The last session I ran was quite a bloody one, and a PC and animal companion died. The problem is that I'm not sure if I'm being to harsh on the players, as the player whose animal companion died felt as if it was unfair. I know this would normally be a discussion to have with the player in question, but I've already asked them and we can't come to an agreeable conclusion.
Background info:
Level 4 party, only two of them were in the area as the party had split. The two party members were a grippli charging build on a roc, and a dwarf Warpriest.
An undead megaraptor (stats reduced to 20hp and 14AC) rose from a pile of bones. The grippli got the higher initiative, then the dwarf, and then the raptor. The grippli decided to try to diplomacy the raptor, and the dwarf ran. The raptor was unintelligent undead, and pounced and rolled a 17 and 18 against the roc with its talons (2d6+6 each), and killed it.
The problem came because, through two very lucky dice rolls, the animal companion was killed in one shot. The grippli was given chance to run away (which they did) and the raptor did not follow.
***
I felt bad for killing the roc, but I'm not sure what else I could have done. What I want to know was if this was too harsh, and if lucky rolls came up again and could kill a character/companion, what to do?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so they split the party, and then tried diplomacy on a skeleton, that wasn't even an intelligent creature before it died, while the divine caster left them to deal with it alone?
And the only thing that died was an animal companion?
Sometimes the monsters get lucky rolls, and things can die. It happens.
Sometimes players make a string of horrible choices that get their birds killed, that happens too.
Neither means the GM is being too harsh.
The last session I ran was quite a bloody one, and a PC and animal companion died.
/.../
The problem came because, through two very lucky dice rolls, the animal companion was killed in one shot. The grippli was given chance to run away (which they did) and the raptor did not follow.
Wait. Did you kill a player character or not?
School of hard knocks, bet the player will be more careful in the future, so nope, just playing things as they lie, to quote golf (I hate golf!)
Wait. Did you kill a player character or not?The last session I ran was quite a bloody one, and a PC and animal companion died.
/.../
The problem came because, through two very lucky dice rolls, the animal companion was killed in one shot. The grippli was given chance to run away (which they did) and the raptor did not follow.
I did, but not the one with the animal companion - I forgot to mention this, sorry.
The PC that died, died because a contract devil offered them a bag of holding (something that PC had wanted, and the devil knew this) in exchange for a favour - the devil explained that he could not force them to make the contract. The PC jumped inside the bag of holding when it was in the devil's outstretched palm, and then the PC started demanding more from the devil. The devil told them to get out as they had not yet accepted the contract, and demonstrated his power (intimidation with flashy effects), the PC then demended more from the devil. The devil explained that he could kill him by cutting the outside of the bag, but the PC did not get out, and then the devil closed the bag. The PC managed to get it open again (I let them make a strength check) and instead of jumping out, they again asked the devil for more stuff. The devil closed the bag and stuck his claw through the fabric.
The player seemed okay with this, and agreed that he probably deserved it.
It doesn't sound too harsh to me - harsh would have been pursuing the fleeing grippli while the undead raptor still had an animal companion body to rip to shreds.
One thing you might consider is whether the grippli's player is feeling a bit upset, in part, because of the death of the PC's "pet" and that just hasn't been aired yet. One way to handle this might be to think of the animal companion as something different - rather than a pet, it's a defender assigned to the druid by the powers of nature. I think of it as a primal spirit of nature that inhabits an animal form to be a companion and persists potentially through different animal forms as companions get killed in the line of duty and new ones are summoned. You could have a new roc show up, perhaps looking a bit different, but having the same glimmer of recognition and familiarity in its eyes.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't mess up, your players kinda sound like a bunch of idiots.
Party decided to split up. That's on them, not you.
Person who won initiative thought it was a good idea to attempt parley with an unintelligent undead dinosaur, who only understood "edible" "inedible, but trying anyway" and "mating season" in the most basic of concepts when it was still alive. That's on the player.
Second player who could have done something chose to save own skin. That's on that player.
Undead dinosaur has two targets left. A small frog creature, or a giant bird. Giant bird is more threatening than a small frog creature, and probably more on the "edible" scale than on the "inedible, but trying anyway" scale. Ultimately, yes, this is your decision on what to target or how to decide to target for your NPC/monster adversaries, but it's a perfectly logical decision from the point of view of the undead dinosaur.
And then the Dice Gods took vengeance on the Players Who Made Dumb Decisions. That's completely out of your hands. That's the divine power of mathematics and random chance.
So no, absolutely not your fault they chose poorly and an overgrown pet cockatoo died. Feel no guilt.
Party decided to split up. That's on them, not you.
Person who won initiative thought it was a good idea to attempt parley with an unintelligent undead dinosaur, who only understood "edible" "inedible, but trying anyway" and "mating season" in the most basic of concepts when it was still alive. That's on the player.
Second player who could have done something chose to save own skin. That's on that player.
Undead dinosaur has two targets left. A small frog creature, or a giant bird. Giant bird is more threatening than a small frog creature, and probably more on the "edible" scale than on the "inedible, but trying anyway" scale. Ultimately, yes, this is your decision on what to target or how to decide to target for your NPC/monster adversaries, but it's a perfectly logical decision from the point of view of the undead dinosaur.
And then the Dice Gods took vengeance on the Players Who Made Dumb Decisions. That's completely out of your hands. That's the divine power of mathematics and random chance.
So no, absolutely not your fault they chose poorly and an overgrown pet cockatoo died. Feel no guilt.
I love your description of the thought process of a Raptor.
:D
I do not think you are being too harsh.
The PCs made a couple of pretty damaging mistakes. 1. Diplomacy with mindless or unintelligent undead is a waste of an action ( I hope the character at least said he was going full defense and got the AC bonuses. If they didn't that would be a good time to coach a little strategy out of the PC by making a comment like you can make the diplomacy check and go on full defense in case it doesn't work.) 2. The Divine PC is the best equipped to deal with undead and he should have been helping. 3. I know that the party being split up wasn't entirely by choice so I won't give the PCs any grief for that however they should have discussed the situation and had a plan, like flee every encounter immediately until we are back as a single group or something else that protected them during this dangerous time.
However you did make one mistake, the raptor skeleton loses the pounce ability when it is transformed into a skeleton unless it is some kind of specialty creature or house rule. So, the PC could have had a chance to full retreat after the roc was made into delicious fried chicken.
The encounter seems fair from what I can tell, though the raptor does hit very hard. The unfortunate decision of choosing to wait for the dinosaur to make the first move is likely what cost them. Letting the enemy go first is a very bad move especially at low levels even putting aside the fact that Mr. Zombie Dino probably wasn't out looking for a chat. Don't sweat the dice rolls, they happen. Frankly, I myself would be more annoyed if the GM fudged them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although in fairness, if a druid or ranger is confronted with an angry dinosaur, I wouldn't blame him for trying his animal empathy abilities.
An angry, yet living, dinosaur, I would agree with you. An undead dinosaur? Nope. Most things don't get smarter or more communicative during the process of becoming undead.
An angry, yet living, dinosaur, I would agree with you. An undead dinosaur? Nope. Most things don't get smarter or more communicative during the process of becoming undead.
Although in fairness, if a druid or ranger is confronted with an angry dinosaur, I wouldn't blame him for trying his animal empathy abilities.
Heck, even a living dinosaur has risks. A certain amount of precaution should be taken regardless.
You didn't mess up, your players kinda sound like a bunch of idiots.
They're not usually this bad, and the Grippli player is often good at strategizing. I suppose it should be noted that these are the first players/animal companions I've ever killed. Normally I don't really like doing it, but I was told by two of the players that I need to be more harsh (and one of them said that I shouldn't be afraid to kill characters). The session before this session I put them against greater challenges and they nearly all died, but didn't, so I was hoping they'd be used to it being slightly more challenging; it could be that there was a disconnect from my view of harshness and their ideas of what they could get away with, and that might have been why this happened.
We've communicated with skeletons before so I thought it was a possible and given I couldn't really fly away being inside a 10 ft tall cave I hoped ID be able to stall it at least(This isn't set in golorion, undead are not automatically evil.)So are the undead in general intelligent in that setting? .-. Or at least have animal like behavior?
I mean, like, even if golarion skeletons weren't evil, they are still mindless in "Kill everything that is alive" way <_<
Had you? I can't remember you communicating with skeletons, but I might be wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skeletons in asguard's mortuary responded to usHad you? I can't remember you communicating with skeletons, but I might be wrong.We've communicated with skeletons before so I thought it was a possible and given I couldn't really fly away being inside a 10 ft tall cave I hoped ID be able to stall it at least(This isn't set in golorion, undead are not automatically evil.)So are the undead in general intelligent in that setting? .-. Or at least have animal like behavior?
I mean, like, even if golarion skeletons weren't evil, they are still mindless in "Kill everything that is alive" way <_<
They didn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The players should have been on the same page as far as running or not.
The Roc should have had at least 19 HP, and 28 before death, which means lucky rolls from two hits could kill it outright. If it used its 4th level increase to bump CON and took Toughness (which really should be pretty much givens) then it would take 37 points of damage to kill outright, making it impossible that a single pounce attack would kill it without a crit, although knocking it out is still possible. Had the Dwarf stayed, it is almost certain that two characters could take out the Raptor in a single round of counter attacks, and likely saved the Roc. Equally, had they both fled they might have been safe.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing. If you are going to make some undead nonevil, it isn't unfair to give a clue when they are dealing with an evil one. If you don't want to give this away for free, at least a perception or sense motive or knowledge religion (all free or not-an-action) could be called for to provide more information.
The GM is the conduit to the players for the entire world. What you describe, how you describe it, and what you leave out determines their perception of the world. Making sure you give enough information for them to clearly assess the situation not only helps immersion but promotes trust that you are 'fair'. This doesn't mean at all reading out the numbers, but making sure that they have all the information their characters could have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok upset player
Before diplomacy did you make any attempt to roll knowledge checks to identify what you were looking at? If you had, it would have been possible to identify it as a raptor or as an unintelligent undead. If not, and you just assumed 'This bone thing is exactly the same as that other bone thing!', then that assumption is what got your bird killed, not the GM.
This wasn't your GM being harsh here. This was poor choices resulting in bad things happening. Accept it, learn from it, and move on.
And on the bright side though, your animal companion becoming lunch DID stall it, so technically you did what you wanted.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
The players should have been on the same page as far as running or not.
The Roc should have had at least 19 HP, and 28 before death, which means lucky rolls from two hits could kill it outright. If it used its 4th level increase to bump CON and took Toughness (which really should be pretty much givens) then it would take 37 points of damage to kill outright, making it impossible that a single pounce attack would kill it without a crit, although knocking it out is still possible. Had the Dwarf stayed, it is almost certain that two characters could take out the Raptor in a single round of counter attacks, and likely saved the Roc. Equally, had they both fled they might have been safe.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing. If you are going to make some undead nonevil, it isn't unfair to give a clue when they are dealing with an evil one. If you don't want to give this away for free, at least a perception or sense motive or knowledge religion (all free or not-an-action) could be called for to provide more information.
The GM is the conduit to the players for the entire world. What you describe, how you describe it, and what you leave out determines their perception of the world. Making sure you give enough information for them to clearly assess the situation not only helps immersion but promotes trust that you are 'fair'. This doesn't mean at all reading out the numbers, but making sure that they have all the information their characters could have.
I'll echo this. I personally hold my players to call out on their own that they want to Perception or Sense Motive or Knowledge (something) on an enemy. However, if I feel that they're missing a crucial detail like "this thing probably just wants to kill you, you may want to do something about that other than talking" I'll either hint at it like "upon noticing you, the skeletal creature starts moving your way with a malevolent glow in its eyes" or call for a specific check and divulge extra relevant information upon success.
Really though, this was just a case of the players being dumb. You did fine. They had plenty of opportunity to Knowledge (Religion) to learn more about the thing, go on full defensive just in case it attacks, or delay/ready actions in preparation for it acting unexpectedly. At the very least, they should've both either stayed or left. None of those things happened by the sound of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
In a way, your response makes my point.
Some of your players at least seem to think they have had encounters with non-evil undead, so what they think their characters have perceived and what you think you have described doesn't match.
I personally have issues doing this as well at lot of times. It is easy to say give better descriptions and communicate more, much harder to do it in the middle of running a game, checking the numbers and dealing with everything else. Recognizing that I fail to do it sometimes, does help me improve.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
In a way, your response makes my point.
Some of your players at least seem to think they have had encounters with non-evil undead, so what they think their characters have perceived and what you think you have described doesn't match.
I personally have issues doing this as well at lot of times. It is easy to say give better descriptions and communicate more, much harder to do it in the middle of running a game, checking the numbers and dealing with everything else. Recognizing that I fail to do it sometimes, does help me improve.
You have a point there - if it's causing confusion, I should put more effort into describing events and creatures. I used to describe places (or big spectacles) in a fair amount of depth when the players came across them.
I think writing out even just small paragraphs to read out that describe not just the key physical aspects, but its mannerisms so the players can get a sense of what the creature is all about.
Mind if I ask what you usually do to get around the problem?
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
Your player has stated more than once that their group encountered friendly or at least responsive undead before this incident. That would explain why that player tried to peacefully interact with this undead creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your player has stated more than once that their group encountered friendly or at least responsive undead before this incident. That would explain why that player tried to peacefully interact with this undead creature.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
It explains why muddying the "these creatures are always evil" waters is a generally bad idea too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
lol
welcome to the paizo forums
where they hate both GMs and Players equally
here is a tip boys and girls
if you have a problem at your table between people
settle it at your table between those people
because bringing it to this community as court of public opinion will basically make you some combination of sad, mad and/or jaded
mostly toward this forum community but also toward each other as a gaming group
It explains why muddying the "these creatures are always evil" waters is a generally bad idea too.Your player has stated more than once that their group encountered friendly or at least responsive undead before this incident. That would explain why that player tried to peacefully interact with this undead creature.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
It does lend itself to situations just like this one: players encountered friendly/neutral undead in the past and while encountering another undead attempt Diplomacy and suffer the results. I don't think it is the player's fault for assuming yet another undead they encounter might be the same.
The other player dying, since no one else really commented, is fair. That player needlessly taunted/antagonized a devil despite being warned to stop and suffered the consequences.
I checked through the notes, and I am 99% sure that we have had no intelligent undead, never mind good undead; all undead have attacked the party, or in one case, fled.
I do think I know where the confusion came from, though; the player and I have often discussed that we don't like all evil undead, especially for intelligent undead - I could have well said in one of these conversations that not all undead in the quest are evil by default. I can't remember saying this specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if I did.
It wasn't unfair, but as a voice of dissent? I think it was poor DMing.
There is a place for silly or even asinine behaviour in light-hearted campaigns. However, that doesn't mean you are immune to the results of your actions. There are consequences to acting in a stupid manner, including wasting combat turns. All of THAT said...
I would probably have flubbed the dice rolls to let the companion live, barely. But I know many are against their DM's doing that. Ultimately, I do understand his frustration. Sometimes a lucky crit with a power-attacking scythe one-shots your character. But there are no levels where being one-shot feels satisfying. Being dead isn't entertaining, and skipping the worry and suspense of combat to a final conclusion is underwhelming and hollow. It may not BE unfair, particularly to optimizers, but when a 'force' simply attacks and ends something you've invested time and effort in, it FEELS unfair. Even if they had not chosen to waste their turns, you put them in a scenario where a single pounce would end some of them, and you picked the member of the party it could. It would have been a hollow victory REGARDLESS of how they acted.
Thats why I make my dice rolls behind a screen. So that when my attacks kill a party that has played smart and do everything right, that last attack doesn't do QUITE enough damage, or one iterative misses that shouldn't have. And I get it, sometimes you misjudge the CR, and you end up with more damage coming out than you expect. But at that point, you have a decision to make as a GM: Am I here to facilitate my players, or the rules? As GM, what I say GOES, and everything I do adds up to that feeling of victory after a tough fight, with treasure and MacGuffin in hand, their wounds aching but their hearts fierce after conquering the dragon. I have failed as a GM if my players feel hollow when the game ends.
I do agree with this, and this is why I think I may have been a harsh - it wasn't the killing of the animal companion, but the fact that it died in one shot. The fact that I roll in the open, however, stops me from fudging dice rolls.
I'm not entirely sure of how to remedy the possibility of luck screwing the players (or the monsters, though I don't mind that as much) without rolling behind a screen, which I don't like doing (and I don't think the players like me doing either).
*****
I didn't make this thread to beat on the players, mind you. I really do want to know a good way around luck haxx, as well as if repeating this situation (if it ever comes about) would be unfair. I don't want to sour any player's experience, and to be honest I'm new-ish as a GM, and most definitely new as a 'harsh' GM, so I will screw up a lot - it's just about keeping these screw ups to a minimum :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hero Points are a good safety net for lucky rolls on players. I don't think you can normally spend two hero points to stop a companion dying like you can with yourself but you can always houserule it so that you can.
Edit: I checked and it turns out you can spend them on Animal Companions or similar companion creatures like Familiars or Eidolons.
I strongly suggest rolling dice behind a screen. Every group I have played or GMed have supported this. The number one rule is to have fun, remember. That means at times you need to fudge dice rolls to make something more challenging or stop from a TPK.
That does not mean bad decisions should not have possibly fatal consequences such as the player taunting the contract devil. But it does help prevent the bad dice rolls that can ruin the fun.
It explains why muddying the "these creatures are always evil" waters is a generally bad idea too.Your player has stated more than once that their group encountered friendly or at least responsive undead before this incident. That would explain why that player tried to peacefully interact with this undead creature.
I will say one thing it seems you could improve a little. It seems the characters didn't have the clearest feel for the situation. While it isn't wrong necessarily to describe it as a ""skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws" but equally you could add "its eyes glowing with unnatural malevolence" or something to give a clue that this is a mindless evil thing.
I did describe is as more than just a skeletal creature with short arms and a big jaw, to be fair, but you're right - I should have probably added another hint on how it was evil (glowing eyes I'd a good idea).
Though in this world, I don't think I've had non-evil undead yet, if memory serves correctly. I don't like the idea of all undead being evil, but most are. They know raising undead is evil.
I disagree.
In a world where some humans are evil and some humans are not, PCs often use social skills when encountering humans. Nobody ever says "That's unfair!"
In a world where some undead are evil and some are not, why would we say this is more unfair? The only room for unfairness here is is the GM is on a different page than the players and never told them "Hey, some undead are not evil", but it sounds like this was not entirely the case. So it seems perfectly reasonable to try to treat a newly encountered undead as if it might not be evil - at least it's just as reasonable as applying the same logic to a newly encountered human.
Whatever the case, you guys definitely need to have a talk to make sure you and the rest of the group are on the same page in the future.
nope grond I disagree
I suggest rolling out in the open if there are trust issues or communication troubles in your group
if you are looking to fudge in favor of your pcs, just do not mention the DC or AC in question
natural 20's happen
that being said a player will then curse the dice gods rather than suspect their GM is manufacturing luck
and like Jack of Dust said
if you feel like bad crits or just plain bad luck has your group feeling snakebit, then implementing a mitigating ruleset like hero points or the PFS 'folio reroll' is a good fit
A lot of good responses, mostly polite, but one of my massive pet peeves with players is their endless abuse of skills such as Diplomacy and Wild Empathy:
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...
...Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request.
If you eliminate the time, intelligence, and "not in combat" constraints on Diplomacy, you end up with the fabled abuse stories of the charming bard who gets every creature to just willingly hand over its weapons and treasure without the party ever having to engage in fisticuffs.
I'd set the ground rules right now: If it's planning on eating you, rolling a 60 on your Diplomacy check during the surprise round isn't going to do you one lick of good. Yes, by RAW, "Don't eat me!" could be ruled "1 round of interaction", but only by a very, very generous GM who likes to watch all of his carefully-planned encounters go by the wayside as players learn that in such cases a maxed-out diplomat can win every fight without wasting a speck of resources.
EDIT: Since I switched to Roll20 all my rolls are in the open. It's certainly more brutal on the players, but they appreciate it. I love the idea of Hero Points, but my players like the grisly verisimilitude of the occasional PC "bad roll death".
I think writing out even just small paragraphs to read out that describe not just the key physical aspects, but its mannerisms so the players can get a sense of what the creature is all about.
Mind if I ask what you usually do to get around the problem?
I don't have any real system, perhaps that is why I'm not great at this myself.
Mostly I just try and keep in mind that everything the Players and Characters perceive about the world comes through me, and so I try to do better.
Of course you also have to balance that with keeping the game going and not burying them with too much flavor text. One of the more difficult GM skills to master.
|
EDIT: Since I switched to Roll20 all my rolls are in the open. It's certainly more brutal on the players, but they appreciate it. I love the idea of Hero Points, but my players like the grisly verisimilitude of the occasional PC "bad roll death".
Yeah, I gm in roll20 too so rolls are open always. Though I guess I could switch it so that all rolls are made in whisper, but again, I don't think that is as fun for players
That saying though, I have hero points being used, the way I see it is that they don't really take away the whole "bad roll death" aspect even though they do help with survivability.
Am I being too harsh?
No.
Sometimes players make bad decisions. And then even a bit of bad luck can have bad consequences.
But this is also the thrill of the game, that not always everythign succeeds and that there is indeed real danger to threaten yor character.
No the GM wasn't too harsh.
As a player I can say the party didn't split by option but that my character was knocked unconscious against her will and was split off, and were trying to get back together going through a tunnel system. We didn't know the CR of the enemy creature we were told: "skeletal creature with short arms and large jaws"
Retreat didn't seem possible as we were trapped inside a tunnel system that seemed to loop around itself
My character has a strict don't strike first policy, and the topic of undead had come up recently so she was curious. I didn't even use diplomacy I just said I wasn't going to take a threatening stance, and try calm it.
(This isn't set in golorion, undead are not automatically evil.)
I'm rather alarmed that it seems the player expects to know the CR of the enemy. I would never tell my players that. They can use Knowledge and Sense Motive checks to gain an insight into the creatures being faced and their likely strength and attitude.