts, am not critical of how OP ran the encounter.
Especially after one of the players posted and said his Char doesn't withdraw from encounters ("run away") - sometimes it pays to be cautious. In "notoriously dangerous adventures" the usual trope is it always pays to be cautious (until it don't. . .there's always at least one encounter in such modules that punishes caution).
Not that I want to fault the players, either: curiosity and not wanting to skip an encounter (especially in "epically dangerous adventures" where an encounter skipped might mean you miss out on getting the one thing you need to overcome a later encounter, and you never know which encounter might include the McGuffin which, if you don't get it, you're screwed).
It's just one of those encounters where a lot of things came together to a bad end, is all.
Let me clarify myself, I do not believe there should be something like separate rules for monsters and players exactly.
The thing is, if I can explain something that is cool with a feat, relatively minor adjustment of a monster, I could write a new feat for the monster and use it in the encounter., or I could just wing it and say :
"hey this is cool, lets give the vrock this ability, taking away the ability to summon another Vrock for dretch bombing might be just about right on the powerscale."
Make sure you got clear what they can and can not do before the encounter and I do not see any rules broken, it is like making Unique monsters out of old ones.
" Do you allow the players to do the same ? "
Yes, I do in a way. Ofcourse I might create a custom feat or bloodline for a player, change this or that a bit to fit his theme better. Sometimes I might reward them with extra feats or 'cool powers'. You know what, I think it is perfectly fine for a GM to do all of that, within reason.
RAW ruling is such a dumb practice, if it is in the adventure does it really matter wether it is RAW, the scenario is the exception to the rule, it was written like that, it is presumably balanced for what it is supposed to be (A deadly adventure in this case). Maybe you would feel better if the writer took the time and effort to write a few feats or rules that allowed him to do that, taking up space for no good reason at all but at least it is 'justified'.
NOTE : Dretch bombing is inferior to telekinesis in just about every way, an ability they already have.
I don't think there's anything "old-school" about fudging things to save players. If anything the DM used to be more adversarial. I remember a bit of Gygaxian wisdom that said something about writing down monster tactics in advance to show players if they complained about getting killed. Of course here, those tactics were not only written down, but published in one of the milestone adventures of our time, and that still isn't stopping people from crying foul.
A lot of us talking about fudging weren't talking about fudging to save players, we were talking about fudging to increase the epicness/awesomness of an encounter.
Stuff like if someone got a nice crit on a monster and that crit would have brought it to 4 HP, instead shave 5 extra HP so that big crit downed the beast. Minor fudge, huge feeling of awesome for the criting player.
Or in the case of the knowledge roll, when he succeeded with a 22, don't give him a random piece of info, give him a useful piece so that he feels awesome.
Sometimes you even fudge AGAINST the players if you feel it will make a scene better. Maybe a monster would have brought him to 3, bring him to 0 instead so he's staggered.
It's about taking the rolls and SLIGHTLY fudging them to create more "epic".
That's what I meant by old school.
Being the story teller, not simply the guy who moves the NPCs on a battle mat.
FWIW, I'm on record saying I would have have given the player the info on the dance.
But I don't know what difference it would have made at that point.
I don't know what difference it would have made if they were on the ground, or if they summoned more Vrocks instead of Dretch bombing.
I don't fudge rolls anymore, just personal preference.
Also, I'm pretty sure you can be a great storyteller without fudging die rolls.
Maybe you would feel better if the writer took the time and effort to write a few feats or rules that allowed him to do that, taking up space for no good reason at all but at least it is 'justified'.
There is a "good reason" - if the author throws out the rules whenever they're too lazy to think of a good way to do what they want, it stops being a game.
As you yourself pointed out, Telekinesis is better in every way. The author doesn't even have to "write new feats or rules" he can use the RAW to drop dretch bombs even: one Vrock summons them, the other two telekinesis them and drop them (which probably has problems of it's own).
Or - why was the author wedded to a "Dretch Bomb" idea in the first place? It's not because it made the encounter more deadly. It's not even because it made the encounter kewler, really (Lemures, maybe*). All it did was create play problems by opening up cans of worms such as we're discussing here.
On the one hand, there's being creatively deadly within the rules. On the other hand, there's "Dretches fall, everyone dies" Fiat.** Now, yes, DMs can use Fiat but they - we - can also abuse it. Module authors can to a lesser degree, because if they do it it makes them look like they don't know the rules even if they do. In other contexts, this usually results not in "wow, what a cool module, lets defend it to the death as if it were flawless against any critics" but "wow, what a cool module, but there are a number of puzzling rules errors in this otherwise extremely fun and well-crafted adventure, which any DM should be advised about as they're running it."
*I'm joking here. Though I do think splattering characters with lemure blobs is inherently more lulzy.
**yes they didn't all die, but you get the point.
I don't think there's anything "old-school" about fudging things to save players. If anything the DM used to be more adversarial. I remember a bit of Gygaxian wisdom that said something about writing down monster tactics in advance to show players if they complained about getting killed. Of course here, those tactics were not only written down, but published in one of the milestone adventures of our time, and that still isn't stopping people from crying foul.A lot of us talking about fudging weren't talking about fudging to save players, we were talking about fudging to increase the epicness/awesomness of an encounter.
Stuff like if someone got a nice crit on a monster and that crit would have brought it to 4 HP, instead shave 5 extra HP so that big crit downed the beast. Minor fudge, huge feeling of awesome for the criting player.
Or in the case of the knowledge roll, when he succeeded with a 22, don't give him a random piece of info, give him a useful piece so that he feels awesome.
Sometimes you even fudge AGAINST the players if you feel it will make a scene better. Maybe a monster would have brought him to 3, bring him to 0 instead so he's staggered.
It's about taking the rolls and SLIGHTLY fudging them to create more "epic".
That's what I meant by old school.
Being the story teller, not simply the guy who moves the NPCs on a battle mat.
All of this "fudge for the awesome" is pure personal opinion on what is or isn't "awesome" and whether the goal of "awesome" is actually achieved. Let's look at one.
Big crit takes BBEG down to 4 hit points.
Choice 1: "fudge for the awesome" so the big crit player can pump his chest and say "hoo-yah!".
Choice 2: Play it straight and the BBEG survives for one more swing, putting down the party's big melee damage doer and making it look like a looming TPK until the party's sorcerer finishes off the BBEG with his last magic missile, giving the sorcerer his first BBEG take down in two months.
Which of these is "more awesome" from a story perspective? I'd argue both are equally awesome. However in choice 2, the party did not have to rely on a "fudge" for the "awesome."
I am not saying never fudge the dice. But I am saying that I don't remember the last time I did. And my campaigns are full of story telling awesome. But I suspect you and I have different ideas of what amounts to "story telling awesome" Flesh. Mine really is more about story telling and role playing, so combat "awesome" isn't usually that critical to "the story."
Anyhow as Grimmy says, perhaps it's not even the module author's "fault"
Doing the dance in mid-air I did not see written into the adventure, but I do remember someone keeping campaign journals of actual play on a blog and describing this tactic, so maybe the op got the idea there.So now people don't have to worry about defending the author against not including new rules, and we can all blame some random guy's adventure journal for the idea. Perhaps OP read the journal, thought it was a cool way to do it, and didn't remember the rule on summoning. Like I said in my own thing above, had I been a player, and he remembered it later (for example, if I decided to use summons to drop bombs), well, stuff happens and I'd roll with it no problem.
Being the story teller, not simply the guy who moves the NPCs on a battle mat.
You probably also didn't mean this quite the way it came off. IMO the DM and the players are the storytellers - it's collaborative, not "Story Time." If it's "Story Time" you don't need rules at all, of course.
One reason I didn't like WoD products was how they themed GMing.
I don't think there's anything "old-school" about fudging things to save players. If anything the DM used to be more adversarial. I remember a bit of Gygaxian wisdom that said something about writing down monster tactics in advance to show players if they complained about getting killed. Of course here, those tactics were not only written down, but published in one of the milestone adventures of our time, and that still isn't stopping people from crying foul.A lot of us talking about fudging weren't talking about fudging to save players, we were talking about fudging to increase the epicness/awesomness of an encounter.
Stuff like if someone got a nice crit on a monster and that crit would have brought it to 4 HP, instead shave 5 extra HP so that big crit downed the beast. Minor fudge, huge feeling of awesome for the criting player.
Or in the case of the knowledge roll, when he succeeded with a 22, don't give him a random piece of info, give him a useful piece so that he feels awesome.
Sometimes you even fudge AGAINST the players if you feel it will make a scene better. Maybe a monster would have brought him to 3, bring him to 0 instead so he's staggered.
It's about taking the rolls and SLIGHTLY fudging them to create more "epic".
That's what I meant by old school.
Being the story teller, not simply the guy who moves the NPCs on a battle mat.
All of this "fudge for the awesome" is pure personal opinion on what is or isn't "awesome" and whether the goal of "awesome" is actually achieved. Let's look at one.
Big crit takes BBEG down to 4 hit points.
Choice 1: "fudge for the awesome" so the big crit player can pump his chest and say "hoo-yah!".
Choice 2: Play it straight and the BBEG survives for one more swing, putting down the party's big melee damage doer and making it look like a looming TPK until the party's sorcerer finishes off the BBEG with his last magic missile, giving the sorcerer his first BBEG take down in two...
Well, considering almost every aspect of human life is opinion, then yeah, it's personal opinion.
But everything short of math and physics is personal opinion.
I wasn't saying my method was inherently superior, I was just correcting the misconception that I am arguing for "fudging to save the players."
I'm fudging to increase my personal idea of epic, which my players generally tend to share.
Considering I've been friends with most of my players for a decade or more, we have very similar taste in most things.
Some of the best game sessions I've run are ones where I didn't even roll dice. I arbitrarily decided success and failure on a whim and my players had a blast. I even killed one of them, but the death was epic as hell so he wasn't that upset over it.
Different styles, none inherently superior or inferior to the other.
I just know I can count the number of times players have walked away from my table upset on one hand. Actually, I remember both events, as it's only happened twice in 16+ years of DMing.