Isn't this, in fact, the real reason for your frustration?
Not that the players, as a whole, acted in a way that was unexpected, but that one player continued to act in a way that was easily predictable?
This. If you have a player doing this kind of thing and getting away without the consequences all the time, that's your real problem.
Yup keep track of the character's alignment, wouldn't he be surprised if suddenly paladins were detecting him as evil...
Some of you guys just won't rest until you've had the chance to successfully vilify me, will you?
What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?
Some of you guys just won't rest until you've had the chance to successfully vilify me, will you?
What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?
Ohhh, only that fact that 95% of your posts are these drama posts and posts dealing with ways of bending/twisting or mutating rules and themes to get your way.
You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about, Undeadgoldfish. I'm merely seeking roleplaying enlightenment/sharing some fun stories, but if you and others get off by standing on a high horse and judging others, so be it. I'm going to do what I do, and we can let the mods sort it all out.
What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?
Nothing at all, and that is NOT what everyone is saying RD. What we are saying is that FROM THE PLAYER'S POINT OF VIEW there was every likelihood that they would be killed; they would certainly lose their stuff (players HATE that), and there was no guarantee the children would live anyway. You basically set up a situation to force a surrender (or else an imaginative heroic rescue), when from the player's PoV surrender was not an option. The fact that if the PCs surrendered the NPCs would protect the village, guard the children etc. is not really on the player's radar while their likely torture, death, loss of cool stuff IS.
You knew your villain wouldn't just kill them, but they didn't.
The other problem is the player that started tossing fireballs. You're saying that he does this a lot, so I'm guessing that you already know that when this guy is around, imaginative heroics are out. To deal with that problem, you have to sort it out outside of the game.
|
Ah yes Saturday morning cartoons...Of course the little things that slip into western ones are equally entertaining such as the fact Ron Stoppable in my opinion wants to be a girl given his reactions in the episode where he and Kim switched bodies.
If I were Ron, and had swapped bodies with Kim, I don't think I'd be in any hurry to swap back, either.
Not before I'd arranged that long-overdue tryst with Shego, anyway. :)
|
|
Some of you guys just won't rest until you've had the chance to successfully vilify me, will you?
What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?
I hope you don't think that of me; we may have butted heads on other threads, but I believe you're justified in being exasperated over this.
I do think your exasperation is misdirected, at the whole party, instead of the trigger-happy yahoo, who makes a habit of scuppering any chance of a subtle plan.(Just seen your reply to the other thread; the player who charged needlessly back and forth through a room full of rot grubs is not the same player? Dear God, that means there's two of these chumps? Oooookaaaaay.)
|
There is a glaring exception of a reason why Paegin might have wanted to take the PCs captive and still had a reason to let them go afterwards, without being an idiot: He was planning on using their captivity to get them to do Something for him... either explicitly ("Do this and I'll let you go") or through tricking them (Letting them see his plans and escape). We are, after all, dealing with a world full of magical stuff that might be needed for magical reasons and protected by magical means; It is entirely possible that there are places Paegin cannot go (either entirely, or simply not safely).
If Paegin had had a chance to make motive #1 clear to the PCs before they surrendered (i.e., if more negotiations/discussions had occurred and that had come out in the talks and the arrangements)-- that would have changed my assessment of the viability of surrender as a reasonable option. :)
However-- not possible to let the PCs (in character) be aware of motive 2 (leak false plans, let them go as part of a trick-- because that would give away the trick...), so not usable as a viable reason to convince the PCs to surrender, IMO.
|
|
Some of you guys just won't rest until you've had the chance to successfully vilify me, will you?
RD--
I don't think I've given that impression... but if I have, you have my apologies (vilifying your positions has never been my intent-- and, although sometimes I'm not as careful in use of language as I should be-- and sometimes I'm losing my temper and slipping a little for that reason, I do not intentionally make personal attacks, rather than disputes of positions and ideas, at all on these boards). I like a lot of the story ideas you've presented, and I think I'd enjoy being in your game. If the player's actions and reactions are more or less as described (and thus far, I do believe your description/discussion of their decisions), I'm appalled by your players' behavior, not by yours.
I do think it's fair to point out that there seems to be a major communication breakdown between your players and you, regarding their perceptions/understanding of the game, what's going on, what sort of game they want and what sort of game you're running-- but while that may be partly your fault (in the sense that everyone who is involved is partially responsible for the failures in communication), it's also the kind of thing that's "no fault" rather than something to use as a club to blame anyone for the situation-- it just needs to be resolved (it becomes something that personal fault can be ascribed, in the sense of blame and intentional responsibility, only if someone is deliberately refusing to communicate and clarify things).
What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?
I've never thought you were trying to do that in your game-- but I get the impression from some of the posts made in this thread, that there are some folks commenting who do think you were trying to do that (so, I do consider this post of yours a justified statement to make). :D
|
|
If you want to avoid accusations of 'railroading', 'story time', 'GM Fiat', 'handwaving', you need to fight the urge to add lines to your opening posts, such as "How do I punish the players?".
No matter how much they might piss you off, it is not the GM's job to punish players for an action (or lack of action, in the case of a paladin not stopping another PC).
NPCs can punish PCs.
The PCs can reap the inevitable consequences (both positive and negative) of their actions.
But these need to be applied in as fair and believable a way as is possible, with the GM being an unemotional, neutral, well-informed observer and arbiter.
If you want to change your group's playing style, it would serve you far better to ask "How do I persuade my players to try using diplomatic solutions?", or "How can I teach my players to take more caution?". These are all valid conversations to have with them, between sessions.
Other posters, when reading an opening post, asking how one can 'punish' players for taking options you disapproved of, can't be blamed for assuming you are posting in a state of anger, and are overly emotionally invested in one specific outcome.
Hence, accusations of railroading, GM Fiat, story time, etc.
And do not retcon! The players have to believe you have set up a situation, and will adjudicate the outcome realistically, based on their actions and the dice. Not override everything they do, to get the result you want. That is the very definition of railroading. So you can't blame people for calling you on it.
Don't post when angry; if you are, take a few days to calm down, instead of venting about the game at the first opportunity.
|
|
To be fair, saying they were 'meant' to rescue them, can refer to the fact that they were 'asked' to do so, and were 'expected' to do so, by their commanders.
That, alone, is not a problem. It's the retcon, and the implication that "You WILL save these children, dammit, whether you stupid f***ers want to or not!" that pushes this onto Platform 9¾.
|
|
So when I tell you the goal is to reach 4th level it's railroading?Who said that?
You did! I know you and TOZ are the same person because I've seen you delete a post as TOZ and replace it with TriOmega. They were meant to rescue the children and you considered that railroading, well you could call needing to get to the next level railroading as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my time as a DM I have learned a few things.
1. There is no plot that I can come up with that my players won't screw up.
DM: You see a locked door leading to a room of some sort.
Player:I use my adamantite hammer on the door to break through to the locked chamber.
DM: The door is adamantite.
Player: It is? Wow.....it is valuable. I break the hinges of the door which connect it to the wall, so that we can take the door with us. to melt down into weapons later.
DM: Well I guess you no longer have to look for the key to the door in the rest of the dungeon.
2. Have a contingency plan if the players screw up a major plot line, even if it is as simple.
In this case: The demon grabs a child before it falls and teleports to safety to later use the child in some sort of nasty spell. If the players leave, the demon sends them nightmares of bad things happening to the child. Then you impose a time line, to make the players come to a specific place.
3. Spies in the game are great. Select a single player that you trust, and reveal a little bit of the plot so that the player knows which way the story is intended to go, and can guide the story with you. This doesn't always work, but you also don't tell the "trusted" player all of the details.
Also, the act of being forced to watch children die as his fellow companions destroy the bridge that they stand on shouldn't be enough to make the Paladin lose his powers. The Paladin might be inclined to bring the evil-doers of the party to justice or try to change their ways, but if the bridge only took 6 seconds to destroy (It shouldn't have) and the Paladin didn't get a chance to act, it is simply not fair to screw over his character like that.
|
You like trap dming. Not every player likes his game being a series of morality traps, especially in no win situations. Why would they believe a devil and effectively commit suicide without a dm trap based on metagaming that the dm just wants to jerk them around a bit before maybe surviving a later fight.
|
|
You like trap dming. Not every player likes his game being a series of morality traps, especially in no win situations. Why would they believe a devil and effectively commit suicide without a dm trap based on metagaming that the dm just wants to jerk them around a bit before maybe surviving a later fight.
It wasn't trap DMing. Where it all fell apart was when a player decided to throw a Fireball into the middle of the group. If the player's went in fighting and attempted to save the children then all would have been fine, even if they didn't save them or only partially saved some. The "morality" came into play as soon as that Fireball did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There could be several issues at play here. The first one is trust. A situation like this needs a high level of trust between players and the GM. Actually, in D&D-derivative system, you probably need more than in most, as getting captured entails losing your equipment which means much more than in other games. Some classes might even lose access to their most basic abilities - wizards come to mind. This makes PF-players less likely to surrender to enemies. Still, if the players trust the GM and do not fear that the situation is just as dick move, it might still work as intended.
The second issue is perception. The players may perceive their characters and the group differently than the GM. They might not consider themselves heroes for examples. I experienced that both as a player and a GM, and it can be quite frustrating, as the adventures do not match the characters and a lot feels forced instead of natural.
Thirdly, group dynamics can be a weird thing. I guess everybody who played a few games can remember sessions that went haywire for minor reasons. Maybe there are not enough clues, or the clues have been overlooked or forgotten, but suddenly the players feel as if they are on the receiving end of an unfair situation and the atmosphere becomes problematic. That plays directly into issue one, as players lose trust in the GM. It is difficult to snap out of that as a player, and actually equally difficult to defuse as a GM, as high running tensions may prevent that. It is not always easy to keep a cool head under pressure, and an adventure seemingly falling apart puts a lot of pressure on any GM.
Raving Dork, internet discussions are difficult regarding a topic like this. People communicate with virtual strangers and are prone to assume the worst. I have been in games where your plot might have been a great roleplaying experience, but I also remember games that would have been just as difficult as yours. Without knowing the specifics of your group, any definitive answer is hard to find.
But the one advice that is always proper: speak with your players. Grab a few beers, take a step back and keep an open mind. Do not get into a me-vs-them mentality. Never forget that games are meant to be fun. Try to find out where the fun stopped, where your perception of the game differs from theirs. In fact, it is pretty useful to do this on a regular basis, as games and groups often evolve over time.
You like trap dming. Not every player likes his game being a series of morality traps, especially in no win situations. Why would they believe a devil and effectively commit suicide without a dm trap based on metagaming that the dm just wants to jerk them around a bit before maybe surviving a later fight.It wasn't trap DMing. Where it all fell apart was when a player decided to throw a Fireball into the middle of the group. If the player's went in fighting and attempted to save the children then all would have been fine, even if they didn't save them or only partially saved some. The "morality" came into play as soon as that Fireball did.
Yes, charge out onto the middle of the wooden bridge crowded with children, barbed devils, and gnolls. And then one of the devils says to the other, "Hey, we're summoned, not called, right?" "Right." "Fireball."
BOOM. The bad guys blow the bridge, kill the kiddies, kill the gnolls, drop the party into the chasm, and leave the two barbed devils and Paegrin still alive.
That's what I would be thinking before I (as a player) set one foot on that ricky wooden bridge.
Master Arminas
|
|
You like trap dming. Not every player likes his game being a series of morality traps, especially in no win situations. Why would they believe a devil and effectively commit suicide without a dm trap based on metagaming that the dm just wants to jerk them around a bit before maybe surviving a later fight.It wasn't trap DMing. Where it all fell apart was when a player decided to throw a Fireball into the middle of the group. If the player's went in fighting and attempted to save the children then all would have been fine, even if they didn't save them or only partially saved some. The "morality" came into play as soon as that Fireball did.Yes, charge out onto the middle of the wooden bridge crowded with children, barbed devils, and gnolls. And then one of the devils says to the other, "Hey, we're summoned, not called, right?" "Right." "Fireball."
BOOM. The bad guys blow the bridge, kill the kiddies, kill the gnolls, drop the party into the chasm, and leave the two barbed devils and Paegrin still alive.
That's what I would be thinking before I (as a player) set one foot on that ricky wooden bridge.
Master Arminas
Okay that's just flat out meta-gaming. If all Summoned Creatures wanted to escape then they would just kill themselves and be done with it, all summoning spells would be useless.
Who said that everyone had to be on the bridge? I'm sure some people had some ranged attacks, what Wizard doesn't have Magic Missile or any other single target spells.
|
|
Also, the act of being forced to watch children die as his fellow companions destroy the bridge that they stand on shouldn't be enough to make the Paladin lose his powers. The Paladin might be inclined to bring the evil-doers of the party to justice or try to change their ways, but if the bridge only took 6 seconds to destroy (It shouldn't have) and the Paladin didn't get a chance to act, it is simply not fair to screw over his character like that.
Mogart--
The reason the Paladin loses his powers-- is it took the PC who 'nuked' the children two rounds+ to do it, because his first shot got counter-spelled.... and the Paladin didn't do a godd**ned thing to stop it, not so much as a word of protest; and did not attempt to do something like the fighter in the group evidently did (charging out onto the bridge in an effort to reach and save the children before the guards could cut them all down).
If the Paladin was caught off-guard and couldn't have said/done anything to the summoner to stop him from wasting all the kids (say, for instance, if the summoner's first cast of black tentacles had worked)-- okay, the Paladin doesn't lose his powers for that-- but he then loses his powers if he continues to associate with that caster on friendly terms as standard adventuring comrades, instead of trying to bring that homicidal maniac to justice.
Also, the act of being forced to watch children die as his fellow companions destroy the bridge that they stand on shouldn't be enough to make the Paladin lose his powers. The Paladin might be inclined to bring the evil-doers of the party to justice or try to change their ways, but if the bridge only took 6 seconds to destroy (It shouldn't have) and the Paladin didn't get a chance to act, it is simply not fair to screw over his character like that.Mogart--
The reason the Paladin loses his powers-- is it took the PC who 'nuked' the children two rounds+ to do it, because his first shot got counter-spelled.... and the Paladin didn't do a godd**ned thing to stop it, not so much as a word of protest; and did not attempt to do something like the fighter in the group evidently did (charging out onto the bridge in an effort to reach and save the children before the guards could cut them all down).
If the Paladin was caught off-guard and couldn't have said/done anything to the summoner to stop him from wasting all the kids (say, for instance, if the summoner's first cast of black tentacles had worked)-- okay, the Paladin doesn't lose his powers for that-- but he then loses his powers if he continues to associate with that caster on friendly terms as standard adventuring comrades, instead of trying to bring that homicidal maniac to justice.
assuming that the paladin made his spellcraft check, and assumes that making the spellcraft check tells the paladin how he was going to use the spell.
Also, the act of being forced to watch children die as his fellow companions destroy the bridge that they stand on shouldn't be enough to make the Paladin lose his powers. The Paladin might be inclined to bring the evil-doers of the party to justice or try to change their ways, but if the bridge only took 6 seconds to destroy (It shouldn't have) and the Paladin didn't get a chance to act, it is simply not fair to screw over his character like that.Mogart--
The reason the Paladin loses his powers-- is it took the PC who 'nuked' the children two rounds+ to do it, because his first shot got counter-spelled.... and the Paladin didn't do a godd**ned thing to stop it, not so much as a word of protest; and did not attempt to do something like the fighter in the group evidently did (charging out onto the bridge in an effort to reach and save the children before the guards could cut them all down).
If the Paladin was caught off-guard and couldn't have said/done anything to the summoner to stop him from wasting all the kids (say, for instance, if the summoner's first cast of black tentacles had worked)-- okay, the Paladin doesn't lose his powers for that-- but he then loses his powers if he continues to associate with that caster on friendly terms as standard adventuring comrades, instead of trying to bring that homicidal maniac to justice.
Isn't that also meta-gaming, Finn? Did the Paladin make a Spellcraft check to know what spell the sorcerer (summoner, whatever) cast? Did the caster shout aloud the name of the spell as it got countered? If he didn't know what the spell was, how can be penalized for letting his ally get the spell off?
Remember, just because he has spellcraft doesn't mean he used it to identify that first spell being cast--and if the caster went before him in Round 2, how exactly was he going to stop it? Didn't RD say that the Paladin went after the caster in like his third or fourth post?
Making the Paladin fall for the actions of others isn't cool at all. In my opinion.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me add to that above post: if the caster afterwards has drifted to an evil alignment because he (the caster) knowingly and willfully murdered the kiddies, then yes, the paladin has a duty to no longer associate himself with him. But, if he simply committed an evil act and his alignment DOES NOT CHANGE, then the paladin should not fall because he remains a member of the party.
Master Arminas
|
|
Franko, M. Arminas--
I was under the impression (from other things said so far in the thread), that (between the Paladin having spell-craft, seen his compadre use that spell before, and knowing the 'loose cannon' attitude that character had already displayed in this campaign)-- that yes, the Paladin had some idea of what that character tried to cast and was casting again in the 2nd round.
The two of you are partially right-- if the Paladin (in character) really did have no idea what spell the summoner was casting in rd 1 and recasting in round 2-- it doesn't justify 'gigging' the Paladin for failing to take action in the first two rounds to stop the summoner. So, for letting the spell 'go off' in round 2, you're possibly correct-- not something the Paladin could reasonably know about and prevent (although RD stated in an early post that the Paladin did know by round 2 what the summoner was up to). In round 3, where the Paladin apparently again did not do anything to stop the summoner, the Black Tentacles probably dropped all the children into negatives, but not all the way to -10. Black Tentacles is dismissable by the caster. I was under the impression that the Paladin still did not do anything to try to stop his comrade from killing the kids with his spell-- not even so much as one word of protest.
In short-- he had time to at least ask his companion to not kill the kids before the children died. He had time to do a few other things... and he did nothing to prevent the deaths of the children at his own companion's hands. I don't think it's a 'dick' move to pull the Paladin's powers, when he apparently didn't even try to prevent their deaths.
MA--
Regarding your second point: I think the Paladin (if he's still a Paladin at all) is obligated to seek some sort of justice for the dead children-- whether that means ensuring the summoner repents, the summoner does some sort of atonement, or the summoner is brought back to court to face justice for his evil deed is a good question. I think, however, even if this act wasn't enough (in conjunction with the character's history of willfully putting innocents and allies at risk) to make the character evil, that continuing to adventure with this comrade in arms as if nothing wrong had been done, is not an acceptable choice for a Paladin to make, and remain a Paladin.
I do agree with you that the Paladin should not fall over the actions of others, but he should fall for his own failures to act (as well as any overt wrongful actions he takes himself). In short-- I don't think the Paladin should fall because of what the Summoner did-- I think the Paladin should fall because he didn't even try to stop the summoner from doing that-- if he'd tried and been unsuccessful, I wouldn't think that should be held against him. Also, I think tolerating and accepting the summoner's action after the fact, instead of overtly calling it into question and seeking some sort of justice for it, is a failure to act when the Paladin needs to take action or be in violation of his 'code'.
|
|
You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about, Undeadgoldfish. I'm merely seeking roleplaying enlightenment/sharing some fun stories, but if you and others get off by standing on a high horse and judging others, so be it. I'm going to do what I do, and we can let the mods sort it all out.
First, you sit on a high horse and stand on your soapbox. Sorry, it has been bugging me.
Second, Undeadgoldfish has described the general gist of all your posts fairly well. I have learned a lot of little details about the rules from the discussions generated by your posts so I can't criticize. Your posts about groups with whom you play (it seems like more than one but maybe you just play a lot) have a general trend of some sort of drama revolving around you or the game.
The game you are running for this group has a lot of cool concepts but I think your execution might leave something to be desired as your group seems to have a lot of problems with it.
I had a friend who could never get promoted at work no matter how many times she changed between lateral jobs. The boss was always a jerk. So she moved to another company and the same thing. She did it again, same thing. You would think she would realize the problem is not "jerk bosses" but her.
Seeing your consistent posts with all these problems I think you might need to face up to the same issue. Not that you are a bad person or bad DM but you might not be running the game the group wants to play. By doing so you just make yourself and your players frustrated and get all these problems.
Here is my suggestion. Take a break from the current campaign and just run a classic all heroic all the time game. See how your players like it. You can still give them moral challenges. Do I save the princess from the dragon or the village from the gnolls? I can save more people now with the village but if the princess dies then the country could erupt in civil war. If they rush they might be able to do both. But make it their choice and let the game world consequences of their choices ripple through the game.
The alignment restriction and the paladin's code are there for a reason. Everyone knows what they are getting into when playing a paladin. Some people get used to relaxed DM and so they think other DM's should be relaxed as well. Implementing the paladin's code is not being a dick DM.
Agreed
Thanks karkon. I knew something was off when I wrote it.
As for our group(s), we have one circle of friends that we regularly play with, consisting of about 6-8 people. However, we have ~5 campaigns running simultaneously under various GMs in our circle. One campaign might have players 1, 2, 3, & 4 while another campaign might have players 1, 2, 6, & 8, for example.
Some of you guys just won't rest until you've had the chance to successfully vilify me, will you?
What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?
First, I think you're creative and definitely got skills. Your games do sound interesting and are very likely fun to play 99% of the time.
And now... :/
I feel like they should be punished for their behavior.
You did originally ask about punishing the players for bombing illusions. That was a bit whack, don't you think? You want to punish them for what, if not for not following story time?
You also failed to mention originally the players had already offered to surrender one or two of themselves in exchange, and you attempted to get them to throw their weapons into a chasm (if a GM said that I'd never expect to find those weapons again).
*scratches head*
Also, children.
Anyway, it's your game so provided all your players keep having fun then who cares what a forum on the internet thinks imo.
|
Take a break from the current campaign and just run a classic all heroic all the time game.
What is more heroic of "save the innocent hostages"?
If a group go and nuke the hostages from orbit there is little in a heroic game that will interest them. From RD posts a least 3 players of of 4 (included the player to which the paladin character belonged) were uninterested in trying anything heroic. They were simply interested in killing the BEEG.
Probably they would be happier playing looter of the lost ark, were you take all the treasure and kill anything that move (and to be sure everything that don't move, too) than any heroic scenario.
In RD shoes probably I would close the campaign and rethink he kind of game I want to run to get a better balance between what I want and what the players want, but for sue I would not try a classic heroic campaign.
|
|
Take a break from the current campaign and just run a classic all heroic all the time game.What is more heroic of "save the innocent hostages"?
If a group go and nuke the hostages from orbit there is little in a heroic game that will interest them. From RD posts a least 3 players of of 4 (included the player to which the paladin character belonged) were uninterested in trying anything heroic. They were simply interested in killing the BEEG.
Probably they would be happier playing looter of the lost ark, were you take all the treasure and kill anything that move (and to be sure everything that don't move, too) than any heroic scenario.
In RD shoes probably I would close the campaign and rethink he kind of game I want to run to get a better balance between what I want and what the players want, but for sue I would not try a classic heroic campaign.
Heroic is not just being the super awesome good guy. It is not even defined as that.
Saving hostages is a heroic act (see my princess example) but how you set it up is important. How the players view heroism is also important. Are they willing to sacrifice anything for the right cause? Are they willing to just fight for the right cause? Are the willing to do the right thing if it is the easiest way? It seems that his group would only answer yes to the last question. So he should play to that. Make the right thing always the easiest way.
One troublemaker simply said "f*ck it" and the others were all too ready to jump on board both because they were tired (it was late at that point) and because they panicked and felt it was a hopeless situation.
And here's the culprit. Never pit your PC's against the most important situation of the night late at night. It's hard to roleplay what a 26 int wizard is going to do at 2 am when you're trying to remember if Wendy's is still open or not.
I've had DM's and myself stop games at this point many times when the plans being set in motion where borderline ridiculous. True it gives your players time to plan supposedly spontaneous actions, but i always reason a cut and dried coordinated attack from a band of people trained to survive in horrible circumstances their entire life (including some races that live for a thousand years) should be expected from time to time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One troublemaker simply said "f*ck it" and the others were all too ready to jump on board both because they were tired (it was late at that point) and because they panicked and felt it was a hopeless situation.And here's the culprit. Never pit your PC's against the most important situation of the night late at night. It's hard to roleplay what a 26 int wizard is going to do at 2 am when you're trying to remember if Wendy's is still open or not.
I've had DM's and myself stop games at this point many times when the plans being set in motion where borderline ridiculous. True it gives your players time to plan supposedly spontaneous actions, but i always reason a cut and dried coordinated attack from a band of people trained to survive in horrible circumstances their entire life (including some races that live for a thousand years) should be expected from time to time.
This is an excellent point. More than a few times I have stopped a game at a critical juncture because everyone was getting punchy. Then next game we start fresh and I set the scene again using the time to emphasize points that got lost in the shuffle in the previous game.
Did any of the spellcasters had anything more crowd controllerish at their dispossal other than fireball and Black tentacles?
Were they all clustered up? Fireball is 20 feet after all..
--------
In other notes you want to punish your group for something you created in the first place, Paelin kidnaped the children then demanded a surrender, Maybe you players are very gnere saavy and knew what would happen once they got captured (the worst of course).
Either way, punishing them for that action seems to me like you are a control freak DM, if people are having fun, don't spoil the fun just for a hostage drama, move on and have fun...
Clearly this is what nonlethal fireballs are meant for I mean come on knock the whole group out cold then grab the kids and play a game of CdG the Gnolls.Nonlethal fireballs would kill the children anyway.
So a bunch of children? 1st level commoners. 3 HP. Maybe less if they have the young simple template (bringing them to 1 HP). A 5d6 fireball deals an average of 17.5 damage. Even nonlethal, it would have killed all of them.
And that's before we get into the point that the Merciful feat and weapon quality are ridiculous gamist concepts, which wussify a game to match a Saturday morning cartoon, so players never have to consider the consequences of their actions.
Like Ninja Turtles, or Wolverine, you can take a character from their original gore-filled source material, and still sell them to 5-year olds, because, "Hey, they still get to flex, and grimace, and be all Raah!, and bad-ass, and still slice up ninjas, with their razor-sharp weaponry, but hey, look, it's all right! No-one's really hurt, because the ninja were all, like, robots? And Stuff? And, like, it's time to go back to the HQ, and eat pizza, and stuff?".
'Merciful' fireball - bleccch. Either it's made of fire, and it's lethal, or it's not, and it's not, and does sweet ****-all.
"Whatchoo gonna doo, lickle baby wizard? Throw some more of yer pritty lickle lights at me? Bwahahaha!"
"Ooh, look, he's gettin mad! He's goin all red! Gonna fill his diaper. That'll show us, huh? Bwahahaha!"
No kidding man, I had a player make a barb/frenzied berserker after one of his characters died, and he wanted to take a merciful greatsword. So cheap and cheesy, and just scared of the possibly negative consequences of using his frenzy. Wanted to be protected. The party actually left him to die via enemies when he drove them off with so much friendly damage.
Agree on the wussification that creeps into the rules and expanded stuff. Fighting should be hard, nasty and dangerous with fear and threat in play.
Take a break from the current campaign and just run a classic all heroic all the time game.What is more heroic of "save the innocent hostages"?
If a group go and nuke the hostages from orbit there is little in a heroic game that will interest them. From RD posts a least 3 players of of 4 (included the player to which the paladin character belonged) were uninterested in trying anything heroic. They were simply interested in killing the BEEG.
Probably they would be happier playing looter of the lost ark, were you take all the treasure and kill anything that move (and to be sure everything that don't move, too) than any heroic scenario.
In RD shoes probably I would close the campaign and rethink he kind of game I want to run to get a better balance between what I want and what the players want, but for sue I would not try a classic heroic campaign.
This whole thing reminds me of using white phosphorous grenades in rainbow six, when trying to rescue the hostages.
Hmm, maybe the party should have just laughed back and said something like "ha! You think you can use hostages as shields? You are all exposed and it's over for you." Then use PRECISION weapons not splash. Start taking down the gnolls, put them on the defensive, hopefully force a rout. This is where great archers really shine.
Which reminds me of a story. Was playing a Sasserine pirate game, gunpowder dnd. The noble woman employer of the group had been taken hostage. An orc pirate is using her as a shield. Problem is, she is somewhat dainty, and the orc is pretty massive. The party refuse to back down or surrender, they line up, raise (inaccurate) gunpowder firearms and heavy crossbows, and fire at a very surprised orc. I didn't fudge a thing, they all hit the startled orc and not their employer. Employer was shocked, and later, so very furious. Good times.
|
|
No kidding man, I had a player make a barb/frenzied berserker after one of his characters died, and he wanted to take a merciful greatsword. So cheap and cheesy, and just scared of the possibly negative consequences of using his frenzy. Wanted to be protected. The party actually left him to die via enemies when he drove them off with so much friendly damage.
Agree on the wussification that creeps into the rules and expanded stuff. Fighting should be hard, nasty and...
If you are playing this game for gritty nasty combat then you are playing the wrong game. Simulating the nastiness of real combat results in systems where you make six rolls to resolve one attack. Those systems are unpopular for that reason. If you think combat drags in Pathfinder you ain't seen nothing yet.
The moment they even remotely started talking about blowing the kids you should have ended the night as a cliffhanger and tell them to seriously think about how they plan to handle this situation. If upon returning they still think its a no win situation, remind them that you're not our to kill them off, and ask wwkd in a "no win scenario"
That seems like a pretty condescending thing to do to a party, but I guess that depends how much time you let a party makes decisions as a group in the middle of combat. GIving a party a week (or even a couple days, since I don;t know how often they play) to come up with a plan that they'd really only have maybe 10 minutes to do (how long's it take to let them get across the bridge?) is really babying your party.
It's like when PC's are talking to npc's and discuss something, and then they turn to one another and start making plans, and suddenly the npc runs off or calls for the guards.
PC's: what just happened?
me: he ran off because you were thinking about killing him.
PC's we didn't say that to him, we were talking amongst ourselves.
me: did you walk away?
PC's: no
me: did you say you were whispering to each other?
PC's: no
me: well then
If RD's party knew in advance they were going to confront them on a bridge, then yeah, they have that time to plan, but in the moment, I try to make my player's make decisions in the time they'd actually have. The game kinda loses something if you ponder every decision in imaginary time
That was just plain spiteful, stupid, and rude. They did it to spite you RD, that's the only reason, it wasn't anything other than that. That's like hand the ring to sauron, or or leonaides surrendering to Xerxes, or Conan giving up, etc.
In two of your examples, the party doesn't give up cause, hey, they're fictional and have author plot armor. And in the one real example, the party dies. I'm sure party wipe is what every fun game aspires to.
I guess that's a good question. After all was said and done, did the party have fun? Did they enjoy killing the kids, or was it regretful, but they just felt like it's what they had to do. Or did they feel nothing and just felt like they were overcoming another obstacle?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thing reminds me of using white phosphorous grenades in rainbow six, when trying to rescue the hostages.
Hmm, maybe the party should have just laughed back and said something like "ha! You think you can use hostages as shields? You are all exposed and it's over for you." Then use PRECISION weapons not splash. Start taking down the gnolls, put them on the defensive, hopefully force a rout. This is where great archers really shine.
Which reminds me of a story. Was playing a Sasserine pirate game, gunpowder dnd. The noble woman employer of the group had been taken hostage. An orc pirate is using her as a shield. Problem is, she is somewhat dainty, and the orc is pretty massive. The party refuse to back down or surrender, they line up, raise (inaccurate) gunpowder firearms and heavy crossbows, and fire at a very surprised orc. I didn't fudge a thing, they all hit the startled orc and not their employer. Employer was shocked, and later, so very furious. Good times.
We did something similar in a street-level Champions game once. Villain had taken a hostage in a bank vault. Myself and another hero had him cornered. Villain threatened to kill hostage (naturally) if we didn't let him go. I hand signaled my partner to take out the villain while I fired a nonlethal bean bag gun into the hostage simultaneously. Hostage wasn't seriously injured, and after the initial shock was quite happy to be alive and well (mostly) while the villain was on his way to the hospital courtesy of the local police. Good times.
I'm not sure how you do that in the situation with the gnolls, mind you, but I think RD was hoping the PC's might come up with some cool resolution. Best thing to do at that point would be to call it a night and pick it up again next session.