There seems to be an implicit assumption
No, there isn't.
My first priority is for my players to have fun, then for me to have fun because they are having fun.
If a session passes and they all had fun, then i consider i won. And that it is a success.
I'm glad this works for you!
As a GM, I'd never agree to such a rule. NPC's are subject to NPC rules, PC's to PC rules while they have a ton of overlap, they are never one and the same.
(Keeps track of who agrees and who doesn't, so as to make especially sure never to be a player in one of the former peoples' campaigns.) Thanks!
As a GM, I'd never agree to such a rule. NPC's are subject to NPC rules, PC's to PC rules while they have a ton of overlap, they are never one and the same.(Keeps track of who agrees and who doesn't, so as to make especially sure never to be a player in one of the former peoples' campaigns.) Thanks!
Hey Kirth:
Sorry for the off-topic, but regarding HD:
I recently read on the boards that he has been incarcerated again. Why happened? When is he getting out? Is there anything we can do?
I know he and I don't always see eye to eye, but I believe him to be a good person. I'd like to help in any way I can.
@Bugley:
I've always seen my-self as more of an Intermediary between the players and the game world rather than a Dictator of the all the game that many of you seem to prefer.Little known fact (or so it seems): Those are not the only two choices.
I agree that there are not two choices but contend that their is in fact only one choice - 'Dictator of the all the game'.
Should the 'Dictator of the all the game' choose to impose rules upon himself, well that obviously falls within the powers of 'Dictator of the all the game'.
Presumably nearly all DMs in fact do have a whole basket of such self imposed rules and, I'm sure, if a DM plays for an extended period of time that basket of self imposed rules will change with some, that where previously believed to be critical to good DMing, being discarded by the wayside while new ones are added.
As a GM, I'd never agree to such a rule. NPC's are subject to NPC rules, PC's to PC rules while they have a ton of overlap, they are never one and the same.(Keeps track of who agrees and who doesn't, so as to make especially sure never to be a player in one of the former peoples' campaigns.) Thanks!
Again, I disagree strongly with the implication that a DM refusing to roll in front of the players is one that is going to cheat.
I'm a hardass with my rolls. If I roll a streak of natural 20s against my players while they are struggling to roll higher than a 7, that's just too bad. Conversely, if my monsters can't manage to hit, they may retreat or pull out, but they aren't going to get a magic save against the death spells, staggering criticals or anything else. I don't have any mercy just because luck is turning against my players or my monsters. I can always get more monsters, and even if the players are slaughtered, there are things that can be done. Maybe it is time to play a new character, permanently or temporarily. Maybe you can call in a favor and have arranged someone to retrieve and raise your body, ala the Faction Guide. Whatever, but I'm not going to pull punches that have already landed.
But I won't agree that the DM who is hiding her rolls is cheating you. And I won't support any argument that strips a DM of that right. A DM can roll in front of you if she wants, but it isn't a requirement.
Again, I disagree strongly with the implication that a DM refusing to roll in front of the players is one that is going to cheat
That wasn't what I was referring to, in the post to which you replied. The rule in question isn't rolling in the open, but whether NPCs and PCs use the same game rules:
If everyone agrees that the NPC and PC must all follow the same rules and the GM does not comply with the group's rules then he is cheating.
When I DM, my NPCs follow the same game rules that the PCs do. That means I don't provide them with magical plot immunity, abilities that don't really exist, etc.
|
Again, I disagree strongly with the implication that a DM refusing to roll in front of the players is one that is going to cheatThat wasn't what I was referring to, in the post to which you replied. The rule in question isn't rolling in the open, but whether NPCs and PCs use the same game rules:
If everyone agrees that the NPC and PC must all follow the same rules and the GM does not comply with the group's rules then he is cheating.When I DM, my NPCs follow the same game rules that the PCs do. That means I don't provide them with magical plot immunity, abilities that don't really exist, etc.
I agree with Kirth. GMs who fudge to save NPCs or create abilities in NPCs they aren't willing to give PCs tend to put the story they want to tell above the story that will happen if you let the game play out.
Every "failure" is an opportunity for the story to go somewhere unexpected.
|
I agree with Kirth. GMs who fudge to save NPCs or create abilities in NPCs they aren't willing to give PCs tend to put the story they want to tell above the story that will happen if you let the game play out.
I admit to being such a DM, but it comes more from being what my players want than how I think the game should be run. Were I DMing for Kirth, I would avoid fudging for his sake.
|
|
...or create abilities in NPCs they aren't willing to give PCs tend to put the story they want to tell above the story that will happen if you let the game play out.
What about using base classes or prestige classes for NPCs that you wouldn't let a PC use? I do this. For example, PC assassins are not allowed in the majority of my games (and it is a VERY rare exception for me to allow ANY evil PC in my games at all)...
But then, I REALLY liked the idea of those NPC only classes that appeared in Dragon Magazine back in the days of 1st edition...
I admit to being such a DM, but it comes more from being what my players want than how I think the game should be run. Were I DMing for Kirth, I would avoid fudging for his sake.
I agree with Kirth. GMs who fudge to save NPCs or create abilities in NPCs they aren't willing to give PCs tend to put the story they want to tell above the story that will happen if you let the game play out.
I do admit to giving special abilities to some of my NPCs in order to attempt to maintain a sense that the party was being challenged in my recent game. Most enemies (exceptional or not) were being targeted with save or die spells and being killed with often little fuss on the part of the party.
Rather than increase the levels of everything to increase the challenge, I just gave anything that I deemed of significant enough importance a few free rerolls (for saving throws and other defensive abilities). That way I felt I wasn't ruling immunity because of plot on important fights, but also so there wasn't just a 60% chance the boss would be killed in the first round by a single spell.
I recognize it is a bit arbitrary, but it feels the like the best of my options as far as time and entertainment go. If this is objectional, I would if it were better if (to increase the challenge) I increased the level of NPCs as opposed to giving them an advanced simple template, some rerolls, and calling it done.
If everyone agrees that the NPC and PC must all follow the same rules and the GM does not comply with the group's rules then he is cheating.When I DM, my NPCs follow the same game rules that the PCs do. That means I don't provide them with magical plot immunity, abilities that don't really exist, etc.
My statement was really general. Even in a case where a GM is expected to not fudge for the NPC's the players may overlook it for story purposes. Other groups may not. The social contract of a particular group determines what is or is not cheating more than anything else.
|
|
I do admit to giving special abilities to some of my NPCs in order to attempt to maintain a sense that the party was being challenged in my recent game. Most enemies (exceptional or not) were being targeted with save or die spells and being killed with often little fuss on the part of the party.
I should clarify that I fudge more in the PCs favor than the NPCs. If they manage to kill the enemy fair and square, it doesn't matter who that enemy is. And everything my NPCs can use, my PCs can use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do admit to giving special abilities to some of my NPCs in order to attempt to maintain a sense that the party was being challenged in my recent game. Most enemies (exceptional or not) were being targeted with save or die spells and being killed with often little fuss on the part of the party.I should clarify that I fudge more in the PCs favor than the NPCs. If they manage to kill the enemy fair and square, it doesn't matter who that enemy is. And everything my NPCs can use, my PCs can use.
I also want to clarify I'm not against the party winning, I just wanted an quick solution where they would not destroy every encounter they came across. If each week is the party effortlessly killing this weeks adversary, I feel like I failed as a GM because I see it has not being fun if there is no challenge.
Also, my view is sort of defined by a GM that ran a game like your last sentence, but reversed. "Everything my PCs can use, my NPCs can use." I would rank that game as the most disheartening and least fun game I've ever played in. The biggest thing that I've drawn from that game is that I don't really care if the same options are available to both NPCs and PCs because the GM playing by the "rules" is not the same as the being fair (and the GM "cheating" isn't the same as the same as being unfair).
I do admit to giving special abilities to some of my NPCs in order to attempt to maintain a sense that the party was being challenged in my recent game. Most enemies (exceptional or not) were being targeted with save or die spells and being killed with often little fuss on the part of the party.I should clarify that I fudge more in the PCs favor than the NPCs. If they manage to kill the enemy fair and square, it doesn't matter who that enemy is. And everything my NPCs can use, my PCs can use.I also want to clarify I'm not against the party winning, I just wanted an quick solution where they would not destroy every encounter they came across. If each week is the party effortlessly killing this weeks adversary, I feel like I failed as a GM because I see it has not being fun if there is no challenge.
Also, my view is sort of defined by a GM that ran a game like your last sentence, but reversed. "Everything my PCs can use, my NPCs can use." I would rank that game as the most disheartening and least fun game I've ever played in. The biggest thing that I've drawn from that game is that I don't really care if the same options are available to both NPCs and PCs because the GM playing by the "rules" is not the same as the being fair (and the GM "cheating" isn't the same as the same as being unfair).
I think cheating in the OP's sense of the word is when he(the GM) does it in a manner that is not fun. This is normally an adversarial GM.
I do think that you can cheat, and still have a fun game. An example is if you fudge to save they party.
Again, I disagree strongly with the implication that a DM refusing to roll in front of the players is one that is going to cheatThat wasn't what I was referring to, in the post to which you replied. The rule in question isn't rolling in the open, but whether NPCs and PCs use the same game rules:
My bad. I agree with that. The only thing that my PCs and NPCs have different in my game is that PCs are limited to Core and APG, while NPCs sometimes have stuff from 3.5 that didn't get replaced. Which is more of a holdover from us running Savage Tide than any attempt to give the NPCs the advantage.
|
Again, I disagree strongly with the implication that a DM refusing to roll in front of the players is one that is going to cheatThat wasn't what I was referring to, in the post to which you replied. The rule in question isn't rolling in the open, but whether NPCs and PCs use the same game rules:
If everyone agrees that the NPC and PC must all follow the same rules and the GM does not comply with the group's rules then he is cheating.When I DM, my NPCs follow the same game rules that the PCs do. That means I don't provide them with magical plot immunity, abilities that don't really exist, etc.I agree with Kirth. GMs who fudge to save NPCs or create abilities in NPCs they aren't willing to give PCs tend to put the story they want to tell above the story that will happen if you let the game play out.
Every "failure" is an opportunity for the story to go somewhere unexpected.
Actually, it works the other way round, at least with me. NPCs die much more readily than PCs. Not in combat with PCs, but with eachother. NPCs serve the interests of plot outside combat - I'll cheerfully do something to them that would be difficult to strictly pull off under the rules (the infamous "stabbed in the eye with a crossbow bolt" incident in CotCT) because if I want an NPC to kill another NPC to prove a point, I'll do it. Creating an NPC immunity (or, indeed, weakness) that interferes with mechanics that impact upon the players is, to some extent, cheating the players. But even there, there is a judgement.
I had a fairly throw-away villain (a barghest) in a PbP. He escaped (legitimately) from the first encounter, and since he went down well with the players there was a sequel. In that combat, a PC got a crit and dropped him from positive to lethal negative hit points. I was a bit disappointed, but decided on balance that the player had earned their kill, and the barghest duly died.
And at least one player expressed disappointment and they felt "cheated" by the death, as the barghest was a good villain and they wanted more of him. Again, which was more fun - a good kill against the barghest or a recurrence of a recurring villain the players loved to hate?
I think the assumption that players themselves would automatically be up in arms over "cheating" may be false - it is not just DM attitudes that matter here, but player attitudes too. They may be willing to tolerate a bit of fiddling of dice rolls if it gives a better "plot experience", if that is what they want. It will depend on the players. (Interestingly, the players in that particular circumstance are pretty much all DMs themselves, running PbPs here.)
NPCs serve the interests of plot outside combat - I'll cheerfully do something to them that would be difficult to strictly pull off under the rules (the infamous "stabbed in the eye with a crossbow bolt" incident in CotCT) because if I want an NPC to kill another NPC to prove a point, I'll do it.
That's Paizo's well-documented opinion as well, but for people like me and a number of the people I play with -- who will, as players in such a campaign, immediately try to reasearch and devise some defense against this new super-power -- it's a game-breaker.
Player 1: "Do we have any idea how that's even possible?"
DM: "I don't know, it just happened, okay?"
Player 2: "I attempt a Knowledge (Arcana) check to see if this some occult means of assassination."
DM: "You fail. Just drop it, okay?"
Player 1: "If we attack this person, we'll just automatically die, then?"
DM: "No, it only works against NPCs."
Player 2: "OK, guys! We need to figure out what's different from us and the NPC that just got killed. Maybe we can use that hint to devise a means of protecting our other NPC allies."
DM: "No! It's not a special ability! It just happens for no reason, OK? There are no rules of physics in game-land! Things just happen according to divine whim! There's nothing you can do about it! Don't put points in Knowledge skills, because you can't learn anything about a universe with no rules!"
Personally, i would be very annoyed by players luike that...
Advice: Don't play with scientists (especially geologists). A lot of us are players like that. We like to investigate, and figure out how things work, and how things tie together, and then use that knowledge. And we HATE games in which things happen for no reason, and don't tie together in any way at all, and in which you better just shut up and get railroaded and let the DM tell his story, because he's sure as hell not giving you any part in it unless it's the one he already has figured out for you.
Using the perennial favorite Keep on the Borderland as an example,
Note that Gygax specifically included notes about Scenario 2. He doesn't just say, flat-out, "everyone play Scenario 1 or go to hell."
Personally, i would be very annoyed by players luike that...Advice: Don't play with scientists (especially geologists). A lot of us are players like that. We like to investigate, and figure out how things work, and how things tie together, and then use that knowledge. And we HATE games in which things happen for no reason, and don't tie together in any way at all, and in which you better just shut up and get railroaded and let the DM tell his story, because he's sure as hell not giving you any part in it unless it's the one he already has figured out for you.
Using the perennial favorite Keep on the Borderland as an example, ** spoiler omitted **
Same way for me and parts of my group. The excuse 'because I said so' doesn't fly.
However I can respect the need to keep players on the path, at times, but at least try to hide the tracks.
Related to the central topic is players that know the Dungeon Master is running a premade adventure and do their best to screw up the story line. I've never experienced this as the Dungeon Master, but during a Rise of the Runelords game I was playing in one of the other players was purposely trying to derail the plot. I had to fight the urge to berate the other player for the clear attempts to fight the module and make the Dungeon Master's life harder.
Personally I'm the kind of Dungeon Master were if I was running an adventure path and one of my player's characters decided to leave the plot line for some reason (the earlier player want to go to Numeria) I would tell them; "Sure, your character leaves for far away lands and distant adventures. Now roll up a new character that wants to help with this adventure."
The trick is to keep the metagame out of the picture, and as a DM basically state what the character does or does not know. Never provide a personal answer like:
DM: "I don't know, it just happened, okay?"
DM: "You fail. Just drop it, okay?"
The above is going to bring the argument out of character. I know they are just examples, but regardless of the group there is what the character would know, versus the player of the character. As to the player, you have to leave the metagame out of it as well. Sometimes you just have to roleplay stupid ;p
The trick is to keep the metagame out of the picture
No!!!! The lack of a coherent metagame is precisely the issue here. If you refuse to admit to the players that there IS no answer to any particular question they're pursuing, do you just let them continue consulting sages and ancient grimoires looking for nonexistent answers, forever? Or do you heavy-handedly force them to abandon that path by imposing artifical timelines or some sort of other deus-ex-machina?
Hell, why not just tell them how the campaign is supposed to end up and spare them the headache of actually trying to read your mind as to the "correct" way to play it?
P.S. The following is NOT "metagaming":
Wizard player: "I cast fireball on him!"
That's not metagaming; it's intelligent playing. It's also impossible in a game that lacks a coherent metagame. For example, in this scenario, the DM decides to provide the same troll (which fled before)with plot immunity from fire the next time they encounter it, to "make a more exciting encounter":
(Wizard and rogue players go play elsewhere, and good riddance, because they're obviously "metagamers" who are just trying to spoil everyone else's fun, right?)
|
Actualy, i myself am a scientist, a chemist to be exact. Most of my players are scientists too. But they do not get worked up over a dead NPC shot in the eye. They do not look into every possible thing in order to understand something. It can be annoying at times.
When i describe a corpse with an arrow sticking out of his eye, they treat it as good fluff, not some obscure mechanic. That is why i hate metagaming. Metagamers in general have zero ability to actualy understand fluff.
Actualy, i myself am a scientist, a chemist to be exact.
He's got you there, Kirth. After all, a geologist is basically just a chemist who couldn't figure out liquids and gases, am I right?
;-)
Well obviously the DM is failing on his part in the second example, and it may force the issue back to metagaming to determine an answer. The first example is how I would roll with it.
When I stated roleplaying "stupid", I was referring to the character that may not know, versus the player, i.e. a scientist, chemist, etc.
Actualy, i myself am a scientist, a chemist to be exact. Most of my players are scientists too. But they do not get worked up over a dead NPC shot in the eye. They do not look into every possible thing in order to understand something. It can be annoying at times.
When i describe a corpse with an arrow sticking out of his eye, they treat it as good fluff, not some obscure mechanic.
Well, the actual scenario was
Let's face it, in their place, I would immediately start planning a campaign centered around gaining magic items and/or spells that make me immune to paralysis and instant-kill effects, as being a far more pressing concern than the lame plot-railroad sub-goals being spoon-fed to me.
Is the scene as written cool? YES! Do the game rules support it? No, not at all. To me, a good DM either (a) figures out some way to make cool things happen within the agreed-upon guidelines (aka the rules), or (b) amends the rules with houserules that allow the things he's after, with agreement from the players. Blatantly ignoring game rules in a way that specifically and grievously mislead the players -- regarding critical campaign elements and choices -- isn't cool.
After all, a geologist is basically just a chemist who couldn't figure out liquids and gases, am I right?
Certainly. In exactly the same way that a Candian is basically just an American who is indoctrinated into Communist propoganda and therefore gives all his money to the state and starves to death by the age of 30.
P.S. In other words, "not exactly..."
Anyway, doesn't matter. There was a big thread, and at the end of the day Paizo said point-blank that I (and people agreeing with me) were badwrongnofun, and most of the community rallied around that point of view, and now it's uncool to expect game rules to actually allow you to play the game you're supposedly playing.
I accept that I'm a heretic, and that I'm playing badwrongnofun. But it's still fun for me, and for a minority of other people.
I agree that everything should played within the context of the rules, which leads back to my initial post in regards to most arguments about cheating is often due to rules interpretations, or preferences on how they should be administered. Of course there is flat out cheating, but most the time that is easy to detect. In regards to metagaming I am refering to using knowledge outside the game to influence it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming
There will be times in the game where no amount of rolls will provide the information you want, even if you try to metagame. In those moments trust will bring you through when you figure it out later on.
|
|
I don't have a problem with the "cutscene" as my players would call it. It is perfectly fine. And if players think that there is some kind of magical effect or some such and are researching the way to counter it, let them.
Or just tell them that you did it for the sake of the story and that it seemed cool at the moment.
I don't see why is it badwrongfun. My NPCs, i can do whatever the hell i want with them, rules notwithstanding.
I don't have a problem with the "cutscene" as my players would call it. It is perfectly fine. And if players think that there is some kind of magical effect or some such and are researching the way to counter it, let them.
That takes the entire adventure path off the rails. I'd be OK with that, but most DMs wouldn't.
My NPCs, i can do whatever the hell i want with them, rules notwithstanding.
That's where we disagree.
When I DM, I'm SHARING a coherent game world with the players, not dictating a random and capricious one.
There will be times in the game where no amount of rolls will provide the information you want, even if you try to metagame. In those moments trust will bring you through when you figure it out later on.
I'm okay with that... but not with scenarios in which all the rolls in the world, and all the roleplaying to support it, will never give you any reliable information no matter what the situation, because by the very nature of the game being run there IS no reliable information to be had. Everything is whim.
|
|
I didn't say that...i meant that i will have my villain come up and kill the major NPC hero and that there will be pretty much nothing my players can do. They can try, and i will take their efforts int consideration, but the villain will kill the NPC, for the sake of the story. He will stab him in the eye and the other guy will die. And if the players start debating about the fact that one hit killed him and that he shouldn' die from a single arrow because he has more hitpoints that that, i will curb stomp their metagaming efforts...cause that is metagaming in it's purest form.
A simple heal check will determine that the villain pierced the NPC hero's brain through the eye and that that is the cause of death.
|
That's Paizo's well-documented opinion as well, but for people like me and a number of the people I play with -- who will, as players in such a campaign, immediately try to reasearch and devise some defense against this new super-power -- it's a game-breaker.
Player 1: "Do we have any idea how that's even possible?"
DM: "I don't know, it just happened, okay?"
Player 2: "I attempt a Knowledge (Arcana) check to see if this some occult means of assassination."
DM: "You fail. Just drop it, okay?"
Player 1: "If we attack this person, we'll just automatically die, then?"
DM: "No, it only works against NPCs."
Player 2: "OK, guys! We need to figure out what's different from us and the NPC that just got killed. Maybe we can use that hint to devise a means of protecting our other NPC allies."
And this is what happens if you play a game with poor rules (AKA D&D/d20). Anytime a dagger/bolt-to-eye will not kill someone with one hit or is even possible mechanically you are going to have problems. The only issue here is a DM chose to go cinematic (maybe even realistic as far as end result) in a game which provides zero support for the same.
|
|
My NPCs, i can do whatever the hell i want with them, rules notwithstanding.That's where we disagree.
When I DM, I'm SHARING a coherent game world with the players, not dictating a random and capricious one.
Without having a shared world with your players, you functional go from GM to God.
There is an expectation in every game I've played that everybody on both sides is playing with the same rules, in the same world, with the same physics.
It is the great equalizer for players who want to try and "win" to realize anything they can do, the enemy can do.
If I was playing with a DM who I though was just making stuff up and not holding his side to the same rules...not interested in sitting at that table.
Why play a game that is rigged from the start?
And if the players start debating about the fact that one hit killed him and that he shouldn' die from a single arrow because he has more hitpoints that that, i will curb stomp their metagaming efforts...cause that is metagaming in its purest form.
Refer to the troll example as well. Obviously that's equally metagaming -- how DARE those players keep track of what happens in fights! The sheer audacity! Curb stompin' time! And if they try to exchange 1 gp for multiple sp, that's metagaming as well, because obviously the fact that it always worked that way in the past means nothing to a D&D character (who should obviously have no knowledge of the core rulebook, and hence of the exchange tables listed in it)?
If Draegorr the Fighter has lived through 300 fights in-game, and has seen, in all cases and without exception, that famous people/leaders can never be killed by a single attack of which they are aware, then for him to assume that this holds in the 301st fight as well IS NOT METAGAMING on his player's part in any way, shape, or form. It's observing how things work, in the context of the world in which Draegorr supposedly lives, and drawing conclusions based on those observations.
If, as a chemist, you always get an exothermic reaction when you mix two particular reagents, it's not "metagaming" on your part to figure that doing it again will result in the same thing happening, and not an endothermic one.
Yes, referring to a character's "hit points" is metagaming, but simply observing and remembering what happens in combat is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that...i meant that i will have my villain come up and kill the major NPC hero and that there will be pretty much nothing my players can do. They can try, and i will take their efforts int consideration, but the villain will kill the NPC, for the sake of the story. He will stab him in the eye and the other guy will die. And if the players start debating about the fact that one hit killed him and that he shouldn' die from a single arrow because he has more hitpoints that that, i will curb stomp their metagaming efforts...cause that is metagaming in it's purest form.
A simple heal check will determine that the villain pierced the NPC hero's brain through the eye and that that is the cause of death.
See this is my problem here....why must the NPC die? If the PCs are trying to save him....and have the oportunity to do so....why is it a 'good story' he dies? Why are you writing the end result already? What the is the point of being a PC in your game? What do you view the role of the players in your story?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that...i meant that i will have my villain come up and kill the major NPC hero and that there will be pretty much nothing my players can do. They can try, and i will take their efforts int consideration, but the villain will kill the NPC, for the sake of the story. He will stab him in the eye and the other guy will die. And if the players start debating about the fact that one hit killed him and that he shouldn' die from a single arrow because he has more hitpoints that that, i will curb stomp their metagaming efforts...cause that is metagaming in it's purest form.
A simple heal check will determine that the villain pierced the NPC hero's brain through the eye and that that is the cause of death.
See this is my problem here....why must the NPC die? If the PCs are trying to save him....and have the oportunity to do so....why is it a 'good story' he dies? Why are you writing the end result already? What the is the point of being a PC in your game? What do you view the role of the players in your story?
+1
If I want your story, I'll buy your book.
We all role play together and whatever happens, happens. The GM creates the world and the PCs invariably break it :)
|
|
See this is my problem here....why must the NPC die? If the PCs are trying to save him....and have the oportunity to do so....why is it a 'good story' he dies? Why are you writing the end result already? What the is the point of being a PC in your game? What do you view the role of the players in your story?
Because i set the scene in which it is highly unlikely that the players will succeed in saving the NPC. Maybe they will. Which gives me several hours of redoing plots and plot hooks. Because i want an emotional impact on the players who have grown fond of the NPC. Because i want them motivated to pursue the villain, for personal reasons.
Of course, on the other hand if the NPC was found one morning with a dagger through his eye in his bed, would you cry foul because i didn't give a chance for the PCs to save him? Boo hoo. The story revolves around the PCs, but not the world. And a lot of people have agendas that has nothing to do With the PCs unless tey want to get involved.
Maybe they will. Which gives me several hours of redoing plots and plot hooks. Because i want an emotional impact on the players who have grown fond of the NPC.
Wait... you'd cheat and/or deny the PCs a fair chance to act due to pure laziness?
Of course, on the other hand if the NPC was found one morning with a dagger through his eye in his bed, would you cry foul because i didn't give a chance for the PCs to save him?
Nope. But being killed by a dagger is within the established and agreed-upon rules of the game. Unavoidable insta-kills, in which everyone else is frozen and unable to intervene, are not.
The guide to Korvosa says that Marcus Endrin is 14th level-- 13 ranger/1 aristocrat. So, it's not at all stretching it to say that, when he got the surprise round, he used greater vital strike on Illeosa with his crossbow.
He's probably deadly aiming. Has point blank shot. His strength must be 14, maybe 15, and he's likely got a +2 weapon. So, -3/+6, +1, +2, +2 for 31 damage.
For reference, average level 1 commoner has 3-4 hp. A level 2 aristocrat/4 bard like Illeosa would have the average, since she's an npc. That puts her at 18 hp from bard, and 9 hp from aristocrat. Checking her stats in Crown of Fangs, she has a 28 Con -- +4 inherent from books, +6 from the Crown of Fangs. So, that puts her at 18 Con earlier-- wow, she's pretty hardy. I'll assume she put her +2 racial in Cha, and her +1 from this level also went into cha, so she's got a 6 Con modifier at this point (just crown of fangs, unknown if she has the inherent bonus from the book), which means she's got around 18 hp from Con. So, that puts her at 63 hp. Only 21 times as hardy as a commoner. And, immediately after that, on Illeosa's round, she regens 20 points of hp. So, she's fine. If Marcus Thallassinus Endrin crit, he'd do like 42 + damage. Let's assume he rolled an 8, and did 50, which is a save versus massive damage. Illeosa's got a 6 Con mod. That gives her a +7 bonus. The ring she's wearing in the finale gives her a +12 bonus on an optional DC 15 save.
Remember, this hp and that con are at the minimum, assuming Illeosa hasn't powered up like the text frequently suggests she has.
Illeosa then five foot steps, and makes a grapple attempt on Marcus. She probably rolls pretty well, since he's got a CMD of 30 or so and her CMB is likely around +6. I'm guessing there's a nat 20.
The next round, Marcus tries to break out using CMB, and fails on a nat 1 (her CMB is 20, and his CMB is +19 at the minimum). She manages to maintain, probably rolling very high again. I wouldn't be surprised if she used inspire courage with acting to give herself a bonus to these checks.
Nonetheless, she then takes the arrow and deals automatic damage with it. It's not her fault that the DM tells her to roll and she triple crits, which the DM rules an instant kill.
EDIT: This event also happens in the 3rd book when the PCs aren't even present. Why would you make a big fuss that nobody got to intervene when, uh... nobody was there to intervene? And that the GM didn't make anyone else intervene when the only other person there who's even close to Marcus's level is Cressida, who is 9th level, and probably won't deal as much damage? It's not like they would have gotten away. The crossbow bolt to the face is probably the least deadly thing that Illeosa could do at this stage, and she regens 20 a round.
As an aside, Illeosa could have also probably used bardic performance to fascinate.
Let's face it, in their place, I would immediately start planning a campaign centered around gaining magic items and/or spells that make me immune to paralysis and instant-kill effects, as being a far more pressing concern than the lame plot-railroad sub-goals being spoon-fed to me.
This is where we just ask you to leave the group because you're being both insulting and antagonistic to the GM and the game.
I'm just saying.
See this is my problem here....why must the NPC die? If the PCs are trying to save him....and have the oportunity to do so....why is it a 'good story' he dies? Why are you writing the end result already? What the is the point of being a PC in your game? What do you view the role of the players in your story?
Because i set the scene in which it is highly unlikely that the players will succeed in saving the NPC. Maybe they will. Which gives me several hours of redoing plots and plot hooks. Because i want an emotional impact on the players who have grown fond of the NPC. Because i want them motivated to pursue the villain, for personal reasons.
Of course, on the other hand if the NPC was found one morning with a dagger through his eye in his bed, would you cry foul because i didn't give a chance for the PCs to save him? Boo hoo. The story revolves around the PCs, but not the world. And a lot of people have agendas that has nothing to do With the PCs unless tey want to get involved.
A couple of points.....and I am not trying to be harsh or anything like others.
1) So you are going for emotional reaction.....yet get upset when you get one. Because players getting angry over the helplessness of the situration is a emotional reaction. Alot of player play a table top RPG because unlike a book or a video game you are not helpless when it comes to the story. You can save that NPC you really think is awesome.
2) It would not be a problem....and you would spend alot lesshassel if you don't plot the entire campaign. Question do you decide on the plot at the start of the game? Or after you get your players backgrounds? I think if you plot the campaign around your characters backgrounds than you won't have issues with motivating the PC as much. Also if you were more flexable with the plot than you would not have to rewrite anything.
3) Actualy I would not call foul...or go boo hoo(though I thought the point of killing off the npc was to get a emotional reaction....yet you insultive and dismiss it) if you kill the NPC in his sleep at night with a dagger...or even if the group had a chance and fail. I am not saying the PCs should auto succeed at anything here. I hate that as much as auto-failing anything.
4) Your last sentence strike me as curious...the campaign definitly revolves around the PCs....and things do go on the world that the PCs may not become involved in....but in your example with killing off some NPC and not letting them actualy get involved in stopping it...does not the story stop revolving around the PC? Has a new player in your game why should I care about NPC x who you are just going to kill off and I can do nothing about it...sure the first time you do it...I would be invested in the npc...but after the third time you do it I would stop getting invested in NPCs in your game because they are just plot devices their job is to die.
being killed by a dagger is within the established and agreed-upon rules of the game.Isn't it in the RAW, that if one were to use an arrow as an improvised weapon, it does 1d4 points of damage just like said dagger?
Not arguing for or against, just saying...
I am thinking he is more saying coup de gracing somebody in their sleep is within the rule. Just shooting somebody in the eye is not and killing them is not.
Heck I am sure he would not have a problem if he find a guy getting killed in his sleep with a crossbow bolt in the eye as that is within the rules.
I didn't say that...i meant that i will have my villain come up and kill the major NPC hero and that there will be pretty much nothing my players can do. They can try, and i will take their efforts int consideration, but the villain will kill the NPC, for the sake of the story. He will stab him in the eye and the other guy will die. And if the players start debating about the fact that one hit killed him and that he shouldn' die from a single arrow because he has more hitpoints that that, i will curb stomp their metagaming efforts...cause that is metagaming in it's purest form.
A simple heal check will determine that the villain pierced the NPC hero's brain through the eye and that that is the cause of death.
See this is my problem here....why must the NPC die? If the PCs are trying to save him....and have the oportunity to do so....why is it a 'good story' he dies? Why are you writing the end result already? What the is the point of being a PC in your game? What do you view the role of the players in your story?
+1
If I want your story, I'll buy your book.
We all role play together and whatever happens, happens. The GM creates the world and the PCs invariably break it :)
+1 again.