| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We had successfully squelched the volcano. It literally stopped erupting and cooled before our very eyes. There was no in-game indication whatsoever that the continued existence of the efreeti had anything to do with it erupting or not erupting (we figured she was just a guardian trying to delay us).
Also, the efreeti disappeared during the fight just as we managed to pour the last of the waters. We weren't about to let her come back and finish us off (we didn't even know if she had teleported or was invisible).
By the time the army arrived, we were gone. We teleported the hell out of there and back to town with full confidence that we had successfully done our jobs. There was nothing that led us to believe otherwise...not until we received the terrible news a week later that is.
It's as I said: Never had a chance. We were mislead.
EDIT: Maybe that's too strong. The GM did inform us OUT OF GAME of the situation, but had also berated us the entire evening about avoiding metagaming. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We roleplayed our characters as oblivious, because to do otherwise would be to metagame the situation and bring down the wrath of our GM upon our heads.
So you left the efreeti in the volcano, with an army, and went on vacation for a week? Then while you were gone, the efreeti, who had been trying to activate the volcano, somehow activated the volcano? Is that the gist of what you're saying?
In the end, despite our having retrieved the artifact and mystic waters and successfully calming the volcano with them, and (barely) escaped the scene, the GM declared that without having defeated "the conduit of the goddess" that was the ifrit, she essentially "revitalized" the volcano a week later and destroyed the village we were meant to protect anyways. In short, we lost in just about every meaningful way.
They needed some MacGuffin to stop the volcano.
MacGuffin was used up. Army screwed them out of finishing the job.
No MacGuffin, no stopping the volcano.
That's what I gathered, anyway.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused by the narrative, here--as the scenario is written*, 1) you need to kill the efreeti to get the key to the place where you'll sprinkle the magic water on the volcano, and 2) the efreeti will fight to the death and not retreat.
The doors are magically locked, but Sorzan, the Queen’s Hand, has the key.
Morale Trusting her fate to her goddess, Sorzan fights to the death and without mercy.
So what you described--fighting the efreeti while you're trying to water the volcano--already involves a revision to the scenario. Not to mention the whole "fights to the death" thing; maybe your GM felt better about having her retreat because you'd already gained access to the crater, though.
*I figured with the spoiler warning in the thread title I didn't need to worry about putting this behind a tag.
We teleported past the door with dimension door. We didn't need to kill her for the key.
Even the GM admitted that, that seemed like a design oversight. He thought the door and the area beyond should have had some kind of anti-teleportation ability.
The only thing was the artifact we were carrying, which can screw up teleporting. We got lucky and didn't end up being solidly supported by lava.
So you left the efreeti in the volcano, with an army, and went on vacation for a week? Then while you were gone, the efreeti, who had been trying to activate the volcano, somehow activated the volcano? Is that the gist of what you're saying?
In the end, despite our having retrieved the artifact and mystic waters and successfully calming the volcano with them, and (barely) escaped the scene, the GM declared that without having defeated "the conduit of the goddess" that was the ifrit, she essentially "revitalized" the volcano a week later and destroyed the village we were meant to protect anyways. In short, we lost in just about every meaningful way.
They needed some MacGuffin to stop the volcano.
MacGuffin was used up. Army screwed them out of finishing the job.
No MacGuffin, no stopping the volcano.
That's what I gathered, anyway.
No, it was "Successfully used the MacGuffin to stop the volcano and went home. A week later, unknown to the party, the BBEG comes back with an army and somehow restarts the volcano."
Having the bad guy get away and come back to try again is not a bad storytelling choice. However, if that happens, the characters have to find out in time to try to stop it or at least know it's a possibility and so they can make the choice to wait for the BBEG to return. (Like, the villagers are terrified that the BBEG got away and beg the PCs to stick around, just in case. At that point, the players' decision to stay or go is the key factor in the fate of the village.)
Honestly, if the characters' actions have no chance of affecting the outcome, there's not really any point in involving the characters in that storyline in the first place. Just have them show up at the lava-entombed village after the fact, say, "Huh, wonder what happened here?" and then move on.
On the plus side, we all got a big heaping dose of mythic adventures and what the new rules are capable of.
I know there are a lot of different people who play Pathfinder for a lot of different reasons. IMO the situation sounds quite realistic for the rules and mechanics in play. Ya, you kinda got screwed over, but you get screwed over in life and you got screwed over in a way that didn't directly affect your characters (negative levels, death of character, ect). Likewise, I can see someone arguing that Pathfinder is very much a game and in being a game, should be modified to give the players a chance to win. To each their own. I personally like games with life lessons and hard truths in them, like "There are some battles you just can't win" as long as the GM doesn't cause any permanent damage to character that will be used in multiple adventures to come, but I guess in a sense that would also be fair. I think it really comes down to the players talking with their GM and discussing what they like and don't like in an adventure.
Seems a jerk move to me.
If she could do this, why didn't she long ago and have an army to start with to complete her goddesses plans?
Getting an entire army, even temporarily, seems a little out of league with a Wish.
How was she able to plane shift, find a wish able creature, intimidate it, get the wish and transport herself and the army back before you could simply step to the caldera and pour in the tears?
I mean even assuming she could get an army, TRANSPORTING it is a whole different thing and wish cannot duplicate the effect of Gate since it is another 9th level spell.
Seem like a straight up F-U move to me.
Seems like the people you play with do a lot of stuff to mess with you too. Why do you play with them again?
The army came AFTER we dropped the tears, after we had gone--though we could have just as easily still been there when it happened.
I was at 0 hit points, the sorcerer was nearly out of spells, everyone else was gone, and we were both out of mythic daily uses. On the other hand, the efreeti had several spell-like abilities rearing to go, at least four mythic points of her own, had used Absorb Blow to basically make all of out past and future attacks essentially useless, and had suddenly disappeared, apparently having gone invisible.
Our job having been (seemingly) accomplished, we flat out fled the mountain (which didn't explode, though I didn't know that was a thing until the GM let us read the module after the game).
I think your GM means that she forced a weak mortal creature to make a wish, which she granted with her own power.
I think your GM means that she forced a weak mortal creature to make a wish, which she granted with her own power.No an efreet is not the same as an ifrit. Ifrit, the fire elemental kin, does not have wish abilities to exploit. They have to find somebody who does.
"EDIT: Been saying ifrit when I should have been saying efreeti. Got confused because the GM kept referring to her as an "ifrit genie."
When the GM portrays an NPC in a way that gets the party killed, it's a dick move but when the players pull a stunt that may be equally suspect, it's considered clever and thinking out of the box. Over the years I have seen many players flirt loosely with the rules to get what they want but if the GM does it, watch out!
RavingDork my interpretation of your situation is that the GM is playing fast and loose with the rules and intention of the module, probably because you frustrated his efforts.
If his intention was to give you a challenge as others have said there would need to be some way for you to meet that challenge. Waiting until the game is over and saying "oh by the way you guys lost because here's what will happen next while your characters are gone" is pedantic.
Do you game with this guy all the time is he your regular GM?
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, Odysseus wasn't a demigod. He was all-human, like I thought. And yet he probably came the closest to dispatching an army among the listed Greek heroes. ;)
I know this is off topic but Odysseus's mother was Anticlea, whose father was Autolycus, whose father was Hermes god of Transitions and Boundaries, so Odysseus was 1/8th god and thus could be considered a demi-god. Pindar and Price used the term demi-god synonymously with Hero.
Well depending on how Mythic , Mythic is, you could in the infinite planes find the volcano Efreeti threatened village that hasn't yet been destroyed and save that one, lets you make amends and replay the encounter to better effect!
I'm not too familiar with the mythic rules but this sounds like it crossed the line to me.
1. This is more a matter of opinion than rules, but I think an efreeti threatening/torturing a mortal into making a wish she wants shouldn't be possible. Why wouldn't every efreeti just do that as soon as soon as they got the ability to grant wishes? It's like squeezing a person's figure onto a trigger and calling them the murderer.
2. The outcome reeks of a sour GM upset that he didn't "win". You beat his challenge too easily, so after the story effectively ended he just threw in something you couldn't prepare for or defeat to kill you just for the sake of killing you.
Ick.
As an aside about Efreeti getting others to wish for them:
In the Legacy of fire AP a major plot line was an Efreeti trying to garner wishes to utilize by manipulating mortals to grant him use of some of the wishes he could cast. He had to build a temple and use an elaborate well thought out set of "prayers" that he gave the wishing mortals in a script to work their wishes into. They would get the full benefit of two of his wishes and he would "keep" the third but only receive a fraction of its power.
My point? An entire AP is written around how damn hard and elaborate and time consuming it was for an Efreeti to do(he actually fails) just what random volcano guarding Efreeti does without any of the prep work in the time it takes your party to get a decent tan.
Your GM probably never ran that AP but it just shows you what a special case this is.
The same GM hosted Legacy of Fire for us a few years back. We never made ti far enough to figure out any of that stuff, Errant, but it makes me wonder if that's where he got the idea from.
The temple in question is the eponymous "House of the Beast" of book two of LoF but when the players arrive it is ruled by the Carrion King, there were hints about its origins but it relies on a lot of knowledge checks and good detective work.
Later in the AP that knowledge becomes apparent.
Suffice to say that they had a whole section on "wishcraft" in the supplementary material that talks about how wish magic works in Galorian. They describe it almost like mana or the force.
Good stuff when used in a thematically appropriate way. Say whatever about James Jacobs I think he's a creative guy.
Hey this is unrelated but how do I get a picture next to my username, I'm starting to feel left out?
I'm not too familiar with the mythic rules but this sounds like it crossed the line to me.
1. This is more a matter of opinion than rules, but I think an efreeti threatening/torturing a mortal into making a wish she wants shouldn't be possible. Why wouldn't every efreeti just do that as soon as soon as they got the ability to grant wishes? It's like squeezing a person's figure onto a trigger and calling them the murderer.
It's amazing how people seem to be ignoring this simple fact: The "clever, outside-the-box" technique makes about as much sense as distracting a paladin by assuring him there's a ninja outside.
Umm...demi gods of greek legends take on armies and win.Really? Which ones?
Heracles? - Nope. 12 labors not one was fighting an army and winning
Achilles? - Nope. Had a whole army and an elite team at his side... and still ended up dead. I'd call that Not a win.
Theseus? - Nope. Beat up a Minotaur, but needed help from the bull's sister.
Odysseus? - Nope. Had a whole army with him (or his crew), while he did make it out alive it took him 10 years to get home
Perseus? - Nope. Killed Medussa, but had a TON of help.
Jason? - Nope. Had the Argonaughts (and Heracles sometimes). Was sort of a douchebag too.
Bellerophon? - Nope. Would anyone even know his name if not for Tom Cruise? His family did some cool stuff, but still didn't defeat an army.
Cadmus? - Nope. He needed an army to kill a dragon. Okay he did found Thebes but he regrew his army from the dragon's teeth... and they scared him so much that he had half them killed.Now I'm not sure what all this means or even what my point was anymore, but that was a lot of fun going back through all those heroes... I kinda miss 'em.
Half or more of those guys were not demi-gods.
Lose one internets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's amazing how people seem to be ignoring this simple fact: The "clever, outside-the-box" technique makes about as much sense as distracting a paladin by assuring him there's a ninja outside.I'm not too familiar with the mythic rules but this sounds like it crossed the line to me.
1. This is more a matter of opinion than rules, but I think an efreeti threatening/torturing a mortal into making a wish she wants shouldn't be possible. Why wouldn't every efreeti just do that as soon as soon as they got the ability to grant wishes? It's like squeezing a person's figure onto a trigger and calling them the murderer.
COME AND FACE ME EVIL!
I SHALL BUTTER THE TOAST OF JUSTICE!
Hell if I know, Malchi.Find out!
I'll wager that there is no such wording. The DM will show he screwed you by not being able to re-produce that wording.
If he can, brilliant! Use that wording to get your own army!
I second this... Definately approach the GM and inform him you all feel ripped off, and would like more details aka.. The wish wording, and type of genie/whatever granted it, what DC that intimidate was.
Then when back in your normal game.. reverse that and pull that same move on him... summon a genie, intimidate it , and wishes galore.
Umm...demi gods of greek legends take on armies and win.
Really? Which ones?
Heracles? - Nope. 12 labors not one was fighting an army and winning
Well he helped the gods fight the gigantes and basicallly won that war on his own. He also stormed Troy in one f%&~ing day with only a crew of sailors.
He also fought the amazons and drove them away during his quest for Hippolytta's girdle.Last but not least slaying the Stymphalian birds could be considered a similar feat. A swarm of aggressive man eating birds with launchable feathers of metal should be comparable to an army.
There is also a myth of him wrestling Zeus(in human form)at the olympics causing an earthquake and tidal waves and him creating THE MEDITERRAN SEA by separating Europe from Africa punching the ground. He held up the sky and wears an impenetrable magical fur coat. How is any army going to stop such a guy?
Achilles? - Nope. Had a whole army and an elite team at his side... and still ended up dead. I'd call that Not a win.
That's why he is a wimp compared to Hercules. Hell he couldn't even lift the shield of some weird cousin of Theseus IIRC. Diomedes being the only one in their army able to.
Theseus? - Nope. Beat up a Minotaur, but needed help from the bull's sister.
Well at least he hung out with Herc in their later adventures. He is a golden age hero therefore much stronger than Achill, though I don't remember him taking on an army either.
Odysseus? - Nope. Had a whole army with him (or his crew), while he did make it out alive it took him 10 years to get home
Shure he isn't that much of a powerhouse.
Perseus? - Nope. Killed Medussa, but had a TON of help.
Hasn't shown anything like that, but he should be quite strong, since the gods trust him that much.
Jason? - Nope. Had the Argonaughts (and Heracles sometimes). Was sort of a douchebag too.
Agreed.
Bellerophon? - Nope. Would anyone even know his name if not for Tom Cruise? His family did some cool stuff, but still didn't defeat an army.
He didn't. But if a few cohorts of soldiers could have stopped the chimera wouldn't they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the history of RD and his GM and fellow players, he's probably not going to do anything about this ever. So just suck it up and move on, since you're clearly not leaving this gaming group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm...demi gods of greek legends take on armies and win.
Really? Which ones?
Heracles? - Nope. 12 labors not one was fighting an army and winningWell he helped the gods fight the gigantes and basicallly won that war on his own. He also stormed Troy in one f*@*ing day with only a crew of sailors.
He also fought the amazons and drove them away during his quest for Hippolytta's girdle.
Last but not least slaying the Stymphalian birds could be considered a similar feat. A swarm of aggressive man eating birds with launchable feathers of metal should be comparable to an army.
Totally off-topic but...
To the Hellenic Bronze Age cultures, fighting an army was just not what gods and heroes did. Gods and heroes fought monsters.
One reason for this is probably because in Hellenic myths, warfare was more like dueling with 1,000 seconds to back you up than direct army clashing. Another reason is probably because armies were just plain old men. In theory, any minor deity could step up onto the battlefield, yell "Boo!" and put an end to the whole war. (Apollon and Artemis were said to destroy entire cities with a single arrow, when they were still children.) If they involved themselves in the war directly, there wouldn't be any war, ever. (This spirals into the theological argument that's the ancient world's equivalent of "why did God let Hitler exist?")
Heracles is unique in that he was more god than hero. He's really the only hero whose apotheosis was recognized across the whole Mediterranean. Every other hero/demi-god was really a local cult figure. Even still, the armies that Heracles took on--the giants and the Amazons--were still "monsters" in the original sense of the word; they were also smaller groups of more powerful creatures rather than an army of regular folk.
Then you have to take into account the pre-Homeric and post-Homeric heroes. The Iliad is both the first (surviving) story we have of an "actual" war (from the audience's perspective) and the first complete example of the epic genre. Both of those aspects change the entire concept of heroism. There is a lot of tragedy and emotional pain in the Iliad and the Odyssey. In the Iliad, you have the first instance of the primary hero (Achilleus) questioning whether giving up a normal life to be a hero was worth it; in the Odyssey, his ghost flat out tells Odysseus that it wasn't worth it. There's also the art vs cult issue: the flawed deities and heroes in the Iliad and the Odyssey are not the same beings celebrated in the Homeric Hymns, even though most of the plot elements are the same. The "Greek Myths" are not a homogenous or even coherent set of stories, so our understanding of the "mythic heroes" will always be skewed by what works we know them through.
Anyway, the point is that you won't find examples of Hellenic heroes taking on armies until well into the Classical era, and those will be in the histories rather than the myths (Thermopylae being the most famous example). You can argue from game mechanics basis whether any of the mythic Hellenic heroes could take on an army of X-level NPCs, but you're not going find a lot of support one way or another in the primary sources.
|
|
GM has NPC plane shifts, finds weak version of wish bearing creature, intimidates for a wish, returns with army. All within a short period of time. This is Rocks-Fall-You-Die type GMing in my mind.
If the NPC already has the weakling on retainer as a plot device, ok. Not my style, but I can see it appeal to others. As described, which may be only part of the story, meh. How would GM adjudicate the PCs doing the same?
I'm fine with NPCs having access to resources the PCs don't. I'm not fine with NPCs having ad hic access to overcoming the basic mechanisms and expectations of the game.
Given the history of RD and his GM and fellow players, he's probably not going to do anything about this ever. So just suck it up and move on, since you're clearly not leaving this gaming group.
Yeah, I totally have that "can't leave" battered woman mind set. /sarcasm
This is the only gaming group I've got, and it really isn't all that bad. We have a lot of great games that I don't mention.
It's like planes crashing. It almost never happens. When a plan gets from point A to point B safely, no one ever hears about it. But the moment one crashes once in a blue moon, it's national news.
I don't make a big deal out of our normal games, just those that stand out in a negative way (less than 1/5 of our overall play experience). This has obviously caused a skewed perspective of our gaming group over time.
And besides, there is a known precedent in the game for Genies acting in this fashion--one that my GM could easily be familiar with. Why would he feel like he did anything wrong at all? As far as he's concerned, I'm certain he feels he was just challenging us to his utmost capability.
Your username is not helping.
It's not supposed to. It adequately and accurately describes my personality.
Which makes me think the problem isn't with them...
Though to be honest, this time around, what the GM did was pretty mediocre for a story. You guys won, earned the victory. No need to ruin that out of spite.
When the GM portrays an NPC in a way that gets the party killed, it's a dick move but when the players pull a stunt that may be equally suspect, it's considered clever and thinking out of the box. Over the years I have seen many players flirt loosely with the rules to get what they want but if the GM does it, watch out!
GMs and players do not have the same goals or play by the same rules. Frankly, the idea that the GM is supposed to try as hard as he can to "win" the game by causing a TPK is one of the most poisonous and damaging to fun ideas in all of tabletop roleplaying.
Why, I wholeheartedly agree. ;P
GMs and players do not have the same goals or play by the same rules. Frankly, the idea that the GM is supposed to try as hard as he can to "win" the game by causing a TPK is one of the most poisonous and damaging to fun ideas in all of tabletop roleplaying.
If a GM needs to try to "win" then his players have greater system mastery then he does, which can be a problem. The GM is the almighty god and sovereign entity of the universe, so if he wants to win has already won.
I think the role of GM is to present a real challenge to the players, without it killing them, and that is a very fine line. Nothing felt better as a player then one of the boss battles in the first book of the King Maker campaign when we fought at their hideout. Because of the sandbox nature we ended up fighting them before we had leveled up appropriately and had some random encounters along the way which drained resources. We got lucky with it because I was playing a paladin and was able to smite the evil boss and kill him from horse back with a lance (not a bonded mount, just a regular trained horse we had captured from other brigands). I was able to splat the boss and the minions (whom were about to kill the rest of my party) ran off.
The same GM hosted Legacy of Fire for us a few years back. We never made ti far enough to figure out any of that stuff, Errant, but it makes me wonder if that's where he got the idea from.
It's amazing how people seem to be ignoring this simple fact: The "clever, outside-the-box" technique makes about as much sense as distracting a paladin by assuring him there's a ninja outside.I'm not too familiar with the mythic rules but this sounds like it crossed the line to me.
1. This is more a matter of opinion than rules, but I think an efreeti threatening/torturing a mortal into making a wish she wants shouldn't be possible. Why wouldn't every efreeti just do that as soon as soon as they got the ability to grant wishes? It's like squeezing a person's figure onto a trigger and calling them the murderer.
Well if the party just fought a bunch of ninjas, the first time it COULD work... obviously the second time it was included more for humor than accuracy.
|
|
GM has NPC plane shifts, finds weak version of wish bearing creature, intimidates for a wish, returns with army. All within a short period of time. This is Rocks-Fall-You-Die type GMing in my mind.
Not quite what happened, AIUI. The efreeti can grant another creature's wish; she plane shifted, found some weakling, and intimidated it into wishing for an army that would serve the efreeti. It's a familiar plot device if you've ever seen the first sequel to Aladdin (the one where Homer Simpson voiced the genie).
If the efreeti is the one granting the wish, she can choose how to interpret it. It's perfectly within her ability to have a mortal say "I wish for an army" without specifying who the army will serve.
The very basis for my Ifrit Wishcrafter... And (sort of) the Wish Master movies.
When the GM portrays an NPC in a way that gets the party killed, it's a dick move but when the players pull a stunt that may be equally suspect, it's considered clever and thinking out of the box. Over the years I have seen many players flirt loosely with the rules to get what they want but if the GM does it, watch out!
The eternal counter to this statement is that the GM has Rule 0 and the players do not. If they players are 'flirting loosely with the rules to get what they want' it is the entire point of the GM concept that he/she counter that with common sense and saying 'no' when appropriate.
The implied social contract in the game is that the GM is going to be fair and do what is required to further fun and story for the game, not be a jerk just to mess with players. And that same concept goes with the players as well.
Not quite what happened, AIUI. The efreeti can grant another creature's wish; she plane shifted, found some weakling, and intimidated it into wishing for an army that would serve the efreeti. It's a familiar plot device if you've ever seen the first sequel to Aladdin (the one where Homer Simpson voiced the genie).
To be fair, though, Jafar's efforts were played out. He didn't just scare the crap out of Abis Mal, he had to show that making wishes that didn't help him wouldn't pay off. And that was with a very different sort of genie, too.