| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say that, during an interesting and thought-provoking political mystery, your GM had a highly intelligent wizard send you and your fellow PCs on an important quest to deliver some missives to the King. These messages were SO important, a matter of national security in fact, that the PCs were given multiple copies spread out amongst the party (should someone fall) and then expressly forbade from reading them themselves (as they were meant for the king's eyes only).
Along the way, you meet some NPCs, some friendly, others not. You go through several encounters and a few semi-related mini-adventures--some of which involve people, for and against the king, trying to stop you for various reasons. Through interacting with them, you slowly begin to suspect that your employer is a really bad guy. Eventually, you realize the truth of his past history. Rather than continue the quest and be a pawn in whatever evil scheme the wizard has going, you return to your would-be benefactor and demand an explanation of his past crimes that have so recently come to light.
In response, he asks you one question: Do you still possess the King's letters? Yes? Good.
*greater dispel magic*
The GM TPKs the entire party in one go via the dozens of explosive runes letters we had been carrying all along--those that were meant for the king.
Your GM ends the (brief) campaign and congratulates you all on completing a rather "interesting" story. He compares it to the movie, THE DEPARTED, which was apparently his inspiration.
How would you feel after that? Was it a good game with a great and interesting story? Or were you totally cheated?
I'm not sure how dispelling magic would cause explosive runes to go off. You'd think it'd be, you know, dispelled.
Still I'd have a face like >_______________>
I'm not sure how dispelling magic would cause explosive runes to go off. You'd think it'd be, you know, dispelled.
If you fail to dispel it, they detonate. Says so in the spell. The wizard in question deliberately failed the check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM would be eating his paperwork for the campaign, if I was in a good mood for the day. Absolute BS in my book. I've already dealt with that kind of situation. All players ended up quitting the campaign because it didn't matter what we did, the DM was going to set it up so we failed, because that's how the story went when he did a LARP of it. We were not happy. I don't think any one in that particular group would've tolerated this from any DM.
I guess I'd congratulate the DM and roll a new character. Not sure though, I have to think about it.
Almost seems the players could have seen it coming.
DM would be eating his paperwork for the campaign, if I was in a good mood for the day. Absolute BS in my book. I've already dealt with that kind of situation. All players ended up quitting the campaign because it didn't matter what we did, the DM was going to set it up so we failed, because that's how the story went when he did a LARP of it. We were not happy. I don't think any one in that particular group would've tolerated this from any DM.
I think this is probably not that type of DM, even of it looks like it from this one example.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have opened one of the letters as soon as we had doubts. It would have hurt, but since it was only one letter as opposed to all of them simultaneously it probably wouldn't have killed... and then we'd have went back and tried to kill the wizard.
And then would have most likely failed because the DM had it in mind that the PCs lose no matter what they did from the getgo >.>
Nope I don't think the DM has it in for the players I think the DM is into crafting involved scenarios with a lot of angles.
Yeah I would have figured the letters were bad for the king as soon as I found out the wizard was a sketch-case, and if they're bad for the king, they're bad for me. I wouldn't have delivered them right back to the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have replied. "Yes, but since the envelope is sealed and the envelope doesn't have the runes on it there's no line of effect to the runes, and besides, the envelope is in my handy haversack anyway." <_<
I would have opened one of the letters as soon as we had doubts. It would have hurt, but since it was only one letter as opposed to all of them simultaneously it probably wouldn't have killed... and then we'd have went back and tried to kill the wizard.
And then would have most likely failed because the DM had it in mind that the PCs lose no matter what they did from the getgo >.>
And if a single letter had multiple castings upon it? 60d6 damage is going to hurt at any level.
Well you have to read them. I don't think you would read the first set of runes and find them so interesting you just keep reading after the first ones blew up in your face.
The dispel thing works though, I guess.
Good point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD I would love to play in your game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's messed up, I would be unhappy. Also, the DM has just endorsed crazy "stacks of papers with explosive runes" style attacks. I'd start spending my downtime casting it a ton. Then keeping those papers in a box...in extradinensional storage till it was time to be used, to prevent backfiring. With holes just large enough in the box to allow line of effect but small enough to prevent papers blowing out. Have someone throw it, cast dispel on it, and enjoy your mini-nuke.
A DM of mine did once tell a story where a DM in some game "contracted him" to join his game for the purpose of backstabbing and killing the party. So my DM made a rogue, waited for night, and in a brilliant use of magic items, actually single-handedly took out the whole party unscathed. He waited till the cleric went to sleep and, out of sight of the others, soveriegn glued some high damage beads from the necklace of fireballs to the underside of his shoes. He initiated his attack w/ a CDG to the sleeping mage (surprise round). He wins init, uses dust of sneezing and choking to disable the martials. Cleric hears the sounds of battle and leaps to his feet...right to his death! From there, his rogue just mops up.
I wasn't there for it, but the whole thing sounded so impressive, funny, and badass/ballsy to carry out on his own, I might have been ok with it if I was one of the victims...maybe.
Dust of sneezing and choking is super cheesy, of course....
|
You can enjoy a game with a no-win situation.
I once GMed a d20 modern/future oneshot where the players had to get of the planet. During the game, they found out their were androids infiltrating them. They quickly caught on to this by killing a young boy who turned out to be a robot. (paranoid players) When they found out only one of them could leave the planet, they realised one of them had to be a robot. Obvious reaction: They killed each other until they killed the right one. Finally, when a robot (of the same model they just destroyed) snuck in and tried to take of with the rocket, they decided to destroy it instead.
They loved it. Here's the thing, though: It doesn't work if you don't keep the player's on the edge of their seats.
What if it was the players' choice, such as a "only by sacrificing yourselves can the world be saved" kind of scenario?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty lame unless you're playing Paranoia...then it's just FUN!!! HOT FUN, COLD FUN, have you had your Bouncy Bubble Beverage today?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world of high magic where anyone with the right kind of money can be brought back from the dead, it seems incredibly pointless to try to assassinate anyone prominent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Dispel magic can target ONE of your letters. The DM can't decide that they all go BOOM!
Dispel targets one creature, item or ongoing area effect(Or as a counter-spell).So, yes, it was cheesy (And not legal).
Funny? Well, yes again...
I used to have a Mage/Rogue who would shoot 'message arrows' with little parchments tied to them. Guess what spell went off when you unrolled it...C'Mon, guess. :D
-Uriel
Thats pretty stupid, completely aside from both infinitely stacking explosive runes and allowing someone to intentionally fail a dispel check.
I'd be pissed, unless it was a set up for an especially brilliant post-death campaign which I'm pretty sure this story is not the set up to.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be "Congrats GM, you won the game". This adventure sounds rather lame and I would be unlikely to want that person as my DM
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to have a Mage/Rogue who would shoot 'message arrows' with little parchments tied to them. Guess what spell went off when you unrolled it...C'Mon, guess. :D
Prestidigitation?
That's messed up, I would be unhappy. Also, the DM has just endorsed crazy "stacks of papers with explosive runes" style attacks. I'd start spending my downtime casting it a ton. Then keeping those papers in a box...in extradinensional storage till it was time to be used, to prevent backfiring. With holes just large enough in the box to allow line of effect but small enough to prevent papers blowing out. Have someone throw it, cast dispel on it, and enjoy your mini-nuke
My favorite version is casting it on thin strips of paper, then gluing them around an arrow's shaft and shooting it into the target (thus denying them the save since it's touching them). Incidentally, that also makes Arcane Archers pretty nasty, since they can make the area dispel go off from the arrow wherever it happens to hit (and use their other arrow powers if they want to on it). <_<
|
|
A Dispel magic can target ONE of your letters. The DM can't decide that they all go BOOM!
Dispel targets one creature, item or ongoing area effect(Or as a counter-spell).So, yes, it was cheesy (And not legal).
Funny? Well, yes again...I used to have a Mage/Rogue who would shoot 'message arrows' with little parchments tied to them. Guess what spell went off when you unrolled it...C'Mon, guess. :D
-Uriel
He said Greater Dispel
Missed that part (It's pretty late here), thanks.
Still, I stand by my opinion that it is a bit much...and very funny.
I don't know, can you intentionally fail that check?
I wouldn't have liked it if it was set up by the GM so that you get one-shotted and never really had a chance to "win" the campaign... no, sorry, not my type of game.
Now if it's the player's choice and they voluntarily make a sacrifice, it's something completely different, actually quite great. Or if they die because they made an obvious mistake (such as summoning a demon without proper precautions and tell him you want to rape his dead body).
Besides... No one ever bothered to cast detect magic on the letters and wondered why there are dozens of abjuration auras on each of them?
when I had found out that the wizard isn't the nice guy he seemed to be (at the very latest), I would have checked the letters and probably stowed them somewhere safe (extradimensional space?).
You can enjoy a game with a no-win situation.
I once GMed a d20 modern/future oneshot where the players had to get of the planet. During the game, they found out their were androids infiltrating them. They quickly caught on to this by killing a young boy who turned out to be a robot. (paranoid players) When they found out only one of them could leave the planet, they realised one of them had to be a robot. Obvious reaction: They killed each other until they killed the right one. Finally, when a robot (of the same model they just destroyed) snuck in and tried to take of with the rocket, they decided to destroy it instead.
They loved it. Here's the thing, though: It doesn't work if you don't keep the player's on the edge of their seats.
Oh, so you basically took the good old movie "Screamers" and made a roleplay adventure out of it? Awesome! :)
It's a cool way to end a campaign, and I think if I was the player I wouldn't mind so much.
If I was the DM, I think it would be only fair to drop a few hints about what's coming to give the PCs a chance.
How would you feel after that? Was it a good game with a great and interesting story? Or were you totally cheated?
If there is no further onward story, cheated. I can see using this as a means of then resurrecting the party at a point in the future. In fact I actually planned a campaign like this, where half-way through the party died, only to be resurrected thousands of years later in a changed world.
Well intresting but total BS if the whole point was for you to find out about the wizards evil plan
And confront him so he could kill you all bit pointless if you ask me
Also I didn't think you could fail a dispel magic on purpose I know you can fail a saving throw if you want
I mean why would someone want to fail in dispeling normally it's not something you generaly want to happen
I think it might be executed poorly but the DM goal was probably great storytelling, not a power-trip, or "teach the PC's a lesson.".
I think it might be executed poorly but the DM goal was probably great storytelling, not a power-trip, or "teach the PC's a lesson.".
You may have a point, and TC did say that the DM was thinking of The Departed when he made it, but still... I don't know anyone who saw that movie and thought
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would depend a great deal on the set up before the campaign ever started. If it was stated this would be a high stakes political game with lots of betrayal and backstabbing etc going on. Then I would have been ok with it. Not exactly happy(if I was happy would depend a whole lot on what happened between the start and the end). If there was no clue at all it was that kind of political game I would have been annoyed.
^^^ good call
I think it might be executed poorly but the DM goal was probably great storytelling, not a power-trip, or "teach the PC's a lesson.".
Be that as it may, good intentions do not excuse crappy execution. I'm not saying it sucks that they all died, after all,
The problem I have is that all the characters died senselessly. They weren't going to confront the guy about his evil deeds, they were going to ask him if it was true. It seems to me that the GM robbed the players of the satisfaction of the story he was trying to tell, by having the guy kill them all at a point when he really should have tried something else.
On the one hand, this feels somewhat exploitative of the rules, which makes it "player knowledge" rather than "PC knowledge" (or in this instance "DM knowledge" rather than "NPC knowledge").
On the other hand, this also feels like a major oversight by the players. It seems odd to me that they would have made a significant portion of the journey to the king, interacted with all of the significant/incidental characters they came across, learned what they learned, decided to stop in their tracks, turn around, return to the beginning to confront the wizard... and nobody thought to read one of the missives.
So, no. I would not be especially happy, with the DM or (mostly) with myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the wizard can intentionally fail a dispel magic check (the only rule I can find about foregoing and failing a roll is about saving throws). In fact, if they were his own explosive runes I think he automatically succeeds to dispel them under the dispel magic rules. Surely at some point in the adventure an arcane sight or detect magic would be involved (especially at the level where a dispel magic, greater is being used), so the players should have a chance to see the magic auras anyway. Feels very forced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, can you intentionally fail that check?
From description of dispel magic: "You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."
It would be debatable if one can decide to fail check when success is automatic in such case (as opposed to success that had DC equal to or lower to minimum total result you can get where there is still technically a check). Obviously it is up to GM in the end.
It would depend on the group and GM. If I joined and the game was presented as a fairly standard game, but with a little political intrigue, I would be pissed. If I was told from the get go, that this is going to have a Hamlet/Departed style ending, I would have a ton of fun. If told the second version, I would be adding reasons why my character is in the story, having him make flawed decisions based on his personality. I would present multiple ways for the GM to kill me off in a really cool way, because the Explosive Runes thing is kind of meh IMO, but the basic idea is fine.
TPK is bad enough, but TPK through debateable rules loophole is something else entirely.