Pardon me, but an "arrest shaving"? Heh... I just found that a little funny, sorry. :-)
Prevents lice and such from spreading to all the prisoners. Still it is a little funny.
Even funnier if you consider that -at least from the way the PC describes it- it kinda sorta looks like the guards more or less shaved them on the spot, before actually throwing them in jail.
Thoughtful. :-)
Heh, we now have both sides of the story. Somewhere between them, I suppose, lies the truth.
However, given the information currently available, I would have to say yes. The GM was indeed out of line.
Metagaming as a player is bad, as a GM it's gamebreaking.
Okay,looks like the above is resolved. I'll post my question here and hope for help from the group. I appreciate, in advance any and all help provided. (Threadjack in progress...)
Group dynamic: 1st level party of experienced players from previous additions; group is inexperience with rules core mechanics of 3.5.
Background: Exploring a long forgotten burial mound the group agitates and then enters combat with a beetle swarm and another creature. One of the characters was created as a bookworm type who has multiple knowledge skills maxed. Rolls are made and the character explains to the rest of the group the qualities and skills of a swarm. Players look at studied spells and quickly realize they are going to have a problem. They break out torches and begin lighting them so that they can do fire damage to the swarm.
How we played it: I was able to find rules for throwing something at a target but not for holding a burning thing and burning someone. Although I’m just now thinking it should have been a touch attack (might have just answered my own question) unable to find a reference point we decide that fire damage from the torch = 1pt of damage and you are required to either throw the torch or be able to threaten the swarm from an adjacent square. Characters as a group opt to threaten the square and do 1 point against the target. Players begin to think of carrying multiple torches to do more damage. I quickly rule 1 torch per hand max. I let them know that this is how we are playing it this session because we don’t want the game to drag to a stop while everyone reads rules. I explain I’ll have a formal ruling for next session and explain it so that everyone is on the same page moving forward.
Questions/reason for posting: Should the characters have had to roll ‘to hit’ with the fire from the torches? Also, does anyone think that a swarm of beetles would attack the source of the problem or shy away from until backed into a corner? This didn’t actually happen but I can see them trying something like this in the future.
Again, thanks a lot. I appreciate your time and effort. I’ve found this site to be a priceless resource in my gaming arsenal.
Thank you.
J.
|
Funny, Judas, here's how I remember that game happening:
Sounds like you both had some serious lack of communication. Demon you as a player could have asked more questions. If the moneylender told you that it would take another day to get the money, that in and of itself should have sent some red flags up for you as both a player AND a character. No roll needed, Had it sent up a red flag (Which you implied it did not) then and only then you would have received a sense motive check. If you need a plot device to further any thing as a character then you need to check motivations in what you are doing.
Descriptions via a DM are going to be sometimes bleak... if you had questions for what you did then asking new questions would have been a good thing to do.
This does not fall completely on either the players shoulders nor the DM's shoulder.
If you as a player had some major problems with the DM in question though then you might want to A: quit or B: find a new GM with in the group (After discussing it with the ENTIRE group) and abiding by their decision as a group. Not getting upset while describing why you as a player want a new GM then.
Getting ticked off at the DM because some actions are on both of your shoulders did not help your situation either. I do not believe that we got the entire truth from either of your stories to us, of which is not of any consequence. Communication is the cornerstone of the game though, if you as a DM do not describe the situation as well as one can and you as a player do NOT ask questions or come to assumptions that lordlings need to walk in a huge entourage or need to dress extravagantly should have asked more questions.
Arguing about it during the game goes no where either. BTW I will not even mention the Natural 20 diplomatic roll because others have covered that well even after your single reply thus far.
Good luck
To borrow a well-known line, "What we have here... is a failure t' communicate." The DM did err in not clarifying details of the victim's apparent social status and should have offered more clues as to the moneylender's apparent incorruptability. After that, I don't find his calls all that unreasonable.
Assuming the moneylender is a man known for high integrity, closely allied with the local lord, of course the town watch takes his word over that of a group of "rootless mercenary adventurers".
If the town sits in a rugged wilderness or similarly-dangerous area (the sort of area where adventures occur), it's likely to have a strong town watch or militia. A band of adventurers is likely to be seen as exceptionally dangerous, so the guardsmen will pull out all the stops. They'll wake up the off shift guards to ensure they have "backup".
After the lethal brawl with the guardsmen, the PCs are going to be locked up securely, not just held in the lord's woodshed. To be credible, an escape plan would need to be truly exceptional. Cutting off prisoners' hair was not uncommon in the Middle Ages or Renaissance, both to fight vermin and to reduce any magical powers they were believed to possess.
I feel for your group. As a DM, I've had games so "south" on me, spinning in entirely the wrong direction. Possible plot hooks were overlooked, clues weren't noticed, and the game bounded off the rails into uncharted territory. As a player, I've been in games where our expectations and the DM's were not on the same page. That's not fun.
I'd suggest giving the DM a break. He may have made some mistakes, but not everything that went wrong was his fault.
|
|
I feel for your group. As a DM, I've had games so "south" on me, spinning in entirely the wrong direction. Possible plot hooks were overlooked, clues weren't noticed, and the game bounded off the rails into uncharted territory. As a player, I've been in games where our expectations and the DM's were not on the same page. That's not fun.
I'd suggest giving the DM a break. He may have made some mistakes, but not everything that went wrong was his fault.
I agree
Questions/reason for posting: Should the characters have had to roll ‘to hit’ with the fire from the torches?
From the PFSRD: "If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage." It seems you got it about right.
For Demon9ne. Thank you for posting. It's good to see other perspectives. A few points came to mind as I read your post.
Your GM should probably have described the noble and his home better. Still the key words here are "noble" and "large house". This means someone important, someone with power and money. That's how medievil society works.
Taking only one gem still means he will be g*# d~@ned pissed off at you. However as has been said several times if the GM did not give you a sense motive check on the merchant then shame on him. Of course most players I know would have asked for one, but realisticly you shouldn't need to ask.
Here's how the guards conversation with the his lord probably went before he showed up:
Lord: These people have my stolen gem get it back.
Guard: Are you sure they have it my lord?
Lord: Yes. Either get it back or expect to be whipped right along with them.
The guards probably weren't told to search you in case you had it. THey were told you had it and to bring it back or find a new line of work. This is not modern day. They don't need evidence to arrest you. They just have to want to arrest you. It wasn't that they were psychic, it's just that they didn't care about evidence and had been given orders.
How many guards do you expect in a 600+ person town. Me I'd expect a minimum of 30 to 40 and almost all of them would be there when the lord gets mad and demans something be done. More importantly you decided to SHOOT THE GUARDS. Had you not done that maybe you hide the gem somewhere when they aren't looking but after they've stopped searching the room. Then keep protesting your innosence and with a few diplomacy roles they believe you, release you with appologies and go have a word with the "lying" moneylender.
As for them finding the gem and how they treated you. It may have been unnecessarily graphic, but it was better treatment then you should have gotten. Remember you just murdered 11 of their friends.
Describing the place as Fort Knox and denying any chance to escape is not something that the GM should have done. However it should have taken a miracle or some incedible planning and RP to pull it off.
At court. Whether they found the gem or not doesn't matter. Also I don't care how good your alibi was. You murdered 11 guards. That's the main crime here, not the gem anymore. There isn't a diplomacy check in the world that can cover that up. I wouldn't care if you rolled 47 nat 20's in a row.
It sounds like your GM did run a few things badly and missed some good chance for RP. However you killed 11 city guards and are getting your comeupance for it.
+1
And as an aside, the jail break idea has possibilities.
Who knows, it could be fun. (Oh, and as someone else suggested, maybe that lordling/mayor is a disguised oni, ogre mage, or a rakshasa and during this next story arc (if the jail break/escape succeeds) the PC's can find this out, and try to clear their names and show the townsfolk the truth about their lord/mayor).
Okay... that's my 2cp +...
Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm
Although both accounts, the DM's and the PC's, are a little different, they do have at least one thing in common, which is the following:
Guards came to question or arrest them and a fight ensued, during which 11 city guards were killed and the PCs were overpowered in the end.
My opinion? It should have ended there. The town guard, i.e. its law enforcement, found themselves in a fight with people that did not hesitate to use lethal force. Whether the PCs were guilty or innocent became a moot point the instant the first guardsman was killed. There should be no arrest, no "arrest shaving", no imprisonment and no trial. It was well within the rights of the city guard to use lethal force as well, since they were clearly in mortal danger the moment the whole thing escalated.
If something had happened between the fight and the trial that led to the PCs somehow escaping -i.e. some sort of adventure hook- then by all means, call it DM fiat. As far as I can tell, there was never any way out from the moment the PCs were losing the fight with the guards and could not retreat.
Long story short, no point in the events after the fight with the city guard. I am saying this based on my understanding that no way out was given, e.g. town prison being likened to Fort Knox, which rather effectively discouraged the rogue from trying anything.
Just my opinion of course. After all, without actually witnessing the game in question, none of us can be absolutely sure how it all played out. :-)
In my opinion, the party was dead the moment they decided to fence the lord's stolen goods in his own town of 600.
Also, if a natural 20 Diplomacy roll spares characters from executions (which it doesn't by RAW), then 5% of all convicted criminals talk their way out of a sentence.
A small town like that isn't going to see guards as mere law enforcement. Once there are 11 dead, they are going to counter-murder you without consideration to do process, even in you live in a world where magna-carta style rights exist. You'd be lucky to be denied a jury in such a trial. See Deliverance.
How it happen doesn't matter. The thing is no roll is gonna let you slide on killing 11 guards. It does not matter if they were good or bad guards, the fact is the PC's killed them. You can't talk your way out of that.
|
I do think the DM failed... even by his own description of the events and without the player's input. I just don't see where he left an option for this to be fun for the players. However realistic it was that they'd be beaten, shaved, etc., where is the opportunity to make this fun?
I'm sure someone will speak out on behalf of realism... and, yeah, this was realistic, I suppose. But Pathfinder is a fantasy game. We're not playing it to simulate realism. We're playing it to use realism as a springboard to fantastic adventure. There were opportunities here for the lord to step forward and drop the charges (in exchange for a little favor from this adept group of PC's who have demonstrated questionable scruples). Or the town may have agreed to lesser or even dropped charges (if the PC's would take care of some monsters that live too close for comfort). A strange benefactor could have swept in and freed the PC's - perhaps in the moments before their execution - giving them the difficult choice of carrying out some dark tasks or accepting the fate that was originally designed for them.
Just a little side-note on the "Auto-success on a 20 for Skills" mistake, you just can't have skills work that way. For many of the skills, there are no defined results... and for those where there are, the results are based on the numbers (Die result plus bonus), not a particular die roll (figuring distance jumped, for example). Just as it would be unreasonable to expect to jump across a continent because you said, I try to jump to the other side of the world." and happened to roll a 20, you can't expect to talk a diabolist into becoming a Paladin with the same simple roll on Diplomacy. Similarly, a 1 is not an auto-fail.
|
If it pretty much boiled down to "Told the players a nat20 is an auto-success, and then said the nat20 failed", then the DM made a cardinal failure: changed the game's rules partway through the game.
The PCs did get a success; they improved the judge's attitude to 'wants to see them killed', which is an improvement on 'wants to leap off the bench and strangle them to death with his own hands'.
:)
|
Questions/reason for posting: Should the characters have had to roll ‘to hit’ with the fire from the torches? Also, does anyone think that a swarm of beetles would attack the source of the problem or shy away from until backed into a corner? This didn’t actually happen but I can see them trying something like...
With beetles? I'd see them heading away from the hurty light more than anything else, unless this are bloodthirsty hunger-crazed beetles in full blown kill-eat-kill-eat mode.
|
|
There's nothing wrong with your ruling about how that played out, but you should try not to "fast forward" ahead to the execution too quickly. Even a death sentence can be an adventure hook.
Very true. If you want to end the current campaign, you've hit a good point to do so. If you want to continue the campaign (with the current characters) you have options.
The lord (or some well-connected organization) could stop by their cells and make them an offer of employment. Arrangements could be made to fake their deaths (hang a corpse, execute some other criminal, etc) in exchange for the PCs doing ... whatever. Insert adventure here.
Or the PCs could get swept up in a jailbreak attempt or prison riot, and flee to the countryside with a group of hardened NPC criminals. In order to avoid the pursuing guards and their dogs the group takes shelter in a cave/dungeon/whatever. Insert adventure here.
You can end the campaign, or springboard the situation into another adventure and carry on.
Funny, Judas, here's how I remember that game happening:
Through lack of any significant plot development, we opted as a party to make some money the old-fashioned way, and watched the city square for a few minutes. We noticed a noble walking alone (hardly a lordling, without any accompaniment whatsoever) and followed him home.
Right about here I lost any sympathy I may have had for the players. Also, it reminds me why I rarely allow evil PCs.
This always amazes me.....
You realize that there are DM's who can run either good PC's or Evil PC's and a few DM's who can run both!
In other words get another DM (one capable of dealing with evil acts)....
The reason I say this is the absolute must in the DM's response to a basic theft......that you !must! be caught and must be punished.......OR
Play PC's that always do the right thing and never do anything that offends your DM's personal belief system.......I would say after the posts I would get a new DM!
There is evil and there is stupid. The sentence for theft is jail. The sentence for murder is death. Fought the guards because you thought you could take them. You were wrong. The moneylender told the guard you had the gem. That means the known you have the stone. You hid it in you hair? You should have baked it into a bread and carryed it out of town.
They "cased" the square? They then followed a guy home and stole the most expensive thing in the whole town and tried to fence it with the only money lender in town. Who was he going to sell it to? A rustic trade town? Was it named Dodge or Tombstone?
They acted as a party and was punished as a party.
Thief rule zero... Know the name of the guy you rob or kill him.
They robbed a house of an item that was likey above the gp limit of the whole town. Big score big planning. You pickpockets for extra money. You rob a house you need to know you and what.
Mr. Fishy stands to his earlier post. They screwed up and the DM came down on them for it. A natural twenty on a skill check is nice it helps off set the -20 modifer to the roll.
Hm, while I agree that both sides were a part of the problem, I have to say I'm agreeing with the GM here. While he may have missed a few calls, this seems to be more a case of 'we're PCs, we're immune' syndrom.
So, as I see the events, PC group enters a moderately sized border trade town and decides to make a little money the easy way. So, without any gather info/kn: local/streetwise rolls, you spot a lone, rich-looking mark and follow him home. I guess we should be glad you didn't mug him on the spot. I'd call it one of your few smart actions over all. You then [I think] wait til the home is empty and break in. Still on smart mode, you only steal a few items...there seems to be a dispute on the items, GM says 2, PC says 1.
Unfortunately, you then try to fence the items to the town's *only* moneylender. Hm, hey, he's a money-lender, so he's got to be a pawnbroker and a fence as well! Moneylender recognizes the gems, once used as collateral and lies, saying he'll buy but needs some time to get the money together...again different statements; GM 'several days'/PC 1 day. Note I'm saying *once* used as collateral, because the Lord was still in posession of them.
Now this town has a population, as per the GM, of about 600 people. As per the 3.5 DMG, this makes it a village, with a 200gp price limit. So, who's got 1500gp of cash to give you?
Also, in a town of 600, given an *average* household size of 5, that's 120 housholds, so probably not only does almost everyone know almost everyone, they're almost all related in some way. Unless the town guard was brought in by the newly appointed Lord...who did not seem to have guards of his own... the town guard is someone's husband/wife, sister/brother, son/daughter or inlaws.
So, the moneylender, for reasons of his own, rats you out...maybe given the town money limit, he just didn't have it and wanted the reward [pure profit] instead. The guard shows up, you successfuly hide the gem/s, and the guard arrests you anyway. They HAVE evidence, the word of a respected, if not well-liked resident of the town. Then, instead of accepting arrest and coming up with that alibi in the cell, you start offing the guards.
So, now you're captured, searched before you have a chance to hide the evidence on the way and are facing trial.
Ok, so the judge's brother-in-law was one of the dead guards and his sister is demanding blood. Half the jury is related in one way or another to the dead guards. And all you come up with is an alibi for why you had the gem/s.
Sorry, but IMO, the PCs made bigger mistakes than the GM and deserve their fate. Stupidity has always been a capitol crime.
Oops, ninjad by Mr. fishie
Mr. Fishy Forum Ninja.
There's nothing wrong with your ruling about how that played out, but you should try not to "fast forward" ahead to the execution too quickly. Even a death sentence can be an adventure hook.Very true. If you want to end the current campaign, you've hit a good point to do so. If you want to continue the campaign (with the current characters) you have options.
The lord (or some well-connected organization) could stop by their cells and make them an offer of employment. Arrangements could be made to fake their deaths (hang a corpse, execute some other criminal, etc) in exchange for the PCs doing ... whatever. Insert adventure here.
Or the PCs could get swept up in a jailbreak attempt or prison riot, and flee to the countryside with a group of hardened NPC criminals. In order to avoid the pursuing guards and their dogs the group takes shelter in a cave/dungeon/whatever. Insert adventure here.
You can end the campaign, or springboard the situation into another adventure and carry on.
Funny, Judas, here's how I remember that game happening:
Through lack of any significant plot development, we opted as a party to make some money the old-fashioned way, and watched the city square for a few minutes. We noticed a noble walking alone (hardly a lordling, without any accompaniment whatsoever) and followed him home.
Right about here I lost any sympathy I may have had for the players. Also, it reminds me why I rarely allow evil PCs.
Hm, it's a border town? Schedule an invasion. The PCs have killed a goodly portion of the town's defenders? Well, the town knows they can fight. Earn your lives by defending the town.
|
|
CLARIFYING STATEMENT: *post intended for levity*
Everything else has been said and for the most part, but there is one thing left.
Why is the player rolling Diplomacy to convince someone of a lie?
Yes, out of everything, that is the one that bothers me. If you didn't Bluff, then you just admitted to gleefully slaughtering guards.
Regardless of the plan and BS line the players made up before getting into the courtroom, when they got there, it went like this:
-----------
PC 2: Just remember the plan dude! Self Defense, right? Not our fault, right?
PC 1: Yeah, stop bugging me man, I got it... [pause]... Your Honor! If it would please the court... we totally offed those guys! But that's ok, because I love your hair! Are you doing something new with it?
Judge: Why, yes! I purchased stock in Selson Blue and they sent me some free product! Thank you for noticing! Sentence is death.
PC 1: huh, I was sure our self defense plan would work...
PC 2: *Groan*... kill me...
Hangman: Gimme a minute...
Black Tom, Mikaze (love the popcorn), Thank you.
Do we agree it should have been a touch attack roll?
Before the argument carries on, I'd like to point out that GMing is really hard. One of my players has graciously described it as "overclocking the brain."
Even when you know what you should do as a GM, that isn't necessarily what ends up happening for any number of reasons.
A good player is patient and realizes that the GM is up against certain limitations. That's the best way to get what you want as a player anyway... I'm not talking about brown-nosing the GM, but just recognizing that the GM's workload is 4+ times the amount of a player's, and they are expected to think on their feet a LOT more. They don't always end up taking the actions they might have taken if they were allowed to think it out. A good player might still do something out of left field, but they should be ready for negative results — especially if the GM is honestly trying to move the story.
A bad player sees a GM like a video game — set up in advance to something a specific way, and if it screw the players it must have been intentional. That can be the truth, sometimes, but most GMs only end up screwing the players out of panic or miscalculation. As a player, the less you force the GM to panic and miscalculate, the less likely you are to get screwed.
In the case of this thread, I feel that's exactly what happened. The players put the GM in a position where he panicked and miscalculated. You'll note that I think neither the players nor the GM did anything wrong (okay I contradicted my last post).
|
I'm with the players. There should have been more description involving the noble and interactions with the merchant. Also, if they are in a small town and a noble walks in, wouldn't there be a roll for knowing who he is? Or automatically (just ask anyone who lives there) find out?
That merchant was a moron for selling them out. There are sooo many things he could have done in this scenario that would have benefitted him that the GM didn't take advantage of.
I'm thinking if the guy they robbed was the only noble in town, they wouldn't have brought such a well known item to the only merchant in town in the first place.
Also, where was the adventure hook in the first place? Player said that he was wandering around town aimlessly because there wasn't anything to do. What did the DM expect to happen at that point? A song and dance number on life in a small town?
DM just plain sucked, the players need to find a new one.
I'm with the players. There should have been more description involving the noble and interactions with the merchant. Also, if they are in a small town and a noble walks in, wouldn't there be a roll for knowing who he is? Or automatically (just ask anyone who lives there) find out?
My guess here is that perhaps the GM in question is a bit new at this, and has a hard time thinking on his feet. It's an acquired skill that takes a lot of GMing to get better at. Plus, even veterans can forget some details now and then. If the players aren't asking who it is, they either already know, or don't care to get an idea of what they're getting themselves into.
That merchant was a moron for selling them out. There are sooo many things he could have done in this scenario that would have benefitted him that the GM didn't take advantage of.I'm thinking if the guy they robbed was the only noble in town, they wouldn't have brought such a well known item to the only merchant in town in the first place.
The merchant did what he thought was right, or would most benefit himself. There's not much to say about NPC actions, really. If that's what they do, they have their reasons for it. Or, they just didn't think it through. NPCs can be all sorts of characters, even morons.
Also, where was the adventure hook in the first place? Player said that he was wandering around town aimlessly because there wasn't anything to do. What did the DM expect to happen at that point? A song and dance number on life in a small town?DM just plain sucked, the players need to find a new one.
So the first thing to come to mind is rob the richest guy in a small community? And sell back the goods in the same small town? And get away with it? These guys sound like a chaotic bunch (read: didn't think it through, much like the merchant). I'm not surprised if an inexperienced GM can't rope them into something anyway. It was a bad session overall, from the sound of it, but I wouldn't place it square on the GM in this case.
|
|
I'm with the players. There should have been more description involving the noble and interactions with the merchant. Also, if they are in a small town and a noble walks in, wouldn't there be a roll for knowing who he is? Or automatically (just ask anyone who lives there) find out?
My guess here is that perhaps the GM in question is a bit new at this, and has a hard time thinking on his feet. It's an acquired skill that takes a lot of GMing to get better at. Plus, even veterans can forget some details now and then. If the players aren't asking who it is, they either already know, or don't care to get an idea of what they're getting themselves into.
That merchant was a moron for selling them out. There are sooo many things he could have done in this scenario that would have benefitted him that the GM didn't take advantage of.I'm thinking if the guy they robbed was the only noble in town, they wouldn't have brought such a well known item to the only merchant in town in the first place.
The merchant did what he thought was right, or would most benefit himself. There's not much to say about NPC actions, really. If that's what they do, they have their reasons for it. Or, they just didn't think it through. NPCs can be all sorts of characters, even morons.
So the first thing to come to mind is rob the richest guy in a small community? And sell back the goods in the same small town? And get away with it? These guys sound like a chaotic bunch (read: didn't think it through, much like the merchant). I'm not surprised if an inexperienced GM can't rope them into something anyway. It was a bad session overall, from the sound of...
Also, where was the adventure hook in the first place? Player said that he was wandering around town aimlessly because there wasn't anything to do. What did the DM expect to happen at that point? A song and dance number on life in a small town?DM just plain sucked, the players need to find a new one.
I would have expected the richest person in town to have that in his description already. It's such a small town, it should have been common knowledge.
I'm saying that if they had known who this guy was, they never would have tried to sell it to the merchant in the first place. And they should have known who he was, if he was the richest person in town. Therefore, the DM was at fault.
I would have expected the richest person in town to have that in his description already. It's such a small town, it should have been common knowledge.
I'm saying that if they had known who this guy was, they never would have tried to sell it to the merchant in the first place. And they should have known who he was, if he was the richest person in town. Therefore, the DM was at fault.
I'd actually take it a step further and said this guy's place was guarded at all times with attack dogs and a sentry or two, so I get where you're going with that. My point is if someone in a small town has riches, then everyone also knows about that, making it easy to catch them if the PCs decide to sell ill-gotten gains in the place they got them. If the PCs decide to do such a thing, what happens next is in their hands, and their hands were stained with the blood of 11 guards. How is that not the group's doing?
I agree that things could have been run better, but I also think that the players were just messing around. If the hooks aren't there, or they're not picking them up, they're little excursion should have set things in motion towards the GM's goal. Since that's not what happened, the GM either didn't like the behavior of the PCs, and thought it was an irredeemable situation, or he just couldn't think of one and used the clear and obvious consequence from the community they robbed of 11 sons and fathers. If this was an AP, say, CotCT, they'd be executed swiftly and with a token trial at best, bottom line. Well, it wasn't, but the big picture is the same; don't kill law enforcement.
|
|
Ok not such a big deal....
Till all those extra people kept showing up to battle the PC's of course missing lots of info on this one for sure.
I think "missing information" was the key word for this whole thing.....
The PC's have nothing to do....
Spotting a rich guy they think hey how about a robbery?Assuming they broke into his house and stole a gem.....
Then it sounds like the DM captured them through using as many guards as it took!
Then made up all the other stuff after the fact, ie richest noble, and moneylender recognizes the gem (same carats/clarity/quality)..........
all "made up" after the capture of the PC's.......the jail for a town of 600 sounded really over the top
"fort knox"
Thinking mitheral bars and triple layers of masterwork locks, individual cells!
So all they needed was a german guy with a vendetta and a hot girlfriend to break into it?
Then it sounds like the DM captured them through using as many guards as it took!
You could be right about your whole statement, but this caught my eye. When's the stopping point where city guards just say, "Screw it, let them go."? I mean, they're friends are dead, just now, and you saw these criminals kill them in cold blood over a robbery charge. What's the limit on repercussions for your actions? 10 guards? If I go out and kill 10 cops, do they just stop trying to capture/kill me? This is just a silly meta concept, and not how you should expect a game to be run.
All the other stuff, yeah, you might be right, but I still don't squarely blame the GM for it.
|
|
Then it sounds like the DM captured them through using as many guards as it took!
You could be right about your whole statement, but this caught my eye. When's the stopping point where city guards just say, "Screw it, let them go."? I mean, they're friends are dead, just now, and you saw these criminals kill them in cold blood over a robbery charge. What's the limit on repercussions for your actions? 10 guards? If I go out and kill 10 cops, do they just stop trying to capture/kill me? This is just a silly meta concept, and not how you should expect a game to be run.
All the other stuff, yeah, you might be right, but I still don't squarely blame the GM for it.
They're probably just small, organized militia in a town of 600. However, in a small town like that, killing one person is a sure fire way to get ALL of the town chasing you down with pitchforks. Afterall, everyone in town knows Jimbob the Guard, and those bastards murdered him.
I think lack of information on the GM's part, and lack of direction was an issue. Now that the DM hopefully knows he did not provide enough info I would have their fighting prowess gain the attention of a benefactor. He springs them from jail, and in order to repay him they get their next mission(s).
|
|
The OP implies that it is a recent game and it is posted in the PFRPG advice section. The player who posted later seems to suggest it was played some time ago and using the D&D 3.0 rules if I am reading that correctly.
It was 3.0. It's technically in the wrong section, but it is an advice question--and it's somewhat story related.
It's funny to me how so many people in this thread are all "get a new DM" and "get a new player", as if the entire universe plays this game. Judas and I still get together twice a week to game, to get coffee, beer, etc... we're friends. We just have some old disagreements related to the dice.
Mr. Fishy does not think that a new group is needed but players need to understand that the world is not for them to destroy. In the Zelda games you could break jars and mow down shrubs. Mr. Fishy tortured chickens. Until the chicken attacked. Wait OK, Mr. Fishy was making a point. In Zelda no one cared if you trashed the place in Pathfinder the NPC's care and act. The party acted foolishly. The town punished them. Be careful.
If Mr. Fishy quit gaming every time some one in the group made Mr. Fishy angry, Mr. Fishy would not be able to play with Mr. Fishy's trollop.
That trollop is agro.
The OP implies that it is a recent game and it is posted in the PFRPG advice section. The player who posted later seems to suggest it was played some time ago and using the D&D 3.0 rules if I am reading that correctly.It was 3.0. It's technically in the wrong section, but it is an advice question--and it's somewhat story related.
It's funny to me how so many people in this thread are all "get a new DM" and "get a new player", as if the entire universe plays this game. Judas and I still get together twice a week to game, to get coffee, beer, etc... we're friends. We just have some old disagreements related to the dice.
I would just Soul Jar him until he came around to my side. You must be a new demilich.
What follows are some hypotheticals on how my players and I might have handled this. I'm not saying any of this to say how great my players are (though most of them are, and the newbies are learning!) nor how great I am (they come back. that's all the praise I need.) It's just the best way I can think of to hash out who-should-have-done-what in what I see is a SNAFU:
That said...
I expect my group would've handled this much differently. Assuming it came all the way down to the moneylender situation, my group - if they even green-lit this "come back later" idea - would probably have sent one member. (With one other member observing somehow and the rest off doing other stuff. Efficiency!) When the guards show up, that character makes up a cock-n-bull story to see if he can weasel out of the situation. If and when he can't, it's time for (1) a jailbreak and (2) a hasty relocation. My players usually consider multiple angles before doing anything not "on the clock." I can't imagine anyone I'm currently playing with suggesting anything so suicidal as an all-out assault on a town of 600 people - which, effectively, lethal combat with the town guard is.
Of course, I would've handled this differently, too. I would have introduced the town and important personages (it's not hard to suss out who's-who in a town of 600). I would've let them attempt the heist (I love it when my players come up with their own "adventure" ideas in their down time! Too often, they're far too busy for petty larceny ... and "good guys" besides.), but I'd litter the house with clues about this guy's personality (vengeful?). If there's a massive gulag sitting around in this hamlet, I'd certainly drop some hints at this time, too (construction plans? view from a window?), if I hadn't done so already. To not foreshadow such a strange oddity in a tiny town, only to have it "pop up" when needed would seem too much like I made it up on the spot as punishment.
But I also wouldn't include such a gulag in the first place, most likely. Not only does it make suspension of disbelief hard, what fun is a prison if your group can't break out? You DO want them to break out, right? (Of course, I could also have a devil show up, as the post above, or something like that.)
I'd also make it very clear to a character faced with the town guard exactly how many guards there were, and if they kept arriving once the alarm was raised (which they would. Also, in a town of 600, expect most of the friendly neighborhood populace would rise up against you as well). Assuming the characters somehow disregarded this and did kill 11 guards, I don't know how much of the rest I'd feel comfortable describing. Either they got away, or they did not. If they did not, they'd pretty much be killed. Time for some new PC's. If they did, the tone of the campaign changes to "desperate outlaws on the run!"
The only reason I'd even bother humiliating the group with a description of how their pc's were manhandled would be if I (1) wanted to make the point that these people were BAD and (2) fully intended the group to escape and avenge themselves later. Do anything else, and the group tends to think, rightly or otherwise, that you're power tripping as DM.
Finally, assuming we ALL got careless and let this situation play out as described, you can bet we'd spend a while sussing out what went wrong and where, and take those lessons into our next game. We may also take a straw-pull on throwing the session out - something I've only ever done once. ("It was all a dream!" We had a bit of a chuckle about it...) We're all human, and not all gaming sessions can be winners.
Out of curiousity I ran this by my players just before the game today.
One player said it sounded to her like the GM was trying to force them back on track with the guards coming after them.
All of them (including the one mentioned above) said that they were idiots for trying to waste the guards and that execution is what they had coming. Most of them were as surprised as I was that they survived to get a trial. The only quible with the sentence was that that good a diplomacy check might have gotten the guy who didn't fight off, of course that's only if the diplomacy check was specifically made to say "yeah, I don't know these guys, I didn't fight back because I had no idea what was going on."
Also your lucky that you GM is among the "the whole world is level 1" croud. In my game the town sheriff would have been 4 rogue/4 ranger and there would have been 10 to 15 guards who were level 4-5 and 10 to 15 guards who were level 2-3.
|
|
It's funny to me how so many people in this thread are all "get a new DM" and "get a new player", as if the entire universe plays this game. Judas and I still get together twice a week to game, to get coffee, beer, etc... we're friends. We just have some old disagreements related to the dice.
I've often wondered about that, too... I've been playing with the same group of guys since the 1980's (one since 1986). The newest guy in my group has been with us for 9 years... and I knew him for over 5 years before finally inviting him to a game.
I've played at conventions and kinda lurked at store events but the game is just a game unless you're playing it with REAL friends and I don't let people in easily and getting out is even harder... except for one guy who was a lying, dishonest, cheater whose every thought was based on how he could get over on everyone else. Isn't it ironic that he's a lawyer?
If it helps at all, despite DM'ing since 1978, I've still got major screw-ups in me. In a Shadowrun game, I forgot that the PC's were using cameras in their helmets (sitting on a table but video being sent to image-linked cybereyes) to keep an eye on a back door. The resulting firefight that should have never happened really tore up the party and revealed a secret about the BBEG that wouldn't have otherwise been discovered. Despite that, it was only fair that I retcon it... I had to ask the players to try their best not to metagame and replay the scene. It was better than telling them they had to eat it because I messed up (even if I quietly wondered why they didn't remind me right away about the cameras and thought the blame lay partially with them).
Short of a retcon, maybe you and your GM can come to some sort of agreement to ensure this sort of thing is avoided in the future. What works for me and my players is that, if we're working from assumptions, we're sure to voice them so the GM can point out what should be obvious flaws in our logic... sorta like:
"This guy doesn't seem all that important. Going under the assumption that he's not, we might consider robbing him."
Then he can tell you stuff like, "In the overall scheme of things, he's probably a petty noble, at best... but in this town, he's the highest ranking government official."
In the end, the story gets told, mistakes are avoided, you're still on your own for coming up with plans and free to do as you wish... just better informed.
-- snipped --
enters combat with a beetle swarm -- cut --
One of the characters was created as a bookworm type who has multiple knowledge skills maxed. Rolls are made and the character explains to the rest of the group the qualities and skills of a swarm. Players look at studied spells and quickly realize they are going to have a problem. They break out torches and begin lighting them so that they can do fire damage to the swarm.How we played it: I was able to find rules for throwing something at a target but not for holding a burning thing and burning someone.
You did not mention the rules-set specifically, but you did mention that the players don't know 3.5 well. You also did not mention what size the creatures in the swarm are.
Some swarms are immune to weapon damage (check the rules references for the swarm). In that case, the flaming torch is a weapon attack that has no effect (some rules treat a lit torch as an improvised flaming club).
At low levels, this is why alchemists' fire and smokesticks are useful. Before your PC spellcasters have the area-effect spells, they can buy (or find as treasure) alchemical items to help them with swarms. That said, swarms are really effective against low-level PCs without area-effect attacks yet.
Rules set=3.5
Swarm size diminutive (SP?) - Weapon damage immunity yes. But the fire damage caused by the torch would still be effective. One of my main questions was if they should have had to roll to hit, touch attack maybe, to score the fire damage.
you're right Urath DM, highly effective vs. low level group. The encounter worked well, everyone had a lot of fun, but I want to make sure that going forward, the encounter runs properly should they encounter another swarm in the future.
Thanks for the reply.
Rules set=3.5
Swarm size diminutive (SP?) - Weapon damage immunity yes. But the fire damage caused by the torch would still be effective. One of my main questions was if they should have had to roll to hit, touch attack maybe, to score the fire damage.you're right Urath DM, highly effective vs. low level group. The encounter worked well, everyone had a lot of fun, but I want to make sure that going forward, the encounter runs properly should they encounter another swarm in the future.
Thanks for the reply.
If all they are trying to do is stick the fire into the square the swarm is, then no I wouldn't require and attack roll. If they are trying to hit the creatures in the swarm for weapon damage, then yes they need attack rolls.
That's how I'd do it.
It's going to depend on the type of game you're running.
In some settings, things which make no sense in the real world, make sense in the setting (e.g. let's get ourselves caught so we can find out what the bad guys are planning).
So, ultimately, only you can decide.
But, all things being equal, I believe Mr. Fishy called it "a sack and a half of stupid". I concur.Now, having said that, the PCs might figure out a way to escape before or during the execution.
There's nothing wrong with that and would make for an interesting campaign for them to spend the rest of the campaign on the run for crimes they committed.
One of my favorite characters was constantly on the run. This was a FR game, I had a Wizard/Shadowcaster from Halruua, and he was on the run from his own government (yeah, and how the monarch was an epic diviner and all, his guys always knew where to find me). But that's the sort of game that we ran, YMMV.
Thanks Admiral.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
In character actions have in character consequences. And there's no such thing as a crit on a skill check, so the 20 doesn't help with anything except having some sort of impact on the crowd. Insofar as they were caught red handed and tried to talk their way our of mass murder, there's no Diplomacy check high enough to avoid the axe.
Screw them for being stupid, and for being poor sports. How is their poor planning and contempt for your job your fault?
Assuming you're playing in the quasi-middle age as most games are, the PC's should consider themselves extremely lucky that they even got a trial. In the real world if the noble lord whom you stole from catches you he doesn't put you in front of a jury of your peers. He puts your head on a spike in the middle of town with a sign saying "this is what happens when you steal from me."