How often do your players survive crossbow bolts to the head in combat? How often do you tell them they were hit directly in the temple and survived?
If it were a maximum damage critical hit on a low-level character, I might describe it like that.
D&D combat is nebulous, and doesn't provide details like that. Clearly that is the distinction provided by the scene as described. She suffered what would have been a mortal wound to any "normal" person, whether they were a 20th level Fighter (granted normalcy for that level is arguable) or a 1st level Peasant, and she survived, unphased, and deadlier than anyone could have conceived.
Like I said, if I were the player I'd roll my eyes secretly, but I'd keep quiet.
The problem is that a crossbow bolt from a non-rogue can't really do more than 40 damage or so (let's say). Surviving 40 points of damage is pretty good, but not really that impressive. If it were a coup de grace or an assassin's death attack, surviving would be much more impressive. But he's not an assassin, and you can't coup de grace someone who's not helpless. If you do allow a coup de grace on a non-helpless opponent, why wouldn't PCs be able to do the same thing?
The problem is that a crossbow bolt from a non-rogue can't really do more than 40 damage or so (let's say). Surviving 40 points of damage is pretty good, but not really that impressive. If it were a coup de grace or an assassin's death attack, surviving would be much more impressive. But he's not an assassin, and you can't coup de grace someone who's not helpless. If you do allow a coup de grace on a non-helpless opponent, why wouldn't PCs be able to do the same thing?
So, that brings us back to him being over-confident and underestimating exactly what she is. Describe it the same way you'd describe DR that negated an attack or Fast healing that was greater than the damage done. Scare the party.
Creative Director
|
But he's not an assassin, and you can't coup de grace someone who's not helpless. If you do allow a coup de grace on a non-helpless opponent, why wouldn't PCs be able to do the same thing?
You absolutely shouldn't. But in developing a storyline... sometimes the rules have to get the boot. One of my core design philosophies is that the rules should serve the story, and in cases where the story wants to do something that the rules don't allow for, then either new rules need to be written or they just need to be ignored altogether. Obviously, you can't ignore rules in scenes that involve the PCs unless your have their absolute trust as a GM, which is why we set up the scene so that it it doesn't involve the PCs at all.
Honestly... slavish devotion to the rules can hurt the game more than playing fast and loose with them. I mean, strictly as written, you can't die from starvation or thirst, since those conditions never do lethal damage. And the amount of pressure damage inflicted underwater pretty much makes life below 100 feet fleeting at best. And certainly, having a scene like a failed assassination followed by a sudden unexpected death is something that, in actual game play, is hard to orchestrate, but we're telling a story as much as presenting a game with Pathfinder, so at times, those rules need to just take a hike.
|
You absolutely shouldn't. But in developing a storyline... sometimes the rules have to get the boot. One of my core design philosophies is that the rules should serve the story, and in cases where the story wants to do something that the rules don't allow for, then either new rules need to be written or they just need to be ignored altogether. Obviously, you can't ignore rules in scenes that involve the PCs unless your have their absolute trust as a GM, which is why we set up the scene so that it it doesn't involve the PCs at all.
Honestly... slavish devotion to the rules can hurt the game more than playing fast and loose with them. I mean, strictly as written, you can't die from starvation or thirst, since those conditions never do lethal damage. And the amount of pressure damage inflicted underwater pretty much makes life below 100 feet fleeting at best. And certainly, having a scene like a failed assassination followed by a sudden unexpected death is something that, in actual game play, is hard to orchestrate, but we're telling a story as much as presenting a game with Pathfinder, so at times, those rules need to just take a hike.
I agree.
While in-game events with direct character involvement should avoid breaking the rules like the plague, it is very important to remember that there is a massive difference between what makes a good story and what makes a good set of rules.Were that scene to play out with the PCs liable to try any of several dozen bizarre stunts to interrupt it only to have it handwaved off by boxed text fiat, I would say the whole thing was pretty weak writing. (To put it mildly.)
Done this way, as an off-screen meta-event, details of numbers can be handwaved away with impunity. It is flavor text, it is not usable by the PCs, it will never be used against the PCs.
This thread has actually helped me quite a bit in my own plans for this. I will have Cressida Kroft tell this version of the story, then Grau Soldado will tell an even wilder tale with extra participants, and finally their friendly neighbor Pestico will give a more low-key version of the event. Everyone has a different perspective on what they witness; ask a cop. The bottom line will remain, however. The Queen is not quite human anymore and is more than a match for your sorry little 7th level butts.
And the bolt of slaying passed down from generation to generation is definitely going in there somewhere. Excellent.
|
So, that brings us back to him being over-confident and underestimating exactly what she is. Describe it the same way you'd describe DR that negated an attack or Fast healing that was greater than the damage done. Scare the party.
Sorry, just want to point out that I think rogue hit the nail on the head here, if your party are so bothered about rules, that they can't let them go, don't scare them with "Oh she survived a crossbow bolt", describe her as Rogue said.
Perhaps have her stop to wipe the blood off her forehead to show that it is still perfect and unmarked, that is what will worry a party that are very concerned with mechanics, they will reach the conclusion that she must have DR, Fast Healing, or Regeneration of at least 10 (possibly a lot more, Marcus is a 13th level Ranger, you can assume he has Favoured Enemy (Human) at +6 and a +2 or +3 crossbow from his 46k NPC cash, with the forehead shot indicating a crit that's 2d8 + 16 or 18 damage, more than enough to kill the level 1 Noble he probably assumes she is). The only problem with this tactic is that you'd possibly have to wait till PF12 comes out to make sure you don't contradict her final stats.
This doesn't solve the problem that Marcus was very foolish (hey, he's dead now, they can hardly ask him why he did it, with some investigation the party should easily reach the conclusion that being ordered to hand in his badge was the final straw and he simply snapped, potentially he was also intending to follow up with a melee weapon whilst the crowd and the none-combat classed queen he thinks he's attacking are still in shock, or you could go the slaying bolt route). For the queen's attack felling him in a blow, again either go for the slaying bolt, or for the slowly choking him to death.
However you do it, so long as the scene does it's job (shows the players that the queen is s+&!-scary and not quite human, in this case has ridiculous strength and DR/Fast Healing/Regen beyond the means of pretty much any class pre-epic, then all's good.
I love this thread by the way, it's given me loads ideas for cool little details to add to the scene, given I'm going to have the PCs present
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Wow talk about rampant metagaming... Most players don't really dissect cut scenes or flavor text to the degree your and mary's players seems to. Like James says sometime the rules need to be bent or ignored for the story to proceed.
I mean I can get fairly anal about rules, especially when I started being a Player again. At some point though you have to let the DM or Writer do their thing and tell a story. If you have no story, you have no adventure.
Wow talk about rampant metagaming... Most players don't really dissect cut scenes or flavor text to the degree your and mary's players seems to. Like James says sometime the rules need to be bent or ignored for the story to proceed.
It just seems a little lazy to me to say: "I could have easily come up with a cool scene that sticks to the logic and rules of the D&D universe, but I didn't bother." But as everyone has said, the mechanics of the assassination attempt don't really matter so it's probably not worth worrying about too much.
But in developing a storyline... sometimes the rules have to get the boot. One of my core design philosophies is that the rules should serve the story, and in cases where the story wants to do something that the rules don't allow for, then either new rules need to be written or they just need to be ignored altogether. Obviously, you can't ignore rules in scenes that involve the PCs unless your have their absolute trust as a GM, which is why we set up the scene so that it it doesn't involve the PCs at all.
Honestly... slavish devotion to the rules can hurt the game more than playing fast and loose with them. I mean, strictly as written, you can't die from starvation or thirst, since those conditions never do lethal damage. And the amount of pressure damage inflicted underwater pretty much makes life below 100 feet fleeting at best. And certainly, having a scene like a failed assassination followed by a sudden unexpected death is something that, in actual game play, is hard to orchestrate, but we're telling a story as much as presenting a game with Pathfinder, so at times, those rules need to just take a hike.
Right on the money.
|
|
That's why there are tons of rules lawyers and mechanics wonks, but only a few really good Adventure authors.
And you know the really good ones because they are the ones who know the rules and mechanics and follow them.
Tossing rules aside because they get in the way of some cool encounter someone thought up is one of the worst ways to approach adventure writing. It destroys the entire basis of the game in a rules system, and leaves the players wondering which of their abilities will be casually tossed aside next time because it inconveniences the DM for them to work.
That is why, as James acknowledges, this particular situation is manageable as it is narrative and not interaction. Having someone able to pull out a crossbow and spontaneously assassinate someone the PCs are guarding, or having a villain ignore an attack and kill a PC in the manner described would very likely be a total disaster to run as the players became upset at having their characters ignored by the adventure.
|
Creative Director
|
That is why, as James acknowledges, this particular situation is manageable as it is narrative and not interaction. Having someone able to pull out a crossbow and spontaneously assassinate someone the PCs are guarding, or having a villain ignore an attack and kill a PC in the manner described would very likely be a total disaster to run as the players became upset at having their characters ignored by the adventure.
Here's another way to look at it.
If "Escape from Old Korvosa" were a stand-alone adventure, the attempted assassination scene would be part of the adventure background; an event that takes place before the PCs begin the actual adventure itself. Since it's part 3 of 6, though, we don't really have that luxury, which is why we set the scene up as a cut-scene that doesn't involve the PCs.
Again... you certainly CAN run this scene with the PCs, but unless you have your PCs' complete trust, you should do so with stats for all the characters involved. Including Sabina, Ileosa, Endrin, Togomar, and their guards. That's a lot of high-level stat blocks, and it would have been wasted space to print them in the adventure. If you can wait until Pathfinder 12, you'll get most of those stat blocks anyway (except for Endrin's, of course).
A quick threadjack, Mary. If not CotCT, what are you two playing these days?
We gave up on running CotCT as written because there just seemed to be too many bits that were really hard to make sense of. Mary
Something set in a place based loosely on Korvosa, but with the level distribution pushed downwards fiercely; and using bits and pieces of CotCT, but abandoning almost all of the main plot--the plague, the assassination, all of the cut-scenes. And cutting level advancement to about 1 per 3 scenarios, and filling in with stuff from _Dungeon_. In a couple of months of play the PCs have gone from 4th to 6th.
Main goals:
(1) Don't trash the setting; let the PCs actually live in a functional Korvosa. And let them *stay* there. Leaving the home base too early and for too long was a big problem for us in SCAP, AoW, and RotRL; this time we know better.
(2) Stay in the sweet spot (4-8 for me).
(3) Get rid of everything which requires elaborate, strained explanations to make sense.
(4) Emphasize NPC interaction. Don't set up situations in which the natural PC response to the interesting NPCs is to kill them all.
It's a bit rocky, but it's mostly working. The prep time burden on the GM is higher than I'd like--I wish we could use more of the book material, but it's been really problematic. RotRL was easier.
Mary
Just to chime in - GMing the AP atm, Iam actually planning to have the players/characters present at the scene - let's see how tings develop over time thouh - it might just be there being no feasible chance of one or more characters being around to witness the stuff happening...
BUT
- for one neither PCs nor NPCs walk around with tags telling you their character class, level, feat path etc. And since I use far more rules supplements to run my campaign than Paizo is permitted to use for the CotCT-AP, nothing really stays the way it used to be in the initial descriptions/supplements (which are deliberately vague anyway, I guess on purpose ). Hence Endrin might actually be a ranger/rogue, with a variation of "Improved Feint"... or a Warblade (Bo9S) or ... or .. or .. the possibilities are countless. He might even be a non-core Assassin of neutral alignment (although lawful ).
Judging from the multiple "variant encounter" threads over in the STAP section, this seems to be a rather common way of running and custom-fitting campaigns, too.
And to be frank - if as the GM I describe a scene in a way the players (many of which I hav gamed with for a dozen years or more ) are not immediately able to analyze as to the mechanics involved (common with the sheer volume of rules in existence ), we TRUST each other that no slighting of the players' interests is going down. Works like a charm - but noone ever debates meta-gaming aspects and feasibility in mid-story, even if only because it ruins the moot of the story.
and there actually is no cheating on part of the GM versus the players here.And hence, the entire OP's position in a way reminds me more of a disgruntled player squabbling about why one could not actually and reasonably foil the scene rather than a GM wanting an explanation.
While this can be good for a laugh in KoDT, shouldn't we all be mature enough not to indulge that urge ?
(2) Stay in the sweet spot (4-8 for me).
Have you considered:
E6: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323
"Like d20, E6 is a game of enigmatic wizards, canny rogues, and mighty warriors who rise against terrible dangers and overcome powerful foes. But instead of using d20’s 20 levels to translate characters into the rules, E6 uses only the first 6. E6 is about changing one of d20’s essential assumptions, but it doesn't need a lot of rules to make that change.
"Character progression from level 1 to level 6 is as per d20. Upon attaining 6th level, for each 5000 experience a character gains, they earn a new feat. A diverse selection of feats should be made available in any E6 campaign, however, feats with unattainable prerequisites under this system remain unattainable.
"E6 keeps all the benefits and familiarity of low-level d20 games: Fast-paced combat, quick prep, and an incredible wealth of third-party material that can be used with the game. E6 has been playtested extensively, and its rules that can be explained to veteran d20 players in under a minute."
I don't play the variant myself, but others swear by it, especially since teleports, raising the dead, and polymorphs are unavailable except via the DM. Why don't you and your GM check it out? It might be a great way to stay in that sweet spot of low-mid level play that you're striving to stay in, while still offering advancement past level 6 through feats.
E6 advantages:
"1. Very fast play at every level of the campaign.
2. Focus on planning, not levelling. To defeat the black dragon Zolanderos, the CR 10 terror of Staunwark Island, the heroes will need help, special resources, and information. I want to further encourage party-directed adventuring, and if the heroes want to take on something 4 to 6 CR above them, then that's what they will require.
3. A low magic game that everyone knows how to play.
4. Never a need for meaningless encounters. The players can be involved in a dozen or so major combat scenarios (perhaps more than one encounter each) and have proven themselves and made a major accomplishment. See Lord of the Rings movies, or most fantasy novels.
5. Classic monsters stay classic throughout the campaign; Chimeras and Aboleths start scary, and stay scary. Dragons are always exciting encounters.
6. Even legendary heroes remain mortal; while a 6th level fighter who has taken toughness several times can take on a good mob, he isn't invulnerable. The sorcerer's 6d6 fireballs are phenomenal, but not so powerful that he can destroy a village and not fear retaliation.
7. Quicker prep. Make a 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th version of a sorcerer, and now you have a whole sorcerous dragon-cult that can last you through your whole campaign.
8. You can put what you've learned of the rules to good use. It's hard to know every 4th through 9th level spell out there; they're the ones we see the least. But we've seen 0th through 3rd level spells many, many times, and mastery over them is relatively simple.
9. E6 is a great system for on the fly GMing. If you’re reasonably familiar with what a 2nd level threat looks like, power-wise, you can probably get away with running it without stats handy."
|
|
For the record, I thought the assassination scene was VERY cool.
As a GM who uses a lot of cutscenes in my game, to have one setup for me saved me a lot of time, which is precisely what I'm looking for in modules I buy; pre-done work so that I don't have to do it, and can focus on making it fun and come alive.
I'd like to see more!
For that matter, there's nothing magic about 6th Level. "E8" or "E9" would work just as well.
What does the "E" stand for, by the way?
You know... I don't know the answer to that one.
E8 makes a certain amount of sense to me too. You add charm monster, dimension door, the wall spells, scrying without the teleport, restoration, divination, and better summoning. It gives room for some metamagic for the low level spells. The down side is obviously the polymorph inclusion for some, and for others the scrying. You also have room to prestige class for 3 levels.
|
|
The thing here is that DnD is a fantastical representation of a world that operates, as far as we know, by our world's physics, etc, when magic isn't involved. In the fluff, people still die from stab wounds to the stomach, no matter how cool they are, or how much hp they have. Same for an arrow to the back, or the temple. Having fluff conform to rules removes a lot of cool possibilities, and rewards metagaming, which should NEVER be rewarded. If your PC's have a problem with you not letting them kill important NPC's with single stab wounds in combat, tell them that they aren't hitting directly, etc. If they try for backstabbing, unless they are a rogue they shouldn't expect to do much, because they don't have the practiced technique to know exactly where to hit someone for maximum death dealing.
This is one area where I think that Exalted does a much better job of dealing with 'extras': They have set stats, and can't advance, take max damage, and die as soon as they hit the 'dying' levels of health. The book even suggests ignoring the stats, and simply using cinematic action to involve the players with extras.
But he's not an assassin, and you can't coup de grace someone who's not helpless. If you do allow a coup de grace on a non-helpless opponent, why wouldn't PCs be able to do the same thing?
How do you know neither is "helpless"?
"... Everyone (queen included) is shocked into paralysis for a few moments, long enough for Endrin to bellow out, ..."
A roleplaying choice of acting "helpless" because your character is in shock, I don't think anyone would question a player making that choice for the character.
|
|
How do you know neither is "helpless"?
"... Everyone (queen included) is shocked into paralysis for a few moments, long enough for Endrin to bellow out, ..."
A roleplaying choice of acting "helpless" because your character is in shock, I don't think anyone would question a player making that choice for the character.
I must admit, I had a bad reaction to the idea of people being paralyzed as the rules define it due to the shock, but your second paragraph makes a lot of sense! I like that idea a lot.
Personally I'm going to go with the greater slaying bolt as I just think it gives the neatest scenario, a single item explains the whole thing, with no stretching of the rules at all, hell you can do a round by round breakdown:
Surprise round: Endrin draws and loads his crossbow (with quickdraw and rapid reload) and shoots the queen, he crits (bolt to head) the queen takes around 2d8+16 damage (minus any DR she has) and must make a DC 23 fort save or die (I'm assuming she still counts as human, seems reasonable, doesn't really matter anyway). Obviously she's far more awesome than the level 2 aristocrat he expects, the damage is a drop in the ocean and she makes the save with ease. Surprised, Endrin quickdraws his sword hoping to finish her off before the guard react and try to stop him.
First round: The queen fast heals/regens as appropriate, and pulls the bolt out to use as an improvised weapon as she charges Endrin and grapples him. On Endrin's turn he fails to break the grapple
Second round: The queen succeeds at a grapple check to attack with a light weapon and stabs Endrin with the bolt; she crits (bolt to the eye), she doesn't do huge amounts of damage (d2+somewhere between 10 and 20 from doubled strength and bolt enhancement?) And he must make the DC23 save or dies, it's not that hard for him being in a good fort class, but he rolls reasonably low, fails, and dies. The queen looks disappointed, she was intending to crush the life out of him whilst stabbing him with his own bolt, she tosses his body aside like a ragdoll in disgust.
Anyone see a problem with this? The only thing I can think of is that ammo is technically destroyed when it hits, but I think it's reasonable to say that it's just too damaged to fire again, stabbing someone with it is fine though it will do very little damage and will break completely after a couple of uses, and it's a minor enough thing that brushing it over isn't terrible. Obviously the crits are unlikely, but they're just flavour and can be ditched. DR/fast-healing/regen probably shouldn't be mentioned unless you have the queens actual stats, but if I do have them then I'll describe the defenses as appropriate as a bit of a hint for the future.
Obviously I'm not intending to describe the scene anything like the above, but if these things can be explained within the rules easily, then it's always a handy exercise.
But he's not an assassin, and you can't coup de grace someone who's not helpless. If you do allow a coup de grace on a non-helpless opponent, why wouldn't PCs be able to do the same thing?How do you know neither is "helpless"?
"... Everyone (queen included) is shocked into paralysis for a few moments, long enough for Endrin to bellow out, ..."
A roleplaying choice of acting "helpless" because your character is in shock, I don't think anyone would question a player making that choice for the character.
Your characters aren't there. They are getting the information second-hand. You can easily describe this as a surprise round.
|
Your characters aren't there. They are getting the information second-hand. You can easily describe this as a surprise round.
which is also why I'm surprised people are having issues with it. most PCs would think that the stories of a half drunk woman were at least a little exaggerated. Well, He most likely missed and the arrow got stuck in her hair - but how did she kill him on her own, its not like he was a pushover
Your characters aren't there. They are getting the information second-hand. You can easily describe this as a surprise round.
They are if I am the DM (all NPCs are the DM's characters).
which is also why I'm surprised people are having issues with it. most PCs would think that the stories of a half drunk woman were at least a little exaggerated. Well, He most likely missed and the arrow got stuck in her hair - but how did she kill him on her own, its not like he was a pushover
Certainly. But I think there are supposed to be two things the PCs should get from that scene.
- The queen's survival is supposed be impressive.
- Killing the assassin should be impressive.
The "problem" (that many people agree is not a problem) is that, under the D&D rules, it's not particularly impressive if a PC survives an attack (even a surprise attack) from a man with a crossbow. The second part is not really a problem; killing a creature in one blow is fairly impressive under the rules.
So you have two ways to make the queen's survival impressive.
- Find a way under the rules that makes the attack more dangerous (e.g. the attacker was using a Bolt of Slaying, or had levels in Assassin or Rogue).
- Make it clear to the players that the rules of the game only matter when the PCs are concerned, and that (as a plot device) NPCs can kill each other with crossbows quite easily even if a PC couldn't do the same.
So if I were running the module, I'd choose option #1 whereas the adventure assumes that option #2 is the default. It's not a big issue, I agree, but I dislike it when people imply option #1 shouldn't even be mentioned.
PCs rarely have much trouble with a crossbow bolt. But if a bolt scored a critical hit on a second level bard or wizard, they'd be at least moderately likely to hit the negatives. As far as anyone knows, the Queen is an exceedingly low-level aristocrat, nor would anyone expect her to have an impressive Constitution score. The Commander is a quite high-level character, the leader of an organization of urban rangers, probably with some rogue levels as well. That the Queen survives a critical hit from such a hardened warrior--and then manages to strike him down before he can make another attack--is therefore quite impressive.
which is also why I'm surprised people are having issues with it. most PCs would think that the stories of a half drunk woman were at least a little exaggerated. Well, He most likely missed and the arrow got stuck in her hair - but how did she kill him on her own, its not like he was a pushoverCertainly. But I think there are supposed to be two things the PCs should get from that scene.
- The queen's survival is supposed be impressive.
- Killing the assassin should be impressive.
The "problem" (that many people agree is not a problem) is that, under the D&D rules, it's not particularly impressive if a PC survives an attack (even a surprise attack) from a man with a crossbow. The second part is not really a problem; killing a creature in one blow is fairly impressive under the rules.So you have two ways to make the queen's survival impressive.
- Find a way under the rules that makes the attack more dangerous (e.g. the attacker was using a Bolt of Slaying, or had levels in Assassin or Rogue).
- Make it clear to the players that the rules of the game only matter when the PCs are concerned, and that (as a plot device) NPCs can kill each other with crossbows quite easily even if a PC couldn't do the same.
So if I were running the module, I'd choose option #1 whereas the adventure assumes that option #2 is the default. It's not a big issue, I agree, but I dislike it when people imply option #1 shouldn't even be mentioned.
This thread only exists because people were acting like the authors of the AP were asking everyone to rewrite the PHB, DMG, and MM in order to accommodate for a relatively minor story element that is provided to benefit everyone by preventing the PCs from determining that direct confrontation of the Queen is the way to go.
No one suggested anything about your #1 being invalid, and the authors of the AP certianly didn't suggest #2 was the only way to resolve the issue. If you're happy to solve the "problem" with option #1 then I'm not sure what the issue was to begin with.
I find this whole thing so odious because people seemingly are just complaining to complain. A resolution for virtually anyone is so easy and requires so little work that the time one takes to complain about this scene is the same amount of time one could have taken to fix the "problem" for a specific group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one suggested anything about your #1 being invalid, and the authors of the AP certianly didn't suggest #2 was the only way to resolve the issue. If you're happy to solve the "problem" with option #1 then I'm not sure what the issue was to begin with.
Here's a sampling of quotes that I felt were basically saying: "There's no other option: you have to ignore the rules."
But in developing a storyline... sometimes the rules have to get the boot.
And certainly, having a scene like a failed assassination followed by a sudden unexpected death is something that, in actual game play, is hard to orchestrate, but we're telling a story as much as presenting a game with Pathfinder, so at times, those rules need to just take a hike.
Like James says sometime the rules need to be bent or ignored for the story to proceed.
And hence, the entire OP's position in a way reminds me more of a disgruntled player squabbling about why one could not actually and reasonably foil the scene rather than a GM wanting an explanation. While this can be good for a laugh in KoDT, shouldn't we all be mature enough not to indulge that urge ?
Obviously I disagree with this viewpoint; I think it's absolutely possible to write a great D&D adventure that doesn't tell the rules to take a hike. But it's obviously a matter of taste; there's no point in arguing about it.
:) Cheers!
|
|
So you have two ways to make the queen's survival impressive.
- Find a way under the rules that makes the attack more dangerous (e.g. the attacker was using a Bolt of Slaying, or had levels in Assassin or Rogue).
- Make it clear to the players that the rules of the game only matter when the PCs are concerned, and that (as a plot device) NPCs can kill each other with crossbows quite easily even if a PC couldn't do the same.
or 3 make the queen act publicly more feeble and unexperienced to ensure that PCs think her levels are aristocrat 1 / sex toy 1 with 2d3 HP. because that is what the Character doing the attacking thinks.
or 3 make the queen act publicly more feeble and unexperienced to ensure that PCs think her levels are aristocrat 1 / sex toy 1 with 2d3 HP. because that is what the Character doing the attacking thinks.
That goes without saying anyway. Keep the "hard facts" of the scene under wraps anyway, or draw/alter them up to your liking. There is absolutely no reason that players (and even more so their characters) should be aware of the stats, levels and precise capabilities of the NPCs at this point (or any other). As the GM you have enormous leeway besides, since this is a dramaturgic scene, not an encounter.
@hogarth
Whether the GM then decides to draw up any vindicating mechanisms "according to the rules" or just decides to run wild with - that is a measure entirely of his/her own capability and self-confidence.
Personally, I will go with Edrin having levels in Warblade (Bo9S), and attempting a powerful "Diamond Mind" Strike (1d20+16 damage with a single strike from a light weapon at 12th level should usually be enough to drop any low-level aristocrat - just speaking mechanically ).
The players/one player will be a live witness to this (if only from a place on the balconies ) since I intend to alter the setup somewhat for additional dramatic impact and should be able to attest to the capability of the strike by Edrin.
The group should be free to draw some conclusions about the queen's resilience from that. Yeah, I am going for a melee attack with a dagger instead of usinga crossbow-bolt... artistic freedom, since I just don't see anyone waltzing into the queen's presence with a drawn and loaded crossbow - but that is just me.
My own intention for actually drawing up the mechanics is that my players should realize from ingame observations that even their "best shot" will be pretty much useless against the "defenseless" queen and having witnessed it first hand . That is not even necessary if the installments is played as written - the entire scene happens off-screen
And btw - this setup does not at all mean "that the rules take a hike", it just uses rules that Paizo cannot actually re-print for copyright reasons.
And yes, Edrin could be drawn up with 5-7 levels of rogue, "Quick Draw" and "Flick of the Wrist" and be able to achieve serious damage capability.... or ...or or... the "legal" alternatives abound, even by only picking specific magic items. That is, if one does actually care to look, and not proceed immediately to jumping onto the proverbial soapbox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you have two ways to make the queen's survival impressive.
- Make it clear to the players that the rules of the game only matter when the PCs are concerned, and that (as a plot device) NPCs can kill each other with crossbows quite easily even if a PC couldn't do the same.
I'm not really a fan of this. I've used this option in running campaigns in the past and its internal contradictions has a real bad habit of focusing attention on the inconsistencies. Biggest problem in my experience with using this is it just wrenches players out of their suspension of disbelief and practically screams 'we are in a game'.
A scene that more or less follows the rules and yet still gets the point across has much less chance of causing play to breakdown as players become cognoscent of the contradiction between what they could do and what has been described.
The golden rule:
There are no rules, you should fashion this games into what ever you need it to be - if the rules get in the way, then ignore them or change them. The true complexity and beauty of the real world cannot be captured by rules; it takes story telling an imagination to do that. these rules are designed to be guidelines, and you are free to use, Abuse, ignore and change them as you wish.
Rules to live by. At the end of the day, the queens survivial is an interesting story element that tells you a good deal about what is happening. Her attacker has no way of knowing it will not work, and under most conditions, a cross bow bolt to the face will kill most people. For all the man know, the queen is a first level aristocrat. Use your imaginations, use common sense, don't let a flawed set of rules bind you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Make it clear to the players that the rules of the game only matter when the PCs are concerned, and that (as a plot device) NPCs can kill each other with crossbows quite easily even if a PC couldn't do the same.
I'm not really a fan of this. I've used this option in running campaigns in the past and its internal contradictions has a real bad habit of focusing attention on the inconsistencies. Biggest problem in my experience with using this is it just wrenches players out of their suspension of disbelief and practically screams 'we are in a game'.
This has been my experience too.
It's not much use saying to me "Well, you should let the rules slide and just focus on the story" when thirty years of play has shown me that my group doesn't enjoy that.
The person I play with the most loves to play detective, he loves to figure things out, and he loves to make complex, well-thought-out plans. The rules are an essential tool for assuring that his PCs have enough understanding of the gameworld to *make* plans. After all, we are missing most of the information those characters would really have (they can see, hear, smell, taste and feel the setting; they were born and raised there and have spent their lives learning about it). To make up for that, we find that rules provide essential, shared information that makes planning and deductive play possible. And that's the kind of play we really enjoy.
As a GM I've observed that if I break the rules, or even raise the suspicion that I am breaking the rules, too many times in one campaign my players become passive "TV watchers". They stop making plans and wait around for me to tell them what to do. I hate GMing for that; it kills everything I GM for. Probably the campaign will die within a few sessions; even if they are still interested, I'm not.
I've also found that if I break the rules, and then later have to improvise, I get stuck. I can't figure out what happened in a way that I can make convincing, because in my heart I know the gameworld isn't coherent anymore. If I just try to "pick what's best for the story" I end up with a patchwork of inconsistencies, and also the results are dull--I do my best creative work when working within a solid frameworld.
So. That's why this issue matters to me. Other groups will no doubt have other opinions; I speak only for mine.
Mary
I'm with Norgerber. Tweaking this as a DM is pretty much Day One stuff.
Well your problem seems strange when considering this is an Adventure Path. Your players to some extent are going to have to sit around and see what happens from time to time. Adventure Paths tend to have a bit of "riding the rails" in them to truly function.
I'm with Norgerber. Tweaking this as a DM is pretty much Day One stuff.
Absolutely. It's the people who say "Don't worry about it, ignore the rules" that disagree.
Well your problem seems strange when considering this is an Adventure Path. Your players to some extent are going to have to sit around and see what happens from time to time. Adventure Paths tend to have a bit of "riding the rails" in them to truly function.
PCs may sit around from time to time, but there should be a sense of engagement--the players thinking about the situation, looking for ways to make progress. When my games have gone bad, this vanishes--the players stop coming up with ideas, they stop pushing forward, they wait passively for me to tell them what to do. The difference is like night and day.
I feel I got all the way through RotRL without this happening, so I don't agree that it's an essential part of an AP. Well designed rails can work smoothly. For me, one of the key traits for well designed rails is that they work with the game rules rather than fighting them.
I'm prepared to be pretty flexible in running an AP: I changed the plot of RotRL in quite a few places in order to mesh better with what the PCs are doing. When we tried to do this with CotCT, though, so much started to fall apart that it seemed better to abandon the module plot completely.
No one rules violation or cut-scene is a big problem. There can be an artificial sense, because of the way this message-board looks, that people are complaining about one scene--but of course any one scene is trivial. The overall pattern has been really troublesome for us, though. There's a limit to how much you can cut, especially big things, before you can't use most of the remaining module material either.
Mary
No offense, but it seems like you keep steering threads about this AP towards your disappointment with the entire story overall rather than staying on topic. This is just an observation, please do not be offended.
|
|
so...how come it works for some (most?) and not for others? Are the players just easier or is the GM better at proposing the 'cut scene'? I guess when you use the term "falls apart" I can't seem to grasp why, since while sometimes the players go off the rails, I have had no trouble getting them back on.
Sometimes they've been lucky as hell (Crits on both Elyrium AND Malfeshenkor, and not once missing the 50/50 concealment roll...)
I know my players are more into story rather then dungeon clearing, and they don't really question the rules all that much when the end result is a very good story. They're also very inquisitive and investigative (coming from a CoC and HERO background), but so far that has not caused me fits either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so...how come it works for some (most?) and not for others? Are the players just easier or is the GM better at proposing the 'cut scene'?
Gamers are a diverse lot. There is a stereotype out there, but I find it is a holdover from teh 80s when AD&D first hit mass conciousness. In those days, the stereotypes were created for a reason, and gamers were much more uniform in their goals, backgrounds and characteristics.
I would love to game with Mary, becuase of my introduction to gaming. I had the fortune to start gaming with three (or maybe four) true geniuses, some of the smartest people to be met (and a couple of them have earned credentials indicative of their intellect in the past couple of decades).
My game sessions were exercises in tactics and strategy, with healthy doses of competitiveness thrown in. Everything was to be analyzed, examined, and dissected for the most minute of clues, and failing to properly interpret the tiniest of clues could easily lead to doom. The demand for internal conistency and logic exceeded what passes for much real-world science today.
Looking back, I can easily see how the stereotypes of gamers came about, since we obsessed for hours on end about the smallest of details and developed elaborate plans all based around artificial rules. If one did not have contingencies, counter-contingencies and at least counter-counter-contingencies, one was considered lazy. Our character sheets (for higher level characters) typically encompassed a minimum of six pages of cramped handwriting (my record hitting 43), detailing all sorts of contingencies and situational effects.
Over the years, I have become "lazy" gaming with a far more diverse array of players, some story-driven, some min-maxers, some role-players, some casual, and a rare few as obsessive as myself. I have learned to appreciate well-crafted stories and have had a lot of quality gaming experiences. I playd for nearly a decade with a "story" DM, who devised elaborate worlds and developed a fantastic style of encouraging player immersion and interaction, tough I teased him about not being lethal at all - in ten years he killed only one of my characters (a Save or Die effect) and immediately offered a way to raise him, but the story was best served by the character chosing to remain in the afterlife.
I know I am now in the "minority" as an old-school, tactics-based, detail-focused gamer, but I know others exist like me. Again, I would love to game with Mary's group, because from her exposition, I know I would enjoy figuring things out. And for reasons she has stated, I find I enjoy home-brew worlds more than APs, since APs are inherently not tailored to one's group. It can be done, but without a strong starting dose of logic, it quickly becomes a time-consuming challenge. So while I don't expect "my" style of gaming in APs, I do encourage strong logical plot builds, not only for my own enjoyment, but to encourage critical thinking in players. I know AD&D contributed to my own academic achievements, and see it as a good tool for future generations to strengthen their thinking skills in a fun manner. And the best part, there is room for everybody, since the game is imminently customizable.
Yeah, is it any big revelation that not all gamers game the same way. It's a roleplaying game, which means it encompasses two different things, roleplaying and a game. Roleplaying is about the story, and the game is about the rules.
Some gamers are more story-driven and some are more rules-driven, and there are infinite places to sit along the line between the two.
Heck, I haven't seen one person say the assassination attempt wasn't a cool scene. If it was part of a fiction novel, I think most people would say that's exactly what it was (even a D&D novel, which are typically nothing like game play).
It's just an issue that the "cool scene" is in an adventure not a novel and doesn't explain how it works within the rules.
Me? I like a good story, but I want it to be supported by the rules as much as possible. Personally, if shooting someone in the head with a crossbow bolt doesn't even have a chance to kill them, then I'm going to change the basic rules, not the crossbow bolt or the character firing it, but that's just me.
...
Me? I like a good story, but I want it to be supported by the rules as much as possible. Personally, if shooting someone in the head with a crossbow bolt doesn't even have a chance to kill them, then I'm going to change the basic rules, not the crossbow bolt or the character firing it, but that's just me.
Wise words.... the rules only support the game and story so far - beyond that, there will always be gaps left in the rules for unforeseen developments or ingame situations... and that is where the job of a the GM really starts, with making judgements on the fly !
The strange thing to me in this thread is - there actually exist a variety of possible mechanisms/straegies in the "rules-as- they-are" to make the scene plausible and feasible.
.....and still some people persist that this scene "does not work according to the rules".
Speaking from a player's POV (while I GM this AP, I play in two others ) - usually I don't want to analyze what just happened in game terms (ruleswise), because that "breaking up" of a memorable scene into its component parts really distracts from the enjoyment of the game. I rather ask what my character would think of the scene - and go by that. YMMV
PS - I do not look up NPC stats in sourcebooks and try to nail myself or my GM to going by them "as written", come hell or high water. I see those stats as a "recommendation" to facilliate a story...
I find this whole thing so odious because people seemingly are just complaining to complain. A resolution for virtually anyone is so easy and requires so little work that the time one takes to complain about this scene is the same amount of time one could have taken to fix the "problem" for a specific group.
OK Then I'd prefer to scenes like this one avoid such problems in the future so far as that is possible.
You'll notice I put "problem" in quotation marks. I don't see a genuine problem here. I see people deciding to complain about a scene that was laid out in terms of a story being retold by an NPC that theoretically witnessed it.
The AP describes this scene with the following assumptions in mind:
1) PCs don't think in terms of Hit Points, Armor Class, Levels, etc.
2) A crossbow bolt to the temple is going to kill someone 99.9999% of the time when fired by an experienced, and talented expert.
3) This is a story element the PCs will not experience first hand, but rather will be told about in abstract terms because the teller of the tale also does not think in terms of AC, HPs, Levels, etc.
If your PCs never suspend their disbelief and constantly insist that everything must follow the RAW to the point that their PCs refuse to believe that someone could be shot in the temple (because there are no body-location rules for combat), that many, many people on this planet could survive being shot in the head with a crossbow bolt (because their PCs understand that everyone has HPs, and that more advanced people have more HPs than less advanced people), and that the leader of the Sable Guard could not possibly be killed so swiftly (because again the insist their PCs understand levels, hit points, actions, rounds, and all the other RAW that allows combat to be manageable in the GAME) then you are going to have to adapt this scene for your group.
That you could possibly think anyone is going to write an AP for you and your group's play style is mind-boggling to the same extent it is somewhat sad and somewhat entertaining to me.
The AP is a tool to be used to present a story, and a pile of encounters for your entertainment. It is not going to bear up under fundamentalist AD&D 3.5 RAW dissection, nor should it have to do so. Again, I'd love to know how you can assume there are deities, monsters, etc, with no qualms at all (You guys might as well start arguing that Reefclaws can't exist because they didn't provide what Runelord Alaznist rolled when they were created, and didn't provide stat blocks for the Runelord and what clearly must be an artifact in the flesh-warping vats of Barakhan), but you balk at this simple scene that requires an NPC to relate their experience to the PCs in non-RAW terms.
Frankly, I'd love to see what it is that you people expect. Is the NPC relating the story supposed to speak in Game terms? Ala, "The Queen must be a much higher level NPC than originally thought!" or "Although Endrin got a shot of in the surprise round that appeared to be a confirmed critical hit the Queen was able to engage him and it appeared that she only lost perhaps 2% of her Hit Points! Which is a shock, because we all thought she was an Aristocrat 2 or 3 tops..."
I haven't any idea what it is that you folks want in place of this scene from which the information is so perfectly presented by the creators of the AP. Communicate that the Queen is not to be confronted directly, and demonstrate that the mainstream "good guys" are with you in a fight against the Crown to alleviate any dilemma Lawful citizens of Korvosa might have had about opposing their own monarch.
And if you're just going to continue to spew out vague comments about how impossible it is to play this AP with nothing in the way of concrete examples, just save it. You aren't trying hard enough, and we can't help you. If you've got some concrete issues, by all means let us hear about it. You gotta realize that the people that produced this product read these threads (well, probably not this one anymore), and saying obnoxious things about how poorly it is designed without providing anything in the way of specific examples to back it up, or just ignoring easy solutions so you can continue to have an issue is the height of inconsiderate.
Very well said Norgerber.
Wise words.... the rules only support the game and story so far - beyond that, there will always be gaps left in the rules for unforeseen developments or ingame situations... and that is where the job of a the GM really starts, with making judgements on the fly !
The strange thing to me in this thread is - there actually exist a variety of possible mechanisms/straegies in the "rules-as- they-are" to make the scene plausible and feasible.
.....and still some people persist that this scene "does not work according to the rules".
I agree; there have been some great suggestions in this thread for altering the scene. I particularly like the suggestion of making the assassin a Warblade from Tome of Battle and my second favourite is the Bolt of Slaying.
The only part that irks me is all the comments that seem to be insinuating: "Changing this scene is absolutely unnecessary, because following the rules is optional for the DM." I know they're optional, but I'd like to follow them just the same. That doesn't make me a bad person or a bad DM. I don't know why I keep reading this thread; someone's just going to post a comment like "Mellow out, dude! The scene is perfect as it is. Forget the rules!" and the whole cycle will begin again.
:D
I think our point of view is more that most of the scene already works under the rules if you take a moment to think about it, and what changes need to be made to get it to conform perfectly are minor--say, simply have the Queen stab him multiple times. And if players find something implausible, and demand to know how something happened, a DM's response should be "How do you intend to find out?"
My personal opinion, and YMMV, is that if player's immediate response to every event is to try to pick it apart and analyze the levels, AC, HP, etc. of the other parties involved, they're metagaming, and that should not be encouraged.
As for the expectation of the PCs (verses the players) and game mechanics. One thing to keep in mind hp and other game mechanics are suppose to represent not just damage but other ideas (luck, destiny, etc). What people are arguing is that because John McClane (main character from the Die Hard series) can keep going despite being shot several times, that he wouldn't be surprised if someone told him, "Yeah, she got shot in the head and acted as if she wasn't hurt at all." PCs are unique and their interactions with other characters are likewise unique (BBEG shoots and drops scrub NPCs like flies, but when the PC hits him, he stands up to it as a PC would).