I don't know about sinking ships, but making a common sense check doesn't seem like a very good mechanic. If you tell them to make one, they already know what they're about to do is stupid. And if they have to use their own discression to make one, they'll be making them all day and giving the GM a headache as he/she not only has to assess how stupid every action they make is, but only tell them just enough about how stupid it is based on their roll. And the role would be kind of arbitrary, unless you come up with a definitive table you can look at as part of your house rule.
I've been using these checks for a few years now, and they haven't been too problematic.
Basically, if I call for one, it is USUALLY going to be during a period where a decision is being made, but not immediately acted upon, and if they fail the check, I say that their character thinks it is a good idea, at which point they are expected to not metagame (and generally don't).
Players rarely call for a common sense check themselves, but when they do, it is usually because they are trying to figure something out, or want to see if they (the player) is missing something that they (the character) might know better about, having a higher Int and Wis than their real-life counterparts.
If someone takes an instantaneous action, they took it. I don't ask anyone, "Are you sure," for things like that, which is why my friend's character died when he teleported straight to the hydra without buffs and at least 2 rounds before anyone else in the party could hope to get there. Rash action often skips common sense checks in real life, and so, too, does it do so in my games.
I'd say that I see maybe one common sense check (I call it a "gut check") no more than every 4 or 5 sessions of my game, and even less than that in the games my friends run who also use the check.
In this instance, it would go something like this for the player on the sinking ship:
Player A: I'm going to head below decks and search for loot; I have a magical breathing mask!
Player B: Uh, you should really get off the ship with us...there are other dangers, such as getting sucked down with the ship...
Player A: I'm going down.
DM: <describe ship filling with water, creaking and snapping sounds, maybe the ship lurching>
Player A: Well, I'm done down there. Now I'll search the captain's cabin.
DM: Roll me a gut check.
------------------
Player A fails roll.
DM: Go ahead.
Player A passes roll.
DM: You're aware that there are dangers besides simply being immersed in water for a long period of time, which your mask helps you avoid.
Player A is then free to continue with his action or change his mind. Note that Player A still has little specific information, and still has a decision to make--risk the other dangers, or get out of there.
|
I don't know about sinking ships, but making a common sense check doesn't seem like a very good mechanic. If you tell them to make one, they already know what they're about to do is stupid.
So you make one for them and inform them if they roll high enough. Just like a secret Perception check.
And if they have to use their own discression to make one, they'll be making them all day and giving the GM a headache as he/she not only has to assess how stupid every action they make is, but only tell them just enough about how stupid it is based on their roll.
If they're not doing anything particularly smart or stupid the GM can just let them roll and tell them they don't get a gut feeling one way or another, and tell them to cut down if they're overusing them. You don't see many players make multiple Perception checks while doing their shopping just because there might be an ambush.
And the role would be kind of arbitrary, unless you come up with a definitive table you can look at as part of your house rule.
Adjudicating DCs for undefined tasks is a big part of a GM's role. If it's a problem, you could always say DC 5 for blatantly stupid actions (charging a highly superior force), DC 10 for actions that are foolhardy but not clearly suicidal (tinker blindly with the sinister-looking magic item), DC 20 for actions that seem safe but are just a little off (whether to trust the little girl all alone in the wilderness who is actually secretly a monster). Looting a sinking ship is probably between a 5 and a 10 depending on the character's ability to survive underwater and swim, and the assumptions made about ship sinking physics.
The other day I had my second PC death since I started running Pathfinder (which was less than a year ago). The first time it was during the final encounter of the adventure and was simply a matter of not dodging the boss's fire breath and taking too much damage. Sad, but a fitting end for a PC that had already survived countless challenges. The second time, however... well, it raised some questions.
** spoiler omitted **...
I think it was a great scene, seems to have been well run with the seriousness conveyed, and that the player's greed and foolishness got their character killed. Like an idiot.
personally... I am not that mad at the GM.
though I would have probably said something like "if you search it you have about a 95% chance of dieing" if he goes for It I am not going to spend 30 mins RPing a futile search I will just say OK I am rolling a % and you die on 95 or lower. still want to do it?
note... I would not do this to be a mean person or to exert my authority as the GM or anything like that.
I would be doing it because the player is basically hogging the spotlite for the entire duration. the other players are pretty much sitting there waiting for this guy to go through the motions searching a ship that the GM knows has nothing on it. so sure. if he wants to waste his characters life let him... but dont let him derail the game to do it.
thats just my off the cuff take.
To quote a Ferengi, the bigger the risk, the bigger the win!
a vast majority of the environmental damages in PF are crap.
10d6 damage for a 100 foot fall.
hold your breath for minutes at a time while swiming in 50 pounds of equipment.
etc etc.
I think most of them are pretty stupid.I employ the mass damage rule for all environmental effects and my players know that I reserve the right to say 'your dead' on the flip side of that they also know that I am fair with it and will try to warn them in advance of any such situation so if they are on a cliff 50 feet above jagged rocks I will tell them "there is a narrow path allong the side of a steep drop to cirtain death on jagged rocks." and for me a humanoid is probably going to take heavy damage to anything under 50 feet and crush depth for a non-specialist swimmer would be around 100f.. period.
they will probably take heavy damage for any. again I am not generally going to put players in this situation and I would allow various work arounds if there are story book reasons for these situations. but amung me and the people I play with magic is magic, dragons are dragons and more or less real world equivalents have more or less real world results.
again... thats just us. I know some people wont like this but it works for us.
Surely you mean, "you're dead".
You killed him without a single dice roll, relating to his character abilities, and that IMO is unfair gameplay. Whether it was a Perception check to notice that he's in deep trouble, or a Fortitude save to pull deep into his reserves to get away from the pull of the ship, no character should be outright killed without some kind of reference to the dice, no matter how much warning you think you gave (since warnings can easily be missed or misunderstood)
Yeah, but the ship went down, he chose to stay around searching indoors. As it breaks, turns and sinks, he could easily be trapped, pinned, impaled and otherwise confined to a watery grave. I think it is entirely fine the dm killed him, suction, pressure, crushed, pinned or what-not.
What the guy should have done is got away safe, but kept close, so he could dive and loot later.
of course, but all of this are nothing more important, since the gm decides it as he told us!!
if he decides that in his campaign a human can fly at will, then, they can.
if an orc can be a main themed race at his campaigns, then they are!!
so, if he says that a sunking ship drags the pc to the bottom and its instant dead for give a rpg lesson to one player who ignores the party member advices, consternations, etc. the gm advices, and feel munchking at all because he has a mask and greeddely are looting for more...
even if at the last point the gm says that a maidman cames and took his head away or something, that is the way which he decides the things happens... otherwise, there will be a bunch of munchkins playing at his table!!the advices is far enough to me...
This is an unintelligible mess and I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The only point I can decipher is "if a player ever looks for treasure, they are a munchkin and should die", which is several kinds of terrible.
sorry for this, i forgot the language learning francais and italian!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group occasionally refers to Wisdom as a check to get us out of situations. This might be if we're completely stuck in a situation, or we're forgetting that there's a gas leak in the cave we're in as we're hefting our wand of fireball, etc. I think it's fair.
I am one of two GMs in my group. The other is a lot more forgiving than I am - I don't think we've ever had a character death that's stuck with him. He has this sense of heroism that pretty much mandates a PC should only die in an exciting, important way. The last time a character "died" under this GM, he was ambushed by large spiders while sleeping in a tree, and although he was very dead by hp (by the player of that character's own admission), our cure light wounds somehow got to him in time. I'm not really like that; I almost party wiped my group the last time I GM'd on a more or less random encounter. Because of the other GM's mentality, this can cause ripples, and it did: that almost-party wipe led to us discontinuing the campaign we were running (though truthfully, it acted more as a catalyst than a sole source).
No offense... I don't want either of you to GM for me.
Not only is there a happy medium, but thousands of GMs manage it all the time, and their players are happy players (like mine).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't quite grasp the concept of "looting." If the DM wants you to acquire new items, he'll work them into the story. The +4 holy greatsword is going to be someplace obvious, not sinking aboard a nameless ghost ship. I mean, really--what was he expecting to find?
Some groups enjoy looting every corpse, a habit I often indulge in while playing console videogames like Skyrim. But, within the context of a tabletop game--I only ever search the corpses of baddies when it is appropriate (like if their weapons burst into flames, or I'm looking for a key ring to unlock the cells of their prisoners).
Their immediate concern was looting the body of the "boss," rather than tending to their wounds and seeing to the corpses of their allies (one of whom was decapitated). They went so far as to request my character cast detect magic for them. When my character refused, instead choosing to mourn the loss of his friend, they gave me odd looks.
It became quite evident that our play styles were worlds apart.
When my character decided to leave the dungeon rather than shoulder through more death and carnage, he was forcefully detained (as a gnome, he was quite easily grappled and pinned by the party's resident brute, who proceeded in lifting him from the ground and carrying him about like a child--showing a massive disrespect both to the character, and to me as a player, killing my fun / immersion).
In the end, this encounter further bolstered my hate for the "looting" mentality.
I think that Frank deserved his character dying. He was given plenty of warnings, all rules aside. As a DM, you don't have to adhere to every mandate in the books. They are a guideline. Nothing more.
You did your job in describing the dangers, which were clearly evident. The other players understood the situation, so I am assuming that Frank was also aware. There was probably a great deal of talk at the table, as the spot-light shifted to Frank's little escapade.
You shouldn't feel bad for killing his character. That's natural selection at work.
Frank's character earned himself a Darwin award.
I remember a great insta-kill, I was dm. Party is inside a volcano, looking at a puzzle mechanism to lower a bridge and cross the lava chasm. One pc breaks the mechanism to try and get it to work, it does not. Then tries to climb around the inside of the volcano to get to the other side. He passes one check, rolls a one on the other, plunges straight down right into the lava.
The character actually declared his char dead before I did. No way they are getting out of there. There wasn't a nifty rope ladder.
So sudden, tried to make it, failed, died. Next char!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't quite grasp the concept of "looting." If the DM wants you to acquire new items, he'll work them into the story. The +4 holy greatsword is going to be someplace obvious, not sinking aboard a nameless ghost ship. I mean, really--what was he expecting to find?
Umm, no. A lot of DM’s and modules take the position that if you don’t look for it, you don’t get it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Frank deserved his character dying. He was given plenty of warnings, all rules aside. As a DM, you don't have to adhere to every mandate in the books. They are a guideline. Nothing more.
If the GM isn't going to adhere to those "guidelines" he best inform his players well in advance. A game without agreed upon rules between its participants isn't a game at all.
Umm, no. A lot of DM’s and modules take the position that if you don’t look for it, you don’t get it.I can't quite grasp the concept of "looting." If the DM wants you to acquire new items, he'll work them into the story. The +4 holy greatsword is going to be someplace obvious, not sinking aboard a nameless ghost ship. I mean, really--what was he expecting to find?
Yep. I can attest to this.
That's okay, something else will come along eventually. :)
Or perhaps it won't and you will be that much weaker for it in the meantime. I honestly don't think I've ever had a GM give us make up loot for not searching. Instead they turn around and tell us about all the cool swag we missed out on for not being more thorough. Between video games and these kinds of GMs, it's no wonder the majority of players play murder hobos with an addiction for looting.
Is the spirit of posting ships, here's the real-world ship I'm using to represent the Man's Promise. The Golden Hind is a 102' wooden sailing vessel launched in 1577. (The Man's Promise is 105' long) It was an exceptionally successful ship (It circumnavigated the globe under the command of Sir Francis Drake) so I feel it's a generous representation of shipbuilding. Also, because there are two real-life replicas on the sea today, there are real-world photographs available.
The player thought he could do it.
I think it is unfair to just say, nope you are dead...
You should explain why, and give them a chance to respond. To cheat the players encourages them to cheat back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason we have game mechanics is to resolve situations which would otherwise be open to interpretation. If the guy wasn't running like hell, he didn't agree with the rest of the table about what should happen. Players have to pay for their mistakes sometimes, but they're entitled to as much mechanical detail as they ask for if their character's life is on the line.
It doesn't really matter if the sinking was realistic, the physics are common knowledge or even if the death was certain. You let the guy think, you let the guy make rolls. You damage him. You have him swim like crazy. Whatever the result would have been if you left it to the rules, it couldn't have caused this kind of problem.
As for this nonsense about greed, who exactly do you guys think you are? Anybody who thinks the PC had it coming for taking risks to search for loot is playing a radically different game to me.
I believe GMs are supposed to be impartial judges standing in for the laws of physics, storytellers creating an experience, and moderators making sure the players get fair treatment. They should not be judgemental gods looking down over their screens, condemning the lowly miniatures for their vices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the spirit of posting ships, here's the real-world ship I'm using to represent the Man's Promise. The Golden Hind is a 102' wooden sailing vessel launched in 1577. (The Man's Promise is 105' long) It was an exceptionally successful ship (It circumnavigated the globe under the command of Sir Francis Drake) so I feel it's a generous representation of shipbuilding. Also, because there are two real-life replicas on the sea today, there are real-world photographs available.
The Golden Hind, Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3
Your second link leads to gay pornography. Doesn't look like it was your fault so much as the web site's attempt at protecting its material from being outsourced.
Umm, no. A lot of DM’s and modules take the position that if you don’t look for it, you don’t get it.I can't quite grasp the concept of "looting." If the DM wants you to acquire new items, he'll work them into the story. The +4 holy greatsword is going to be someplace obvious, not sinking aboard a nameless ghost ship. I mean, really--what was he expecting to find?
Yep. I can attest to this.
That's okay, something else will come along eventually. :)Or perhaps it won't and you will be that much weaker for it in the meantime. I honestly don't think I've ever had a GM give us make up loot for not searching. Instead they turn around and tell us about all the cool swag we missed out on for not being more thorough. Between video games and these kinds of GMs, it's no wonder the majority of players play murder hobos with an addiction for looting.
Yep three. Exactly what normally happens. Players complain about lack of loot, DM response is “But there was tonnes of phat lewt, if only you had ….”. Now, to a certain extend this can be bad DMing. The PC's can’t be expected to open every door and search every crevice, etc, esp if the DM keeps nagging on them about time restraints. But certainly if the players don’t even try, there’s no need for the DM to have Santa show up with WBL all nicely gift-wrapped, either.
Your second link leads to gay pornography. Doesn't look like it was your fault so much as the web site's attempt at protecting its material from being outsourced.Is the spirit of posting ships, here's the real-world ship I'm using to represent the Man's Promise. The Golden Hind is a 102' wooden sailing vessel launched in 1577. (The Man's Promise is 105' long) It was an exceptionally successful ship (It circumnavigated the globe under the command of Sir Francis Drake) so I feel it's a generous representation of shipbuilding. Also, because there are two real-life replicas on the sea today, there are real-world photographs available.
The Golden Hind, Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3
We're not here to judge, RD. One man's sailing vessel is another man's beautiful act of consensual love.
Well, I guess two mens' act of beautiful consensual love.
I don't think I phrased that right.
Where's Grammar Nazi when I need him?
I need him to explain the grammar, you filthy animals, not for a beautiful act of consensual love.
This is not the place for any pornography regardless of the sexual orientation depicted or any beautiful acts (or lack there of) therein.
Yep three. Exactly what normally happens. Players complain about lack of loot, DM response is “But there was tonnes of phat lewt, if only you had ….”. Now, to a certain extend this can be bad DMing. The PC's can’t be expected to open every door and search every crevice, etc, esp if the DM keeps nagging on them about time restraints. But certainly if the players don’t even try, there’s no need for the DM to have Santa show up with WBL all nicely gift-wrapped, either.It depends on what kind of game you want to run/play. If you want the characters to be cutting open the corpses looking for swallowed loot and stripping the gilt from the walls, then punish them for every potential gp they miss. If you want the characters to act more like heroes and focus on stopping the bad guys and motivations other than loot, then let them get their WBL without having to search every square inch of the scene.
Either way is good. I have my preference, but whatever floats your boat.
Read this line again "The PC's can’t be expected to open every door and search every crevice, etc, esp if the DM keeps nagging on them about time restraints."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a big part of why I'm tearing the looting-dependant approach to WBL out of my next campaign.
Out of curiosity, what are you replacing it with? Off the top of my head, I see three ways that people get awesome gear.
1) Find/Loot it during an adventure.
2) Buy it.
3) Craft it.
Quite honestly, since starting Pathfinder... I have been a little annoyed at the craft/buy mentality of the system. the idea that you need to have a certain WBL with +X to specific stats by specific levels...
I much prefered the 2E philosophy of, "Oh awesome I just found... Belt of giant strength/Ring of invisiblitiy/holy avenger.... It's a PART of his journey... and not something he just ordered through a cataloge.
|
This is a big part of why I'm tearing the looting-dependant approach to WBL out of my next campaign.Out of curiosity, what are you replacing it with? Off the top of my head, I see three ways that people get awesome gear.
Largely through a stipend from the PC's sponsors. This isn't a viable option for all campaigns, but Shattered Star is practically made for that approach. Still working out all the kinks, but that's the basic gist of how it's going to work.
Quite honestly, since starting Pathfinder... I have been a little annoyed at the craft/buy mentality of the system. the idea that you need to have a certain WBL with +X to specific stats by specific levels...
I much prefered the 2E philosophy of, "Oh awesome I just found... Belt of giant strength/Ring of invisiblitiy/holy avenger.... It's a PART of his journey... and not something he just ordered through a cataloge.
Hell, I'm not a fan of the built-in magic item dependency, period. Besides the murderous/larcenous behavior some are driven to by the unspoken need to meet their WBL standard, it's an absolute killjoy for certain character concepts to have magical bling forced on you in order to function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm very surprised for the disdain over 'looting the ship'. I mean... There is usually a chest in the captains quarters... treasure maps... keys... journals... SOMETHING worth finding there...
Seriously, That's usually what you HAVE to do, to get the next step of the 'journey'
I can understand the annoyance of picking the same +1 longsword, Longbow, 20x arrows, and 4g 8s from all 14 of the bandits you came across... but searching the mysterious ship would seem like PLOT more then GREED to my characters...
I can just imagine a DM's frustration if he put something important in that room and the players just 'didn't bother'...
Quite honestly, since starting Pathfinder... I have been a little annoyed at the craft/buy mentality of the system. the idea that you need to have a certain WBL with +X to specific stats by specific levels...
Unfortunately, the system is balanced with WBL in mind (Trailblazer broke this down into a series of interesting tables [although it went off of 3.5]).
D&D next is going to handle magic items in the fashion you seem to favor; I'm also looking into the numbers to see how to properly import more flavorful and less 'essential' magic items. Probably some sort of effective APL modification which changes at various levels (as it would be a curve of a sort, low levels would have no modification to APL while higher levels would need a larger adjustment).
|
|
Just to point out again that the OP mentioned that the player has a history of reckless behavior, or something to that effect. If the player wanted a realistic approach to searching the ship as it's sinking, going to the captain's quarters should have been a reasonable thing. By reasonable, that's working under the assumption of if there are valuables to be looted, the Captain's quarters would be the best bet on the ship, as any captain would probably dole out the treasure to his crew, or just simply, the best of the loot may have been in his quarters.
Magic item that extends breathing not withstanding, had there been a chest of treasure in the holds of the ship or even the Captain's quarters, depending on the weight of the chest, the player may end up sinking deeper into the water anyway.
As phantom1592 pointed out, if the GM placed a plot device in that scenario, it wouldn't have been an issue, it would probably be in the Captain's quarters in which case the player would have been fine. I would view an item like the one the player had would be used in emergencies, and a sinking ship constitutes an emergency, rescueing a comrad that may be unconscience in or deep under water, not as a method to greed it up.
Whether the GM made a bad call based on suction information from the rest of his players or a call made to teach the guy a lesson regarding constant reckless behavior, i can't be 100% certain on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, since starting Pathfinder... I have been a little annoyed at the craft/buy mentality of the system. the idea that you need to have a certain WBL with +X to specific stats by specific levels...Unfortunately, the system is balanced with WBL in mind (Trailblazer broke this down into a series of interesting tables [although it went off of 3.5]).
D&D next is going to handle magic items in the fashion you seem to favor; I'm also looking into the numbers to see how to properly import more flavorful and less 'essential' magic items. Probably some sort of effective APL modification which changes at various levels (as it would be a curve of a sort, low levels would have no modification to APL while higher levels would need a larger adjustment).
We started a Kingmaker game using something based off this thread, http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2opdw?Evil-Lincolns-AntiChristmas-Tree-Effect#1 5
It's working pretty well so far, though we're still pretty low levels. I really like the basic idea of 'you still get the bonuses that the game design says you need...' but 'you don't have specific generic magic items GIVING you these bonuses'
We have no +1 rings of protection or +1 swords that every enemy we run across has... but we still get that +1 to AC and +1 to attacks because... our CHARACTERS are awesome... not their GEAR is awesome...
Still in playtest mode, but I like it so far :)
This is a big part of why I'm tearing the looting-dependant approach to WBL out of my next campaign.Out of curiosity, what are you replacing it with? Off the top of my head, I see three ways that people get awesome gear.
1) Find/Loot it during an adventure.
2) Buy it.
3) Craft it.
Quite honestly, since starting Pathfinder... I have been a little annoyed at the craft/buy mentality of the system. the idea that you need to have a certain WBL with +X to specific stats by specific levels...
I much prefered the 2E philosophy of, "Oh awesome I just found... Belt of giant strength/Ring of invisiblitiy/holy avenger.... It's a PART of his journey... and not something he just ordered through a cataloge.
Finding the loot/earning it through adventure is much better than the buying or crafting chronicles, but then the players have to deal with not being able to totally chose what fills all their body slots. Which for some is wrong and injustice!
|
|
sorry for this, i forgot the language learning francais and italian!!
Let me help with the translation then:
of course, but all of this are nothing more important, since the gm decides it as he told us!!
if he decides that in his campaign a human can fly at will, then, they can.
if an orc can be a main themed race at his campaigns, then they are!!
so, if he says that a sunking ship drags the pc to the bottom and its instant dead for give a rpg lesson to one player who ignores the party member advices, consternations, etc. the gm advices, and feel munchking at all because he has a mask and greeddely are looting for more...
even if at the last point the gm says that a maidman cames and took his head away or something, that is the way which he decides the things happens... otherwise, there will be a bunch of munchkins playing at his table!!the advices is far enough to me...
Of course, but these details [about what happens when a ship sinks] aren't important, because the GM decided that it would work how he told us [and the sinking ship would pull the character under]!
If the GM decides that in his campaign humans can fly without spells or items, they can. If the GM decides that orcs are the campaign's primary race, then they are!
So if the GM says that a sinking ship drags the PC to the ocean bottom and that this results in that PC's instant death, this serves as an RPG lesson to the player who ignores the advice of his party and his GM. This player was acting like a munckin, trusting in his mask to save him, all because he was greedy for loot.
Even if in the end the GM says that a madman runs by and decapitates the PC, that is the GM ruling - otherwise there will be a bunch of munchkins playing at his table.
The advice [of the GM and players] is enough for me.
Assuming I understand your point, I disagree with it. The GM does ultimately have the authority to make final rulings at his table, even if these rulings contradict official rules. However, the GM does have the responsibility to be fair to his players. This means giving PCs a chance to survive risky situations, even if the odds are dismal. Succeeding against all odds can make for a heroic story. And if a GM makes a ruling that contradicts the rulebooks, it should be to increase the fun of the entire group, not just because he thinks he needs to control the players or teach them a lesson.
The player clearly did expect that his mask would help him escape the sinking ship based on his understanding of the rules about drowning and water pressure, which the GM did not clearly indicate were not going to be in play. It's generally safe for a player to assume that the rules in the rulebook are in play unless the GM specifically says otherwise - that's part of the GM-player relationship, not just a munchkin thing. It's also reasonable for the character to assume that the mask that lets him breathe water will help him avoid drowning in this situation and thus reduce the risk. Things outside the rules like "something could have fallen and trapped him" are fair considerations, but should be dealt with by some sort of roll (such as a strength check or the break an object rules) rather than by assuming that death is inescapable.
The player made a risk-reward calculation and wasn't fully informed on the risks. That's not greed.
How many DMs (or players for that matter) are aware of "crush depth" rules? I certainly haven't learned them... but, then again, there's been very little underwater stuff in my campaigns (or any that I've taken part in).
Sometimes DMs have to make judgment calls. The OP's seemed reasonable to me.
Even if the player was relying on his understanding of the rules to pull him out of that mess, he was acting recklessly. Also, his character isn't going to have the sort of knowledge that he as a player has (in relation to the rules). He might roughly know how long he can hold his breath, for example, but he's not going to know that he can survive for X rounds (and therefor plan accordingly). That's exploitation.
Even if the player was relying on his understanding of the rules to pull him out of that mess, he was acting recklessly. Also, his character isn't going to have the sort of knowledge that he as a player has (in relation to the rules). He might roughly know how long he can hold his breath, for example, but he's not going to know that he can survive for X rounds (and therefor plan accordingly). That's exploitation.
If a Scuba diver can know how long she can breathe the oxygen in her tank before it runs out, why can an adventurer not know how long she can breathe oxygen from her magic mask before it runs out?
Also, you don't need a round-by-round plan to think your magic breathing mask will let you survive past "water begins splash your feet". The player wasn't in the completely submerged cabin at the bottom of the sea saying "Okay, I've used thirty-five of my breathing rounds, so I have five left..."
I never claimed the player was exploiting the rules.
Perhaps I should have stated more clearly my suspicion that Frank was using his OOC-knowledge as a means to explain his character's risky behavior (which breaks immersion, and disrupts the table, in my experience).
That aside, the mask does raise questions. Perhaps Frank had a legitimate reason for believing his character would pull though. Still, the heavy hints from the DM should have dissuaded him. I mean, really--I've never heard of a clearer example of a DM employing the "clue bat." Wack. Wack.
Your "clue bat" is my "the GM describes things that are happening". Yes, the ship is slowly sinking, so yes, the GM will describe the water slowly rising. "The water splashes at your feet" hardly sounds like "Turn back now or drown instantly, no save, despite your anti-drowning precautions."
It's easy to say in hindsight, with the GM having already told you "This line here was meant to be a warning", that it was supposed to be a hint. But any GM who provides any sort of decent description at any point will say a thousand things in a session that could equally be taken as hints. A ship full of duergar attacking with cannons sounds much more threatening to me than "the water splashes at your feet", but nobody calls the adventurers greedy for not abandoning their ship to the duergar and swimming away.
But you don't fault the PC's for fighting the duergar, even though on the surface that seems more risky than having a quick look around when the water hasn't even reached your ankles.
A ship full of duergar attacking with cannons sounds much more threatening to me than "the water splashes at your feet", but nobody calls the adventurers greedy for not abandoning their ship to the duergar and swimming away.
And yet the risk-reward is quite evident. Defending yourself is much more reasonable an action, than say, descending into a sinking ship in hopes of finding [insert assumed treasure here]. The character had no real reason to believe there was treasure, unless the DM frequently hides treasure (like tucking roast beef and chicken behind candles, or burying it within stone pillars--Castlevania, I'm looking at you!).
Even if the player was relying on his understanding of the rules to pull him out of that mess, he was acting recklessly. Also, his character isn't going to have the sort of knowledge that he as a player has (in relation to the rules). He might roughly know how long he can hold his breath, for example, but he's not going to know that he can survive for X rounds (and therefor plan accordingly). That's exploitation.
There is a fine line between 'reckless' and 'heroic'. At there very least, running through a sinking ship and snatching the treasure map off the captains desk JUST in time before the ship goes down is certainly 'cinematic'. Which honestly, is what I look for in an awesome game. Those hero moments where you swing from a chandleier or reach under a crushing rock JUST to retrieve your favorite hat...
Adventure = Reckless.
As for characters not knowing how the rules work... I kind of disagree on that. It is VERY realistic for a character to know how long he can hold his breath. He may not know in 'rounds' but he should know by 'seconds' or by 'xxx count'. Last I checked I could hold my breath about 75 seconds... ADMITTEDLY I'm not in the best of shape... But what's the difference between the phrase "I can hold my breath for 75 seconds..." or "I can hold my breath for 12 rounds?"
As for the magic mask... is that a 'Variable duration?' I'm not actually familar with this particular mask. But if the identify comes back and says 'It will let you survive underwater for 40 rounds' Then YEAH... IN character I can say that this mask gives me an extra 4 minutes of air. Magic has rules... and they're fairly strict. So if the magic says I have 4 minutes... then I can IN-CHARACTER say that I know I have 4 minutes.
Stating things like 'rounds' is a bit metagamey and out of character... but frankly that's for the table/dm's benefit. He was the only one in the room so he wasn't actually TELLING people 'game terms'.
ON an OFF topic... Our group got a KICK out of the Gnomes writeup that mentions that people have a hard time understanding gnomes... because they take words they like from all other cultures, but do NOT assign them to the same ideas.
When playing a gnome... I absolutely speak in 'gamer talk' and BUST open that 4th wall. He'll talk about will saves and AC perception checks and all sorts of things that we just say is 'gnomish' :D
There is a fine line between 'reckless' and 'heroic'. At there very least, running through a sinking ship and snatching the treasure map off the captains desk JUST in time before the ship goes down is certainly 'cinematic'. Which honestly, is what I look for in an awesome game. Those hero moments where you swing from a chandleier or reach under a crushing rock JUST to retrieve your favorite hat...
Unless I am mistaken, there was never any indication of there being some important map hidden within any of the rooms. That would be a huge assumption on the part of the would be hero.
ON an OFF topic... Our group got a KICK out of the Gnomes writeup that mentions that people have a hard time understanding gnomes... because they take words they like from all other cultures, but do NOT assign them to the same ideas.
When playing a gnome... I absolutely speak in 'gamer talk' and BUST open that 4th wall. He'll talk about will saves and AC perception checks and all sorts of things that we just say is 'gnomish' :D
That's actually pretty nifty. Very gnome-y.
It's easy to say in hindsight, with the GM having already told you "This line here was meant to be a warning", that it was supposed to be a hint. But any GM who provides any sort of decent description at any point will say a thousand things in a session that could equally be taken as hints.
I just wonder how many dangerous things characters are supposed to flee openly from?
The wicked witch of the west had signs all through her forest saying 'turn back now' 'This is your last chance'. Do characters who bravely go forward get considered foolish who deserved to die for ignoring the dm's warning?
Player characters are EXPECTED to face danger heroicly. There is a difference between saying 'There is danger here...' 'And you will DIE.'
SOMETIMES... knowing that certain death is coming, does NOT mean my characters back down. If the threat to others is great enough, I HAVE had character face down monsters that he had no chance of surving to buy time...
but something like this... seems a bit wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I am mistaken, there was never any indication of there being some important map hidden within any of the rooms. That would be a huge assumption on the part of the would be hero.
It sounds more metagamey for the characters to blindly decide which opponents are 'important' and which are 'random encounters'.
Treasure is an important part of these games... Heck we just finished Serpent Skull, and I distinctly remember finding broken ships that were falling apart under us way back in book one. We actually DID find a chest in the captains quarters that DID have important stuff in it...
It's been a long time... and we were only 2-3rd level at the time so it wasn't AWESOME loot... but that MIGHT have been where I got my first magic dagger... and lame as +1s become at higher level, I finished that campaign with that dagger tucked in my belt for a good throwing weapon...
Secret doors... compartments... traps... They do exist even when the DM doesn't give you billboard sign that says 'LOOK HERE!' In fact most DMs assume you DO search a room for something hidden or you won't find it.
If I was a heroic person... and I was attacked by a ghost ship on the high seas... I would want to know more about it. I wouldn't be stripping down the curtains off the bed... but I'd take a quick peek for some clue as to who they were, where they came from, or anything else relevant to my life as an adventurer ;)
SOMETIMES... knowing that certain death is coming, does NOT mean my characters back down. If the threat to others is great enough, I HAVE had character face down monsters that he had no chance of surving to buy time...
but something like this... seems a bit wrong.
Playing through a character's "last stand" is climactic and fun. I wouldn't mind my character dying if he buys enough time for his allies to flee.
There's a big difference between having your character die in a fun way, and having rocks fall everyone dies. For this reason, I think I can see where a lot of folks are coming from on this issue.
Ship collapses on top of you, dragging you down into the crushing depths. You who stay behind die, seems legit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for the part where there was no mention of a collapsing ship.