I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this issue, but I am not sure where else to post it.
An incident happened in my Age of Worms campaign that I am running has gotten under my skin and I would like some feedback on it. My players, around 16th level or so, were getting ready to confront an advanced elite Nightmare Beast (It’s in the MMII if your interested, basically it’s a big nasty four footed monster with tusks and lots of spell like abilities) in it’s lair, a huge cave with steam fissures in the bottom. This is on the Isle of Tilagos for those of you familiar with the AoW adventure path.
The paladin of the group came up with what amounted to a lure-into-deathtrap plan. His idea was for the party ranger to go into the steam-shrouded lair and lure the monster into chasing him and then have the party wizard throw up a prismatic wall which the nightmare beast would blunder into. The original plan was to throw up a wall of fog to conceal the prismatic wall, but that was ixnayed because of the presence of the steam.
To make a long story short, the plan did not work. The ranger virtually no had no chance of failure when picking his way over the steam crevasses due to his high skill modifiers and could easily outrun the beast with his boots of speed. When he sighted the creature’s glowing red eyes in the back of the cavern, he taunted it and ran back through the steam clouds. I ruled that the beast, this being far from the first adventuring band he’s faced, knew ambush bait when he saw it and instead of blundering through the steam clouds after the ranger started buffing itself with spell-like abilities.
The player of the paladin was extremely unhappy about this turn of events. He basically threw a hissy fit, saying that what I did was a “d**k move” because the creature did not take the bait. His argument was that I should have ruled that the creature charged after the ranger and blundered into the prismatic wall because it made for “good story.” When I explained to him the reason for my decision (detailed previously) he called me a “simulationist,” basically saying that I should have set aside the way I had the encounter planned because it would have made for “cool story.” I could have argued that I disagreed that having the monster blunder stupidly into a deathtrap (automatically failing all it’s saves, mind you) would not have made for a very exciting encounter, but I could see his mind made up, as he was now complaining that they would have to “roll a lot of dice to get the same result.” I ended the session right then and there (it was pretty late anyway) because I did not want to listen to him complaining for the rest of the evening.
Although this player has been a problem for a while with complaining when things did not go his way and telling players what to do and complaining when they did not do the “ideal” thing, this takes the cake. This is the first time he come out and told me how I should run the game. And while it is a group effort, the decision of what will and will not work still (I believe) rests with the DM. I believe that the whole “say yes to everything” mentality that is pushed heavily in D&D 4th edition is at least partially to blame, as it gives some (many?) players the notion that any plan that they come up with will work just fine and if it doesn’t your DM is being a jerk. I believe that is a misinterpretation of the adage, but that is my opinion. As a DM, I will give any reasonable plan a chance to succeed. Other players have come up with plans that have both worked spectacularly and failed miserably, but no one has complained about them.
I would like some feedback on this whole incident, as I am so mad about it I am about ready to quit running the campaign. It is a shame b/c we have put so much time and effort into it (close to 2 years of real time) that I want the players to see it through to the end and have a chance to save the world. However, I know this player is convinced he is right, is not about to change his ways, and I am about ready to tell him that if he is so convinced he is right he can go run his own game.
You made the right call. The plane depended on the best being stupid and uncunning. a old wolf may not have fallen for that. The player was out of line, he needs to chill. TEll him to clam down your dming , he can leave if he dont like the game.
The worse thing you can do is let him have his way.
Honestly, I would heartily suggest booting the player. If this is just an escalation of his behavior, I don't see him changing it any time soon. I had a player like this once, and the enjoyability of the game for everyone else increased dramatically once he was removed. It sucks that you're in a position to have to do this, but sometimes it's the only option.
|
Yeah, sounds like your player was being a tad annoying there. He's totally in the wrong.
Next time though, if you want to avoid a confrontation, ask your players for a Knowledge check (or heck, an Int/Wis check) and let them know that an ambush that crude wouldn't work on this monster. A more well worked plan would though.
|
Does your player play a lot of mmo's? Because that is exactly what his tactic is. Send in the fast relatively armored guy to get the aggro and pull the monster to the place where everyone else is waiting and all prepped / buffed with spells thrown down as obstacles etc.
He apparently is upset that a creature run by a real person has the capacity to think a little more than a predictable coded response. Maybe he can adapt... if not then he really wants to play a different game anyways.
Edit- Reading back I notice you say he is telling the other players what to do. This is also very mmo "team leader" type behavior. Sorry for you there. So close to the end to have a melt down.
Yeahhhhh...as others have said, if this is an escalation of player behavior, it sounds like things would be better without him. Not all creatures are red shirts to be slaughtered indiscriminately, and if this creature was even moderately intelligent (or experienced), then such a tactic would not have worked.
Plans fail. That's why players should come up with Plan B (C, D and E sometimes).
|
Yep. If the dude existed in my game, I would have introduced him to the one-way egress, and asked him to lose my phone number and e-mail address. This is a GAME, it's supposed to be FUN. Period. If someone insists on not being fun, let them go.
:)
Except different people have different ideas of what is fun- although clearly if one person in a group has an idea different and incompatible with everyone else's, then there is a problem which needs dealing with, yes.
If one player's idea of "fun" is "everything works as planned and if it doesn't, throw a hissy fit", I don't see too many groups that person would have fun with...
Said person would definitely find my game frustrating, as I play intelligent monsters and NPCs with intelligence. Mindless and dumb critters may fall for simple tricks, but intelligent foes, particularly powerful ones, have "been around the block" so to speak, and aren't easily duped.
To the O.P.: Hey, if the dude called you a "simulationist", take it as a compliment! Your world is probably more compelling for it!
First let me start off by saying I whole heartily believe in the “Golden Rule”, and that rule is that the DM makes the rules. A DM make a ruling and game proceeds forward. Any issues can/should be noted and discussed during downtime, phone, email etc…
With the above already stated here’s some input
I ruled that the beast, this being far from the first adventuring band he’s faced, knew ambush bait when he saw it and instead of blundering through the steam clouds after the ranger started buffing itself with spell-like abilities.
As a DM, I will give any reasonable plan a chance to succeed. Other players have come up with plans that have both worked spectacularly and failed miserably, but no one has complained about them.
As per the “Golden Rule” just making a ruling is valid and acceptable. But in this instances, from the bolded quote above, it doesn’t sound like you gave the plan an actual chance at succeeding, you just ruled how the creature would react and what it would do.
Were there any rolls made verses the ranges taunts (Wild Empathy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive checks) or his role-playing performance. Had he bluffed at playing as if he were injured, he might have instilled a more predatoral response from the creature.
How intelligent is the beast, had it been a long time since it had eaten?
Is sitting back and buffing up its normal response to all possible real threats, then it waits for its enemies to come in after it?
Had it become aware of the other party members? Even if not, it may have just cautiously investigated what the ranger was after without buffing up, maybe making his own spot and listen checks.
What I’m saying is that the creature likely only has a limited number of buffs so it may want to save some buffs if it still needs to go and hunt for its dinner or keep some buffs in reserve against other possible predators it may encounter.
ask your players for a Knowledge check (or heck, an Int/Wis check) and let them know that an ambush that crude wouldn't work on this monster. A more well worked plan would though.
I agree with this, especially if your just going to rule on the creatures reaction.
The Paladin players behavior and attitude is really uncalled for. I would speak with that player and let them know that such behavior will not be tolerated, that they’ll need to keep it in check and respect the “Golden Rule”.
On a side note, I find it quite odd that has the Paladin of the group, that the Paladin would be the one suggesting that someone else take the risk of taunting the beast to come out. I would think he be arguing that he should be the one going in and the others trying to convince him otherwise.
|
|
Just another "you did the right thing" from a DM with 30 years or so under his belt.
Yeah, I only have 25 years dming under my belt (30 total with the game in February), but I wholeheartedly agree. Players should learn to roll with the punches, and b) not take everything so seriously. It's just a game, after all...
|
|
Were there any rolls made verses the ranges taunts (Wild Empathy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive checks) or his role-playing performance. Had he bluffed at playing as if he were injured, he might have instilled a more predatoral response from the creature.
If the group consists of experienced players, I'd have to put the onus here on the ranger to state which skills or class abilities he wished to use on the beast. Were the group made up of newer, less experienced players, I might take it upon myself to ask some leading questions of the ranger to describe better what he or she was doing to provoke the beast.
So I sort of agree with your point here, barring information that the players are, in fact, experienced.
|
A player has total control over one thing, and one thing only; his own PC.
Everything else is someone else's decision, even the actions of cohorts and henchmen, if the DM feels they're being mistreated.
They certainly don't control other players' PCs, though they can attempt to persuade them, in character, and using in-game time. The enemies don't sit still while they discuss tactics.
As for NPCs and monsters, definitely not.
Were there any rolls made verses the ranges taunts (Wild Empathy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive checks) or his role-playing performance. Had he bluffed at playing as if he were injured, he might have instilled a more predatoral response from the creature.How intelligent is the beast, had it been a long time since it had eaten?
Is sitting back and buffing up its normal response to all possible real threats, then it waits for its enemies to come in after it?
Had it become aware of the other party members? Even if not, it may have just cautiously investigated what the ranger was after without buffing up, maybe making his own spot and listen checks.
What I’m saying is that the creature likely only has a limited number of buffs so it may want to save some buffs if it still needs to go and hunt for its dinner or keep some buffs in reserve against other possible predators it may encounter.
I will repley to this I did not DM this but ..It had int of 8 , and thats more then enuff to know someone going "come get me ya big doody head" is a trap...it lives off fear, it loves to make fear, the ranger was not afraid, there for it knew something was up
I want to thank all of you for your thoughts on the situation.
To answer some questions that have cropped up;
It was around 1:30am when this happened, so we'd been playing awhile.
The ranger's player, while a great guy, is a bit of a newbie to the game. He basically yelled "nya-nya, can't catch me" to the Nightmare Beast. I said in my first post that I would give any reasonable plan a chance of working. I did not really consider this a plan with any reasonable chance of success. I did not consider rolling for a bluff check (in hindsight I wish I had) but there was not much chance of succeeding with the ranger having little charisma and with the bonuses to Sense Motive I would have applied to Mr Nightmare Beast to see through the ruse. Had he fired an arrow into it, I might have ruled otherwise (it was in complete darkness, good luck hitting it), but all he did was taunt it.
The wizard of the group made a couple of knowledge checks, and I when I told him about the beast I tried to stress that it was not a dumb beast that they were dealing with but a cunning monster. The paladin's player either did not hear or did not care. His attitude was "I put all this time and effort into my plan, how dare you just rule that it fails?"
Does anyone else feel that this is stemming from the "say yes" rule that is all the rage now?
More to come.
When I ran that adventure, the bard cohort cast some kind of rainbow pattern or similar spell, and the beast failed its will save and went prancing after the pretty lights... and right into the steam vent. But remember, falling damage is capped at 20d6, and Climb is a Str-based skill. The beast climbed out of the chasm, despite missile fire at it, and decided to eat the bard first.
|
Well in regards to the incident I would say you made the correct call. The monster having int 8 whilst not a rocket scientist is reasonably intelligent and if it has a decent wisdom score (14 or above I would say)
Has no chance in hell of falling for that ruse. If they had attacked or made it look like they were fleeing in fear then maybe it would have worked. Even then it probably would have buffed itself before giving chase.
|
|
If you're using point-buy, I hope that all players (especially the paladin's player) spent something on Int, to get it over the 8-9 range....or no-one rolled poorly...or got hit with ability damage...
Otherwise he's just told you that you're within your rights to veto any and all tactical decisions by any PC with Int equal to the contentious Nightmare Beast...
|
|
OP: Add another 10 years of DMing to back you up - with the addition of the Knowledge checks you supplied the characters with enough information to know their plan would not succeed. Good call.
In regards to the player in question, if this is the first time you've had to call the player on their behaviour then I would talk with them privately and ask if they are happy to continue playing. If this is a series of warnings from you, then ask them to leave the campaign. I'd also talk to your other players - they may be as frustrated as you. But if they appear to be on the side of the Paladin then maybe they want a different style of game and you should try and accomodate - or think about finding a new group.
|
...it doesn’t sound like you gave the plan an actual chance at succeeding, you just ruled how the creature would react and what it would do.
On the other hand, not every plan has "an actual chance at succeeding" even if it was "well crafted" from the player's point of view. Often players apply a fair amount of metagame thinking when planning, even if they don't intend to. They try to translate their real-world experiences to the game and then seem shocked when the plan doesn't go as expected. It is well within the DM's purview to tell a player the plan failed outright.
Were there any rolls made verses the ranges taunts (Wild Empathy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive checks) or his role-playing performance. Had he bluffed at playing as if he were injured, he might have instilled a more predatoral response from the creature.
Or maybe all the beasts of this ilk that have fallen for such tricks are long dead at the end of adventurers' swordpoints and thus any that are left are the ones clever enough not to fall for said tricks? This sort of thinking is what I call the Snowflake Fallacy: the player believes he is the only one ever, in the history of the world, to develop such a strategy and thus it has to be superior to anything foes (monsters or NPCs as the case may be) have ever experienced before.
|
|
I'd also talk to your other players - they may be as frustrated as you. But if they appear to be on the side of the Paladin then maybe they want a different style of game and you should try and accomodate - or think about finding a new group.
This is a great point, Jal. If the other players really do want such plans to work most or all the time, then you have a choice to make: move the game closer to their way of thinking or find another group. The game is everyone's game. Everyone needs to have fun. If the whole group is really not happy with the ruling, then a change is in order, because the responsibility is then back on you to craft the game the players want. In all of my DMing experience, I have only walked away from one group who's play style was so incompatible with mine that I simply could not accommodate their wishes. I have had to bend, sometimes a great deal, but have always manged to find a common ground with my players.
I would do as others suggested and talk the whole thing through out of game. Create a non-threatening environment to allow for open discussion and get everyone's thoughts on the table. This alone will help diffuse the situation. In the end, it is a win-win for you. You learn more of what your players want and your players learn that you are concerned about their game and willing to listen to their point of view. Only good things can come of such a conversation, really. I am sure that you and your players will find a common ground be it a tolerable change in your way of thinking or notice being served to the Paladin's player by the entire group that this sort of situation is unacceptable.
And now for a completely different take, well not entirely.
I feel you both were wrong. Oh no, I dare suggest a DM screwed up!
His behavior was obviously out of bounds, there is no call for that type of reaction. If he was so frustrated he should have just packed his stuff up and left saying he'd talk to you later about it when he had cooled off.
On the other hand, you decision to play the creature without any sense motive checks or Int checks or anything, gives the appearance that you are metagaming. You appear to be using your knowledge of the PCs' plan to dicate the creature's reactions. Now that might not be the case but without any kind of impartial way to measure this (rolls of various types) there is no way to know for the players. Even horrible plans have a certain minute chance of success (maybe the creature is tired and isn't paying close attention).
As for 4e being the cause of some "say yes" philosphy, I seriously doubt it. Seems like a weak attempt to make an argument to attack 4e (just for the sake of openness, I don't play 4e and have no interest in it). I seriously doubt anyone is playing with a "say yes to anything" mentality. But that doesn't mean that playing with a "say no to everything" mentality is appropriate. I suggest approaching this from a "say maybe to almost all things" mentality. Give things a chance, and roll for it so there is no suggestion of metagaming (or "cheating" as the case may be).
|
|
Pres Man: While I agree that the occassional Int or Sense Motive check is necessary, in this case the monster isn't a bloodthirsty kill-machine. It doesn't have to attack everything that wanders into its cave shouting obscentities. In this particular situation, forcing an Int check to avoid taking action is handcuffing the DM. The secondary buffing would be a natural choice.
The Int check or Sense Motice check should be used when an NPC would alter their course of action if they learned the relevant piece of information. If the DM decided the creature would not pursue a single adversary, that's his call.
The horrible extension of calling for rolls on everything is the reverse - not allowing the players to act on information without rolling (which seems to be what the Paladin player wants to avoid).
Ahhh 4E is there anything it can't ruin?
The horrible extension of calling for rolls on everything is the reverse - not allowing the players to act on information without rolling (which seems to be what the Paladin player wants to avoid).
So you've never had a situation like the following?
DM: A large giant humanoid shaped creature stands before you. It's hands have large claws and its skin is warted.
PC1: I get out my back-up flaming sword.
DM: Why?
PC1: It is obviously a troll, we all know fire or acid is needed to kill it.
DM: How does your character know it is a troll and what hurts a troll?
PC1: Everyone knows that.
DM: Make a knowledge check, if you make it I'll let you draw your back-up weapon otherwise you should stick with your standard weapon.
PC1: You mean I have to make a roll to take an action that I as a player know is obviously the right choice.
DM: Yes.
Clarifying more issues;
This is not the first problem we've had with the paladin's player. He is known to get on everyone's nerves at one time or another, and he's been told by myself and other players that he's being bossy and extremely irritating in telling others how to run their characters. The cleric of the group, for example, has had to walk away from the table in frustration before when he has told her that she made a wrong decision for her action in combat. When I tell him that his behavior is causing problems, he apologizes for the outcome of the behaviour but still justifies his actions in any way possible. I don't think any type of confrontation with him, threatening or no, is going to get him to change his ways. I am reluctant, however, to kick him out of the group, as he is the only one who has been with the campaign from the beginning. Everyone else were late joiners due to people dropping out (most have over a year with the game).
BTW, the paladin was the only one of the group who acted upset when I told them the outcome of their ambush bait tactic. The artificer, in particular, has a penchant for coming up with plans that either work spectacularly or fail spectacularly. He has never acted like this when his plans have failed.
YOu totally made the right call. Were the paladin playing in any group I run, or any group I play wiht, fot that matter, he would have been gone long ago. Such childish behavior is uncalled for. If, as your last post says, other people have had to get up and walk away to avoid ripping him a new one _repeatedly_, he needs to go. He's just killing it for everyone else, IMHO.
You could add a table rule that no-one decides or tries to influence the actions of other players (and in this case the DM). I used a similar rule for a player who kept advising other players. In his case it was well-meant, because there were 2 new players in the group, but I and some of the other players felt that this way they never got a chance to learn the rules. So we talked it over with the group and decided on this rule. And it works. It speeded up combat and got the two new players learning the rules faster.
If you use it, you should use it strictly for the first 2 or 3 evenings. Then everybody will be used to the new situation and you can relax a bit.
As for the encounter: if players are level 16, they cannot expect every monster to fall for every simple ruse. Higher levels do not only mean stronger monsters, but also smarter monsters and more difficult situations. So you were right in your decision not to let the monster fall for the trap.
|
Well in regards to the incident I would say you made the correct call. The monster having int 8 whilst not a rocket scientist is reasonably intelligent and if it has a decent wisdom score (14 or above I would say)
The monster in question is Int 8, Wis 10. Clearly not a genius, but at the same time, definitely not an animal intelligence running on pure instinct. According to the description of the encounter, he is explicitly "centuries" old. He is also explicitly aware that a party of adventurers are seeking him out, and has explicitly dealt with parties of adventurers sent on the same task.
So, no. I don't think "Nya, nya, can't catch me" has even the faintest chance of success.
That said, I'm not sure what buffs the OP is talking about, here. Near as I can see, all his SLAs are offensive. Personally, if I'm the beast in question, my response to an unseen voice calling me out is to blow Monster Summoning V on something with blindsight and a fast movement rate. That'll teach the ranger about being a smartass... :)
Ahhh 4E is there anything it can't ruin?
Just to clarify (once again) I have nothing against 4E. I plan on playing in a 4E game once this is campaign is through. What I have a problem with is immature gamers taking the "say yes" advice and twisting it to it's own ends. I doubt the paladin's player will be invited to said game if he does not change.
Anyway, I don't know if this is stemming from the whole "say yes" movement or the player being immature. Probably the latter.
|
|
I am reluctant, however, to kick him out of the group, as he is the only one who has been with the campaign from the beginning. Everyone else were late joiners due to people dropping out (most have over a year with the game).
I wonder if the loss of players over the last year might have something to do with the Paladin's continued attendance? Coincidence? You be the judge.
I am just sayin'...
|
|
On the other hand, you decision to play the creature without any sense motive checks or Int checks or anything, gives the appearance that you are metagaming. You appear to be using your knowledge of the PCs' plan to dicate the creature's reactions. Now that might not be the case but without any kind of impartial way to measure this (rolls of various types) there is no way to know for the players. Even horrible plans have a certain minute chance of success (maybe the creature is tired and isn't paying close attention).
I can't agree with you here. Using this approach, the dice are bound to fall out for the players at least some of the time, so even if the players devise 20 horrible plans in a row, one of the plans will statistically work (assuming success/desired roll of 20 on a d20. Note that it is likely that more than 1 terrible plan out of 20 will succeed with the wonky way skills modifiers may be applied in 3.5, since a 20 need not always be rolled to acheive the desired result). Horrible plans are just that - horrible - and in this case it was a Bad Plan.
Pres Man: While I agree that the occassional Int or Sense Motive check is necessary, in this case the monster isn't a bloodthirsty kill-machine. It doesn't have to attack everything that wanders into its cave shouting obscentities. In this particular situation, forcing an Int check to avoid taking action is handcuffing the DM. The secondary buffing would be a natural choice.
The Int check or Sense Motice check should be used when an NPC would alter their course of action if they learned the relevant piece of information. If the DM decided the creature would not pursue a single adversary, that's his call.
Once again Jal says it better than I could.
I just had another thought on the matter. I have nicknamed the Paladin "Harpoon Missle" (a real-world ship killing missle that can sink just about anything afloat, for those who don't know) because the player has built him around killing things with a mounted charge. He has a flying hippogriff mount, and with the spirited charge, mounted combat, and ride by attack feats he can attack just about anything with impunity and be out of range of retaliation if it survives the initial charge. Add the spells Rhino's Rush (add another multiplier to your charge attack) and Find the Gap (resolve your next few attacks as touch attacks) so he can power attack for his entire attack bonus and he can kill just about anything he can charge. He has been using this tactic for the past 8 levels or so and it has worked well. He brought down a titan two game sessions ago using this. The reason he may have thrown such a hissy fit is that he feels he would not be able to execute his "human-and-hippogriff-missle" tactic inside the confines of the cave. The paladin is only average in a stand up melee combat and does not have the best HP's, so it may have been a tactic to avoid being mauled in melee. If this is the case, it makes his behavior even more reprehensible. I will not bother asking him because he will never admit it if it is true.
I can't agree with you here. Using this approach, the dice are bound to fall out for the players at least some of the time, so even if the players devise 20 horrible plans in a row, one of the plans will statistically work (assuming success/desired roll of 20 on a d20. Note that it is likely that more than 1 terrible plan out of 20 will succeed with the wonky way skills modifiers may be applied in 3.5, since a 20 need not always be rolled to acheive the desired result). Horrible plans are just that - horrible - and in this case it was a Bad Plan.
So you are suggesting, what? That foes shouldn't ever make a mistake and fall for a bonehead trap? Seems almost a gamist approach from the DM's position or even a badly metagame one. Everything is going to make a mistake once in a while, not allowing for a chance of that happening is less simulationist. If you think the chance is extremely unlike, then get out the percent dice and go with something like a 1% chance of it working. Even though the majority of things fall into the middle regions of the bell curve, you have to allow a chance for things to hit those ends as well, even if it is an extremely small chance.
My suggestion would be to ignore the player next time he goes off on a rant and just go on with the game. When it's his character's turn to act, ask him what his character wants to do. If he wants his character to stand around and have a hissy fit, then move the rest of the party on with the adventure. If he refuses to calm down or disrupts the game for everyone, get up from the table and tell the rest of the players to call you back when they're ready to continue the gaming session while you go outside to have a brew, smoke, Mountain Dew or coffee.
Continue with this tactic. It's your world, you're the DM. Just because D&D is a game run by a person that players can argue with when things don't go their way doesn't mean you have to allow them to do so. Become a programmer, they can't argue with them. Just ignore him and forcefully move the game on. He'll either calm down or the other players will calm him down or kick him out of the game for you.
I've adopted this tactic in the last few months because I play with close friends whom I couldn't kick out of the game if I wanted to and my wife. They all love to argue. I've just started ignoring them and moved on with the game. I give one response to a rules question or a debate item. If they choose not to accept it, I move on without them.
Pretend you're Spock and that you are completely deaf to any speech by the players that don't directly relate to character dialogue or action. It'll be tough to pull off (believe me), but you'll run a smoother game in the long run. You don't owe them any explanations. If you agree with a point they've made about a rule or action in the game, incorporate it into the game without comment and move on. They'll very quickly get the point or decide that they'd rather play a computer game where their rants won't be heard at all.
|
|
So you are suggesting, what? That foes shouldn't ever make a mistake and fall for a bonehead trap? Seems almost a gamist approach from the DM's position or even a badly metagame one. Everything is going to make a mistake once in a while, not allowing for a chance of that happening is less simulationist. If you think the chance is extremely unlike, then get out the percent dice and go with something like a 1% chance of it working. Even though the majority of things fall into the middle regions of the bell curve, you have to allow a chance for things to hit those ends as well, even if it is an extremely small chance.
I am running a game for a group of modern day commandos. Their task is to sink an enemy battleship in port. The problem is, their equipment drop failed to happen and they are left with pistols and submachine guns. Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?
So you are suggesting, what? That foes shouldn't ever make a mistake and fall for a bonehead trap? Seems almost a gamist approach from the DM's position or even a badly metagame one. Everything is going to make a mistake once in a while, not allowing for a chance of that happening is less simulationist. If you think the chance is extremely unlike, then get out the percent dice and go with something like a 1% chance of it working. Even though the majority of things fall into the middle regions of the bell curve, you have to allow a chance for things to hit those ends as well, even if it is an extremely small chance.I am running a game for a group of modern day commandos. Their task is to sink an enemy battleship in port. The problem is, their equipment drop failed to happen and they are left with pistols and submachine guns. Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?
So boats make decisions to sink or float?
The wizard of the group made a couple of knowledge checks, and I when I told him about the beast I tried to stress that it was not a dumb beast that they were dealing with but a cunning monster. The paladin's player either did not hear or did not care. His attitude was "I put all this time and effort into my plan, how dare you just rule that it fails?"
Does anyone else feel that this is stemming from the "say yes" rule that is all the rage now?
You should talk to your player about his expectations first. It's clear that he thought the plan SHOULD have worked; presumably he saw the creature as easily drawn out to attack. There are many creatures for which such tactics would be effective: For example, Minotaurs (despite their low cunning) would likely charge to the attack, trusting to their speed and toughness to let them evade any ambush. Giants or dragons might underestimate the abilities of smaller races.
You played the nightmare beast as more cautious: Presumably other parties had stung it badly. It had learned that charging into battle with a party of adventurers was unpleasant, the pain detracting from its leisurely enjoyment of their terror.
Secondly, I would discuss his comments about your style. He needs to understand that you won't always see things his way, but you're responsible for ensuring that they have a fair challenge. If they only win because you let the monster fall for a ruse you didn't believe should be effective, you're doing the players a disservice. If your only intent was to ensure they didn't have a "cakewalk", that might be too "gamist", but that wasn't your motive.
(And now, the Oprah moment...)
After you've achieved understanding about your underlying assumptions, then you can address his approach. Explain how you feel about what happened, focusing on your feelings and frustration. Don't focus on his behavior being rude or inappropriate or he'll feel defensive. Instead, focus on your own feelings and perceptions. Let him know that you understand his frustration and your goal is to communicate more effectively, so everyone will enjoy the game more.
|
|
(And now, the Oprah moment...)
After you've achieved understanding about your underlying assumptions, then you can address his approach. Explain how you feel about what happened, focusing on your feelings and frustration. Don't focus on his behavior being rude or inappropriate or he'll fel defensive. Instead, focus on your own feelings and perceptions. Let him know...
Another great point. Regardless of his duties in game, the DM has responsibilities to the players that extend outside the game. Showing a willingness to listen, to work toward a common goal and to prevent disagreements in the future by thorough communication is critical to the group's long term success and enjoyment of the game.
Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?
Does a pistol inflict enough damage to overcome the hull's hardness? When there are concrete rules governing a task, that takes a lot of the onus off of the DM to make up a ruling on the fly, as it were.
I am running a game for a group of modern day commandos. Their task is to sink an enemy battleship in port. The problem is, their equipment drop failed to happen and they are left with pistols and submachine guns. Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?
These guys need to keep it honest. If they expect that the "Say Yes" philosophy means "Play Doormat", they don't understand what it's about.
If someone wants to bludgeon me with "gamist" or "simulationist" titles, I'd have to ask them what they pictured happening. What is their vision of success? If their plan is to snipe with small arms while munitions are loaded onto the ship, dropping a pallet of high explosives into an open hatch above the ship's magazines, they have a chance. If their plan involves sinking it by shooting through 17" thick armor plates, they'll need to do some pretty fast talking.
People who sling around such phrases ought to watch more war movies and Hong Kong action films, where the melodramatic endings often involve the protagonists dramatically expiring. What fun would adventuring be if heroes never died?
I am running a game for a group of modern day commandos. Their task is to sink an enemy battleship in port. The problem is, their equipment drop failed to happen and they are left with pistols and submachine guns. Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?
That´s a good example. I would allow a slim chance even to such a plan.
What if they hit a locked bullseye to the armory (which incidently was just opened by a crewman) ? What if the shooting causes panic and some idiot pushes a wrong button on that battleship, causing a series of catastrophic events ?Of course the difficulty depends on many factors:
How long will they shoot at the hull ? How long until fire will be returned ? What could happen in the meantime ?
Often the fun begins if idiotic plans work or genius plans fail (by dice rolls)
And when the results are completely different than planned, the REAL fun begins
(excuse my poor english)
If someone wants to bludgeon me with "gamist" or "simulationist" titles, I'd have to ask them what they pictured happening. What is their vision of success? If their plan is to snipe with small arms while munitions are loaded onto the ship, dropping a pallet of high explosives into an open hatch above the ship's magazines, they have a chance. If their plan involves sinking it by shooting through 17" thick armor plates, they'll need to do some pretty fast talking.
great example, i agree that it´s all about a creative way to deal with a situation.
The solution the paladin suggested was more like shooting the 17" thick armor plates.
Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?Does a pistol inflict enough damage to overcome the hull's hardness? When there are concrete rules governing a task, that takes a lot of the onus off of the DM to make up a ruling on the fly, as it were.
Exactly, following the rules of a game isn't really a philosphy issue.
p.s. I fixed the quote, it was Lich-Loved that made the statement, not me.
|
|
Does a pistol inflict enough damage to overcome the hull's hardness? When there are concrete rules governing a task, that takes a lot of the onus off of the DM to make up a ruling on the fly, as it were.
I just didn't see any rules for this case. Hence the DM needs to invent something on the fly. Being an arbiter of the rules and covering the areas that aren't in the rules is the DM's job. I wouldn't call it an "onus" because it isn't a burden (at least not to me). I suppose in a perfect world a rule would exist for every conceivable situation. Obviously this is not the case here, and this is where the DM has full ability to step in. As you well know, the DM can change any rule even if it does exist for a situation as long as he is consistent about the new rule in the future, so again, it's back to the DM to make the call.
BTW, my example above was just that, an example. I am not running a modern game where the players concocted such a plan. I was pointing out that some tasks are so remotely unlikely that rolling the dice to see if they occur is a pointless exercise. The chance of someone sinking a battleship with a pistol falls into the same probability as the shooter being struck by a ricochet as he attempts the task (and being struck by the ricochet is actually more likely). Who would want to roll for that?