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.
The gulf between our game worlds is greater than any spelljammer ship could hope to cross.
Wow, commoners can't fall and break their legs. Just wow.
|
(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).
Ah yes ... you spotted that I conveniently focused on the queen and ignored the question of the captain of the guard ... ;-)
Well, I still don't really understand why you have a problem with this scene as written - or rather I do understand, I suppose it just doesn't apply to the way I or the people I play with play the game.
That's cool. I can respect that people have different styles, and that the scenario as written may not fit everyone's styles. Hopefully some good suggestions have come out of this thread that will help you deal with this problem.
That's cool. I can respect that people have different styles, and that the scenario as written may not fit everyone's styles. Hopefully some good suggestions have come out of this thread that will help you deal with this problem.
Thanks, Mothman. Yeah, the one-shot kill of the high-level ranger is what has me going in circles. I know my players. I've grilled it into their heads through long experience that if the villain has a super-weapon, they'll need to have a counter to that weapon when they face him or her, or die. The queen's one-shot kill smacks of such a weapon, to the extent they'll immediately abandon all other goals. Luckily, a few helpful souls have provided suggestions (instead of merely telling me I'm stupid, or playing wrong, or refusing to accept that this kind of discrepancy absolutely will set off my players big-time). Thanks again.
Hogarth's post hits it on the head 100%. I have nothing further to add.You lied.
Just trying to clear things up, for people who keep asking snarky questions and/or refuse to believe that anyone cares. I haven't actually added anything new. :)
...and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...)?
A scene described more like:
"he attacked her out of the blue (he got surprise) and hit her five or six times (he has the rapid shot feat) one of which was a devastating blow to the head that would have instantly laid a normal woman low (he got a critical). She shrugged off all of these blows and turned on him tearing him limb from limb (or stabbing him over and over with a dagger - depends on how she fights as revealed in part 6) killing him in less then 30 seconds (he, a fairly high level character, died within less then 5 rounds)."The parts in brackets don't need to be in the actual text. Those of us who want this to follow the rules can discern what happened by the description. Those of us who don't really care about the rules in such things presumably have lost nothing by this description of events. Ergo everyone is satisfied.
Just trying to clear things up, for people who keep asking snarky questions and/or refuse to believe that anyone cares. I haven't actually added anything new. :)Hogarth's post hits it on the head 100%. I have nothing further to add.You lied.
Cool. You can have the last word here and I'll make pertinent comments in other threads. :)
|
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."
My bold. Why tell them that? Tell them nothing - it's a mystery to the onlookers, it should be a mystery to the PCs. Why encourage metagame thinking (which, as a DM, you are probably guilty of doing - if you refuse to engage in conversations like that, they will eventually stop having them, and you can stop warrying about scenes like this)? What precautions can they take? Don't annoy the queen. If they think they can go toe-to-toe with the Queen, let them. Then they can roll up new characters and find out how she killed them. The problem may be you and your players thinking too much in game terms, instead of seeing the scene for what it is - flavour. If the DM metagames with the players, it is hardly surprising this is a problem.
I would suggest the following: let them speculate, smile knowingly, and then continue. They might be too scared to actually approach the queen, which is sorta the point. It's about performance craft as a DM, not squeezing a rules explanation out of everything.
The concept that the rules of D'n'D are in some ways the physics of Golarion is deeply flawed. Especially when cuppled with concepts such as 'absense from the rules means that it cannot happen.' Since there are no mechanics for child birth, by this arguement, there can be no children.
Rather, the rules of the game are a set of tool for interacting with the SIS and to apportion credibility to those involved in a 'fair' manner. In the case of the D'n'D rule set, there is an additional aim set into the rules: to make it a 'fun and dramatic skirmish game.'
This caused problems however, because the rules consider it to be not 'fun', for your character to be killed by a single blow, from almost anything at mid to high levels, regardless of what the norm is within the SIS. We know that in Golarion, it is normal for a single cross bow bolt to often kill most humans, because the NPC involved used it. It is not a failier of the story that such a choice would be made, its logicial and works within the narrative flow of the story. It is however a failing of the D'n'D system, that it cannot easily represent this scene accurately.
It is frankly some what silly, to even try to use a Cinimatic skirmish system to describe, a realistic assassination attempt. Scenes such as these, when they occure of camera, need not be covered by rules for one very simple reason. In the absense of player character, there is no conflict of credibility, the Storyteller need only decide what occures and it does.
...and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...)?A scene described more like:
"he attacked her out of the blue (he got surprise) and hit her five or six times (he has the rapid shot feat) one of which was a devastating blow to the head that would have instantly laid a normal woman low (he got a critical). She shrugged off all of these blows and turned on him tearing him limb from limb (or stabbing him over and over with a dagger - depends on how she fights as revealed in part 6) killing him in less then 30 seconds (he, a fairly high level character, died within less then 5 rounds)."The parts in brackets don't need to be in the actual text. Those of us who want this to follow the rules can discern what happened by the description. Those of us who don't really care about the rules in such things presumably have lost nothing by this description of events. Ergo everyone is satisfied.
No, not every one is satififed, thats a lousy peice of narrative. The Crossbow bolt to the head is much better.
|
|
No, not every one is satififed, thats a lousy peice of narrative. The Crossbow bolt to the head is much better....and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...)?A scene described more like....
"he attacked her out of the blue
I have to agree. The version as written is shocking but, more importantly, brief. Jeremy's version is a long, drawn-out fight, and her security would have stepped in long before it would have got to that stage, so it doesn't make much sense either. 30 seconds? That's actually a long time, giving people loads of time to react. The written version is a few seconds at most, and it therefore means Ileosa gets to do the dirty deed herself, which is an important factor in my opinion.
|
|
In the absense of player character, there is no conflict of credibility...
The thing is that this thread has already shown that for some of us, there is. I would in no way encourage the Paizo designers to break the rules just for the sake of the story.
This said, they didn't. There have been quite a lot of explanations for the assassination scene, and I'm quite sure that Richard Pett could have come up with his own explanation if he had felt it to be necessary.
Kirth said before that part of the problem is his training the players to make certain assumptions in certain cases (find a way to neutralise the queen's superweapon). So I can understand why he would wish for an in-adventure explanation. I don't see that Richard should have necessarily guessed this (in my eyes very special) approach to this situation beforehand. Maybe he guessed but hadn't the time (or room) to insert said explanation. But no matter what, Kirth (and Mary) are in their rights to comment on this lack of information without being pigeonholed one way or the other (this goes both ways for sure).
Another part of the problem may be that we have come to expect Paizo BBEGs to be truly bad-ass. So it comes as quite a surprise that they took the time to explain it to us in a very cinematic scene (in a way they didn't to before this AP). And while I think that this approach makes a lot of sense and is a great way to convey information to the players I don't wonder the least if it makes other people think that there must be more behind it.
Long story short: All of us should stop to make snide comments about other player's style and concentrate on the helping part (which is what has made this comm such a great one).
WormysQueue:
I am not sure you understand the use of the term, credibility, in this case. It referes to who has the right to describe certain events and in what level of detail within a SIS.
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.
Point of information:
This item would cost "2,282 gp (slaying arrow) or 4,057 gp (greater slaying arrow)." It's not anything close to an artifact level item.
Kirth: the rest of the adventures in the path will have the party LOOKING FOR A SUPER-WEAPON. That's why they have to get out of the city and find the wise man.
Satisfied?
Kirth: the rest of the adventures in the path will have the party LOOKING FOR A SUPER-WEAPON. That's why they have to get out of the city and find the wise man.
"The marmot is not the issue, Walter!" Lots of things, in the PCs' in-game experience, survive multiple blows. The unprecedented, inexplicable one-shot kill of the captain IS the issue, because it violates all of their previous (in-game, not "metagame") experience. The characters may have a great weapon, but will still fear to use it if they suspect the queen can automatically instant-kill them no matter what they do. My players will focus more on neutralizing her weapon, not getting their own.
Regarding "promoting metagame thinking": if the PCs note that trolls, once knocked down, tend to get back up after a few seconds, is that "metagame thinking"? To me, it's good playing. I don't have to tell the players that the troll has "regeneration 5," but am I also not allowed to tell them that the troll gets up?
More germane to the current issue, if the characters have never killed ANYTHING with just one stab from something like a crossbow bolt, is it "metagame thinking" to wonder how the queen does it? And then to make the logical leap that she has some special power enabling her to do it? Are my players, and possibly Mary's, the ONLY ones who look for in-game context clues like that? If they do, is it "metagame thinking"?
To everyone who keeps attacking me and my players: I accept that your style is different. I'm aware that some players may not look for clues, and certainly most do not raise strategic thinking to the level mine do. I do NOT accept that this makes our group "evil metagamers," stupid, wrong, or unworthy to play. I also do not accept that my job, as DM, is to refuse to allow the characters any scope for imvestigation or fact-finding, and to stonewall them whenever they start following that course.
And I still feel that, if a simple text change ("...and then she killed him!") can accomodate all styles of play, then why not use it?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, the queen's survival is not the issue here; lots of things, in the PC's in-game experience, survive multiple blows. The one-shot kill of the captain is the issue, because it violates all of their previous (in-game, not "metagame") experience
....
And I still feel that, if a simple text change ("...and then she killed him") can accomodate all styles of play, then why not use it?
Hi, Kirth. Generally speaking, I've been on your side during most of this discussion, but I think you're starting to pass over the border-line from "concerned simulationist DM" to "stubborn curmudgeon".
There are plenty of ways a character can kill another in one attack over only a few rounds. (The reports don't say how many seconds it takes Her Majesty to kill him.)
I've read about several of these way on this thread: poison / bolts of slaying / assassination attack after three rounds of advancing over to him / doing over 50 points of damage / hold person and coup de grace.
It's a good and proper thing for your characters to be worried about the Queen's offensive capabilities. But if they're paralyzed by that concern, they stop being heroes. Yeah, she might be able to assassinate one of the PC's when they finally attack. Attack anyway.
--
Oh and
I accept that your style is different. I'm aware that some players may not look for clues, and certainly most do not raise strategic thinking to the level mine do,
it doesn't come off sounding like you think other people's styles are merely different; it comes off as you thinking your players are superior.
I might happen to agree, but if you're going to come across as boasting, you should offend people deliberately, rather than inadvertantly.
|
And I still feel that, if a simple text change ("...and then she killed him!") can accomodate all styles...
As I said earlier, to me it feels like a 'fish story' I would have another person in the room, saying that from his vantage it looked like X happened, and as the PCs investigate, any stool pigeon will have a different story of the attempt.
Chris, D'n'D is not system that should ever be treated in a simulationist manner. It's logicial sillynesses become obsurd when it is.
It's a good and proper thing for your characters to be worried about the Queen's offensive capabilities. But if they're paralyzed by that concern, they stop being heroes.
You can almost say they are "helpless with fear". ;)
it doesn't come off sounding like you think other people's styles are merely different; it comes off as you thinking your players are superior.
It did sound kind of like a backhanded complement.
Chris, D'n'D is not system that should ever be treated in a simulationist manner.
Can we please stop tossing out absolute statements like this?
"The marmot is not the issue, Walter!"
Wha??
The characters may have a great weapon, but will still fear to use it if they suspect the queen can automatically instant-kill them no matter what they do. My players will focus more on neutralizing her weapon, not getting their own.
That's legit reasoning, sure. Although these items may very well have defensive properties. We don't know yet. I just wanted to be absolutely clear that the next step for the players was to seek out information on exactly what special goodies would be needed to take on the Queen.
To everyone who keeps attacking me and my players: I accept that your style is different. I'm aware that some players may not look for clues, and certainly most do not raise strategic thinking to the level mine do. I do NOT accept that this makes our group "evil metagamers," stupid, wrong, or unworthy to play. I also do not accept that my job, as DM, is to refuse to allow the characters any scope for imvestigation or fact-finding, and to stonewall them whenever they start following that course.
I'm going to assume that you get that I'm not accusing you and yours of badwrongfun. My posts have assumed inquisitive players, even if I've sometimes argued that it's best to leave those players without definitive answers.
I hope you similarly understand if I get annoyed when people claim that there's no solution possible when I've offered several. Just don't lump me in with the no-rules is good-times crowd and we're fine. There's a more complex argument going here than a binary. (And I recognize that your argument is more complex too.]
This fight is completely within the rules. Remember a round is 6 seconds, there are all sorts of damage dealing possibilities even in as short a time as described in the cut scene. Damage that may not be immediately obvious.
Surprise Round: Commandant fires at the queen.
6 seconds
Round 1: Queen wins ini, moves over to Commandant, removing the bolt (drawing a weapon free action), and starts a grapple (dealing grapple damage).
12 seconds
Round 2: Queen pins Commandant (lifting him off the ground), uses iterative attacks (at least one more, probably two though) to do more grapple damage (ie. squeezing his throat REALLY hard).
18 seconds
Round 3: Queen holds the Commandant up for all to see, dealing 2-3 attacks worth of grapple damage.
24 seconds
Round 4: Either still holding the Commandant up and dealing more grapple damage or driving the bolt home.
30 seconds
Round 5: If she hasn't already drivin the bolt home she does now.
36 seconds.
The Commandant (from the description) spent his actions trying to break the grapple.
There we go, one complete combat, 30-36 seconds from ambush attack to death of the Commandant. 3-4 rounds of damage dealing capped off with a bolt through the head. If you add her (evidently) substantial strength bonus to the power attack the crown may have given her for Christmas the low base die doesn't matter.
Just to help people understand where others are coming from, I have to Venn diagrams. In each diagram
(A) is the set of all possible events that could occur in the game world and
(B) is the set of possible events that are covered by the rules of the game.
The first diagram is an example of how my game world functions:
Venn 1
The second diagram is how Kirth has describe his game world as functioning:
Venn 2
Now I know I am not the only person which uses the concepts from the first diagram nor is Kirth the only one that uses the second. But there is certainly a fundamental difference between the two viewpoints. Hopefully these diagrams have made those differences easier to understand.
Just to help people understand where others are coming from, I have to Venn diagrams. In each diagram
(A) is the set of all possible events that could occur in the game world and
(B) is the set of possible events that are covered by the rules of the game.The first diagram is an example of how my game world functions:
Venn 1The second diagram is how Kirth has describe his game world as functioning:
Venn 2Now I know I am not the only person which uses the concepts from the first diagram nor is Kirth the only one that uses the second. But there is certainly a fundamental difference between the two viewpoints. Hopefully these diagrams have made those differences easier to understand.
I can't speak for Kirth, but those diagrams do not represent my point of view. If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be interested in chatting via e-mail; I'd rather not wade through a sea of unsolicited comments that amount to "you're playing the game wrong".
My e-mail address is hogarth at hogarth dot 4t dot com (replace "at" with "@" and "dot" with ".", obviously).
"The marmot is not the issue, Walter!"Wha??
"Big Lebowski." Sorry. Most of my conversational vocabulary consists of quotes from that and "Pulp Fiction."
it doesn't come off sounding like you think other people's styles are merely different; it comes off as you thinking your players are superior.
Thanks, Chris. It's good to hear that maybe I'm not a total stark raving maniac, and I very much appreciate you letting me know that I've hit a limit here -- sometimes it's hard to tell. I have gotten some very constructive posts and good pointers, but unfortunately more than a few snide, sarcastic, and downright narrowsighted and nasty ones as well.
Anyway, I'll freely admit that I got a bit hot when Aubrey (whose opinion I normally respect a good deal) accused us all of being a pack of useless bloody metagamers or some such -- an accusation I feel was a bit off the mark. May have gone too far in defending them. Still a great couple of players, though -- I like that they keep ME on my toes, which makes my job DMing much more interesting than if they always followed the storylines. I'm still very much looking forward to running the Korvosa AP.
|
|
I am not sure you understand the use of the term, credibility, in this case. It referes to who has the right to describe certain events and in what level of detail within a SIS.
I think, I understood just fine, it's just that I shouldn't have quoted out of context.
Scenes such as these, when they occure of camera, need not be covered by rules for one very simple reason. In the absense of player character, there is no conflict of credibility, the Storyteller need only decide what occures and it does
In this thread it has become quite obvious that there are players and groups who, for their style of play to be successful, depend on the fact that each and everything is covered by the rules. And while your probably right as far as the player characters are concerned it does strain the world's credibility for these players if they cannot trust the rules because of some inconsistencies.
You may call this metagaming if you like, but the funny thing is, that Kirth's and especially Mary's record on these boards proves that this approach makes them damn fine roleplayers. So while I do (and have done before) sometimes disagree with them on certain points, I'd never go so far as to try to prove them wrong when it's a matter of different playstyles. Just 'cause they aren't.
I would have another person in the room, saying that from his vantage it looked like X happened, and as the PCs investigate, any stool pigeon will have a different story of the attempt.
That's an awesome suggestion. It allows them scope for investigation, if that's the route they take, and allows an opportunity to focus them back on getting their own weapon, instead of trying to counter the queen's (nonexistent) super-power. Thanks!
In this thread it has become quite obvious that there are players and groups who, for their style of play to be successful, depend on the fact that each and everything is covered by the rules.
Again, I think this is a misstatement. The point is not that everything needs to be covered by the rules, but if a particular action is covered by the 3.5 D&D rules (like shooting a crossbow or stabbing someone with a crossbow bolt), it shouldn't matter whether the parties involved are NPCs or PCs (unlike 4E D&D, for example). Again, I would be delighted to explain my point of view further via e-mail, if you like.
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.
I'm glad we have reached agreement over two weeks later!
The point is not that everything needs to be covered by the rules, but if a particular action is covered by the 3.5 D&D rules (like shooting a crossbow or stabbing someone with a crossbow bolt), it shouldn't matter whether the parties involved are NPCs or PCs.
Excellently put. That mirrors my feelings on the subject as well.
Again, I think this is a misstatement. The point is not that everything needs to be covered by the rules, but if a particular action is covered by the 3.5 D&D rules (like shooting a crossbow or stabbing someone with a crossbow bolt), it shouldn't matter whether the parties involved are NPCs or PCs (unlike 4E D&D, for example).
If I am interpreting your statement correctly (and I might not be), you seem to be saying if a situation could be covered by the rules, then it MUST be covered by the rules (in your games). Thus if a situation deals with something that is not covered in the rules, pregancy for example, you are fine letting it slide. Yet if a sitaution deals with aspects that do have game rules for them, say falling, then the rules must be followed.
Now for myself, I think that just because there are rules for some situations, that doesn't mean there might not be very similiar situations where the rules do not cover. For example, a PC might have a back story where they fell out of a tree as a child and broke their arm (falling is covered by the rules but breaking limbs is not, but this is not a falling situation where the game rules come into play since it occurs "off stage"). They absolutely hated the time they spent in a splint and because of that they have tried hard to learn how to fall without being badly hurt (maxed out jump and tumble). Thus whenever they fall ("on stage") they try to roll with the fall so as not to take as much damage.
Two very similiar situations (falling from a tree as a child and falling during game sessions), but one situation may be covered by the game rules and the other might not (depending on your gaming perspective).
Pres Man,
Your example is a very good one, and one that I'd personally have no issues at all with.
What WOULD annoy me as a player would be if I fell 30 ft. and the DM suddenly declared that my arm was broken, without telling me that was even a possibility.
I'd likewise be confused if a major NPC's broken arm from a recent fall was a pivotal campaign event. Why? Because I'd expect that I didn't have magical immunity to broken limbs simply by virtue of being a PC (vs. being an NPC). As a player, I like to feel like my PC is heroic by virtue of skills, cunning, and determination, not just because the laws of reality are skewed in his favor.
Hopefully that helps put my view into perspective.
LOL Sorry Doom - I read this then and for some reason it just didn't click - maybe it was that your exampe was so specific and wouldn't work in my campaign (Grau had an accident and is imprisoned)
I'm glad we have reached agreement over two weeks later!
No worries, I thought it was funny. Incidentally, this worked out perfectly for my crew and has really kept them on edge and ready to get out of Dodge. It is making running around Old Korvosa that much more dangerous in their eyes.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What WOULD annoy me as a player would be if I fell 30 ft. and the DM suddenly declared that my arm was broken, without telling me that was even a possibility.
I'd likewise be confused if a major NPC's broken arm from a recent fall was a pivotal campaign event. Why? Because I'd expect that I didn't have magical immunity to broken limbs simply by virtue of being a PC (vs. being an NPC). As a player, I like to feel like my PC is heroic by virtue of skills, cunning, and determination, not just because the laws of reality are skewed in his favor.
Hopefully that helps put my view into perspective.
So you're bugged by all those wounded NPCs who are conscious enough to give you a vital clue and then croak on you? (Me, too.)
My campaign is grittier and lower-level than the D&D default.
In my "low-fantasy" campaign, an NPC might end up with a broken arm. Not because PCs do, but because normal people --in real life and in fiction-- do. There might be an in-game reason for the broken arm: maybe the NPC is willing to loan the party the use of her magic bow, because she can't currently draw it. Or maybe not.
But I wouldn't feel obligated to then start playing with a Critical / Fumble system that produced a "broken arm" result.
Your mileage varies, though, and that's cool.
|
|
"The marmot is not the issue, Walter!" Lots of things, in the PCs' in-game experience, survive multiple blows. The unprecedented, inexplicable one-shot kill of the captain IS the issue, because it violates all of their previous (in-game, not "metagame") experience. The characters may have a great weapon, but will still fear to use it if they suspect the queen can automatically instant-kill them no matter what they do. My players will focus more on neutralizing her weapon, not getting their own.
Regarding "promoting metagame thinking": if the PCs note that trolls, once knocked down, tend to get back up after a few seconds, is that "metagame thinking"? To me, it's good playing. I don't have to tell the players that the troll has "regeneration 5," but am I also not allowed to tell them that the troll gets up?
More germane to the current issue, if the characters have never killed ANYTHING with just one stab from something like a crossbow bolt, is it "metagame thinking" to wonder how the queen does it? And then to make the logical leap that she has some special power enabling her to do it? Are my players, and possibly Mary's, the ONLY ones who look for in-game context clues like that? If they do, is it "metagame thinking"?
To everyone who keeps attacking me and my players: I accept that your style is different. I'm aware that some players may not look for clues, and certainly most do not raise strategic thinking to the level mine do. I do NOT accept that this makes our group "evil metagamers," stupid, wrong, or unworthy to play. I also do not accept that my job, as DM, is to refuse to allow the characters any scope for imvestigation or fact-finding, and to stonewall them whenever they start following that course.
And I still feel that, if a simple text change ("...and then she killed him!") can accomodate all styles of play, then why not use it?
OK. We are straying into angels on heads of pins, but I think there is a point here you are failing to grasp. Combat in D&D isn't how it works in real life - if I poke you in the eye with a sharp object, you will die. Now, it is true that in D&D, being hit by a crossbow probably will not kill you. But, as you are no doubt aware, hp don't mean a whole lot - being hit by a crossbow bolt for 8 points of damae when you have 150 is probably not being hit in the head. It might not even have hit you at all, just used up some of your luck. Or maybe, if you regenerate and all, you can just pull it out and act like nothing happened.
How damage is represented in the game is up the the DM - if he says that you get hit in the head, that's where you get hit, but if he says that a PC with 150 hit points who gets hit by a crossbow for 8 damage is skewered through the eye, he needs a good reason why that character doesn't die. In Ileosa's case, there is a good reason - dramatic license. It is intended to demonstrate she is "well hard" and not to be messed with. It isn't intended to be a test case for demostrating the rules in action.
Secondly, the rules are not really designed to simulate murder (which is what happens in the scenario) they are there to simulate combat between roughly equal parties. And it is still laughably inaccurate at that - hp being just one of the gross simplifications. Sure you can backstab from surprise, but why can only certain people (i.e. rogues) do it (class being another meaningless abstraction)?
So you have a choice, where you bend your narrative to fit these odd, arbitrary rules, or you say "F**% it, I'm going with the story and not going to worry about the minutiae". While the former might have a certain "clean" feeling about it, avoiding ambiguities, it really hems you in from a story line. The Ileosa scene in COOL (even kewl) - it is dramatic, says loads of stuff about her, her court, the state of the aristocracy in Korvosa, and it grabs the attention. Going with ".. and then she killed him" is just utterly lame. I'm sorry, but it is - devoid of dramatic tension.
I am quite surprised to see this stuff coming from you, and very surprised about how defensive you are getting. Look, you may not like the implications of your approach (or, more specifically, your players') but it smacks very much of metagaming. While that is not such a big deal if people are having a good time, it does detract from the immersive nature of the experience. Again, maybe that isn't a big deal for you and your players, but if they go off at a tangent because they "know" it is impossible and therefore need an explanation in game terms, it is a problem. Maybe a minor one, but as a DM that sort of attitude from players would frustrate me. I'm trying to weave a story about the evil queen and they want to know how many hp the dead guy had?
The point of the scene is to demonstrate that Ileosa is more than just human. The issue isn't how you kill someone by shoving a crossbow bolt through their eye - that is totally and obviously possible (though probably harder than it is presented in the scenario). It is totally and obviously possible to kill someone with a single shot to the head from a crossbow bolt - otherwise what is the point of a crossbow. The PCs should be wondering (and this is the point) how the hell Ileosa survived being shot through the temple, not about the stuff that is so clearly possible.
I'm sorry if this has seemed like hectoring, but many of us are baffled as to why this is such a problem to you. I can see where you are coming from from a "formal" point of view. But the elevation of rules that are deeply flawed from a simulationist point of view, and the absurdities they produce (like a medium to high level character needing to be hit by about 20 crossbow bolts before they succumb), over a compelling scene which advances the plot and has great dramatic tension strikes me as putting the cart before the horse.
Pres Man,
Your example is a very good one, and one that I'd personally have no issues at all with.
What WOULD annoy me as a player would be if I fell 30 ft. and the DM suddenly declared that my arm was broken, without telling me that was even a possibility.
I'd likewise be confused if a major NPC's broken arm from a recent fall was a pivotal campaign event. Why? Because I'd expect that I didn't have magical immunity to broken limbs simply by virtue of being a PC (vs. being an NPC). As a player, I like to feel like my PC is heroic by virtue of skills, cunning, and determination, not just because the laws of reality are skewed in his favor.
Hopefully that helps put my view into perspective.
But the laws of reality are skewed in your favor...
Want an example, challenge ratings and encounter levels. PCs have a greater chance at succeeding and progressing in life because almost all of their encounters (if done right) are winnable. Why? Because it's a game and hopelessness is no fun. Other people just get slaughtered (all those corpses of former adventures and victims have to come from somewhere).
Otherwise, (and I may be reading this wrong so please correct me if I am) no one in your campaign would fall and break their arm because it doesn't happen to your PC (or am I taking it too far).
The job of an NPC is to serve the plot by living, dying, breaking their arms, whatever. I agree that in doing so you shouldn't run rampant over the rules, but being killed by a x-bow bolt through the head should be fatal. The job of the PC's is to use the plot framework to create the story, thus they are more important, thus things will be different for them. My players joke about PC aura.
On another note, I looked at the picture of the Queen killing the Commandant again and it might help if you have the teller of the story (or tellers) describe the Commandant as looking like he just gave up when she grabbed him. Because he doesn't look like he's resisting at all, making a coup de gras a very real possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now for myself, I think that just because there are rules for some situations, that doesn't mean there might not be very similiar situations where the rules do not cover. For example, a PC might have a back story where they fell out of a tree as a child and broke their arm (falling is covered by the rules but breaking limbs is not, but this is not a falling situation where the game rules come into play since it occurs "off stage"). They absolutely hated the time they spent in a splint and because of that they have tried hard to learn how to fall without being badly hurt (maxed out jump and tumble). Thus whenever they fall ("on stage") they try to roll with the fall so as not to take as much damage.
Two very similiar situations (falling from a tree as a child and falling during game sessions), but one situation may be covered by the game rules and the other might not (depending on your gaming perspective).
(My pitiful attempt at staying out of this thread completely failed, obviously...)
Kirth covered some of the same ground as I will, but bear with me.
I like having consistency in a game. By that, I mean that (all things being equal) if an NPC is capable of doing something, a PC should be capable of doing the same thing under the same circumstances. And similarly, if something happens "off stage", the same thing can happen "on stage" as well (all things being equal).
The example of breaking an arm falling or losing an eye in battle is a good one. In that case, I would feel that it's reasonable to say that there's a possibility that a severe injury might cause semi-permanent harm; that's not something that directly covered by the rules (AFAIK), but it would be a very logical house rule, I think. I wouldn't feel it's "cheating" (i.e. inconsistent) if I told a player his character broke a leg from a fall that did 70 hp damage if he only has 72 hp. In that case, I'd apply the same rule to an NPC who suffered a severe fall, or to the same PC the next time the same thing happened to him.
Similarly, if a module mentions that "reefclaws" were created by powerful magic-users using a magic cauldron, I'd expect that a PC could do the same (if she were powerful enough and had access to the same magic cauldron). That falls somewhere between the custom magic item creation rules and the epic spell rules (e.g. the epic spell "Origin of Species: Achaierai"); if a PC really, really wanted to create their own species, I'm sure I could come up with some rules for doing so that wouldn't feel inconsistent to me.
But let me contrast that with a crossbow attack. If there's an experienced NPC who thinks that a surprise attack on an important person with a crossbow should be lethal, an experienced PC should think the same as well; the same laws of logic should cover both cases. Now here's the sticking point (for me): under typical D&D rules, a single crossbow shot from a PC against an important enemy rarely results in a one-shot kill. So to be consistent, either I need to either create a new rule to make the situation more lethal (e.g. it's possible to coup-de-grace someone who's not helpless) which applies equally to PCs as well as NPCs, or I need to make the situation more lethal in a way that doesn't require a new rule (e.g. the bolt is a Bolt of Slaying). So I pick the latter.
Similarly, let's look at the queen stabbing someone with a crossbow bolt. If a stab attack with a crossbow bolt (base damage 1d4) kills an experienced NPC in one blow, an experienced PC should suffer the same fate in the same circumstances. So that means that either I give the queen some extra power -- super-strength, say -- that might contradict events in some future module, or I (again) need to make the situation more lethal in a way that doesn't require foreknowledge of future events (e.g. the bolt is a Bolt of Slaying). So I pick the latter.
So I, as the DM, would be happy saying the crossbow bolt is a Bolt of Slaying. If instead I ruled that it was possible to coup-de-grace a flatfooted opponent, it would only be fair to tell my players that the same thing could happen to them as well. Or if instead I ruled that the assassin was so flabbergasted by the scene in front of him that he was shocked into helplessness, I'd have to tell my players that a PC would be helpless in similar circumstances.
Note that 4E D&D takes a completely different tack; rules for PCs and NPCs are totally different and deliberately so. If I were playing 4E D&D, players could indeed often kill NPCs with a single crossbow bolt, so no changes would be necessary.
That means that some stories would be easier for me to tell in 4E than in 3.5E. I can accept that; not every system is perfect for telling every type of story. A story of fragile heroes and powerful enemies works better in Call of Cthulhu, and a story of powerful heroes and fragile enemies works better in 4E D&D; that doesn't mean that either system needs to have its rules altered, IMO.
the rules are not really designed to simulate murder (which is what happens in the scenario) they are there to simulate combat between roughly equal parties. And it is still laughably inaccurate at that - hp being just one of the gross simplifications. Sure you can backstab from surprise, but why can only certain people (i.e. rogues) do it (class being another meaningless abstraction)?
There are rules for sneak attack and death attack, for murder by surprise. There are rules for "crits." And there are indeed rules for a coup de grace, to simulate that stab to they eye, or in the head, or whatever. They may not be good rules; I won't argue that, but they're the rules the adventure was written under. Those rules do indeed exist, and specifically do not apply in the situation at hand. I'd very much like them to, though, and if, by changing 1-2 words, they could, then that would be great.
It is totally and obviously possible to kill someone with a single shot to the head from a crossbow bolt - otherwise what is the point of a crossbow.
I wonder, do you invoke this in combat, and randomly declare some shots to be instant-kills, just to simulate that? Does it happen to PCs? I haven't been declaring arbitrary deaths; maybe that's my failure as a DM. What I have done is allow the players to observe the effects of their attacks (see the troll example I gave) to get clues as to how things work. That's akin to the scientific method, maybe, but I still wouldn't call it "metagaming." The players might not think about hp at all, but they DO think about the fact that no single crossbow bolt in the whole history of their characters has ever resulted in an instant kill before. I can't help that they think about these things; and I absolutely will not tell them NOT to, because it's fun for our group. Others have given useful suggestions. So, PLEASE stop telling me not to play the way we do, by looking for clues and gauging the character-POV (NOT metagame) results of attacks. And pretty please stop hectoring me about it; it's totally counterproductive.
So I, as the DM, would be happy saying the crossbow bolt is a Bolt of Slaying. If instead I ruled that it was possible to coup-de-grace a flatfooted opponent, it would only be fair to tell my players that the same thing could happen to them as well. Or if instead I ruled that the assassin was so flabbergasted by the scene in front of him that he was shocked into helplessness, I'd have to tell my players that a PC would be helpless in similar circumstances.
You realize that is not necessarily a logical result if being "so flabbergasted by the scene in front of him that he was shocked into helplessness" was a roleplaying decision by the person playing the character? In that case, you the DM, would be totally wrong to threaten to arbitarily decide how the players should roleplay their characters in the future. Now what you, as the DM, could say would be something along the lines of, "I decided that my character, the NPC in this case, would act or not act in this fashion because I thought it was appropriate for the story and the character. You can certainly decide similiar things for your characters if you felt it fit with the story and your character. For example, if you had a character that had a phobia against spiders and a drider confronted the party. You could, if you wished decide the character will act panicked and use the panicked rules if you wish. Even though there are no rules for the drider that would force you to act that way."
In fact, because of what the PCs have heard about the queen they are less likely to be "so flabbergasted by the scene in front of [them] that [they are] shocked into helplessness", because of her being a total badass wouldn't now come as a surprise to them, as it did to Endrin.
|
|
Again, I think this is a misstatement. The point is not that everything needs to be covered by the rules, but if a particular action is covered by the 3.5 D&D rules (like shooting a crossbow or stabbing someone with a crossbow bolt), it shouldn't matter whether the parties involved are NPCs or PCs (unlike 4E D&D, for example).
D'accord. Should've worded my post more carefully.
"Big Lebowski." Sorry. Most of my conversational vocabulary consists of quotes from that and "Pulp Fiction.""The marmot is not the issue, Walter!"Wha??
I'd recommend that you start watching Joss Whedon's works then: there's even better word play. Plus, you get like 8 genres for the price of one show. I recommend starting with Firefly: just 14 episodes, 13 of which are extraordinary.
Pres man, you've had some excellent ideas, but in this case, I can't imagine that any player would "choose" to be panicked or stunned -- not unless it was a specific weakness for which they received some sort of compensation (a bonus feat for it or something - Dragon magazine had a bunch of ideas along those lines at some point).
And because no PC ever would be stunned or panicked in that manner, then by Hogarth's Correlary, no NPC should be, either.
Pres Man,
Your example is a very good one, and one that I'd personally have no issues at all with.
What WOULD annoy me as a player would be if I fell 30 ft. and the DM suddenly declared that my arm was broken, without telling me that was even a possibility.
I'd likewise be confused if a major NPC's broken arm from a recent fall was a pivotal campaign event. Why? Because I'd expect that I didn't have magical immunity to broken limbs simply by virtue of being a PC (vs. being an NPC). As a player, I like to feel like my PC is heroic by virtue of skills, cunning, and determination, not just because the laws of reality are skewed in his favor.
Hopefully that helps put my view into perspective.
Somewhat of a thread jack: What if the DM consistently described hitting exactly 0 HP in this manner? Or lower? I've liked to describe going below -4 as crippling injuries that leave the character screaming and helpless, but conscious. (Holding his guts in, feebly trying to straighten his limbs, etc.) I don't always do it, though as I like to have some go straight to unconsciousness.
Somewhat of a thread jack: What if the DM consistently described hitting exactly 0 HP in this manner? Or lower? I've liked to describe going below -4 as crippling injuries that leave the character screaming and helpless, but conscious. (Holding his guts in, feebly trying to straighten his limbs, etc.) I don't always do it, though as I like to have some go straight to unconsciousness.
Are there long-term penalties, or do they rest overnight and regain the use of their arm? Some sort of non-arbitrary guidleines for broken limbs might be really cool. I for one would like to hear more, if you'd start a "New Rules" thread for it!
|
|
It is totally and obviously possible to kill someone with a single shot to the head from a crossbow bolt - otherwise what is the point of a crossbow.I wonder, do you invoke this in combat, and randomly declare some shots to be instant-kills, just to simulate that? Does it happen to PCs? [/ooc]I haven't been declaring arbitrary deaths; maybe that's my failure as a DM. What I have done is allow the players to observe the effects of their attacks (see the troll example I gave) to get clues as to how things work. That's akin to the scientific method, maybe, but I still wouldn't call it "metagaming." The players might not think about hp at all, but they DO think about the fact that no single crossbow bolt in the whole history of their characters has ever resulted in an instant kill before. I can't help that they think about these things; and I absolutely will not tell them NOT to, because it's fun for our group. Others have given useful suggestions. So, PLEASE stop telling me not to play the way we do, by looking for clues and gauging the...
I obviously don't do that where dice are being rolled - the point of the game is to simulate combat, so where that is happening I stick to the rules, quite closely actually. But I am happy to apply "common sense" to a situation where the dice are not being rolled. If I were to intervene, it would probably to preserve a character rather than to arbitrarily kill them to prove some sort of point. Suggesting otherwise is a bit silly and doesn't really approach the point I am trying to make. A fight is about rolling dice, but "plot" and "combat" are not normally advanced together, or in the same way - plot, in D&D, is basically the reason they are fighting, but it isn't normally the fight itself. That normally arises from roleplaying, and scenes that play out in a diceless fashion. I have no qualms about having such scenes play out in a way which would advance the plotline and impart information even if it was not immediately obvious how it would work in game terms.
Likewise, your example about the troll is about dice-rolling. Roleplaying with trolls is normally limited, so it isn't a good example of what I am talking about. I would not say that PCs finding out about troll regeneration through combat is metagaming, just gaming. But that isn't the same as saying that because a PC has never killed someone with a single crossbow bolt, it isn't possible (if I wanted to get philosophical, we could talk about the problem of induction and black swans) and certainly people have been killed in the real world by a single crossbow bolt. Unless we are suggesting that the real world and the fantasy world we inhabit are so wildly different that it is "impossible" to imagine that happening, again, I don't see the problem. The players have a problem because they see it as a game problem involving hit points and damage ranges. Well, that's up to them, and I can certainly see it raising eyebrows around my table too. But I would avoid the issue - I don't see why a DM has to explain it like ".. and then she held him, and he was temporarily stunned, so she was able to coup de grace him..." - and let them speculate. And if the PCs go off on a wild goosechase, maybe they will either (a) learn that thinking in game terms isn't the be-all-and-end-all or (b) they might just have a great time doing what they want, albeit by straying off the track of the adventure and making more work for you. <shrug> But, in my mind, there is a difference between working out how the rules work through experience and refusing to accept that the world can work any other way.
You're niggliness is coming across as a bit wilful, and you are seeing insult where none is intended. I don't think I have told you at any stage how to play the game, I have simply pointed out my perception of the shortcomings of the way you seem to be saying you are playing, as it seems to be creating problems for you as DM. I'm well aware, from the guys who sit around my table, that people play the game differently. If this discussion causes to lose respect for me, well that's up to you (and the impact is becoming mutual). And you still have not grasped the basic point - I do not really understand why you would throw out a good, dramatic scene because it cannot be described down to the last detail in the rules. The rules are the servant of the game experience, not the gatekeeper to it.
And you still have not grasped the basic point - I do not really understand why you would throw out a good, dramatic scene because it cannot be described down to the last detail in the rules.
Respectfully, I have addressed that point repeatedly: advocating NOT throwing the scene out, but merely changing the wording slightly so that it's not so misleading, so that it does not apparently violate many of the rules. Or is the exact wording in some way sacrosanct? If so, by all means keep it, but just allow me to personally, not in writing, have some sort of explanation for possible use in MY campaign, with MY players if they investigate enough, that's consistent with the scores or hundreds of other character deaths in the campaigns we've run. (As I've already said, their style creates a lot of enjoyment for me as DM, far more than any real problems.) I've received several excellent ideas from this thread, and that's all I was after. Fortunately, telling me how much I "don't grasp" (and when one repeatedly says that, it is an insult, intentional or otherwise) won't retroactively remove those useful suggestions.
My preference would be to go my own way with them, and allow you to go your way with yours... and for that to be an end to our debate, and an end to any potential annoyance between us as well.
No, not every one is satififed, thats a lousy peice of narrative. The Crossbow bolt to the head is much better....and we're still waiting for any one of you to show us what you are expecting...)?A scene described more like:
"he attacked her out of the blue (he got surprise) and hit her five or six times (he has the rapid shot feat) one of which was a devastating blow to the head that would have instantly laid a normal woman low (he got a critical). She shrugged off all of these blows and turned on him tearing him limb from limb (or stabbing him over and over with a dagger - depends on how she fights as revealed in part 6) killing him in less then 30 seconds (he, a fairly high level character, died within less then 5 rounds)."The parts in brackets don't need to be in the actual text. Those of us who want this to follow the rules can discern what happened by the description. Those of us who don't really care about the rules in such things presumably have lost nothing by this description of events. Ergo everyone is satisfied.
Well I'm not a paid writer. My point is that it should have been written in such a way as to satisfy both those that want a dramatic scene and those that want this to follow the basic combat rules. Or put another way - it should have been a dramatic scene that follows the basic rules of combat.