Creative Director
|
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?"
I nominate this as the Official Rule on how to handle this scene if the PCs seem intrigued about how things went off. If you play your cards right, that just further encourages the PCs to keep on playing the adventures as written, since the major point of the scene was to encourage the PCs to seek the magic weapon that can stop Ileosa rather than stick around and plot how they're going to infiltrate a castle that's intended for 14th level characters to infiltrate.
That is actually the answer, The Answer: not an answer, not one of many, but The Answer to the vast majority of the questions that players have with the cut scene.
As soon as the DM starts trying to give an actual answer, he has forgotten what he is doing.
The DM is there to set the stage for the characters. He tells them what is happening. If the PC's want to know who/when/where/how then the PC's need to get off their posterior and go find out.
PC: How did she do that?
DM: -blank stare-
PC2: How did she do that?
DM: -Blank stare-
The DM is not the revolving answer machine. Ask and it shall be answered? I think not!
The scene should, rightfully, leave PC's asking that very question. HOW did she do that?
The trick though is that- the PC's do Not know the answer.
Therein lies the adventure. As soon as the DM starts spitting out answers to the PC's every question, then the game quickly goes down hill.
Hand in hand with that is the idea that the PC's are not necessarily going to find out the answer to every question they have.
What class was he? What spell was that? What race is she? Is he Multi-classed? A half breed? Was that a one-shot ability or something she can do more often?
The players will never know. The PC's should never be given the stat blocks of NPC's, either on paper or verbally. Doing so destroys the versimillitude (sp?) of the world.
The DM is there to set the world (setup plots, etc.) and to react to the IC actions of the players. The DM is not there to tell the PC's /how/ things happen OOC, unless the PC's take it upon themselves to figure it out, in game.
This game is absolutely chock full of any millions of multitudes of ways the queen could have accomplished what she did. It's not for the DM to answer the question- its for the PC's to go out into the world and find the answer for themselves.
-S
Speaking as someone who runs modules right out of the box to avoid DM fatigue, plays in an Age of Worms campaign and in a homebrew campaign....
Hear, hear. Players should have a sense of wonder, awe, and mystery. They don't know everything about the world. Their characters don't either. They're getting second-hand information. And they're low level. I have to say that while I find this discussion valuable, there reaches a point where I'd say as a player at that table: "Look. We don't know yet. We'll figure it out. If we don't do that in time, we'll die." And then I would kick the wizard and cleric into the library for, like, a month.
It's suspense. If you can't deal with it, read a spoiler.
I have to disagree with the sentiment that background scenes should violate the game rules at whim. This sort of thing bugs my players and I to no end; like Mary's group, we play with a high degree of immersion, and have come to rely on some internal consistency. Despite the fact that it's "realistic" to kill anyone at all with a single crossbow shot in real life, the game rules say that feat is nearly impossible, and therefore, in all game worlds built using those rules, it IS nearly impossible. That's not necessarily metagame thinking, but experience born from having their characters shoot crossbows at monsters. They learn the rules of the game world the way we learn the rules of the real world -- to some extent by training, but more often by trial and error. By 3rd level, they know daggone well that the "laws of physics" in 3.5 don't support single-shot crossbow kills.
Making things that violate the rules become the norm whenever I desire -- but never during a PC-driven scene, somehow -- strains their suspension of disbelief far past the breaking point. Do it too often, and it ruins the game, because then the rules are arbitrary, and can be set aside or changed for no reason, so the players feel that nothing their characters can ever do will ever hold a candle to divine whim.
So in order to run this particular adventure, I need a rationale that fits the game rules they've come to rely on, without needing to rewrite the conditions for a coup de grace. As previously noted, playing out the whole fight would take too long and bore everyone to tears. On the other hand, a crossbow bolt of slaying humans, which doesn't affect the Queen because of her template, is a very fine solution. One which I'll use. One which I wish had been included in the adventure text, to spare the GMs on these boards the effort of having to think of it themselves. The PCs could question artificers and discover that such a bolt can indeed be made; high-level PC wizards with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat will KNOW it can be done. James' "Official Rule" can work, because once the PCs do figure out how to investigate, there's a trail for them to follow, not just divine whim. The scene remains as written, and everyone is happy.
Is it almost impossible to kill a 1st level character with a head shot from a crossbow? If not then how common are 1st level characters in your game world? 90% of the population, 50% of the population, 5% of the population? That should also be factored in when considering how surprising it is for the PCs.
Is it almost impossible to kill a 1st level character with a head shot from a crossbow? If not then how common are 1st level characters in your game world? 90% of the population, 50% of the population, 5% of the population? That should also be factored in when considering how surprising it is for the PCs.
No king is 1st level; they all have levels in Aristocrat, at least. And, more importantly, no captain of the guard is 1st level. The PCs, by dint of prior experience, will be well aware that the laws of their world somehow make leader-types always much harder to kill than mooks.
|
Maybe someone could point me out the section of the rules that says that if you get hit by a crossbow bolt to the head you dont die? Far as I know the rules dont go into details about where you are hit when you lose hp in fact its a little vague on what hp represent as well.
When it comes to things like this I use the common sence rule for example You fall into Lava? If you dont have a magical means of protectinon your dead you fall over 300ft to the ground below With no means of slowing you down or cushining your fall? again your dead I dont care how many Hp's you have
Maybe someone could point me out the section of the rules that says that if you get hit by a crossbow bolt to the head you dont die? Far as I know the rules dont go into details about where you are hit when you lose hp in fact its a little vague on what hp represent as well.
Correct; the rules are silent on that. Which means a player can't just declare their hits are all to the head, and that all their adversaries always die instantly. Which means that NPCs should be governed by the same logic. Otherwise, why have rules? Just declare everything by DM fiat and be done with it. Amber Diceless is that kind of a game; you might enjoy it better than D&D.
When it comes to things like this I use the common sence rule for example You fall into Lava? If you dont have a magical means of protecti-n-on your dead you fall over 300ft to the ground below With no means of slowing you down or cushining your fall? again your dead I dont care how many Hp's you have
Your players must love it when you declare them dead anytime you want to. Mine don't. They don't mind dying if they do something boneheaded and the dice fall poorly, but they'd get very upset indeed if I just started ignoring all of the rules and declaring them dead whenever I felt like it was "realistic."
"Sorry, bud, but that crossbow bolt was rusty. You contract super-tetatus and die. Sorry; no roll for that; I don't care how good your Fort save is."
That said, we do play with more lethal falling rules (1d6 for 10 ft., 3d6 for 20 ft., 6d6 for 30 ft., etc.). But these rules apply to players and NPCs alike, and they were agreed upon before using them. I didn't just yank them out of my ear one day when it conveniently killed someone I wanted dead for story purposes, but who would have survived otherwise.
Correct; the rules are silent on that. Which means a player can't just declare their hits are all to the head, and that all their adversaries always die instantly. Which means that NPCs should be governed by the same logic. Otherwise, why have rules? Just declare everything by DM fiat and be done with it. Amber Diceless is that kind of a game; you might enjoy it better than D&D.
Likewise, if you wish to remove the story elements because you want to focus exclusively on the game mechanics you could play stratego instead. It is clear how "killing" other "character" in stratego works, so you don't have to worry about a story issue getting in the way.
|
I have to disagree with the sentiment that background scenes should violate the game rules at whim. This sort of thing bugs my players and I to no end; like Mary's group, we play with a high degree of immersion, and have come to rely on some internal consistency. Despite the fact that it's "realistic" to kill anyone at all with a single crossbow shot in real life, the game rules say that feat is nearly impossible, and therefore, in all game worlds built using those rules, it IS nearly impossible. That's not necessarily metagame thinking, but experience born from having their characters shoot crossbows at monsters. They learn the rules of the game world the way we learn the rules of the real world -- to some extent by training, but more often by trial and error. By 3rd level, they know daggone well that the "laws of physics" in 3.5 don't support single-shot crossbow kills.
Making things that violate the rules become the norm whenever I desire -- but never during a PC-driven scene, somehow -- strains their suspension of disbelief far past the breaking point. Do it too often, and it ruins the game, because then the rules are arbitrary, and can be set aside or changed for no reason, so the players feel that nothing their characters can ever do will ever hold a candle to divine whim.
So in order to run this particular adventure, I need a rationale that fits the game rules they've come to rely on, without needing to rewrite the conditions for a coup de grace. As previously noted, playing out the whole fight would take too long and bore everyone to tears. On the other hand, a crossbow bolt of slaying humans, which doesn't affect the Queen because of her template, is a very fine solution. One which I'll use. One which I wish had been included in the adventure text, to spare the GMs on these boards the effort of having to think of it themselves. The PCs could question artificers and discover that such a bolt can indeed be made; high-level PC wizards with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat will KNOW it can be...
The game rules, especially the combat rules, are an abstraction of what happens in a fight. And it is very abstract. More pertinently, they do not cover every eventuality. They don't cover the corner case, for example, of when a guy shoots a queen wearing an artefact helm, or when she pulls of the bolt from her head and stabs him back with it. Not in the rules. Never seen it. So maybe it's just one of those things and the DM has to improvise, rather like they do in the module itself.
What is clear is that, if you forget the rules and just run with the situation as it stands, it is perfectly possible to kill someone with a single shot to the head with a crossbow, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Edrin surely would have had a reasonable expectation that it would work. Likewise, if you stab someone in the eye with a long, sharp object like a crossbow bolt, you can quite easily kill them if you do it reasonably hard. I honestly fail to see why this stretches credulity beyond breaking point - it is perfectly possible to do it in real life, so why is is suddenly impossible to do it in the confines of the game? The big failing of the hit point system is how it makes such scenes impossible in game terms without big rules rejigs (Death Attack for assassins, or the special rules in the first paragraph of this reply). But it is hit points that are wildly unrealistic, not the scenario.
I have to agree that the DM is not responsible for explaining to his PCs how that works, and that the story has primacy (especially in a scene where the PCs are probably not even present). I certainly would not encourage them to try and analyse this in rules terms, since it has more than a whiff of metagame about it. Let them be impresses that Ileosa is a bad mofo and move on. Let them talk about it, provide no answers. In fact, they will be much more scared - which is the point.
|
No king is 1st level; they all have levels in Aristocrat, at least. And, more importantly, no captain of the guard is 1st level. The PCs, by dint of prior experience, will be well aware that the laws of their world somehow make leader-types always much harder to kill than mooks.
No king is first level? Really? True of your game, or across the board?
And if it is true, the PCs know this how? They’ve killed a lot of kings in their time?
How about queens?
Sorry Kirth, I know that probably sounds somewhat snarky, but I fail to see how the PCs would expect that a monarch in a society where said monarch does not need to be a powerful warrior in order to maintain their throne would be any less likely to fall to a well aimed crossbow shot than a shopkeeper, or a clerk, or a farmer, or 90% of the rest of the (first level) population.
Maybe the players, as opposed to the PCs, would have an inkling. But unless you’ve told them that the queen is an x level bard, or you have a blanket rule that all monarchs must have a minimum aristocrat level of y, how can they know what level any given NPC is or should be?
Evidently most people have players who don't care how their world works, who don't ever think about what their characters can and cannot do, and who don't object to games being run by DM fiat. That's fine for them.
I am not one of those people, unfortunately.
If the queen kills the captain of the guard with one stab of a crossbow bolt, they will immediately want to know how she did so, and the focus of the campaign will shift to figuring out her method. (With all due respect, Mothman, they can assume the captain isn't a 1st level commoner, or he'd be too unskilled to command the guard). So, is it a magic crossbow bolt? If so, where did he get it? Is the queen a trained assassin? If so, who trained her? Do the game rules simply break down in her vicinity? Because if do, and the PCs oppose her later, the answer will be VERY important.
Simply allowing her to do it means that, in the interest of internal consistency, at the end of the campaign she should be allowed an auto-kill against 1 PC per round who attacks her. Allowing that, with no cause and no means of countering it, is just poor design. Not allowing it against PCs, but arbitrarily allowing it against NPCs is equally poor.
I just request that when an adventure involves scenes that blatantly contradict the RAW, then some explanation is provided. (Instant-kill shots to the head are indeed covered under the game rules; they're coup de grace attacks.) Changing the rules at a whim is intellectually lazy. For everyone telling me that the players should just "suck it up" and "deal with it" because the game rules don't need any consistency, try explaining to your players one day that, when the monsters attack, they all drop dead of massive coronaries, no save, because there's no rule that says you can't do that.
Pivotal events that involve combat should be theoretically possible under the combat rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people are saying "But the PCs have to work to figure this out--the GM shouldn't just tell them."
I have no problem with that. I wouldn't expect to tell my player what had actually happened.
My problem is that there has to *be* an answer. And it has to be consistent with what happens later: if the Ileosa that the PCs have to fight (I presume) in #6 is not consistent with the Ileosa foreshadowed in #2, then the player's hard work in finding things out isn't going to be rewarded.
A crossbow bolt of man-slaying is not a bad solution. If the GM knows that that's how it was done, then the PCs' investigation can work out who the captain bought it from, what it was meant to do, etc. But if the module doesn't mention such things, there's a risk that the GM won't realize in time, and will back himself into a corner where no logical explanation is available. I did this in RotRL #3 with bad results: by the time I had laid out all the available clues it became apparent that the situation I was describing just didn't make any sense, but it was too late to fix it. I just had to apologize to the player and retcon it. Not much fun for either of us.
I really do not see this as a matter of players demanding to know too much. My experience is that *if* my player trusts me abide by the rules and game-world logic, he's quite happy to accept that he currently has no clue how something was done. But it takes only a few experiences with investigating a situation and finding that there *was* no explanation for it, before that trust starts to decay.
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.
Yeah, you're right. I'm bitter. I'll back off for a bit and try to calm down.
It's just tough, given how much I was looking forward to this one--I really prefer city adventures--and how much we enjoyed RotRL, to find out that it flat wasn't going to work for us at all.
Mary
Treat them as coup-de-graces if you or your players get the panties in a bunch. "But neither was helpless!" Are you sure? How does one become helpless? Might there be other ways besides those listed in the rules? Could someone become helpless by being in emotional shock? Where are the rules for emotional shock? If we accept that someone could become helpless due to emotional shock, does this mean that a PC could become helpless from it? Who decides when a character is in emotional shock then? I don't know, maybe a crazy idea would be the person playing the character (for example, the DM for NPCs). In that case if a player chose for the character to be helpless due to emotional shock, then would that be "badong" (bad-wrong)?
The rules are there to keep the players from being screwed over by the DM and to keep them from going wild with dropping foes by sneezing on them. What happens between NPCs is the total pervue of the DM. If a DM wants a character to be helpless even if they aren't tied up or having hold person cast on them or unconscious, then the DM can do that. Players shouldn't be telling the DM how his characters (the NPCs) have to be acting.
Treat them as coup-de-graces if you or your players get the panties in a bunch. "But neither was helpless!" Are you sure? How does one become helpless? Might there be other ways besides those listed in the rules? Could someone become helpless by being in emotional shock? Where are the rules for emotional shock? If we accept that someone could become helpless due to emotional shock, does this mean that a PC could become helpless from it? Who decides when a character is in emotional shock then?
In this case, the DM is deciding. The captain of the guard wouldn't choose to be helpless; you, in acting as God, are choosing for him. Which means you should be able choose the same for all the PCs or NPCs, whenever you wish. Like I said, maybe your players are comfortable with that.
Mine, and Mary's evidently, are not. Nor should they be required to accept divine whim as the predominant driving force in the flow of events. Telling us to force that sort of setup on our players is like me telling you that your players are now required to have all elf characters, because that's the way I happen to like things.
If you don't need an explanation, having one anyway shouldn't bother you; you can always ignore it if you want to. If Mary and I need one, having it helps us a lot, as she clearly explained... because sometimes, by the time we come up with one, it won't work because of some other factor. Like those lame suspense movies that introduce a "plot twist" that, unfortunately, invalidates the entire plot.
In this case, the DM is deciding. The captain of the guard wouldn't choose to be helpless; you, in acting as God, are choosing for him. Which means you should be able choose the same for all the PCs or NPCs, whenever you wish. Like I said, maybe your players are comfortable with that.
Mine, and Mary's evidently, are not. Nor should they be required to accept divine whim as the predominant driving force in the flow of events. Telling us to force that sort of setup on our players is like me telling you that your players are now required to have all elf characters, because that's the way I happen to like things.
If you don't need an explanation, having one anyway shouldn't bother you; you can always ignore it if you want to. If Mary and I need one, having it helps us a lot, as she clearly explained... because sometimes, by the time we come up with one, it won't work because of some other factor. Like those lame suspense movies that introduce a "plot twist" that, unfortunately, invalidates the entire plot.
Why wouldn't he be in shock? He just shot someone in the head fully expecting them to be dead and they weren't. That would certainly shock me.
This scene can be easily explained through the rules but the question becomes how much information does every scene need? There is only so much page space.
Why wouldn't he be in shock? He just shot someone in the head fully expecting them to be dead and they weren't. That would certainly shock me.
Then PCs and NPCs should all occasionally be in shock when their attacks fail. Add shock rules. But don't invoke it arbitrarily, by whim.
This scene can be easily explained through the rules but the question becomes how much information does every scene need? There is only so much page space.
In this case, it requires two half-sentences: "Using a crossbow bolt of slaying humans he acquired adventuring..." and "...fell victim to the magic of his own bolt." But those few words save me a lot of needless head-bashing trying to gimmick a way to fit it into the rules off the top of my head.
Most scenes wouldn't even require that much, but in this case, it's a pivotal event in the story. Such an important event should probably have some in-game plausibility, without adding imaginary shock rules.
In this case, the DM is deciding. The captain of the guard wouldn't choose to be helpless; you, in acting as God, are choosing for him. Which means you should be able choose the same for all the PCs or NPCs, whenever you wish. Like I said, maybe your players are comfortable with that.
And this is what is known as selective reading. Let's try it again shall we?
If we accept that someone could become helpless due to emotional shock, does this mean that a PC could become helpless from it? Who decides when a character is in emotional shock then? don't know, maybe a crazy idea would be the person playing the character (for example, the DM for NPCs). In that case if a player chose for the character to be helpless due to emotional shock, then would that be "badong" (bad-wrong)?
Nice hack job there my friend. Clearly I am stating that the player of the character should decide, not the DM. So no, the DM should not be deciding for the PCs and yes the DM should be deciding, when the story calls for it, that any NPC might be helpless due to emotional shock. As a player as well as a DM, if I thought it fit my character for him to be helpless due to some shock, then I'd do it.
Then PCs and NPCs should all occasionally be in shock when their attacks fail. Add shock rules. But don't invoke it arbitrarily, by whim.
Except what we are talking about is making a mechanical decision based on ... now I know this is a crazy idea ... but on Roleplaying of a character. Who would have thunk it huh?
|
|
But the player shouldn't know the stats from Illeosa's or Endrin.
In my games I only describe a shot in the temple when it is deadly (takes the Character to less than 0 HP) or when it is harmless (hitting some monster with regeneration, or an undead) . (Aren't HP abstraction?)
So they only know.
-- Endrin should be a high level NPC.
-- Illeosa should be an aristocrat (high o low level).
-- This shot in the temple didn't kill her, so she is not only an aristrocrat.
-- She can kill Endrin with only one hit, so she is very powerfull.
No stats, no problem.
Evidently most people have players who don't care how their world works, who don't ever think about what their characters can and cannot do, and who don't object to games being run by DM fiat. That's fine for them.
I am not one of those people, unfortunately.
...
Pivotal events that involve combat should be theoretically possible under the combat rules.
Oh for crying out loud, Kirth! Be accurate, please! I and many others have provided a variety of rules solutions for this: DR, fast healing, mistaken assumption about the queen's type with a bolt of slaying or favored enemy bonuses, mistaken assumptions about the queen's power level, a critical hit that didn't do enough damage, etc. These are all possible scenarios.
The Queen's assault on the dude? We've been through this: the players aren't there, they're getting second hand knowledge which is inherently unreliable. If you absolutely insist, all she has to do is to do 50 HP of damage and the massive damage Fort save comes into play. If you absolutely insist, she grapples and chokes him to death using natural attacks over 12 seconds or even 18 seconds, rather than 6 seconds.
My players DO CARE about the rules. Stop using ad hominem attacks simply because I think that the underlying rules of the scenario SHOULD NOT BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PLAYERS WHEN THEIR CHARACTERS ARE NOT THERE. It is not the same thing as not caring about the rules and stop pretending that it's the same thing.
I am glad that you brought this issue up. I am glad that you forced DMs to think about the ways the underlying mechanics might work here. What you and Mary have done here is very valuable
But I get a little steamed when you ignore the hard work that I put in to answering your questions. I'm not asking that you agree with them; I'm asking that you acknowledge that they were made.
Oh for crying out loud, Kirth! Be accurate, please! I and many others have provided a variety of rules solutions for this: DR, fast healing, mistaken assumption about the queen's type with a bolt of slaying or favored enemy bonuses, mistaken assumptions about the queen's power level, a critical hit that didn't do enough damage, etc. These are all possible scenarios.
Right; no one's arguing that we can come up with a good explanation.
The problem is the people who are implying "There doesn't need to be an explanation that makes sense under the rules, and if you're looking for one, you're a cornsarned, four-flushing, two-bit metagamer." Maybe no one is trying to say that, but that's the gist I got from several posts -- not all, but several of them.
Can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die?
Right; no one's arguing that we can come up with a good explanation.
The problem is the people who are implying "There doesn't need to be an explanation that makes sense under the rules, and if you're looking for one, you're a cornsarned, four-flushing, two-bit metagamer." Maybe no one is trying to say that, but that's the gist I got from several posts -- not all, but several of them.
Can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die?
Hogarth's post hits it on the head 100%. I have nothing further to add.
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.Yeah, you're right. I'm bitter. I'll back off for a bit and try to calm down.
It's just tough, given how much I was looking forward to this one--I really prefer city adventures--and how much we enjoyed RotRL, to find out that it flat wasn't going to work for us at all.
Mary
I totally understand this. I didn't get to play Savage Tide because of the DMs views on a few key issues in the path and I am a pirate fanatic.
I have to disagree with the sentiment that background scenes should violate the game rules at whim.
Here we go again... Where is this espoused? Who is saying they should? In what way has this scene or any other scene in the AP done so?
How is the NPC that is describing the assassination attempt supposed to relate what happened to your characters for you to be satisfied?
And finally, why can't you, and the rest of you who conflate "total immersion" with "suspension of realism" understand that the information even you need to provide to your characters is there if perhaps not presented exactly as you would present it (and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...)?
This crossbow bolt of human slaying... How does anyone know that's what it is? How does the NPC relating the story know that's what it is? If this kind of item is available to the commander of the Sable Company why aren't more of them running around?
I find it absolutely the height of entertaining that you can't accept an NPC is going to relate a story without resorting to game terms, but you're perfectly comfortable introducing an "artifact" level weapon into the campaign that you are then going to restrict your players from accessing.
If it works for you, great, but there's absolutely no reason why anyone who saw the Queen get shot with a crossbow bolt in the head would have any reason to suspect it was a magic item at all, let alone be able to explain that it had some magic powers that really, especially should have felled the Queen, just take my word for it.
I'd love to know who in Korvosa you're going to have that has made the weapon, how it was made, etc... Seems like an awful lot of work to avoid roleplaying the telling of an event by an NPC with your PCs to me.
and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...?
This crossbow bolt of human slaying... How does anyone know that's what it is? How does the NPC relating the story know that's what it is? If this kind of item is available to the commander of the Sable Company why aren't more of them running around?
Seems like an awful lot of work to avoid roleplaying the telling of an event by an NPC with your PCs to me.
We've been over this a few times. Let's look at it step-by-step, how it would work with my players; maybe that will help.
(1) The PCs get the story as told.
(2) The players say "OK, apparently the queen can kill a mid- to high-level, non-flat-footed opponent with a single blow (or else she can somehow make him helpless with a free action). Sooner or later we'll be opposing her, and she'll be able to do the same to us. What precautions do we need to take?
(3) The PCs spend the rest of the campaign trying to figure out a way to counter this mysterious instant-death power. I have to come up with clues, or else tell them eventually that it "just happened."
I don't insist on MY explanation, but there should be AN explanation that does not require the alteration or adding of rules. If it was a lucky crit that did 50+ damage and he failed his Fort save, there should be some way for them to determine that, so that they're not left with the impression I'm bending the rules for them. Again, for people whose players wouldn't care what killed the captain, then you don't need to worry about it, so feel free to ignore this post. This is directed at the people who are claiming that my players are "playing wrong" if they look to take precautions against exotic powers displayed by their adversaries.
Oh for crying out loud, Kirth! Be accurate, please! I and many others have provided a variety of rules solutions for this: DR, fast healing, mistaken assumption about the queen's type with a bolt of slaying or favored enemy bonuses, mistaken assumptions about the queen's power level, a critical hit that didn't do enough damage, etc. These are all possible scenarios.Right; no one's arguing that we can come up with a good explanation.
The problem is the people who are implying "There doesn't need to be an explanation that makes sense under the rules, and if you're looking for one, you're a cornsarned, four-flushing, two-bit metagamer." Maybe no one is trying to say that, but that's the gist I got from several posts -- not all, but several of them.
Can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die?
It's not as if there isn't an explanation. It is simply an explanation you do not like. You want an explanation in "game terms" for something that is related to the PCs by an NPC. How you expect that to be delivered I cannot begin to imagine. The fact that you get to access an NPC voice and deliver the EXACT message you wish to deliver (don't confront the Queen yet, if you do she'll tear you up, and she's publicly gone bad, so fret not about opposing her) allows (nay, requires) you to avoid using game terms.
The NPC describing the scene is not going to express anything in "game terms" to the PCs. The PCs are not going to have access to anything that allows them to understand the scene in "game terms". They are simply going to have to accept what they are told, because they were not present for the event.
Again, this goes back to my point about the Reefclaws. Why aren't you up in arms about the creation of the Reefclaws? We have no statblocks for the Runelords or the flesh-vats of Barakhan... It is the exact same thing. The players would just have to accept that the Reefclaws were created by a powerful magic invoked by a powerful NPC.
The arguments presented here suggest there are only two options for how information is delivered to PCs either in a RAW format, or in a completely ridiculous format. There is sensible middle ground, and I hope you avail yourself of it soon.
Allowing your players to make assumptions about the world based upon the rules presented in the game books is metagaming, and I'm sorry if you don't like that, it isn't meant as a pejorative, it is meant to illustrate that if you allow your players to metagame you need to accept that you're never going to be able to use scenes like this as written. You will always have to work to provide "rules-based" explanations for story elements that don't rely upon the rules.
Asking for the producers of an AP to handcuff themselves to accommodate your particular group's style of play is, well, there are so many terms for it I'll just let you pick the one you like.
The NPC describing the scene is not going to express anything in "game terms" to the PCs. The PCs are not going to have access to anything that allows them to understand the scene in "game terms".
Please re-read my last post. Insisting that game rules do not apply to the game, doesn't work for us. The players might not know the rules governing the situation right away, but they should be aware that there are some, and that all events are not arbitrary.
Asking for the producers of an AP to handcuff themselves to accommodate your particular group's style of play is, well, there are so many terms for it I'll just let you pick the one you like.
I agree. Your style is that things happen for no discernable reason, simply by DM fiat. Mine isn't. Both can easily be accommodated.
and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...?
This crossbow bolt of human slaying... How does anyone know that's what it is? How does the NPC relating the story know that's what it is? If this kind of item is available to the commander of the Sable Company why aren't more of them running around?
Seems like an awful lot of work to avoid roleplaying the telling of an event by an NPC with your PCs to me.
We've been over this a few times. Let's look at it step-by-step, how it would work with my players; maybe that will help.
(1) The PCs get the story as told.
(2) The players say "OK, apparently the queen can kill a mid- to high-level, non-flat-footed opponent with a single blow (or else she can somehow make him flat-footed with a free action). Sooner or later we'll be opposing her, and she'll be able to do the same to us. What precautions do we need to take?
(3) The PCs spend the rest of the campaign trying to figure out a way to counter this mysterious instant-death power. I have to come up with clues, or else tell them eventually that it "just happened."I don't insist on MY explanation, but there should be AN explanation that does not require the alteration or adding of rules. If it was a lucky crit that did 50+ damage and he failed his Fort save, there should be some way for them to determine that, so that they're not left with the impression I'm bending the rules for them. Again, for people whose players wouldn't care what killed the captain, then you don't need to worry about it, so feel free to ignore this post. This is directed at the people who are claiming that my players are "playing wrong" if they look to take precautions against exotic powers displayed by their adversaries.
There is an explanation. The Queen is powerful enough to withstand a mortal blow dealt by a trained professional, and also powerful enough to dispatch that guy in a swift and ruthless manner.
You simply do not like this explanation because it is not presented in RAW terms. If your players are still worried about how Endrin was killed when they face the Queen themselves in the 6th book, well, perhaps that can be a hook for a whole new adventure!
This AP has presented new feats, new PRCs, new deities, new monsters, new rules (the chase through the shingles, the harrowing), yet you complain about none of these things...
And we're just going to have to agree to disagree that the PCs should be able to determine how much damage the Queen took when she was shot by a crossbow bolt. I would absolutely LOVE to know how your PCs could possibly figure that out, how you would present to them exactly how many "points of damage" the damage-o-meter registered during their divination of the scene.
No exotic powers were presented in the telling of the tale by the NPC. And as accurate as that NPC might try to be, your players can accept that there must be some information missing since they are getting this info second hand. There's no reason for any in depth RAW explanation because there's no one even capable of providing an in depth RAW explanation to the PCs. It is as simple as that, and again I understand you don't like that. I just don't know what you expect anyone to do about it. I would suggest that including an artifact in the campaign simply to appease people looking to validate their player's need to metagame and understand the level/HPs/attack damage of the Queen based upon her combat rounds with the leader of the Sable Company is an unlikely resolution to your issue.
Last try:
The queen kills a tough guy with one stab of a crossbow bolt, or so they're told. The characters know from past experience shooting crossbows at things that this is a unique occurrence -- not even opponents more powerful than themselves have ever displayed this ability, nor have they ever heard of it. The players begin to wonder what precautions they need to take against it. I am forced to tell them that they're wasting their time; it "just happened because she's powerful and because I said so."
There you have it, with no game terms used.
BTW, I don't complain about new rules when they're presented as such. I do argue that "because I say so," in direct violation of existing rules, is not a useable "new rule."
The problem is the people who are implying "There doesn't need to be an explanation that makes sense under the rules, and if you're looking for one, you're a cornsarned, four-flushing, two-bit metagamer." Maybe no one is trying to say that, but that's the gist I got from several posts -- not all, but several of them.
You know, after 125 posts, I'd have to define the ones remarking on "metagaming" in such a strongly negative way as "a few" and not "several."
And it may be a surprise, but by my reckoning, it's been like a week since any post of that nature has been made. A week is a long time.
I don't mean any offense, but at this point, it seems anyone reiterating these points is really just being emotionally defensive over prefering rules laid out in black and white. They've made their point on what they prefer and to continue to argue is only an attempt to validate their own opinion to themselves, which is pointless, because it's an opinion and doesn't need validation.
Which leads to...
Can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die?
It's the internet; what do you expect? ;)
Actually, to me it's not an "agree to disagree" situation; it's a "Wow, isn't it interesting how gamers are all different in some way" situation.
If anything should be taken from this thread, I think it should be taking the blinders off we may be wearing that make any of us think we represent "the majority of gamers." That we've seen gamers equally on totally opposite ends of the spectrum here and at nearly every point in between from as close to a cross-section of the hobby as a whole (who would be interested in the product in the first place) should be an eye-opening experience.
So perhaps it is time to let the thread end with two goals achieved. The first, multiple explanations of reasonable ways the scene works within the rules for those that want to use them.
And the second unintended achievement, the realization that what looks like chocolate mousse to one person may look like a pile of crap for dessert to someone else.
If we appreciate the other point of view, we can learn from it. If we deride it, we continue in ignorance.
Will this thread end? Well, this is the internet. ;)
The NPC describing the scene is not going to express anything in "game terms" to the PCs. The PCs are not going to have access to anything that allows them to understand the scene in "game terms".Please re-read my last post. Insisting that game rules do not apply to the game, doesn't work for us. The players might not know the rules governing the situation right away, but they should be aware that there are some, and that all events are not arbitrary.
Asking for the producers of an AP to handcuff themselves to accommodate your particular group's style of play is, well, there are so many terms for it I'll just let you pick the one you like.I agree. Your style is that things happen for no discernable reason, simply by DM fiat. Mine isn't. Both can easily be accommodated.
I make no such insistence. I suggest that PCs accessing the game mechanics through the world is not possible in all cases. I provide an example of this via the Reefclaws, you and your ilk remain silent on this. You accept the Reefclaws. You accept the Shingles chase rules. You accept the Harrowing. And then you claim that this scene is impossible to accept! It boggles the mind.
What I insist is that the game rules work absolutely perfectly for the engagement between the Queen and the Sable Company Commander, but there is no one present when this occurs that is capable of relating it to the PCs in game terms (because only NPCs are at the scene, you see there's no real people there who play 3.5 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!). Therefore you, the DM, are not able to provide the game mechanics to the PCs, therefore it is immaterial how it actually went down. No one can ever know how much damage the crossbow bolt did to the Queen. No one can ever know what Endrin generated on his D20 roll. No one can ever know how much damage the Queen did to Endrin. No one can ever know that Endrin actually died of a heart attack because all he ever eats is fried cheese, and the stress of this event is what really pushed him over the edge!
Once again, if that does not work for you, then you are not trying hard enough to make it work for you.
I make no such insistence. I suggest that PCs accessing the game mechanics through the world is not possible in all cases. I provide an example of this via the Reefclaws, you and your ilk remain silent on this. You accept the Reefclaws. You accept the Shingles chase rules. You accept the Harrowing. And then you claim that this scene is impossible to accept! It boggles the mind.
If you really want to hear my take on this (it has to do with "reproducibility of results"), why don't we take it up via e-mail?
What I insist is that the game rules work absolutely perfectly for the engagement between the Queen and the Sable Company Commander, but there is no one present when this occurs that is capable of relating it to the PCs in game terms (because only NPCs are at the scene, you see there's no real people there who play 3.5 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!).
I, the real person DMing, assume that there should be some game rules working -- ones spelled out somewhere. Explain them to me and I'm happy. I (not "my ilk") have already explained that there's no issue with Shingles chase rules because they are spelled out. They do not consist of "NPCs fall whenever the DM decides they do."
Therefore you, the DM, are not able to provide the game mechanics to the PCs, therefore it is immaterial how it actually went down. No one can ever know how much damage the crossbow bolt did to the Queen. No one can ever know what Endrin generated on his D20 roll. No one can ever know how much damage the Queen did to Endrin. No one can ever know that Endrin actually died of a heart attack...
And no character will ever take death ward, because I declare that sometimes death effects are death effects, and sometimes they just happen for story purposes.
Once again, if that does not work for you, then you are not trying hard enough to make it work for you.
I was trying. Then you told me, in essence, that I wasn't allowed. That I am required to inform my players that investigation and precautions are useless, because their characters don't get to metagame, and therefore they are not allowed to react to bizarre circumstances except to shrug fatalistically and accept that the workings of their world will always be a total mystery to them, and that they will never know the cause-and-effect of anything.
I have to disagree with the sentiment that background scenes should violate the game rules at whim. This sort of thing bugs my players and I to no end; like Mary's group, we play with a high degree of immersion, and have come to rely on some internal consistency. Despite the fact that it's "realistic" to kill anyone at all with a single crossbow shot in real life, the game rules say that feat is nearly impossible, and therefore, in all game worlds built using those rules, it IS nearly impossible. That's not necessarily metagame thinking, but experience born from having their characters shoot crossbows at monsters. They learn the rules of the game world the way we learn the rules of the real world -- to some extent by training, but more often by trial and error. By 3rd level, they know daggone well that the "laws of physics" in 3.5 don't support single-shot crossbow kills.
Making things that violate the rules become the norm whenever I desire -- but never during a PC-driven scene, somehow -- strains their suspension of disbelief far past the breaking point. Do it too often, and it ruins the game, because then the rules are arbitrary, and can be set aside or changed for no reason, so the players feel that nothing their characters can ever do will ever hold a candle to divine whim.
So in order to run this particular adventure, I need a rationale that fits the game rules they've come to rely on, without needing to rewrite the conditions for a coup de grace. As previously noted, playing out the whole fight would take too long and bore everyone to tears. On the other hand, a crossbow bolt of slaying humans, which doesn't affect the Queen because of her template, is a very fine solution. One which I'll use. One which I wish had been included in the adventure text, to spare the GMs on these boards the effort of having to think of it themselves. The PCs could question artificers and discover that such a bolt can indeed be made; high-level PC wizards with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor...
My issue here is that its not actually required for the plot of the adventure that the story blatantly break the rules. In fact I'm certian that if the plot required for something so outragous that it was clear the rules were being utterly tossed James and the gang would not use it.
Thus we end up with comparably small breaks in the rules - the catch here is that these are easily fixed if they are caught. If the captain of the gaurd managed to shoot her three times, one of which was described as a critical (shot in the head - shot in the neck) and she turns around and tears him limb from limb this whole thread would not exist.
The basic point is made for DMs that play in 'rules are for players not NPCs' and nothing has taken place that does not jive with with the rules for DMs that feel that the rules are persistent - they apply even when there are no PCs watching.
This is in fact what I mean by the story should follow the rules so far as possible. James and the gang are never going to have something happen that is so far fetched that it just can't be made to fit and therefore it all simply comes down to whether or not the writers or editors notice the inconsistency. No one is perfect** but so far as possible I'd like it if both camps were satisfied and feel that this is most of the time.
** OK thats not 100% true - if I notice an inconsistency in Greers work I blame the editors until proven otherwise.
I, the real person DMing, assume that there should be some game rules working -- ones spelled out somewhere. Explain them to me and I'm happy. I (not "my ilk") have already explained that there's no issue with Shingles chase rules because they are spelled out. They do not consist of "NPCs fall whenever the DM decides they do."
And no character will ever take death ward, because I declare that sometimes death effects are death effects, and sometimes they just happen for story purposes.
The game rules are working. They simply haven't taken the time to spell them out to you because they are not important. They tell you what NPCs who witnessed the event will relate to the PCs instead, because, you know, it's a roleplaying game.
You can definitely do that with death effects if you like, but I recommend, that just like the authors, you limit it to NPCs that have no impact on the story other than to sacrifice themselves to illustrate important information that the PCs should pick up on.
Conflating this NPC-only scene with direct PC interaction is about all that is left to you as a means of continuing to have an issue isn't it?
I make no such insistence. I suggest that PCs accessing the game mechanics through the world is not possible in all cases. I provide an example of this via the Reefclaws, you and your ilk remain silent on this. You accept the Reefclaws. You accept the Shingles chase rules. You accept the Harrowing. And then you claim that this scene is impossible to accept! It boggles the mind.If you really want to hear my take on this (it has to do with "reproducibility of results"), why don't we take it up via e-mail?
I absolutely would love to hear your take on this, yes, so please feel free to email me.
Conflating this NPC-only scene with direct PC interaction is about all that is left to you as a means of continuing to have an issue isn't it?
In a word, yes. I expect that the same rules apply to PCs as apply to NPCs -- or, if there are different rules, that those differences are spelled out somewhere. The players expect that as well. We prefer to game within a system governed by rules, not whimsy. Whether those rules are being wilfully thrown away for the PCs or for NPCs is immaterial.
The situation as written leads the players to believe that the scene exists in order to tell them that the queen has some awful ability to kill at a blow -- that it's important for them to contrive some defense against that ability, so that they don't end up like the captain. Why lead them to believe that if it isn't so? Just edit it so that, by questioning others present, they can learn that it took her a number of blows to do him in. Then the whole situation is resolved.
We've been over this a few times. Let's look at it step-by-step, how it would work with my players; maybe that will help.
(1) The PCs get the story as told.
(2) The players say "OK, apparently the queen can kill a mid- to high-level, non-flat-footed opponent with a single blow (or else she can somehow make him helpless with a free action). Sooner or later we'll be opposing her, and she'll be able to do the same to us. What precautions do we need to take?
(3) The PCs spend the rest of the campaign trying to figure out a way to counter this mysterious instant-death power. I have to come up with clues, or else tell them eventually that it "just happened."I don't insist on MY explanation, but there should be AN explanation that does not require the alteration or adding of rules. If it was a lucky crit that did 50+ damage and he failed his Fort save, there should be some way for them to determine that, so that they're not left with the impression I'm bending the rules for them. Again, for people whose players wouldn't care what killed the captain, then you don't need to worry about it, so feel free to ignore this post. This is directed at the people who are claiming that my players are "playing wrong" if they look to take precautions against exotic powers displayed by their adversaries.
So what kind of clues to you have to come up with - eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable) and the body of Endrin (which is probably inaccessible). That's about all anybody could initially expect. And any other further research, without the involvement of the Shoanti in installment 4, is probably a dead end as well. Just because they want to figure out what it was and take precautions doesn't mean it should even be possible for them to realistically do it, particularly by trying to reverse-engineer the encounter by using the rules. Some things simply don't leave very clear evidence.
This thread really reminds me of the book discussion group that they tried to set in Knights of the Dinner Table. Sara got fantasy books for the group so that they could discuss the themes, characterizations, and plot just like your regular book group. Bob, Dave, and particularly Brian couldn't find the book at all believable because the events that were described didn't conform to Hackmaster rules.
Conflating this NPC-only scene with direct PC interaction is about all that is left to you as a means of continuing to have an issue isn't it?In a word, yes. I expect that the same rules apply to PCs as apply to NPCs -- or, if there are different rules, that those differences are spelled out somewhere. The players expect that as well. We prefer to game within a system governed by rules, not whimsy. Whether those rules are being wilfully thrown away for the PCs or for NPCs is immaterial.
The situation as written leads the players to believe that the scene exists in order to tell them that the queen has some awful ability to kill at a blow -- that it's important for them to contrive some defense against that ability, so that they don't end up like the captain. Why lead them to believe that if it isn't so? Just edit it so that, by questioning others present, they can learn that it took her a number of blows to do him in. Then the whole situation is resolved.
There is nothing to suggest that the same rules do not apply for PCs as NPCs in the AP. In fact they count on that. The Queen is dangerous, the PCs should not consider confronting her directly. If your players get this message, mission accomplished. It is up to you as a DM to ensure they get this message with no hint of "whimsy". The AP does an excellent job of presenting you with an NPC account of what happens. Should you decide that isn't good enough for you, well, just use some DM fiat to change what happened according to the AP to meet your personal needs.
If your PCs believe that the queen has some magical death touch (and for all we know she does) all the better. Won't they be relieved when they discover that she doesn't and Endrin just had a heart condition, or if it is just the amount of time it is supposed to take to kill Endrin that is your hang up there are a number of ways to deal with that as well, that again, don't require the AP to change or take up any more time than it does on this issue.
The idea of keeping it vague is valid, that way anyone who needs to spell out every single round of combat including die rolls can do so, and anyone who can simply enthrall their players with totally Amber-like non-RAW-related story can do so as well.
That way, theoretically, no one will get their panties in a bunch over it, will come up with the obvious, and easily applicable resolutions they need for their particular group, and they don't have to start a thread on the Paizo forums about how awful the AP is, and that it's totally unplayable because they have to accommodate their own group's personal tastes to make it work...
Hmm, perhaps this didn't quite work out after all. Okay, back to the idea that they write an AP for each of us individually as suited to our own tastes. Queue up behind me!
Ah the evils of DM fiat. Can't ever meet someone that fell from a roof and broke their leg, where are the rules for breaking legs, can PCs break their legs? Don't ever come across someone urinating in the alley because there are no rules for urinating? Pregancy in an NPC, forget it. Guy lost an eye from a crossbow bolt, nope can't do that because the rules don't cover it. Have to run a bunch shingles races by making the rolls and have to do it until someone fails before you can talk about the character having fell once. No creative license for DMs.
I absolutely would love to hear your take on this, yes, so please feel free to email me.
What e-mail address can I use?
Just because they want to figure out what it was and take precautions doesn't mean it should even be possible for them to realistically do it, particularly by trying to reverse-engineer the encounter by using the rules. Some things simply don't leave very clear evidence.
That's very true. My only question then is, why detail the scene in such a way that it explicitly leads the characters into an investigation that is automatically going to be fruitless? A simple alteration of the story they're told ("apparently she killed the guy") would be more appropriate, and would eliminate the problem. Yes, it's "cool" that she can annihilate him with a single blow, but not if I'm forced to ignore all of the existing rules of the game in order to make that happen, and if the description blindsides the focus of the campaign. Why don't I just alter it myself accordingly? I will. But its inclusion means that I now have to be VERY careful to go over adventures with a fine-toothed comb for similar cruel setups. I've never needed to do so with the Dungeon APs (have run 11/12 of Age of Worms and 3/4 of Savage Tide).
Can't ever meet someone that fell from a roof and broke their leg, where are the rules for breaking legs, can PCs break their legs? Don't ever come across someone urinating in the alley because there are no rules for urinating? Pregancy in an NPC, forget it. Guy lost an eye from a crossbow bolt, nope can't do that because the rules don't cover it. Have to run a bunch shingles races by making the rolls and have to do it until someone fails before you can talk about the character having fell once. No creative license for DMs.
Most of those events are fine, unless they explicitly railroad the characters into a sideline to the entire campaign that is automatically a waste of their time. If a major NPC becomes 6 months pregnant mid-adventure with no cause, then female PCs will begin looking for some way to prevent it, you can be sure.
As it is, the rules of the game world imply that no one ever breaks a leg from falling. Ever. If they do, it forces me, as a DM with observant players, to come up with some in-game explanation why the PCs can't. "Because I said so" might work for your players; if so, you are fortunate. It doesn't work with mine. My creative license is limitless, as long as it's clear the game world follows some kind of order in terms of cause and effect. If it doesn't, Mary and I, and most likely a number of others, need to look for new players.
|
I like the arrow of slaying humans theory that has been discussed. I do not think it is unplausible for the Guard to have a 'special' just in case something like this were to happen. Of course, with Ileosa's template, it just doesn't work, or she makes her Fort.
For the killing of the ranger dude. Ileosa is a bard. Hold Person is a bard spell. Would be assassin paralyzed (ie helpless), then CDG'ed. She could fascinate and then hold, if you want, too.
Thanks! Those are the kinds of suggestions I'm after. Like I said, it doesn't need to be an arrow of slaying; I just need some workable reason as to how she accomplishes her impressive feat. If hold person renders the victim helpless, she could then perform a coup de grace, and we're all set.
Norgerber's suggestion of making the description more vague ("...and then she killed him!") also works equally well, insofar as it doesn't automatically put the players into panic mode in terms of focusing their lives on countering some sort of unknown killer weapon.
These are things I can work with. If I find other instances of apparently setting aside the game rules arbitrarily (as in the "How Old is Thassalon" thread for RotRL), similar suggestions are most welcome. Certainly, they're MUCH more useful than simply telling me to get rid of my players or else browbeat them into refusing to plan ahead.
Hogarth's post hits it on the head 100%. I have nothing further to add.Right; no one's arguing that we can come up with a good explanation.
The problem is the people who are implying "There doesn't need to be an explanation that makes sense under the rules, and if you're looking for one, you're a cornsarned, four-flushing, two-bit metagamer." Maybe no one is trying to say that, but that's the gist I got from several posts -- not all, but several of them.
Can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die?
You lied.
For the killing of the ranger dude. Ileosa is a bard. Hold Person is a bard spell. Would be assassin paralyzed (ie helpless), then CDG'ed. She could fascinate and then hold, if you want, too.Thanks! Those are the kinds of suggestions I'm after. Like I said, it doesn't need to be an arrow of slaying; I just need some workable reason as to how she accomplishes her impressive feat. If hold person renders the victim helpless, she could then perform a coup de grace, and we're all set.
Norgerber's suggestion of making the description more vague ("...and then she killed him!") also works equally well, insofar as it doesn't automatically put the players into panic mode in terms of focusing their lives on countering some sort of unknown killer weapon.
These are things I can work with. If I find other instances of apparently setting aside the game rules arbitrarily (as in the "How Old is Thassalon" thread for RotRL), similar suggestions are most welcome. Certainly, they're MUCH more useful than simply telling me to get rid of my players or else browbeat them into refusing to plan ahead.
as far as the crossbow bolt not killing her, is that part something you have a problem with? or is it her killing him?
perhaps she is able to unleash a frightful presence style effect like true dragons. shes more hit dice then the captain. he fails his save. she can grapple, whisper some terrifyingly sweet words in his ear after she pins him against a wall, and choke/stab him with the arrow over rounds til he is dead. throw a sadistic/malicious smile on her through the whole act, and you'd have a pretty terrified populace in reaction.
The image of her slowly pushing/grinding the arrow into him after he shot her with it appeals to myself. i'd prolly use it that way.