Oy!
I ran a session today for our emergency World Serpent Inn campaign, and my players talked themselves out of a big set-piece battle AND a whole dungeon!!!! With custom-made monsters!
:-O
At least I have some set pieces for my next campaign....
This is for a 5th Edition campaign.
For one set piece, it took place in a city of ice and ivory. The Ice Queen is a white half-dragon medusa, replacing petrifying gaze with am icy glare, that turned targets into ice instead of stone. She had ice mephit minions. Her throne is carved from a block ice and sat upon a bearskin rug (a rug of suffocating). The icy floor was crystal clear, and revealed pearl divers (the water was warmed by remorhaz eggs) and a pair of merrow.
The battle was going to have the mephits harry the PCs while the half-dragon medusa blasts and glares and ray of frosts. I gave the mephits grease instead of fog cloud. The ice medusa also had the ability to weaken ice, so the merrow could break through the ice and throw their harpoons at the PCs.
The second dungeon of the night had a bunch of LN folk (lumi & visilights from the 3.5 MM3 and a boosted spectator with 6 eye stalks and legendary actions. They bypassed the whole dungeon by playing a single match of Texas Hold 'Em. The PCs were supposed to rescue a notorious luckmonger, and they convinced a judge that if the judge won a hand of poker, the luckmonger was innocent of breaking the law of averages. I played the judge, a player played the luckmonger, and I got a full house.
This never happens in real life.
Also, why do I always roll better when I DM?????
I don't understand your issue (though that can be because I haven't played 5th Edition yet).
Are you complaining that PCs are using Diplomacy as a means to trivialize encounters? If you don't want creatures to not be trivialized, then you can, as a GM, say that their Diplomacy would be a waste of time.
Here's an important Pathfinder entry for Diplomacy:
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
So in your first example, you were already in combat, and it was quite obvious that the boss planned to harm them in the near future (since they're in its lair and stuff), meaning as a GM, you can rule that the Diplomacy check would have no meaningful impact on the creature's behavior towards them.
In your second example, that's not an unreasonable usage of Diplomacy, since the creatures in question were really only interested in the Luckmonger for a given reason, and Diplomacy effectively nullified that reason. Combat didn't start, and outside of that reason, the creatures involved would have no reason to further harm the Luckmonger, so I don't see how Diplomacy was really wrong.
I'm going to go ahead and say that this probably isn't the right forum for this (but only primarily because this can very well be a 5th Ed. concern, and not a Pathfinder concern), though if you wanted a Pathfinder answer, I've provided one.
They went on a quest for the BBEG to kill something and bring back a big giant egg, and the PCs killed it and brought back TWO big giant eggs, so they did such a good job the BBEG didn't have a reason to betray the PCs. :-P
In the second (half of the) quest, the PCs just weren't bellicose. The NPCs were super LN and respected talking and stuff. Ugh.
At least there were some fun wandering monster encounters....
:-P
EDIT:
Honestly, this is probably the least worst problem ever.
Like, my wallet is too small for all these hundred dollar bills!
I don't think the OP is really so much lodging a complaint or asking a question. I think this is just a "friendly rant", so to speak.
Exactly KC. :-D
Also, why do I always roll better when I DM?????
My players ask me this same thing. Mwahaha! (Can't be cheating, I roll dice openly).
It's actually because the GM rolls a lot more dice than anyone else, and they simply remember the higher rolls more than they remember the misses.
|
When the players manage to do something smart enough to avoid combat I sometimes just explicitly congratulate them and ask if they are happy to take their win or if they want the combat anyway.
Usually, but not always, they take the win. Sometimes they want a fight.
But there is nothing I hate more as a player than cleverly avoiding a combat and having the GM negate that victory by fiat.
Have been doing that quite a few times using diplomacy on a mythic run recently.
In the end , usually some fights can be won by talking over killing stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear you, try playing with two lawyers, not rules lawyers but actual lawyers.
I used to a while back. But they had to call it "poker night" because they had political ambitions and nobody votes for D&D nerds. :-P
Well, maybe Colbert...
I even set it up so all the negotiations were in "Orthovox" where the language is so attuned to law and order, that Deception and other lies are made at disadvantage and Insight is made at advantage. :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear you, try playing with two lawyers, not rules lawyers but actual lawyers.I used to a while back. But they had to call it "poker night" because they had political ambitions and nobody votes for D&D nerds. :-P
Well, maybe Colbert...
I even set it up so all the negotiations were in "Orthovox" where the language is so attuned to law and order, that Deception and other lies are made at disadvantage and Insight is made at advantage. :-)
Well played sir, well played!
Aaaaaaand they had double their proficiency bonus on Insight checks, but I rolled a 10 both times (total of 16), but the warlock managed to get a total of 17. :-P
Fricken' lawyers:
"Your outline is longer than the case notes."
"My outline is better than the case notes."
Yikes!