| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's going to be really hard for me to adjucate their attempts, though,
because there doesn't seem to be any answer.Also, my experience with my player is that he has a *lot* of resources. There are eyewitnesses. There are divination spells, especially Detect Thoughts, Commune, Contact Other Planes, Legend Lore, and Speak with Dead. There are members of the Queen's household who could be suborned. There are Endrin's comrades, ditto. If it is a matter of life and death for the PCs--and it will be, when they go up against Ileosa--they may work very hard at it.
Maybe it will all fail. It's hard to say, because there isn't any answer; and heaven help me if my player starts this investigation before I realize that there isn't any answer, because I may wing things and make a horrible mess before I realize. I did that in RotRL #3, so I know that this is not just a theoretical possibility. I answered the player's investigations into the timeline for two sessions before it became apparent that the timeline wasn't right, and by then, it was not fixable.
I try not to introduce red herrings of this sort if I can possibly help it. Using up many sessions chasing a red herring doesn't make us happy; having me tell my player "Never mind, it was just dramatic license" doesn't either. Speaking from experience again.
Mary
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.
When #6 rolls around, how do the PCs know that they *can* fight Ileosa? (Presumably the module will want them to.)
They can have been collecting information about her power level all campaign long, so that they know that now they have a chance. (This is what my player would try to do.) Or, they can take the GM's word for it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the GM *tell* the PCs, or players, how it happened. But it would be very helpful if the GM had an explanation, for use when the PCs inevitably investigate.
Mary
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.
I would draw a distinction betweeen "Nothing happens that is not covered by the rules" and "Things covered by the rules work the way the rules say they do." I don't hold to the first, but I do try to hold to the second.
Stabbing a person to death in a fight is in a very central, well worked out area of the rules, and one that is very important to PCs. If the players cannot count on the rules there, they really can't count on them anywhere--it is the last place I would look for "dramatic license."
I would feel very differently about a narrative of events that did not land right smack in the most rules-detailed part of the game. The origin of Reefclaws and so forth are not a problem for me in any way. Combat scenes, and similar things like Blackjack, are.
Mary
In three posts, Mary has summed up everything I've been trying (and apparently failing) to say for three pages.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the GM *tell* the PCs, or players, how it happened. But it would be very helpful if the GM had an explanation, for use when the PCs inevitably investigate.Mary
So why shouldn't the DM just stay in character and continue with the explanation of the event from the POV of an eyewitness? That's what I would do. That's how the PCs should get the information, that's how they'll get the information. And yes, my eyewitness accounts will vary because they invariably do.
You act as if this event takes place in a vacuum and your players have boundless amounts of time to investigate whatever they wish whenever they wish.
On the heels of hearing the account of the assassination attempt they are summoned to Citadel Volshyenek to meet with Cressida Kroft and then to be dispatched to Old Korvosa wherefrom they will not return anytime soon.
There is no time for an investigation. There is no access to the limitless resources you seem to feel are available to the players.
Again, you can create a situation that is unsolveable by the creators of any published product. More than likely you'll have to deal with mutliple situations where your players go off the "script" through no one's fault.
Suggesting that the writers should waste space in the product to accommodate your desire to move outside the restrictions of the event as presented in the AP makes no sense.
This thread isn't about providing insight into how the Queen could do what she did accoding to RAW. It is a thread where one group has suggested that the AP is unplayable because RAW is not applied to story elements that are communicated by NPCs that are unaware of RAW or how to put it into RAW terms. They can only relate what they "know" or have "seen" for themselves.
The event does not need to bear up under scrutiny, because the way the AP is written provides no time for investigation into the event itself, and if it is presented correctly to the PCs they will consider finding Vencarlo to be the higher (and more importantly achievable if you've done your job as DM correctly) priority.
If there's something one might consider complaining about it is the railroading the Cressida Kroft gives the PCs to tell them exactly what to do next. She definitely does do that, and the AP counts on those who would use it doing this very thing.
The assassination attempt doesn't allow for limitless investigation in fact it allows for no investigation whatsoever. Cressida Kroft ensures that by specifically telling the PCs to go to Old Kovosa, find Vencarlo, and lay low.
Hence, problem solved. The PCs must take the assassination attempt at face value as they were told, and move on, as they have smaller fish to fry right now.
So why shouldn't the DM just stay in character and continue with the explanation of the event from the POV of an eyewitness? That's what I would do. That's how the PCs should get the information, that's how they'll get the information. And yes, my eyewitness accounts will vary because they invariably do.What a letdown, when they finally are high enough level to cast vision or contact other plane to get a hint of her weapon and get an answer like, "She has no superior power." Well, can it happen to us? "No." Why not? "This spell is now busy. Please call back later!"
Ya, good point, since we have all of the installments of the AP and already know what vision and contact other plane will reveal this kind of post is really, really constructive.
I'd suggest that unfounded exaggerations -- claiming I'm saying the "whole adventure path is unplayable" for example (quite the opposite, I look forward to running it), and continued harping on how much space it would take up to change the description slightly (none, in fact, a subtle omission or substitution of words would work quite well) -- are equally non-constructive.
The point is that I've not received nor read adventures 4-6. I don't know that it's impossible for them to ever gain access to any divination spells. If there's some sort of automatic railroading that prevents any divinations later in the AP, well, that's a different issue, but at some point they likely will. At that point, I'm faced with the need to explain to reveal that either (a) the scene didn't actually happen the way it written (fine by me), or (b) deal with the aftermath if I stick with that description and they DO decide to use those spells down the line.
EDIT: Nonetheless, since it offended you so deeply, I've deleted the post. Besides, Mary's explanation following is a million times better than my lame hints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why shouldn't the DM just stay in character and continue with the explanation of the event from the POV of an eyewitness? That's what I would do. That's how the PCs should get the information, that's how they'll get the information. And yes, my eyewitness accounts will vary because they invariably do.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the GM *tell* the PCs, or players, how it happened. But it would be very helpful if the GM had an explanation, for use when the PCs inevitably investigate.Mary
Speaking from experience with previous campaigns including RotRL:
Of course that's what the GM does; she gives information based on the PCs' investigations. And the PCs continue to investigate, because mysterious super-powers in enemy hands are *important*. The PCs' survival in RotRL #6, for example, absolutely hinged (in our game at least) on understanding that the BBG had an unexpected power which they had to neutralize before tackling him. They did not accept this as "We can't find out." If they had, they'd be dead. They investigated and continued to investigate until they figured out what was going on. That is what smart, capable people do when faced with a mystery that is important to their survival.
No one is saying that you have to explain to the players right away how some startling thing happened. But it is very helpful to the GM if there is an explanation which makes sense and does not contradict other material in the scenario or rules.
One of the worst bits of RotRL for me, other than the timeline thing in #3, was a particular trap in #5. By the time I realized that I needed a detailed explanation for how it worked, I had backed myself into a corner where it was no longer possible to come up with one. It wasn't that the player *asked* for an explanation. But he had access to True Seeing (so, was it an illusion?) and Teleport Block (so, was it a teleportation?) and mundane tricks like ropes and PCs holding hands and mindlink spells with a range limit and, and...and it was impossible for me to wing all of those without a coherent explanation in *my* head for what the trap did. The module didn't provide one. In retrospect I should have done so, but it's hard to catch everything. Once I started running the trap, it was way too late.
I would really have liked it if Paizo had said, "This is a 7th level illusion." Or "This is an 8th level teleportation effect." It's not that much text, and it would have spared me and my player a very unpleasant half hour.
In the CotCT case, if I know it was a greater bolt of man-slaying, I know I'll need to be prepared for "Where did he get it?" If I *don't* know until too late, I run the risk that my player has already asked a bunch of NPCs a bunch of questions, maybe traced Endrin's movements--and I didn't realize why--and now there's no answer. Or I'll have casually established that those who visit the Queen get frisked for magic--oops! Now Endrin had to have Nondetection too, and who cast that? It all starts looking very tough to keep consistent. If I knew from the start, I could do a better job.
And there is, in my hands, a real and powerful player satisfaction which comes from picking up on some small detail, tracing it out and finding that it is part of a coherent, logical, satisfying whole. One of my favorite moments in all of gaming was one of my space-opera PCs following a deductive chain which started with "All of the people involved in trying to defraud us have a history of buying unusually large quantities of soft drinks" and ended with "The life-insurance company is being run by vampires." Gosh, that was fun. But you can only do that in a game-world which holds up to close scrutiny. And I, at least, am not such a genius that I can make things consistent after the fact. When the players start to investigate *I have to have an answer in mind.* Otherwise there is almost no chance that the clues will add up correctly.
Mary
You act as if this event takes place in a vacuum and your players have boundless amounts of time to investigate whatever they wish whenever they wish.
On the heels of hearing the account of the assassination attempt they are summoned to Citadel Volshyenek to meet with Cressida Kroft and then to be dispatched to Old Korvosa wherefrom they will not return anytime soon.
There is no time for an investigation. There is no access to the limitless resources you seem to feel are available to the players.
Traditionally--I don't know if it's the case in CotCT as I am not reading them--Paizo has always ended each episode of each AP with "Now, give your PCs some time to rest, learn new spells, craft magic items, etc." I would be a little surprised if this does not happen any time between the assassination and the final episode.
It may be--I don't know--that in this case investigation is in fact impossible. It's a little hard to believe, given that the divination spells take only minutes to cast. And pretty quick the PCs will have Teleport, which makes the gap between Korvosa and Old Korvosa rather moot.
In general, though, unless the whole scenario is pillar to post, the PCs will sometimes have time to investigate these things, and it's helpful if they are sturdy enough to stand up to investigation.
I just don't see why it's better to have a no-explanation event and then sweat over PC investigation, rather than having an explanation and let the PCs investigate or not as they please. "Crossbow bolt of man-slaying" is not that much text!
I am really much happier if Paizo includes explanations for major events, because if I have to do it, Paizo is liable to contradict me next module. If they do it, they can keep consistent. Yes, I could wait until I had all 6 in hand, and then scour all of them for details I might have missed. But it's nice not to have to do that.
No one is saying that the PCs are guaranteed to find the explanation. They may fail, they may give up, they may get distracted. But for the GM, having a coherent explanation in hand is *so* helpful. I personally would be willing to pay extra--a lot extra--for that level of support. A minority view, to be sure, but there it is.
Mary
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.
Sorry but the limits on your imagination, which may be infinite but may still have limits (just as there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 but 2 isn't one of them), does not make my statement invalid. It just means that you have not run across players and yourself would never consider taking a disadvantage without some kind of balancing advantage. I, on the other hand, have played with people that have made characters that might have such a phobia. Then again perhaps my players are more selfish, more interested in making and playing characters they find interesting and less interested or worried if their character may in some situations make the rest of the party work harder (if your character runs, that means the rest have to overcome it without you). Frankly I always found it strange that people think that if you give a character a disadvantage (e.g. a phobia), that they deserve some kind of benefit as well? I have never met anyone in RL that I thought, "Well they are scared of spiders, but because of that, they have a great singing voice." The thought is strange to me.
|
The issue seems to be that the scene, as described, is not possible under the rules of the game.
But the way I see it, it is (possible under the rules), exactly as written, with no further explanation required, no need to assume that special items were at work, that eye-witness accounts were exaggerated, that additional time passed during the evetn beyond what was described, or that extra actions were included but not described. No game rules need to be broken, stretched or twisted.
What it does require, for the event to have verisimilitude to players and DMs who like the rules to apply equally to all events, is some base assumptions: that players (and characters) have no real ability to know what class and level NPCs are (beyond how they act in-game), that not all NPCs are created equally (and why should they be? Where do the rules say they should be?), and that some rather coincidental conditions (but conditions perfectly allowable, if perhaps somewhat unlikely, by the rules of the game) conspire to allow the scenario to work.
Alright, it probably does require one other thing; if the Captain of the Sable Company is described by class and level in some source, then that may need to be altered (which is perfectly acceptable for the DM to do) – but, as far as I am aware, his level is not described in the Adventure Path. (So, maybe I’m wrong here; I don’t have the books with me; but either way, a) the characters should have no way of knowing his level, and b) the DM has license to adjust his level if he wishes.)
Kirth (probably quite rightly) points out that characters in this world have an expectation that leader types tend to be tougher than the average citizen, and cannot generally be killed in one hit. However, the game rules do not suggest this must be the case, nor do they say that a high hit dice character must necessarily have high hit points (all 1s could be rolled – statistically unlikely, but possible).
The captain of the guard would have no real expectation that the queen (a petulant, self-interested young woman with no great experience of rule) should be “high level” or have “a lot of hit points” – this is a reasonable in-game assumption, as is his assumption that (if he is skilled with a crossbow, perhaps has feats to improve his ability, perhaps has a masterwork or magic crossbow – which would probably be standard equipment for a character in his position, and there would be no need to specifically describe it) he could reasonably kill her in one or two shots before anyone else has a chance to react.
He shots, he hits, an accurate shot (perhaps even a crit), but he does not kill her (she has more hit points than the damage he caused, as described by the bolt hitting her and her not dying).
She “draws a weapon” (withdraws the bolt) and moves forward, and attacks him, using the crossbow bolt as an improvised weapon (dagger damage). She gets a critical threat, confirms the crit, and does max damage. Her strength bonus is … well, we don’t know, but she is clearly strong. Bonus would be at least +2. So max damage with crit is 12 points of damage. This puts the captain into negatives, he is dying, and he bleeds out over the following rounds.
So how does the queen take the captain into negatives with one hit, even a good one? He should be a high level character, right? Not necessarily. Remember, the PCs have no way of knowing a given NPCs level. They may have an expectation that the captain of the guard is a high level character, but they don’t know it for sure. He may have been granted the position due to family connections, or because he is an excellent administrator, rather than because he worked his way up through the ranks as a great warrior. He may be an excellent warrior who worked his way up – just not a particularly high level one. Maybe he has dex 18, which makes him a dead-eye shot with a crossbow, a great griffon rider, but he never progressed far past level 4 (what is required for him to get his Sable Company Marine feat). Lack of hit points compared to warriors several levels higher was never much of an issue, given the Company’s generally ranged combat style, and his good AC (high dex) kept him out of trouble. Whatever. It can be seen that there are several good reasons why he may not be high level, despite his high rank.
So, say he’s a 5th level ranger. He might only have 10 hit points. Yes, it’s unlikely but not impossible under the rules. No con bonus, rolled low on all his hit dice (NPCs do not get full hit points at first level under the rules). So that one good hit by the queen takes him into negatives.
Scenario works, exactly as written, under the rules. No need for breaking them, or for secret weapons on either side.
EDITED (slightly)
I would draw a distinction betweeen "Nothing happens that is not covered by the rules" and "Things covered by the rules work the way the rules say they do." I don't hold to the first, but I do try to hold to the second.
Stabbing a person to death in a fight is in a very central, well worked out area of the rules, and one that is very important to PCs. If the players cannot count on the rules there, they really can't count on them anywhere--it is the last place I would look for "dramatic license."
I would feel very differently about a narrative of events that did not land right smack in the most rules-detailed part of the game. The origin of Reefclaws and so forth are not a problem for me in any way. Combat scenes, and similar things like Blackjack, are.
Mary
And my early point with the falling "on-stage" and falling and breaking the leg "off-stage" was to suggest there may be very similiar situations but that may or not be covered by the rules. You say that stabbing someone to death in a fight is obviously covered by the rules. I would suggest that SOME situations of stabbing someone to death are covered by the rules and SOME might not be. "Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square." "Every example of stabbing based on the rules of the game are examples of stabbing in the game world, not every example of stabbing in the game world is an example of stabbing based on the game rules." Of course, don't play that way, if you feel that if a situation could be described by the rules it must be described by the rules, so be it, I personally just find it very restrictive.
You act as if this event takes place in a vacuum and your players have boundless amounts of time to investigate whatever they wish whenever they wish.
On the heels of hearing the account of the assassination attempt they are summoned to Citadel Volshyenek to meet with Cressida Kroft and then to be dispatched to Old Korvosa wherefrom they will not return anytime soon.
There is no time for an investigation. There is no access to the limitless resources you seem to feel are available to the players.
Traditionally--I don't know if it's the case in CotCT as I am not reading them--Paizo has always ended each episode of each AP with "Now, give your PCs some time to rest, learn new spells, craft magic items, etc." I would be a little surprised if this does not happen any time between the assassination and the final episode.
It may be--I don't know--that in this case investigation is in fact impossible. It's a little hard to believe, given that the divination spells take only minutes to cast. And pretty quick the PCs will have Teleport, which makes the gap between Korvosa and Old Korvosa rather moot.
In general, though, unless the whole scenario is pillar to post, the PCs will sometimes have time to investigate these things, and it's helpful if they are sturdy enough to stand up to investigation.
I just don't see why it's better to have a no-explanation event and then sweat over PC investigation, rather than having an explanation and let the PCs investigate or not as they please. "Crossbow bolt of man-slaying" is not that much text!
I am really much happier if Paizo includes explanations for major events, because if I have to do it, Paizo is liable to contradict me next module. If they do it, they can keep consistent. Yes, I could wait until I had all 6 in hand, and then scour all of them for details I might have missed. But it's nice not to have to do that.
No one is saying that the PCs are guaranteed to find the explanation. They may fail, they may give up,...
Traditionally it is a good idea to read the AP before suggesting there is an issue with it.
The event has an explanation. It is simply an explanation you do not like.
It would be nice to have an explanation for every possible outcome of every possible scenario. The price tag of such a volume would be prohibitive.
There is no time for the PCs to investigate the assassination attempt, and by the time they would have time to do so there's no reason to do so, for any information that might be provided at that point in the Queen's evolution would be obsolete.
It's clear to me that those of you caught up in this are simply interested in arguing about it, not in resolving it. It's a story element that bears no further examination, and this AP assumes you are capable of assessing that, and proceeding as the AP outlines. If you cannot or will not follow the AP as it directs you, then you should accept you are on your own.
Once there are people actually running this AP it will be interesting to note how much stock PCs put in the need to investigate the assassination attempt, and how DMs have to handle it. Until then, by all means, continue to speculate at how difficult it is to adjudicate this situation for nebulous PCs who are unwilling to follow the lead provide by the DM via her NPCs.
"Every example of stabbing based on the rules of the game are examples of stabbing in the game world, not every example of stabbing in the game world is an example of stabbing based on the game rules." Of course, don't play that way, if you feel that if a situation could be described by the rules it must be described by the rules, so be it, I personally just find it very restrictive.
No problem; if it works for you, go for it.
As a player I function poorly unless I have some solidity. I know so much less than my PC about the game-world! I didn't grow up there, I haven't heard all the stories, trained there, studied, watched fights, participated in them, etc. all my life. There has to be *something* to make up for that, or I feel like I'm totally unable to do justice to my character. (Or I have to play very dumb characters, but I get bored with that quickly.)
For me, the "something" is rules. If I can't count on the core rules, I don't know jack about the gameworld, and I can't make plans for my PC.
I've tried using real-world knowledge as the core instead of game rules, but every attempt I've made has just led to painful arguments, because no two players/GMs "know" the same things about the real world-- especially in areas like medieval combat where we have little or no personal experience. It's just easier to agree on the game rules, which are written down and available to all.
The game rules are crude and incomplete--complete ones would be too unweildy to be useful--but they work for me, if they're followed, in giving me a sense that I can make sensible decisions for my PC (or NPC).
Mary
I know so much less than my PC about the game-world! I didn't grow up there, I haven't heard all the stories, trained there, studied, watched fights, participated in them, etc. all my life.
Which might mean that if you focus exclusively on what happens "on-stage" (and thus covered by the rules) it could give you a very skewed view of the world the character resides in.
|
|
Just throwing this out there, but if you follow the philosophy that everything that happens in the game world must be covered by the rules, and that NPCs (even “off camera”) must also adhere to the same rules as the PCs, then it is impossible for someone to break a leg in the game world (whether through weapon damage, falling damage, failing a dex check or whatever), because no rules exist for the PCs to do so.
BUT, if you decide to start using some optional or add-on critical hit or damage system that gives results for broken limbs, suddenly it is possible for anyone in the world to break bones.
Wow.
That would suck, as the medical professionals of the world would never have invented splints, or plaster casts or anything.
EDIT: I'm not trying to have a go at anyone who likes the game to always follow the rules, just trying to look at the implications of that ... and have some fun at the same time.
...
I'm sorry, I can't quote this, the part I need is too far down the page. The gist was, you can make the scene make sense--if Endrin was 1st level.
I would not feel comfortable violating the expectation that a commander of a fighting force should be high level. It's part of the worldview we've established, and changing it on the fly would make me incredibly uncomfortable.
As a player, I would not think of this explanation, for similar reasons. If the GM said "What if he was first level?" I'd say, "That's not how you've described this game-world." And I'd feel sick...because I thought I had a handle on the game-world, but I don't. I thought my PCs could make smart plans, but they can't. (I've been there before. It sucks.)
Yes, the PCs don't know peoples' levels. But the PCs know so much more about everything else than I do! I need *something* to stand in for all of that knowledge which I can't possibly have--a lifetime of hearing about events in the city, in particular, which doubtless contain some clues about what sort of man Endrin was and what he'd done in the past.
For me as a player, there is always a war in my head between "This makes sense, I just don't know why yet" and "This makes no sense." I wish the second one would go away, but I've been in too many gaming situations that in fact did not make sense, and I will never be 100% confident again. It's best to avoid piling up a lot of evidence on the side of "This makes no sense." It's killed games for me before. I just stop caring enough to put the effort in anymore.
So, no, this wouldn't work for me at all. The bolt of greater man-slaying is a lot better. I don't just need it to be somehow legally possible; I need not to violate my players' (or my) understanding of the gameworld. First level captains of major military forces violate it.
Mary
It's clear to me that those of you caught up in this are simply interested in arguing about it, not in resolving it. It's a story element that bears no further examination, and this AP assumes you are capable of assessing that, and proceeding as the AP outlines. If you cannot or will not follow the AP as it directs you, then you should accept you are on your own.
Or, we could start a thread to discuss it with one another, and come up with ideas that don't need to impact the rest of you. But then we're bombarded with posts from people who don't agree, demanding explanations and then telling us we're not allowed to think about it.
The adventure is as written; if you like it that way, you have no stake in this thread. The opening post should have made that clear. People like Harald and Mary and Hogarth and I might actually get useful ideas out of it, though -- different ones than "tell your stupid players they have to do whatever the AP says, in that order, with no variation." Why not just let us do so? You can start a separate thread on why the adventure is perfect and why it's immoral to change one word of it.
Because the issue is whether or not cinematic scenes work in the AP. They do. Some people are going to be obtuse about that, and their deliberate attempts to make it appear as though cinematic scenes should not be included in the future because they are unworkable should be liberally displayed for what they are. Patent nonsense.
|
|
...
I'm sorry, I can't quote this, the part I need is too far down the page. The gist was, you can make the scene make sense--if Endrin was 1st level.
I would not feel comfortable violating the expectation that a commander of a fighting force should be high level. It's part of the worldview we've established, and changing it on the fly would make me incredibly uncomfortable.
As a player, I would not think of this explanation, for similar reasons. If the GM said "What if he was first level?" I'd say, "That's not how you've described this game-world." And I'd feel sick...because I thought I had a handle on the game-world, but I don't. I thought my PCs could make smart plans, but they can't. (I've been there before. It sucks.)
Yes, the PCs don't know peoples' levels. But the PCs know so much more about everything else than I do! I need *something* to stand in for all of that knowledge which I can't possibly have--a lifetime of hearing about events in the city, in particular, which doubtless contain some clues about what sort of man Endrin was and what he'd done in the past.
For me as a player, there is always a war in my head between "This makes sense, I just don't know why yet" and "This makes no sense." I wish the second one would go away, but I've been in too many gaming situations that in fact did not make sense, and I will never be 100% confident again. It's best to avoid piling up a lot of evidence on the side of "This makes no sense." It's killed games for me before. I just stop caring enough to put the effort in anymore.
So, no, this wouldn't work for me at all. The bolt of greater man-slaying is a lot better. I don't just need it to be somehow legally possible; I need not to violate my players' (or my) understanding of the gameworld. First level captains of major military forces violate it.
Mary
Sorry Mary, maybe you didn’t read my post closely. I did not suggest that Endrin needs to be first level in order to make this scenario work. My example had him at 5th level (with poor hit point rolls – and provided several, I feel, credible in-game explanations as to how this could come to be), but this number could easily be adjusted upwards, depending on the strength bonus of the queen.
Please note that I am not suggesting that the scenario I have presented is the one that Richard or James intended when they wrote this scene. I am perfectly willing to believe that a high level Endrin could be killed by a single attack in the interests of “cinematic viewing”. What I am trying to do is present a theoretical situation to show that the scene exactly as described is possible within the confines of the game rules, without sacrificing verisimilitude.
Your response indicates that, even if it can work within the rules, you do not see it as believable given other implied restraints of the game world. Obviously my explanation of how a low or mid level character could come to lead a fighting force did not ring true with you. If that is the case, I can’t say you’re wrong – it’s your game and your perception after all.
However (yes, there’s a ‘however’!), I do not really see how or why your character would have an expectation that the commander would be a high level character (and all that that entails in game terms) necessarily. Historically (and certainly in my game world – perhaps not yours) appointments of rank have often been based on politics rather than merit. Unless your character knows Endrin personally or by reputation as a great warrior, or it is well known that the Sable Company would never allow a politically appointed but relatively unskilled leader, there should be no real expectation of this.
Now, of course your character may have that expectation as an in-game experience, which makes my explanation non-credible in your case. But I just don’t think there should be an automatic in-character expectation that all “leader types” will be high level. There are certainly published products where this is not the case (although I admit they are the exception rather than the general rule).
It does suck when your assumptions about the world are completely reversed. But these assumptions should be formed within the context of the particular game. And unfortunately, even in real life, one’s assumptions about the world can be revealed to be completely untrue. In my opinion (yours may differ) there should be things and events that reverse the assumptions that the characters will make about how the world works – this (in moderation) actually makes for a more ‘believable’ world than the reverse (of course if it happens too often it makes for an un-fun game … so yes, there’s a fine line).
|
|
Because the issue is whether or not cinematic scenes work in the AP. They do. Some people are going to be obtuse about that, and their deliberate attempts to make it appear as though cinematic scenes should not be included in the future because they are unworkable should be liberally displayed for what they are. Patent nonsense.
Norgerber, attacking people as spouting nonsense does not disprove their arguements or support your own.
I happen to agree with you on the point that cinematic scenes work in the AP, and I did not have any issues with how this one was depicted. But getting personal and getting rude about it does not make you arguement look any stronger.
By my reading of this thread, most people (Kirth included) are not asking for such scenes not to be included - they are asking for such scenes to be depicted or explained so that they are workable within the rules and the context of the game world.
I disagree with this sentiment, but why is their arguement any more or less nonsense than yours or mine?
Lets keep things civil. I for one apologise if any of my comments come across as rude or snarky (including one of mine to you Kirth ... I know it was a little sarcastic at best).
Creative Director
|
Because the issue is whether or not cinematic scenes work in the AP. They do. Some people are going to be obtuse about that, and their deliberate attempts to make it appear as though cinematic scenes should not be included in the future because they are unworkable should be liberally displayed for what they are. Patent nonsense.
I've pretty much decided that, as they become necessary, cinematic scenes WILL appear in Pathfinder. In fact, one appears at the end of Pathfinder #13's adventure, "Shadow in the Sky." Although it's handled more like the execution and less like the assassination (since it expects the PCs to be involved, there are rules and such included here and there as needed).
That said... I think the current conversation outlining the pros and cons for the assassination itself have been stated and are pretty much played out. It won't work for some groups, it will for others. I see no reason to continue the argument, really, but if the conversation IS to continue, please try to treat each other with respect. One of the GREAT STRENGTHS of the tabletop roleplaying game over, say, MMORPGs and computer RPGs is the fact that, thanks to the GM's role in making the game go, a single adventure can be interpreted and run in a myriad of different ways. Each of them is as valid as the other.
I for one apologise if any of my comments come across as rude or snarky (including one of mine to you Kirth ... I know it was a little sarcastic at best).
No apology needed, Mothman. You've been pretty fair overall, and have certainly not accused me of being deliberately obtuse when I merely state what works for MY campaign and ask for help with THAT campaign. In fact, I've rather enjoyed most of your posts here.
I've mentioned that rewording the scene in my copy (probably in the margin, with pencil) will work FOR ME, and that I appreciate people like Harald and Mary helping me with that, and that everyone else in the entire world can leave it as written and not worry about MY notes in the margin of MY copy of it. Paizo is well able to write all their adventures without consulting me, and I expect they'll continue to be able to do so. I've never said they CAN'T include "cinematic" (read: rule-breaking) scenes in later APs, nor do I have the power to enforce such a demand. Just as Norberger lacks the power to enforce his demand that I not discuss other possibilities with like-minded people.
Heeding Mr. Jacob's post, I agree that I've gotten enough solid ideas here that further discussion of this topic isn't warranted. I'll be signing off of this thread. If I start another one for some other apparent issue that might come up at my table, I'll hope that people will understand that me asking for help with ideas in no way constitutes me telling Paizo what to do.
And there is, in my hands, a real and powerful player satisfaction which comes from picking up on some small detail, tracing it out and finding that it is part of a coherent, logical, satisfying whole. One of my favorite moments in all of gaming was one of my space-opera PCs following a deductive chain which started with "All of the people involved in trying to defraud us have a history of buying unusually large quantities of soft drinks" and ended with "The life-insurance company is being run by vampires." Gosh, that was fun. But you can only do that in a game-world which holds up to close scrutiny. And I, at least, am not such a genius that I can make things consistent after the fact. When the players start to investigate *I have to have an answer in mind.* Otherwise there is almost no chance that the clues will add up correctly.
[thread jack] Respectfully, Mary, I have to observe that that is one of the main delights of certain types of fiction, not all types of fiction and certainly not reality. The appeal of fiction--from novels to Ms. Pac-Man--is the implicit promise of an underlying order that explains everything... which is an assurance we don't get in the real world and which we desperately want. Fate and the omnipresence of logic and causal relations is very comforting. We feel better when things make sense, as it allows us an often illusory sense of control. Other types of fiction do not provide any such assurance, attempting to include chance, cussedness, irrational emotions, and absurdity.
If you want a sense of why the former hyper-logical approach might be considered dangerous by advocates of the other side, you might consider that AIDS patients in the early 1990s in California felt very comforted by a popular self-help writer who argued that they wouldn't have gotten AIDS if they had loved themselves more and that if they started loving themselves more, they wouldn't have AIDS any more. That fiction provided a false sense of control over something that was terrifyingly out of their control. And it made them feel good BECAUSE they were being blamed for their condition. Susan Sontag writes eloquently about issues like this in Illness as Metaphor, actually. In short, the only thing scarier than the (democrats/republicans) are to blame for the state of America is the niggling suspicion that nobody is to blame, that it's too large a system for one person or even one party or nation to be responsible for.
Of course, the rationalists might object that taking the latter irrational approach too far would result in William S. Burroughs. And nobody wants that.
It sounds like your players prefer the sense of control rather than the sense that things might be out of control on some fundamental level. That's fine and it may very well explain some of the disconnect that some posters are having here: they look at the world and the game in opposite ways.
[/thread jack]
That's fine and it may very well explain some of the disconnect that some posters are having here: they look at the world and the game in opposite ways.
That's an excellent observation, roguerouge. I was thinking along the same lines: I'm a scientist, as are most of the people I game with. We're OK with the laws of physics being different in the game world (magic works, crossbows usually aren't lethal in combat, etc.), but we despise the idea that there are NO laws of physics at all, and that anything goes. Using your analogy, AIDS has a cause: the HIV virus. If it suddenly could be caused by HIV, or sometimes by not loving oneself enough, or sometimes because "it just seemed cool to add some angst," that would run contrary to all our experience, and contrary to our predominant world-view.
That's an excellent observation, roguerouge. I was thinking along the same lines: I'm a scientist, as are most of the people I game with. We're OK with the laws of physics being different in the game world (magic works, crossbows usually aren't lethal in combat, etc.), but we despise the idea that there are NO laws of physics at all, and that anything goes. Using your analogy, AIDS has a cause: the HIV virus. If it suddenly could be caused by HIV, or sometimes by not loving oneself enough, or sometimes because "it just seemed cool to add some angst," that would run contrary to all our experience, and contrary to our predominant world-view.That's fine and it may very well explain some of the disconnect that some posters are having here: they look at the world and the game in opposite ways.
I'm also a scientist, as is my player, which may point to a generalization. And a Wiccan, with room for mystery in my worldview--but not a whole lot of room for arbitrariness.
Figuring things out is *so much fun* that I would be very reluctant to give it up, even if it improved other things in the game. I'm only mildly amused by D&D as a tactical exercise. The two things I really play for are immersion in character--which hinges, for me, on having a solid gameworld--and deductive problem-solving. I might give up the second if doing so got me more of the first, but in practice, it doesn't.
I think I've seen games that had enough payoff to make up for a Burroughs-esque gameworld--for two sessions or so. For me personally as a player, the effect cannot be sustained, and becomes frustrating and deeply irritating very quickly.
I can well appreciate that for someone with a different worldview, the emphasis on "Everything has a cause" and "Look for the underlying reasons" would be equally frustrating and irritating. It does lead to very slow play at times, and obsessive interest in small details, which is a lot of work for the GM. A clear example for us was the player's interest, in RotRL, in the coinage of treasure--it ended up being a major characterization point, but it strained my knowledge of Golarionese history and geography severely.
It's nice that D&D is a small-group game and there's plenty of room for groups of wildly diverse styles.
(I would like to clarify, just because this is so often misunderstood, that "Everything has a cause" does *not* mean "People always act rationally." We have plenty of irrational behavior in both PCs and NPCs. But it ought to be emotionally coherent irrational behavior. My PC Viya knows quite well that developing a crush on Glorio Arkona is a bad idea, but it's emotionally plausible for a variety of reasons and he doesn't have the self-discipline to stomp it out. So his head is filled with clever, false rationalizations, and he's going to get himself into trouble.)
Mary
Amazing... Mary, you've again managed to summarize my whole game experience. I'd add "interesting settings" to the character development and plot as drivers, but otherwise we seem to have the same priorities.
I might suggest (as a mathematician just FYI) that using the idea that some game world details are covered by the game rules and other game world details are not, in no way suggests there are not "reasons" for things happening. For example, even though there are no game rules for someone breaking a leg from falling. Suggesting that someone could fall in the game world and break their leg, does not mean the breaking of legs is entirely random. It is not like the suggestion is that a character will just be sitting resting and their leg will suddenly break for no reason. Just like in the RW, some people fall and don't get hurt and some other people fall from the exact same height and do get hurt. Just because we might not be able (or in the case of a D&D game wanting to) quantify all things, does not mean there isn't an understanding that there are still forces at work.
Just because we might not be able (or in the case of a D&D game wanting to) quantify all things, does not mean there isn't an understanding that there are still forces at work.
Yes, I agree. It's back to the Venn diagrams, though. Mary and I have two categories of events: (1) things are covered by the game rules, and follow those rules; and (2) things that are not covered by game rules. From what I understand, you've expanded that to three categories of events: (1) things are covered by the game rules, and follow those rules; (2) things that are not covered by game rules; and (3) things that are covered by the game rules, but which don't necessarily follow those rules. Our players are uncomfortable with category (3), and yours are OK with it -- either way, purely a matter of personal preference.
|
|
Just because we might not be able (or in the case of a D&D game wanting to) quantify all things, does not mean there isn't an understanding that there are still forces at work.Yes, I agree. It's back to the Venn diagrams, though. Mary and I have two categories of events: (1) things are covered by the game rules, and follow those rules; and (2) things that are not covered by game rules. From what I understand, you've expanded that to three categories of events: (1) things are covered by the game rules, and follow those rules; (2) things that are not covered by game rules; and (3) things that are covered by the game rules, but which don't necessarily follow those rules. Our players are uncomfortable with category (3), and yours are OK with it -- either way, purely a matter of personal preference.
I think it's more of a case of description. Presman might describe a bad fall doing 17hp as twisting or even breaking a leg. This would be healed with bedrest or magical healing (which makes sense). This is still covered by the rules and a player can have his character ignore the blinding pain and soldier on through sheer adrenaline (think Die Hard. No one can really run over broken glass and then keep going).
You might not describe it that way and do 17hp damage and rough the character up some without mentioning specifics.
Either way, it's still covered by the same rules, it's just the description that's different. I'd say the same thing is happening with the assassination. The "shot to the temple" is a critical hit that should have done enough damage to kill the Queen (the players don't know how many hp she has after all). Similarly, showing the quarrel through him is a large amount of strength, power attack and critical hit. It might even include a coup de grace if she whispered a hold spell in his ear. It still falls under the rules as far as I can see.
Just because we might not be able (or in the case of a D&D game wanting to) quantify all things, does not mean there isn't an understanding that there are still forces at work.Yes, I agree. It's back to the Venn diagrams, though. Mary and I have two categories of events: (1) things are covered by the game rules, and follow those rules; and (2) things that are not covered by game rules. From what I understand, you've expanded that to three categories of events: (1) things are covered by the game rules, and follow those rules; (2) things that are not covered by game rules; and (3) things that are covered by the game rules, but which don't necessarily follow those rules. Our players are uncomfortable with category (3), and yours are OK with it -- either way, purely a matter of personal preference.
More accurately, I would say:
(3) things that could be covered by the game rules, but which don't necessarily follow those rules.A very important distinction.
I think it's more of a case of description. Presman might describe a bad fall doing 17hp as twisting or even breaking a leg. This would be healed with bedrest or magical healing (which makes sense). This is still covered by the rules and a player can have his character ignore the blinding pain and soldier on through sheer adrenaline (think Die Hard. No one can really run over broken glass and then keep going).
Thanks for the help, but in this case Kirth is more accurate. If I was actually using game mechanics for a situation (saying 17 hp of damage was done), then I would not bring in other situations like twisted or broken limbs. I am suggesting that there may be situations that are very similiar to situations that can be described by the game rules, that don't necessarily follow the game rules, usually because they are roleplaying and/or story building, and usually off-stage, events.
|
|
I think it's more of a case of description. Presman might describe a bad fall doing 17hp as twisting or even breaking a leg. This would be healed with bedrest or magical healing (which makes sense). This is still covered by the rules and a player can have his character ignore the blinding pain and soldier on through sheer adrenaline (think Die Hard. No one can really run over broken glass and then keep going).Thanks for the help, but in this case Kirth is more accurate. If I was actually using game mechanics for a situation (saying 17 hp of damage was done), then I would not bring in other situations like twisted or broken limbs. I am suggesting that there may be situations that are very similiar to situations that can be described by the game rules, that don't necessarily follow the game rules, usually because they are roleplaying and/or story building, and usually off-stage, events.
Whoops. My bad. I misunderstood you.
Either way, it's still covered by the same rules, it's just the description that's different. I'd say the same thing is happening with the assassination. The "shot to the temple" is a critical hit that should have done enough damage to kill the Queen (the players don't know how many hp she has after all).
Certainly they don't know how many hp she has. But suppose in the last adventure the PCs finally get the magic McGuffin that strips away her protections, they sneak up on the queen, and then someone scores a critical hit with a crossbow. It probably wouldn't kill her instantly, I imagine; if it did, that'd be fairly anticlimatic. But if it doesn't, it's like reading Superman comics where sometimes he can barely lift an elephant and sometimes he can throw the Moon out of its orbit.
One point that hasn't been made clearly yet is this: While there are lots of reasons to conceal knowledge of what mechanically happened from the players, there's not really any good reason to conceal what mechanically happened from the DM other than "We haven't written the last adventure yet, so we can't tell you what kind of nifty powers the queen might have. If we did, we'd probably end up contradicting ourselves. So just assume that at this point she's sufficiently awesome do all of this stuff."
One point that hasn't been made clearly yet is this: While there are lots of reasons to conceal knowledge of what mechanically happened from the players, there's not really any good reason to conceal what mechanically happened from the DM other than "We haven't written the last adventure yet, so we can't tell you what kind of nifty powers the queen might have. If we did, we'd probably end up contradicting ourselves. So just assume that at this point she's sufficiently awesome do all of this stuff."
That wraps up this thread nicely and explains the publishing decisions succinctly. I look forward to seeing you all on other topics.
I started a thread in the 3.5/OGL/SRD area for discussing different gaming philosphies with respect to what has been discussed here.
Hey, another scientist here, imagine that. After reading all the posts in the past couple of days, I was going to write some eloquent (re: long-winded) post about different types of players being akin to different classes in the game, and that some of us as players like to investigate and demand high internal consistency and some of us like theatrics and imagery and a myriad other possibilities.
As a scientist, I demand internal consistency, whether in games or life. If there is an apparent discrepancy, it must be investigated (and can become a career or a gold-mine). But I do this because my soul exhorts me so (if said soul exists - no proof).
Others are different, and do not require such internal consistency for their amusement. Witness some of the big hit movies that take such extreme liberties with the laws of physics. While I hate wire-work (because it's unrealistic) I recognize in some cases it looks cool. SOme people like it.
I think where we get bogged down in this whole argument, is that the product is seemingly leaving out the "internal consistency/investigation" cadre of the gamers, while still including most others. So in the interest of feeling included, the investigate gamers are respectfully requesting that their interests be met too in the next Paizo installments. Yay! Everybody wins!
Others are different, and do not require such internal consistency for their amusement. Witness some of the big hit movies that take such extreme liberties with the laws of physics. While I hate wire-work (because it's unrealistic) I recognize in some cases it looks cool. SOme people like it.
I would argue that they demand a different internal consistency. For example, if something could kill a human in RL, saying it is impossible for it to happen in the game world kills any kind of "realism" I personally feel for it. Saying a human is incapable of falling and breaking their leg just feels so artificial to me that I can't "buy in to" that type of setting. So I wouldn't classify it as some people willing to set aside internal consistency, it is just what consistency do they feel is more important.
|
I would argue that they demand a different internal consistency. For example, if something could kill a human in RL, saying it is impossible for it to happen in the game world kills any kind of "realism" I personally feel for it. Saying a human is incapable of falling and breaking their leg just feels so artificial to me that I can't "buy in to" that type of setting. So I wouldn't classify it as some people willing to set aside internal consistency, it is just what consistency do they feel is more important.
I think this is a good observation. I am baffled by being told that stabbing someone in the eye with a crossbow bolt would not kill them "because the rules say so". That rather smacks at a sort of solipsistic consistency where the real world never intrudes. But it is also, as pointed out lots of places, horses for courses and a matter of individual preference.
|
Also the rules themself arent really all that consistant with real life using a aprevious example a 200ft drop will kill a low lvl charecter yet a 20th lvl barbarian can get up dust himself off and continue on his merry way. Im pretty sure in real life 200ft would kill most things (heck a 50ft tall drop will kill a human in real life) no matter how well built and healthy they are.
I would argue that they demand a different internal consistency. For example, if something could kill a human in RL, saying it is impossible for it to happen in the game world kills any kind of "realism" I personally feel for it.
Then wouldn't using Wound Points/Vitality or playing some more lethal game like Rolemaster/Call of Cthulhu be a better fit to your idea of realism?
|
|
I would argue that they demand a different internal consistency. For example, if something could kill a human in RL, saying it is impossible for it to happen in the game world kills any kind of "realism" I personally feel for it.Then wouldn't using Wound Points/Vitality or playing some more lethal game like Rolemaster/Call of Cthulhu be a better fit to your idea of realism?
One could argue that hp as they are now can be used to represent wound points/vitality since its somewhat vague in regards of do they represent physical damage or a characters endurance wearing down or a combination of the two.
|
I think this is a good observation. I am baffled by being told that stabbing someone in the eye with a crossbow bolt would not kill them "because the rules say so". That rather smacks at a sort of solipsistic consistency where the real world never intrudes. But it is also, as pointed out lots of places, horses for courses and a matter of individual preference.
It's true that such a hit should kill.
But...(and this is really the gist of the whole thread)...since hp are an abstract measure of vigour, reflexes, magical protection and luck, etc, most people don't die until they have exhausted all the above.
Up till then, people exhaust themselves, pull muscles while jumping aside, expend a spell effect, or call in a favour from the gods.
The 'killing blow' is the one which strikes someone who is all out of stamina, reflexes, magic and luck, and is defined in the rules as the final blow that sends a person into negative hp.
As DM, I refrain from describing the injury, until I've seen the damage roll, and any relevant saving throws. Even a crit can still roll poorly, and do less than a regular blow.
What happened in this scene is akin to a DM seeing a natural 20, and getting over-excited and ahead of himself, shouting "Oh, yeah! Right through her skull!". The damage is rolled, turns out not to be enough, and he has to back-track, to the accusations of fudging from the players.
The Captain's single shot didn't drop the Queen, therefore she doesn't need to exhibit any strange recuperative powers, since it never hit her in the head in the first place.
The scene would still do it's job (warning the PCs) if the fight were to have escalated over several rounds, or (my favourite) if the Queen had been riddled with dozens of bolts from the Captain's whole unit, before they are cut down by her and her Grey Maidens. And that's the unfortunate thing about the brouh-hoo-hah in this thread; that the whole 'controversy' was just so unnecessary.
|
|
Then wouldn't using Wound Points/Vitality or playing some more lethal game like Rolemaster/Call of Cthulhu be a better fit to your idea of realism?
That's not the point, and part of the reason why this thread refuses to die, because there is a great level of mutual incomprehension. I'm not trying to increase the lethality of the game. I don't think anyone has suggested that. What I am saying is that the D&D rules have odd outcomes compared to what one might expect from the real world - being shot by a crossbow not really hurting much, or falling 200' and not being actually that bothered. But that isn't to say I am uncomfortable with that - D&D is my favorite game system - but I do recognise that there are disconnects.
I'm not trying particularly to simulate real combat - we are playing a game which looks a little bit like it, but doesn't really simulate it in a meaningful way except in our imaginations (and my real life experience of hand-to-hand combat, like a lot of people'e here, is virtually non-existent, so my imagination is therefore a bit limited). It's a recreational game, like a more involved version of chess with added play-acting. I recognise the limitations.
What bothers me is when something that happens to NPCs - which could easily happen in the real world to which this system is, albeit poorly, supposed to relate - somehow is deemed incapable of occurring in the game because the rules make such an outcome difficult. That, to me seems utterly arbitrary (contrary to the response of those who want the rules to apply to all situations where they could, conceivably, be applied, where the converse feels wrong). I'm relaxed about spells, trolls that regenerate, dragons flying and breathing fire, but if you say that an NPC simply "cannot" be assassinated by a dagger thrust to the heart (Philip of Macedon was, and I bet he was "high level") then that makes me stop and wonder. If a player questioned such an outcome because the rules say so, I would suggest that they free their mind. ("So getting shot by a crossbow can't kill you, huh? Care for a practical demonstration?")
It does boil down to whether you want to treat PCs and NPCs differently, and I do - if an NPC is doing something to another NPC, that's fine. I control them both as DM, so I can do what I want, provided it seems reasonable. If an NPC want to jab another in the eye and kill him, that's fine. The NPC isn't a player, he has no expectations of being treated fairly in line with the rules, and game balance doesn't apply to him unless I so choose. That is emphatically not the approach I take to PCs, because PCs (and more specifically, players) expect and are entitled to equal treatment and a fair intepretation of the rules, mainly to ensure they get maximum enjoyment from the game and are appropriately challenged and not arbitrarily abused. But that is because they are real people with feelings. My fictional constructs I will use and abuse as I see fit.
As it happens, I do have an eye to determining whether certain "background" details, which the PCs probably will not notice or care about, are in line with the rules, be it appropriate skills which will never be used in combat, access to spells and so on (I needed some NPCs to die swiftly, so I needed another NPC with a death attack, for example). But I won't do it every time, and I do it less than I used to, because preparation (especially for 3E) is a faff and I like to do a minimum of it. If these things are important to you, and they have some importance to me too, then fine. But you have to ask to what extent it really matters as many players will not notice, or care.
Please note that I'm not telling anyone how to play, nor was I ever. This is just my approach to gaming.
The scene would still do it's job (warning the PCs) if the fight were to have escalated over several rounds, or (my favourite) if the Queen had been riddled with dozens of bolts from the Captain's whole unit, before they are cut down by her and her Grey Maidens. And that's the unfortunate thing about the brouh-hoo-hah in this thread; that the whole 'controversy' was just so unnecessary.
What the assassination scene really reminds me of is the movie "Terminator 2". Specifically, the scene where Arnie shoots a policeman in the head with a shotgun -- but the "policeman" just repairs the damage and keeps on coming!! That's a great scene that shows that the T-1000 is a real bad-ass, because in movies (at least in the "Terminator universe") people usually die when you shoot them in the head with a shotgun, and nobody can heal that kind of wound.
But in D&D, there are plenty of creatures that can do the equivalent of surviving a shotgun blast to the head. It just doesn't have the same impact as the scene from "Terminator 2" because a scene like that could mean that the queen is a succubus. Or a tough doppelganger. Or a powerful spellcaster. Or a night hag. Or maybe some kind of lycanthrope. All of those might be surprising revelations, but probably wouldn't be unheard of.
|
|
I think this is a good observation. I am baffled by being told that stabbing someone in the eye with a crossbow bolt would not kill them "because the rules say so". That rather smacks at a sort of solipsistic consistency where the real world never intrudes. But it is also, as pointed out lots of places, horses for courses and a matter of individual preference.It's true that such a hit should kill.
But...(and this is really the gist of the whole thread)...since hp are an abstract measure of vigour, reflexes, magical protection and luck, etc, most people don't die until they have exhausted all the above.
Up till then, people exhaust themselves, pull muscles while jumping aside, expend a spell effect, or call in a favour from the gods.
The 'killing blow' is the one which strikes someone who is all out of stamina, reflexes, magic and luck, and is defined in the rules as the final blow that sends a person into negative hp.
As DM, I refrain from describing the injury, until I've seen the damage roll, and any relevant saving throws. Even a crit can still roll poorly, and do less than a regular blow.
What happened in this scene is akin to a DM seeing a natural 20, and getting over-excited and ahead of himself, shouting "Oh, yeah! Right through her skull!". The damage is rolled, turns out not to be enough, and he has to back-track, to the accusations of fudging from the players.
The Captain's single shot didn't drop the Queen, therefore she doesn't need to exhibit any strange recuperative powers, since it never hit her in the head in the first place.
The scene would still do it's job (warning the PCs) if the fight were to have escalated over several rounds, or (my favourite) if the Queen had been riddled with dozens of bolts from the Captain's whole unit, before they are cut down by her and her Grey Maidens. And that's the unfortunate thing about the brouh-hoo-hah in this thread; that the whole 'controversy' was just so unnecessary.
This is the same as saying that NPCs and PCs should be treated the same and always be subject to the same rules. I don't really agree with your analysis - the DM can describe the action as he sees fit. There are many ways to die, and many ways to describe a non-lethal injury. If the character in question has regeneration, you can describe non-lethal wounds in ways that would be lethal to others (like getting shot in the head, pulling out the bolt and being unharmed). I do accept that players have expectations about how things work (getting shot with a crossbow bolt not normally being a lethal situation) but I see nothing wrong with confounding those expectations once in a while - if only to blow away some complacent and lazy thinking on their part. If a player thinks he "knows" how things should be, I would particularly want to do that - the game should be about discovery and surprise, both for the PC and the player. I would want the players to wonder "What the hell is going on".
And it boils down to trust in the DM, to some extent. If I started getting rules arguments over a piece of flavour text, I would be displeased. It is about story and narrative, and the rules don't cover everything. I don't see why, as a story teller, I have to conform to arbitrary rules dreamed up by St Gary of Lake Geneva and subsequently amended that prevent me from presenting compelling stories and scenes. I understand some people feel differently, but it just isn't what I see the game being about.
2 - Under d20 rules, how does this one shot hit the Queen in the temple, and how does she then pull it out and kill the certainly high-level Commandant with one strike?
D20 includes "the Death Attack" from the assassin entry, you could rule that the Commandant used an "hero/fate/action" point to use the class feature for one round.
D20 includes "the Death Attack" from the assassin entry, you could rule that the Commandant used an "hero/fate/action" point to use the class feature for one round.
I hadn't thought of that approach... but of course it would require all of the PCs and major NPCs to have access to hero points (which might prove troublesome), or else some logical explanation why the Commandant and the queen both have them, but no one else does. For campaigns that use action points, and which award them to NPCs, that's a very fine solution.