The Commandant's shot being expected to be lethal seems the least objectionable part to me. The Queen is believed by most to be a 2nd or 3rd level aristocrat, at most--a spoiled, petulant brat who slept her way to the top. The Commandant is a Ranger/Rogue of moderate-to-high level, specialized in Crossbows, and attacking in the surprise round. If the Queen was as he assumes, than a critical hit ('to the the temple) augmented by the damage bonus from Favored Enemy: Human and extra damage dice from Sneak Attack should have easily dropped her. And even if he hadn't scored the critical, he could have expected to win initiative and make another devastating shot. Unfortunately, the Queen wins initiative, and he never gets that chance. So that much seems fine to me; that the Queen recovers so easily from the shot, apparently not even harmed, drives home the point that the Queen has some powerful mojo working for her--the sort of creatures that can take blows like that and still appear as a lovely young woman are definitely not the sorts that the PCs will want to tangle with at that moment, especially when they also wield dictatorial power over an entire city.
So I think the main focus is on how she's able to one-shot the Commandant. I would first keep in mind a few things first:
* Rogues and Rangers only have d8 HD, and nothing says he rolled consistently high on those.
* The Commandant is a ranged combatant, and so doesn't necessarily have a stellar constitution.
* The Commandant is harried, exhausted, and desperate from Sable Company's tireless efforts to keep order in the face of a rapid-fire series of riots, followed closely by a debilating plague. There's no reason he has to be at full hit points.
If, after all that, the one-shot still seems too implausible, add a few actions to the Queen's list. Grab him and slam him down, holding him in a pin as she drives the bolt into a vulnerable squishy part. Have her whisper something in his ear before she strikes--Hold Person.
The Commandant is harried, exhausted, and desperate from Sable Company's tireless efforts to keep order in the face of a rapid-fire series of riots, followed closely by a debilating plague. There's no reason he has to be at full hit points.
If, after all that, the one-shot still seems too implausible, add a few actions to the Queen's list. Grab him and slam him down, holding him in a pin as she drives the bolt into a vulnerable squishy part. Have her whisper something in his ear before she strikes--Hold Person.
All of that will work perfectly for me -- especially if he was summoned to the Queen's presence before he had a chance to get any healing! Thanks.
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 sort of responded to this in the other thread in the OGL/SRD/3.5 section if you are interested.
|
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.
It happens all the time, in peoples assumptions.
'That girl is pretty, so she must be a vain air-head, with a lousy personality'.
'That guy is really strong and fit, I bet he's really dull-witted, to make up for it'.
Those assumptions may often be wrong, but it doesn't stop people thinking that way. And they say all stereotypes have to start somewhere,...
|
|
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.
Indeed; this is the reason I don't like fixed pre-requisites for Prestige Classes, and prefer the 'initiation test' approach.
Just as PCs can't read an NPC's class or level from a floating bar above their head, neither can an NPC mentor identify the feats and skill points held by a potential applicant.
This is especially true of those feats (Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, Alertness, etc) which give small numerical bonuses to a roll that can be carried out untrained by anyone.
If you want to join the Sable Company, then turn up at enrolment day, pick up a crossbow, and take ten shots at that target over there. If you can hit with all ten, you're in, whether that's due to high BAB, high Dex, Weapon Focus, or just freakish good luck, shouldn't matter. Of course, if you are a truly rotten shot, you'd better get some practice in, and hope you don't see much action, since you'll have the possibility of being 'found out' hanging over your head for the rest of your career...
If I were going to take the tack that Eldrin is a weak character who got into his position by family connections, fast talking, or luck, I'd try to foreshadow that a bit--at least if the PCs are native to Korvosa. It'd probably be known and gossiped about. A roll on the appropriate Knowledge or Gather Info skill would make sense here, or just telling the most locally-knowledgable PC.
If you emphasize his weakness too much, though, you run the risk of making it hard to understand why he thought the attack would work. Our first thought on hearing the scenario as written was "That was staged: doppleganger, mind control, or illusions." If Eldrin has never been a capable combatant, it's hard to understand why he suddenly went for a one-shot kill, even against a presumed-weak opponent.
You also run the risk of not getting across the message this scene was apparently meant to transmit, namely "Ileosa is a lot more powerful than you might expect."
Our game had an alternate "Ileosa is a lot more powerful than you might expect" scene which I thought worked well. (It doesn't foreshadow that she's the CR20 monster she is in the AP, though; I don't think my GM is doing that.) The PCs, having done something publically heroic, were invited to a ball by Eodred and Ileosa. At the ball, Ileosa made a public announcement about the founding of the Gray Maidens, and also announced that the Sable Marines and Korvosan Guard now reported to Sabina. Eodred unexpectedly, and in a disturbingly offhanded way, countermanded this. No one else seemed to dare to speak up. You could have cut the tension with a knife. The PCs felt, as observers, that Ileosa had some kind of unwholesome hold over Eodred which he had slipped for a moment, and that she was furious and plotting retaliation. It was damned scary; and all RAW.
Mary
What warning about Ileosa does the scene really want to transmit? It's hard to tell without seeing #6.
If she is going to turn out to be a kickass melee brute, killing Eldrin hand to hand makes some sense, but it would be nice for the fight to be a little closer to RAW. She could shout her guards down, after all, and do the dirty with her own hands for sheer pleasure. But unless she can kill a PC of Eldrin's capabilities the same way she is described as killing Eldrin, it's not a very useful piece of foreshadowing to have her one-shot him.
If she is mainly a caster, I'd have her tell Eldrin that he's a traitor and should kill himself with his own sword, and have Eldrin do so. That's legal (Dominate Person will do it, with metamagic if necessary), it's chilling, it has excellent deniability, and it shows the PCs what they're really dealing with.
I'd like Ileosa to have a little more stature as a villain: I don't find petty, stupid evil people very satisfying as long-term adversaries, no matter how powerful they are. That's a matter of personal taste, though: others may be tired of Byronic anti-heroes and want something different.
Our group was one of those which staggered through SCAP unable to relate to its off-stage villains, so I appreciate the desire to get Ileosa on-stage earlier and more often. (We had her throw a ball for the PCs, which was a great way to get to know her.) But it's hard to play those scenes with no idea who/what she really is. I know it's not very feasible to put full stats for NPCs in the first module where they appear, but doggone it, it's hard to run otherwise--we got burned by this in RotRL. (Where there are actually *never* stats for the Aldern the PCs meet in #1, since he's been transmogrified by #2.) I don't have a great solution to suggest, unfortunately. I would love to get class and level at least, though I suspect Ileosa's power doesn't come from class/level so much.
Mary
I thought we all walked away from this thread feeling warm and fuzzy?
Is it back for revenge on its brother's murderer? Necromantic test gone awry?
I'm finding Mary's comments to be useful. She's not attacking anyone's views or playing style that I can see, just giving personal anecdotes and unfulfilled "wishes." We can still be warm and fuzzy!
I didn't think my comments could be made to feel that way. I thought I was cleverly ambiguous in my joking.
Also, this thread makes people antagonistic.
I didn't think my comments could be made to feel that way. I thought I was cleverly ambiguous in my joking.
They weren't; I did get it... sorry, Doombunny! I was the one who should have been more clear: I was referring to some of the older posts that have thankfully been left behind. Your recent comments were right on the money.
Also, this thread makes people antagonistic.
That did seem to happen, but hopefully we're past it now. Anyway, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
It happens all the time, in peoples assumptions.
'That girl is pretty, so she must be a vain air-head, with a lousy personality'.
'That guy is really strong and fit, I bet he's really dull-witted, to make up for it'.Those assumptions may often be wrong, but it doesn't stop people thinking that way. And they say all stereotypes have to start somewhere,...
Except what you are describing is slightly, but significantly, different. What you are describing is that if someone has a bonus, then they get some kind of penalty for it. That is not the same as having a penalty and getting some kind of bonus for it.
For example, a really smart guy might be pretty ugly (stereotypical nerd). Bonus to Int meant a penalty to Cha/looks. On the other hand, you could have some hill-billy redneck that is also ugly and could be as dumb as a brick. Penalty to Cha/looks and penalty to Int.
Except what you are describing is slightly, but significantly, different. What you are describing is that if someone has a bonus, then they get some kind of penalty for it. That is not the same as having a penalty and getting some kind of bonus for it.
For example, a really smart guy might be pretty ugly (stereotypical nerd). Bonus to Int meant a penalty to Cha/looks. On the other hand, you could have some hill-billy redneck that is also ugly and could be as dumb as a brick. Penalty to Cha/looks and penalty to Int.
In-game, the difference between these viewpoints is covered by how you determine ability scores: by point-buy (guy is dumb and ugly because he put all his points in STR) or by rolling (dumb guy might also be weak and ugly because of lousy rolls across the board).
Okay, I don't want to start anything "antagonistic," but I'm honestly curious and this post isn't 100% clear to me.
Our game had an alternate "Ileosa is a lot more powerful than you might expect" scene which I thought worked well. (It doesn't foreshadow that she's the CR20 monster she is in the AP, though; I don't think my GM is doing that.) The PCs, having done something publically heroic, were invited to a ball by Eodred and Ileosa. At the ball, Ileosa made a public announcement about the founding of the Gray Maidens, and also announced that the Sable Marines and Korvosan Guard now reported to Sabina. Eodred unexpectedly, and in a disturbingly offhanded way, countermanded this. No one else seemed to dare to speak up. You could have cut the tension with a knife. The PCs felt, as observers, that Ileosa had some kind of unwholesome hold over Eodred which he had slipped for a moment, and that she was furious and plotting retaliation. It was damned scary; and all RAW.
Okay, here's my confusion; how exactly was it RAW?
I mean, it's not Charm Person or Dominate. If it were, it's a situation where the spell slips "for a moment" instead of working fully for its set duration. The rules don't allow for that to my knowledge, so that's basically the same issue of different rules for NPCs.
And if the "unwholesome hold" is some kind of blackmail or roleplaying aspect, then there aren't really any game mechanics to apply to the situation.
So since it seems to be clearly known that it was RAW, then what exactly were the rules that applied?
Again, I'm just curious and honestly confused because (based simply on the post above) it doesn't seem any more obvious to me what game mechanics would apply than any of the possible explanations of the other scene. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
And if the "unwholesome hold" is some kind of blackmail or roleplaying aspect, then there aren't really any game mechanics to apply to the situation. So since it seems to be clearly known that it was RAW, then what exactly were the rules that applied?
That was my impression; since blackmail doesn't have strict game mechanics, there were therefore none to violate, thus solving what she and I preceived to be the problem in the original scene. Mary has said elsewhere that there's no issue with situations that have no rules. I agree. It's ones that do have rules, and break them, that confuse me.
And if the "unwholesome hold" is some kind of blackmail or roleplaying aspect, then there aren't really any game mechanics to apply to the situation. So since it seems to be clearly known that it was RAW, then what exactly were the rules that applied?That was my impression; since blackmail doesn't have strict game mechanics, there were therefore none to violate, thus solving what she and I preceived to be the problem in the original scene. Mary has said elsewhere that there's no issue with situations that have no rules. I agree. It's ones that do have rules, and break them, that confuse me.
Okay, but then specifically saying it happened "all RAW" is what is confusing me as it isn't "rules as written" but instead what I would view as the opposite, "rules unwritten," no written rules involved at all.
And it would seem that having such a thing fail publicly would make her look more incompetent than "scary."
I don't know; it could be just a turn of a phrase, but I'm thinking maybe there is more there I'm just missing.
I have mentioned it before but where is there a rule that specificly says you can take a crossbow bolt to the head and survive? Where does it state that hp represent you getting hit in areas like the head?
The question I ask myself is: would this work the same for a PC as for an NPC?
There are no hit location rules in RAW and I haven't added any in my house rules. Thus, there is no mechanical basis for a head blow being more lethal than any other. I can choose to describe a lethal blow as being to the head (and often do) but I can't arbitrarily make a blow lethal and explain "that's because it's to the head." After all, I wouldn't allow a PC to say "I automatically kill my opponent by hitting their head." Not even a coup de grace allows an automatic kill without consideration of the amount of damage done.
So, as a player, if I were to hear that someone were slain instantly by a blow to the head, I'd wonder how it happened if I knew that it couldn't happen under the mechanics--the fact that the GM added "to the head" wouldn't help me, because I know the mechanics aren't affected by that.
Would you allow a player to get an automatic coup de grace of a high-hp foe by saying "and I hit him in the head, so he has to die"? I wouldn't; and by our game agreement, I won't do for (or to) an NPC what I won't do for (or to) a PC.
Please note that I'm not arguing that other people ought to play that way! I'd just like the modules written in such a way that they work for me, too, if that's possible.
Mary
Okay, here's my confusion; how exactly was it RAW?I mean, it's not Charm Person or Dominate. If it were, it's a situation where the spell slips "for a moment" instead of working fully for its set duration. The rules don't allow for that to my knowledge, so that's basically the same issue of different rules for NPCs.
Dominate gives a second save if someone is pushed to do something strongly contrary to their nature. Charm Person is not absolute control but just very strong persuasion; you can refuse to do something when charmed, if it is really repugnant to you. (At least, this is our best understanding of the rather ambiguous spell wording "treat as a trusted friend or advisor". I admit that some Monster Manual entries, such as the Mind Flayer, make no apparent distinction between Charm and Dominate; but I much prefer the PHB interpretation.) I'd find the event described compatible with Charm Person. Dominate, not so much--I'd have expected a more violent reaction from the King.
And if the "unwholesome hold" is some kind of blackmail or roleplaying aspect, then there aren't really any game mechanics to apply to the situation.So since it seems to be clearly known that it was RAW, then what exactly were the rules that applied?
My feeling wasn't so much that it followed a specific rule, but that it didn't break any. A PC could have manipulated the King in that fashion via either spells, or a combination of skill rolls and roleplaying (to blackmail someone you need to obtain suitable blackmail material, to seduce them you need opportunity). Nothing in the events described seems out of line for what PCs are allowed to do; therefore it doesn't make me worry when NPCs do it.
As to why it came across as clear evidence of Ileosa's power--it wasn't the King's actions so much as everyone else's. Toff Ornelos and Glorio Arkona were there, for example, and they were visibly tense--but they didn't protest. That spoke volumes about Ileosa's political power. Cressida was obviously furious, but she was prepared to give up her commission--that spoke volumes too. It's political power more than personal, but the PCs wondered how an expat Chelish minx like Ileosa got that much political power--and wouldn't be surprised to find it comes from more-than-usual personal power.
I probably didn't describe it very well--sorry.
Mary
Mary has said elsewhere that there's no issue with situations that have no rules. I agree. It's ones that do have rules, and break them, that confuse me.
Then, why is this even an issue. As Mary says:
There are no hit location rules in RAW and I haven't added any in my house rules.
This situation is not covered in the rules, so why should the rules come up?
Just a side comment:
The spell Arcane Sight tells you the maximum spell level a caster is capable of casting, or a natural spellcaster has available. This doesn't give you their character level, but it means that for many NPCs, a PC using Arcane Sight will have a pretty good idea of their minimum character level.
One of our PCs has Arcane Sight as an at-will. The GM has had to work a bit harder to deal with this, but for us it's a very cool effect: the PC knows something most folks around him don't, and it's fun to watch his reactions. However, we definitely think of caster level as something real and known to people in the setting. If you don't, this spell is probably a mistake and you may want to change or remove it.
Mary
This situation is not covered in the rules, so why should the rules come up?
Instant-kills are indeed covered in the rules (coup de grace, massive damage, and death attack), but as far as why not add another category, of "at will when the DM declares it" instant kills, Mary's explanation applies to my personal games as well. (Again, if it doesn't bother your group that characters can die by DM fiat, that's perfectly OK -- go with it! It just doesn't work with our players, because they've come to expect that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules.)
Mary has said elsewhere that there's no issue with situations that have no rules. I agree. It's ones that do have rules, and break them, that confuse me.Then, why is this even an issue. As Mary says:
There are no hit location rules in RAW and I haven't added any in my house rules.This situation is not covered in the rules, so why should the rules come up?
Because there are comprehensive rules for how combat works, and this is combat.
What if a player says, "I stab him in the head with a crossbow bolt and he dies?"
Do I say, "Okay, that's outside the rules, go ahead?" Or do I say, "No, please use the combat rules--roll to hit, roll for damage"?
Remember, it's utterly essential for me that *NPCs and PCs follow the same rules.* I know my player, and I know that without this my game collapses. If your particular game doesn't need that, no problem. I am not trying to say that anyone else should play this way; but it's the way my group has found to be the most fun for us.
Mary
Because there are comprehensive rules for how combat works, and this is combat.
Why is it "combat"?
What if a player says, "I stab him in the head with a crossbow bolt and he dies?"
Might be possible if it wasn't "combat". Why couldn't a PC in his background say he escaped from an abusive orphanage by saying he found a bolt, hide it, and then one night caught the abuse person off guard and stabbed the bolt in their throat, killing them. And the PC ran away. Why would that be so unreasonable?
Do I say, "Okay, that's outside the rules, go ahead?" Or do I say, "No, please use the combat rules--roll to hit, roll for damage"?
See my example above. It may be outside the rules and therefore might be not covered by the "combat" restrictions. Using the rules, what chance does a child (probably has something like commoner stats) have against someone like Gaedren Lamm. But if surprise killing someone would make for an interesting backstory, I as a DM, wouldn't get upset by a bit of dramatic license on a player's part.
Remember, it's utterly essential for me that *NPCs and PCs follow the same rules.*
Which I do as well, when the rules apply. If we are not doing "combat" then why would the rules apply?
I know my player, and I know that without this my game collapses. If your particular game doesn't need that, no problem. I am not trying to say that anyone else should play this way; but it's the way my group has found to be the most fun for us.
As I said, the rules are used fairly in my game. I just don't think situations where the rules don't apply should not have them shoehorned on is all.
Might be possible if it wasn't "combat". Why couldn't a PC in his background say he escaped from an abusive orphanage by saying he found a bolt, hide it, and then one night caught the abuse person off guard and stabbed the bolt in their throat, killing them. And the PC ran away. Why would that be so unreasonable?
If the PC had sneak attack, or caught the overseer helpless and did a coup de grace, then it's perfectly reasonable. But if not, then player might get the idea that all his PC needs to do is carry a bolt around and declare he's stabbing people in the throat with it. "Then all my enemies die instantly, because you told me combat rules don't apply to that!" Now, you and I would both agree that THAT wouldn't be reasonable, and we'd slap him down for it. You, because it blatantly undermines the game if he keeps doing it. Me, because I wouldn't have let him do it even once.
See, the main point is about consistency. Consistency REALLY matters to some groups. To others, it takes a back seat to other considerations. Everyone has different priorities, that's all.
Because there are comprehensive rules for how combat works, and this is combat.What if a player says, "I stab him in the head with a crossbow bolt and he dies?"
Do I say, "Okay, that's outside the rules, go ahead?" Or do I say, "No, please use the combat rules--roll to hit, roll for damage"?
Remember, it's utterly essential for me that *NPCs and PCs follow the same rules.* I know my player, and I know that without this my game collapses. If your particular game doesn't need that, no problem. I am not trying to say that anyone else should play this way; but it's the way my group has found to be the most fun for us.
Mary
What the DM actually should probably say is "Roll your attack and we'll see how you do." If the character rolls enough damage to drop the opponent, then I think declaring it hit in the head for flavor is quite acceptable. If he fails to kill, maybe it's a graze or maybe the bolt shatters on the wall sending fragments in the target's face. If it still does a substantial amount of damage, maybe it sticks in the meaty tissue of the biceps.
After all, what does doing damage and eventually killing someone represent? You run them out of their luck, energy, mojo, whatever, until they finally become just as vulnerable as the average joe and a single blow can take them out. A crossbow in the head of a normal NPC off screen then becomes that narrative element... that lethal blow that should have taken her out... but didn't.
Of course, strictly speaking, there's no expectation that other shots aren't sticking in people's bodies either, just that there's no extra game effect for it. So go ahead and let the players stick the troll in the head with crossbow bolts. It still won't do them any good. Let the NPC stick the tougher-than-normal queen in the head with a crossbow bolt, still won't do him any good...
(particularly when he just pierces her cheek and breaks a few teeth... that's how she survived it. Wouldn't a been a lethal injury, that. Fool Endrin. Shouldn't a aimed at her head..)
If the PC had sneak attack, or caught the overseer helpless and did a coup de grace, then it's perfectly reasonable. But if not, it's basically telling the player that all his PC needs to do is carry a bolt around and declare he's stabbing people in the throat with it. Then all his enemies die instantly, because combat rules no longer apply to him. And you and I would both agree that THAT wouldn't be reasonable. See, the main point is about consistency. Consistency REALLY matters to some groups.
Except Combat Rules apply to "Combat". If it is not "Combat", then using those rules doesn't really make alot of sense. It is like applying the grapple rules when someone is going to the bathroom? Huh? You are defining it as "Combat", but I am suggesting that it might not be "Combat", it might be something else entirely, something not covered by the rules. Just because their is a superficial similarity, does not necessarily mean the rules should be used. Under the possibility that this might not be a "Combat" situation, your suggestion here is that a non-"Combat" situation should influence the rules for a "Combat" situation.
Except Combat Rules apply to "Combat". If it is not "Combat", then using those rules doesn't really make alot of sense. It is like applying the grapple rules when someone is going to the bathroom? Huh? You are defining it as "Combat", but I am suggesting that it might not be "Combat", it might be something else entirely, something not covered by the rules. Just because their is a superficial similarity, does not necessarily mean the rules should be used. Under the possibility that this might not be a "Combat" situation, your suggestion here is that a non-"Combat" situation should influence the rules for a "Combat" situation.
Again, there are rules for coup de grace--killing a person outside of combat; killing someone outside of combat is not a "superficial similarity" to that. That's what it is. I like to follow them. You might look for reasons not to. Certainly no need for us to hector one another about it.
Because there are comprehensive rules for how combat works, and this is combat.Why is it "combat"?
Basically, because we have agreed that it is. That agreement is fundamental to making our game work well for us.
I know that neither I nor the person I normally play with would accept the argument "It's offstage so it's not combat." It makes reasoning about offstage events too hard, and this detracts hugely from our fun. And I see no other reason that an attack on one character by another character with a weapon could possibly not be combat.
We do hold PC backstories to the same rules as NPC backstories, or as on-stage events, except that they need not be rolled out. I'd reject a PC backstory that was impossible RAW just the same as I'd reject one that was impossible in my game-world. Consistency really, really matters to us.
It's not fairness, note. It's consistency. Fairness is only for things that help/hurt the players. Consistency is for everything we can see.
Please recognize that this is not an attack on your playing style: just a statement of mine.
Mary
The thing that frustrates me is how easily this sort of argument makes my position sound like it's a negative for me. It really isn't.
I just can't get across how much sheer *fun* it is for me to detect a slightly anomalous detail in, say, an NPC's account--to go looking for the reason for that anomaly--and, with luck, to find a critical insight into the situation that will allow my PCs to do something brilliant and decisive. This is awesome! But it requires absolute faith that the GM is not just "doing stuff for dramatic effect." The world has to be as solid as possible if you're going to put that much weight on it.
One of my very favorite moments in RotRL was vicarious enjoyment of my player figuring out the Sihedron ritual. Such an elegant chain of logic! And such intense roleplaying when the truth finally emerged! That's why I stick with this damned time-consuming rules-overloaded game.
The other thing I really, really love is depth in NPCs and PC/NPC relationships. The absolute high point of SCAP for me was the confrontation between villainous NPC father and wayward PC daughter--dear gods, that was intense. Both of them came to realize in the course of the conversation that everything they'd done--his villainy and enslavement, her denial of her name and eventual transformation into a demon--had flowed out of their misguided attempts to deal with each other. And that they might, just possibly, have common cause now. Wow.
But again, things have to be *solid* before you put that kind of weight on them. I wouldn't have had such strong feelings about the father's final decision if I'd thought it was imposed by the GM's desire for a particular outcome, instead of flowing out of a really well crafted personality.
Mary
They weren't; I did get it... sorry, Doombunny! I was the one who should have been more clear: I was referring to some of the older posts that have thankfully been left behind. Your recent comments were right on the money.
No worries, Kirth!
|
|
Remember, it's utterly essential for me that *NPCs and PCs follow the same rules.*
Just wondering then...in your game world, NPCs don't die of exposure or starvation then? (this does non-lethal damage by the rules). A character becomes unconscious and helpless, but then it falls for some predator to come along and finish them..and they what? You have to roll to hit, see if that NPC saves or dies from the cdg?
Obviously, a certain amount of Metagaming is inevitable.
But I really hate the idea that NPCs should act with full metagame knowledge. There are just too many ridiculous situations to list. If every NPC knows their own hp total, and how much damage anything can do, some very strange actions would result. For example, if you lived above the first floor of a building, why bother to take the stairs down? Depending on your HD, CON, and floor you lived on, you could jump out the window every day on your way to work. You would take the damage (some of which would be nonlethal), then just head to work. Each night you would get back some hit points. If you had an unlucky week of high falling damage rolls, when you woke up in the morning and realized your hp total was too low, then you would say "Wow, I'm down to 3 hp, better take the stairs".
I also dislike the idea that everything that happens in the campaign world must stand up to a rigorous metagame analysis performed by the players. I don't think the players should be allowed to solve every mystery that way. No matter how long the players have been playing the game, some things that happen should remain a mystery to the PCs. If something that an NPC tells you doesn't quite match your understanding of the relavent rules, I don't think it should automatically mean that the NPC is lying. The only person who should know 100% of the how and why is the DM.
If the PCs are routinely acting on the vast store of game rules knowledge acquired by the players, I think maybe the PCs should have to pay skill points for those knowledge skills. If you start going down that path, should the PCs have any knowledge that the players don't? So if you forget something that the DM said, no rolling an INT check to see if your PC remembers. No rolling knowledge checks - if you don't personally remember some fact, neither does your PC.
If the PCs are routinely acting on the vast store of game rules knowledge acquired by the players, I think maybe the PCs should have to pay skill points for those knowledge skills.
I agree. But if they do pay for those skills, and find that the knowledge is useful only sometimes, and the rest of the time it's wrong because of DM whim, do they have the right to be annoyed? That's the question every GM needs to ask him or herself. There's no set answer; it all depends on the group.
The only person who should know 100% of the how and why is the DM.
Again, I agree: if you play a game with a strong DM/player separation, and an all-powerful DM, then that is the only way to go. If you tend to blur the lines a bit, and if you have a small group of like-minded players, then what Mary and I are describing can be an awful lot of fun as well. The game itself is robust enough that both sorts of groups can still play it and enjoy it. Why dictate to others, then?
You have to roll to hit, see if that NPC saves or dies from the cdg?
No; you missed the earlier discussion -- which did get a bit defensive, so you're probably wise to have skipped it. Anway, it's about things happenening to NPCs being possible vs. impossible. There's no need to roll in either case, but the idea is, if NPCs are allowed to do things that flagrantly violate the game rules, then some groups get annoyed. Maybe that makes them evil "metagamers" (I was told so earlier). But as long as they're having fun, what's the harm?
Maybe that makes them evil "metagamers" (I was told so earlier). But as long as they're having fun, what's the harm?
Metagaming often gets a bad rap, unfairly I believe. Any time a group accepts that new PC after someone's character has died, that is metagaming ("You look trustworthy!"), but do people make that out to be badong? I don't think so. Metagaming can be a negative or not, it just depends on the group.
Metagaming often gets a bad rap, unfairly I believe. Any time a group accepts that new PC after someone's character has died, that is metagaming ("You look trustworthy!"), but do people make that out to be badong? I don't think so. Metagaming can be a negative or not, it just depends on the group.
And on the person saying it. (Somehow the "N" word can sound cool when Sam Jackson says it. It wouldn't if I did.) Often on the boards, there's a tendency to use "metagamer" as a very nasty derogatory, somewhat worse than "liar" or "horse thief."
Why dictate to others, then?
I not trying to dictate to anyone how to play. As I said, metagaming is inevitable.
I just have an opinion that large amounts metagaming should probably be avoided. For me, too much metagaming seems to downplay the roleplaying and immersion. Especially if you factor metagame knowledge into the actions and motivations of NPCs. In the long run, I think that's bad for the players, because if the bad guys have all this metagame knowledge, how can they lose? They bad guys should be able to perfectly build out their abilities in order to thwart the PCs 100% of the time. Because in most plots, the bad guys start out "ahead" and the PCs have to catch up by leveling up and figuring out who and where the big bad is.
But others have said that they need everything to fit perfectly into their understanding of d20 rules or it actually breaks immersion for them. I can see the point. It can be tough to accept an event at face value if you can't figure out how it happened, especially if you believe you have the tools to explain anything. But that attitude still seems a little weird to me, given the fantasy setting and the fact that people don't always agree on the rules anyway.
But as a practical matter, don't you agree that the DM can't share 100% of what is going on ahead of time? Otherwise, you're just playing a board game. Most of the time, the DM knows more than the players because of all the stuff piled up on "their side of the screen". What's behind the next door, the stats of the big bad, etc. Sometimes when I'm the DM I'll explain stuff after the fact, but not always.
I agree that without a good amount of rules consistency , the players are going to have tough time figuring out what's going on in a campaign. The won't know how to be the heroes of the story if they don't understand what impact their actions will have.
One thing that gets on my nerves is when a player "switches gears" between metagaming mode and roleplaying mode. They will march along, diligently advancing the plot by mercilessly applying 133t metagaming skillz to every encounter. But every now and then, they will do something counter-productive because they think it fits in with their character. That makes my head spin.
When I'm a player, I try not to overdo the metagaming. I think I do more metagame thinking between games as I'm building and leveling up my character. I just want to make sure that my PC is effective and carries his weight in the campaign.
When I'm a DM, I try to avoid NPC metagame thinking as I run the bad guys. Reasonably smart foes will try to avoid doing anything really stupid in combat. Flanking, aid other, avoid AoO, etc. But I wouldn't let a group of foes facing a group PCs pick their targets based on a stastical analysis of my knowledge of how many hp everyone has, hit bonuses, damage dice, and the relative threat posed by the PCs based on stuff that the NPCs wouldn't know.
But others have said that they need everything to fit perfectly into their understanding of d20 rules or it actually breaks immersion for them. I can see the point. It can be tough to accept an event at face value if you can't figure out how it happened, especially if you believe you have the tools to explain anything. But that attitude still seems a little weird to me, given the fantasy setting and the fact that people don't always agree on the rules anyway.
But as a practical matter, don't you agree that the DM can't share 100% of what is going on ahead of time? Otherwise, you're just playing a board game.
I don't think anyone is proposing that the GM should give more information up front. (I have a weird feeling I've said this before.)
There needs to be an explanation, and a solid, rigorous one, for what happens. That doesn't mean the PCs have to be able to figure out immediately; sometimes they won't be able to figure it out at all. But if there is, in fact, no explanation, both players and GM are building on sand, and things may collapse.
I've been playing with the same person for 22 years. He's not going to be able to fool me about this in the long run: if he is ignoring the rules at whim, I'm going to find out. I may not know about any given event, but the pattern becomes obvious after a while. (And vice versa when I am GMing.)
I do find, though, that allowing the PCs to know a little bit more about game mechanics than is entirely plausible helps me make up for the fact that they know grossly less about everything else. I mean, a PC who's lived in the setting for her entire life, and can see, hear, smell, touch and taste the situation in full detail, knows a *lot* about what's going on. I don't have that. I regard calculations such as "He's a major military leader, therefore probably around 10th level, therefore more than I can handle by myself" as stand-ins for my PC's detailed gut sense of her environment. Similarly with "I have only 4 hp, the next blow may kill me." I'm not feeling the pain (thank the gods!) so I need *something* to tell me that the situation is critical.
Last night in martial arts class our teacher was drilling us on the need to instinctively estimate correct distance to the opponent, and take exactly the needed number of steps. (And we were botching it...it takes practice.) I think of this when I have my PC make a precise call as to where to lay a fireball. He doesn't know exactly how many feet it is to the target point. But he *has* cast quite a few fireballs and other area spells in the past, and he's probably darned good at eyeballing the range. (You're motivated, if it's a fireball: being too close is painful!) I don't have that, so I count squares. It doesn't feel like metagaming; it feels like a work-around to deal with the fact that he's had more practice than I have, and can *see* the room, not just a battlemat.
I try not to let the "bones" show. I treat injuries as painful, even if they are not life-threatening under the rules. I don't estimate things down to the hit point. But I do use the rules knowledge. I find that if I don't, I can play very low level characters plausibly, but the higher level they get the more like idiots they look--they blunder around without the basic competence that a professional should have. They have no sense of their own limits or when they are getting into trouble they can't handle--conversely, they have no confidence in their ability to tackle situations well within their abilities. They basically have to follow GM hints, because they're incapable of making good decisions for themselves.
A lot of groups seem to reply the "young fools with incredible power and luck" scenario over and over. The fast advancement rate in v3 does support this well; it's plausible that people who've gone from 1st to 17th in a year won't be professionally competent with their abilities. But I've seen that storyline a lot of times, and lately I'd rather play someone with a mature grasp of what they can do.
Mary
Mary, thanks for the clarification on the situation and your opinion. As I said in a earlier post, it's interesting to see how people game in different ways, and I appreciate your sharing of that.
I also dislike the idea that everything that happens in the campaign world must stand up to a rigorous metagame analysis performed by the players. I don't think the players should be allowed to solve every mystery that way. No matter how long the players have been playing the game, some things that happen should remain a mystery to the PCs. If something that an NPC tells you doesn't quite match your understanding of the relavent rules, I don't think it should automatically mean that the NPC is lying. The only person who should know 100% of the how and why is the DM.
I don't think anyone is proposing that this automatically means that the NPC is lying. We're only proposing that there must be *some* explanation. The NPC is lying, he's mistaken, he was fooled by an illusion, there's a game-rule legal explanation that is not immediately obvious. Something, so that when the PCs investigate, they don't just tear a hole in the shared illusion that the gameworld is real.
One of the clues that my player used to understand the Sihedron ritual was that an NPC tried to raise someone as a ghoul and failed. (We ended up with different mechanics for the ritual than the ones James later posted.) The player didn't know why this happened for quite a long time. But he was certain that there was a reason. Thus, the PCs could *look* for a reason, and eventually they did figure it out. That was a high point of the campaign for me.
If the truth was that I didn't allow the NPC to become a ghoul because it would have been undramatic or inconvenient, then it would have made no sense for the player to get excited about figuring out the mystery. In my experience, my particular player will stop doing so if he finds no-explanation situations too often. Then he goes into pure tactician mode. I find such games unspeakably boring to run; he's a lot more fun when he's roleplaying.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, a lot of these posts are making a contrast between rules adherence and roleplaying, as if they were adversarial. I have the opposite experience. If you know the gameworld is solid, you can roleplay. If you don't, for players of his temperment you're either passively watching a movie, or playing a skirmish game--there's no point in being in character.
I think people might be surprised how little we actually talk about rules when we're playing. If the assumption that *of course* they are being followed is there, you don't need to check all the time.
Mary
Remember, it's utterly essential for me that *NPCs and PCs follow the same rules.*Just wondering then...in your game world, NPCs don't die of exposure or starvation then? (this does non-lethal damage by the rules). A character becomes unconscious and helpless, but then it falls for some predator to come along and finish them..and they what? You have to roll to hit, see if that NPC saves or dies from the cdg?
I don't roll for offstage events unless the exact specifics of the outcome are going to be critical (say, there is a PC trying to rescue this guy, and it matters critically whether he hangs on for another hour or not).
We have a house rule that additional non-lethal damage taken when unconscious becomes lethal, so starvation or exposure will eventually kill you, and you can beat someone to death with a sap or a fist. This way it applies the same to PCs and NPCs, on and off stage.
In your game, do PCs die of exposure or starvation, assuming that circumstance ever comes up? How would you handle this? If they were locked in a cell with someone they really wanted to kill, and only had their fists (no monk here), how would you handle this? I suspect a lot of people have a house rule similar to ours, though maybe never made explicit.
Mary
If they were locked in a cell with someone they really wanted to kill, and only had their fists (no monk here), how would you handle this? I suspect a lot of people have a house rule similar to ours, though maybe never made explicit.
Anyone can take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, monks just get it for free. But that is not needed in any case, you can do lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon by taking a -4 on your attack. Which means you could coup-de-grace someone with your fist, even with out IUS.
Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage
You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll.
I not trying to dictate to anyone how to play. As I said, metagaming is inevitable.I just have an opinion that large amounts metagaming should probably be avoided. For me, too much metagaming seems to downplay the roleplaying and immersion. Especially if you factor metagame knowledge into the actions and motivations of NPCs. In the long run, I think that's bad for the players, because if the bad guys have all this metagame knowledge, how can they lose? They bad guys should be able to perfectly build out their abilities in order to thwart the PCs 100% of the time. Because in most plots, the bad guys start out "ahead" and the PCs have to catch up by leveling up and figuring out who and where the big bad is.
It's true, a certain amount of metagming is inevitable. But what I find so odd about this debate is how much other approaches seem almost completely 180 degrees separated from mine.
For me, players and I do engage in some metagaming but I expect the role-playing and storytelling to justify the metagaming. PC takes improved crit with his long sword. PC says "I wanted to finish these fights faster so I have been adjusting my technique so that I focus more on the vitals. It's not foolproof. Turns out people really do their best to protect them. But, by focusing on it, when I do get in past that defense, I stand a better chance of bringing them down or shortening the fight." (I'm reminded of the gladiatorial training sequence in Spartacus, in particular.)
Engaging in metagaming to justify or validate the storytelling or role-playing seems about as opposite as you can get in approach.
|
|
In your game, do PCs die of exposure or starvation, assuming that circumstance ever comes up? How would you handle this? If they were locked in a cell with someone they really wanted to kill, and only had their fists (no monk here), how would you handle this? I suspect a lot of people have a house rule similar to ours, though maybe never made explicit.Mary
Back in 2nd ed days, I had some PCs die of thirst and exposure in the deserts of al-qadim.
In 3rd, honestly, its never come up. But I like your house rule!
We have a house rule that additional non-lethal damage taken when unconscious becomes lethal, so starvation or exposure will eventually kill you, and you can beat someone to death with a sap or a fist. This way it applies the same to PCs and NPCs, on and off stage.
Wouldn't this remove some of the surprise of say a troll? I mean all weapon damage done that is not acid or fire is non-lethal. If you can then just kill them when they fall unconscious with or without acid or fire, that seems to kind of diminish the troll.
We have a house rule that additional non-lethal damage taken when unconscious becomes lethal, so starvation or exposure will eventually kill you, and you can beat someone to death with a sap or a fist. This way it applies the same to PCs and NPCs, on and off stage.Wouldn't this remove some of the surprise of say a troll? I mean all weapon damage done that is not acid or fire is non-lethal. If you can then just kill them when they fall unconscious with or without acid or fire, that seems to kind of diminish the troll.
My first impulse is to say that the quality which keeps regenerating creatures from taking non-lethal damage trumps the lethal-when-unconscious rule.
My second is to worry a bit about trolls. The Classic Monsters writeup emphasizes the fact that they can starve to death, and RotRL #3 has a scene which hinges on the fact that they can drown. Drowning, okay, that's a death effect; but how do they starve? I'm realizing I'm not 100% clear on how their regeneration works or what its limits are. Ideally, before we have trolls again (or similar) I should figure this out in detail.
A well worked out monster is a pleasure for me to adjucate as GM. The players may never know, but *I* know, and it's much easier to keep the rulings consistent.
Mary
But that is not needed in any case, you can do lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon by taking a -4 on your attack. Which means you could coup-de-grace someone with your fist, even with out IUS.
Thank you. I had missed this rule. Fish will be happy to hear this: he is currently out on the streets with nothing but a sap and his fists, trying to deal with an incursion of otyughs. (And drunk as a lord, which is not helping at all.)
Someday when I have time...(heh) I'd like to pare down v3.5 or v3.p to a number of rules that I could actually memorize and get right. I'd enjoy that more as player/GM. It's a huge job, though.
Mary
Creative Director
|
My second is to worry a bit about trolls. The Classic Monsters writeup emphasizes the fact that they can starve to death, and RotRL #3 has a scene which hinges on the fact that they can drown. Drowning, okay, that's a death effect; but how do they starve? I'm realizing I'm not 100% clear on how their regeneration works or what its limits are. Ideally, before we have trolls again (or similar) I should figure this out in detail.
This is a GREAT example on why it's no good to attach too much significance to the rules as written... since NO one can actually starve to death. You can only starve to unconsciousness in D&D, since starvation only inflicts nonlethal damage.
Of course, as you mention upthread... it's a nobrainer house rule to add the lethal damage once you go unconscious. But it's still a great example on how "common sense" should at times step in to kick the "Rules" to the curb.
In my mind, being stabbed in the brain by a crossbow bolt = killed, despite the fact that the damage done wouldn't technically kill a high hit point target.