PDA

View Full Version : Should GMs protect characters from the consequences of what they start?



Talakeal
2011-04-28, 05:24 PM
Question is thread title. Example follows:

The players are on an epic quest across an inhospitable wasteland filled with monsters and natural hazards. They come to an oasis which is the temple of a goddess. They receive a vision from the goddess telling them they are free to take what they need so long as they do not desecrate the temple.

The players immediately say "No one tells me what to do!" And they assault the temple, burning it to the ground and killing its defenders. The temple defenders were friendly and not meant to be a combat encounter, but the players were able to overcome them save for two things. First they were already weak from their long journey and several fights, send one of the players refused to take part in this senseless slaughter. As a result only one of the players survives the battle.

The survivor tells the other PC that he killed the rest of the party by not helping them assault the temple. He then tells him that he is abandoning him and the quest and returns the way he came. At this point he is already deeper into the wasteland than out, and he has no survival skills alone, nor a party to back him up. I play the adventure straight, and a short time later he dies to a random encounter. It happened to be a hydra, and the player through a fit about how unrealistic hydras are, because no real creature could survive without a head.

The other player, who did not participate in the attack, chose to continue the mission alone. I played a little easier on him then the other player, because I didn't feel right that he should be punished for their action. He made it to his destination, although it was by no means "easy", he came close to death several times and ended the journey with numerous battle scars and, if I recall correctly, had lost a couple of levels from energy drain.

The other players all got pissed at me for throwing an "impossible" encounter at them, and then for "playing favorites" and allowing one of them to survive.

So, do they have a point? Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches? Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?

Eldan
2011-04-28, 05:25 PM
Yes, you should totally kill players for that. I suggest investing in a big tub of lye first, though. And a few good alibis. :smalltongue:

Anyway: yes, stupid fights have consequences. Characters die.

Talakeal
2011-04-28, 05:30 PM
Yes, you should totally kill players for that. I suggest investing in a big tub of lye first, though. And a few good alibis. :smalltongue:

Anyway: yes, stupid fights have consequences. Characters die.

lol. Yeah let me edit that.

Knaight
2011-04-28, 05:46 PM
In this case, it sounds like the characters were asking for it. I wouldn't have made the wasteland safer for the survivors, but other than that everything you did sounds entirely reasonable.

Essentially, in my opinion the GM should simply simulate the setting and introduce elements into the narrative to be used as the players see fit. Its not really the GM who killed the characters, its the reaction of the setting to their action and the whims of the dice, and when an action is that colossally stupid then its hard to muster any sympathy.

Tengu_temp
2011-04-28, 05:51 PM
Yeah, if the PCs are acting like idiots, attacking friendly NPCs and picking fights with things they know are way out of their league, feel free to let them feel the consequences of their actions. You did the right thing, right down to favoring the only non-idiot.

Ranos
2011-04-28, 05:53 PM
Well, yes, he should.
Probably shouldn't have gone easy on the other guy though. By your own admission, your players had a point when they said you were playing favorite.

Tengu_temp
2011-04-28, 05:55 PM
Sometimes it's okay to play favorites. Rewarding a good decision and punishing stupidity, for example.

comicshorse
2011-04-28, 05:56 PM
The players immediately say "No one tells me what to do!"

Y'know normally I'd say you should just defeat them and have the godess banish them from the oasis, so making the journey harder but for that level of stupidity just go ahead and waste them

Knaight
2011-04-28, 06:00 PM
Sometimes it's okay to play favorites. Rewarding a good decision and punishing stupidity, for example.

One doesn't need to reward or punish, merely simulate. Good decisions tend to yield positive results by definition, and stupidity has a tendency to end poorly.

Swordguy
2011-04-28, 06:03 PM
Should the GM kill characters who provoke fights out of their league?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.


(I'm reminded of a party of 1st level AD&D adventurers I had who deliberately sought out a red dragon, woke it up, and told it to leave before it got hurt. Then got mad that it ate them. Same sort of thing.)



Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?

Not usually, but really, it's dependent on the circumstance and the nature of the stupidity. In a "starship"-based game like Star Wars or Rogue Trader, having the guy playing the Captain do something idiotic could very easily result in the death of the entire party as the whole ship gets vaporized ("Hey acolytes! Let's brag about shagging the daughter of that BattleShip's Captain and dare him to do something about it!" *sound of guns the size of the player's ship firing*) and they get caught up in the explosion.

I'd lean towards not killing them, but what you did sounds fine. Of course, the nice part about killing the whole party is that ideally, everybody else gets mad at the idiot who got them all killed, and resolve to keep said idiot in line via peer pressure (taking the responsibility off your hands). It can backfire too, though.

dsmiles
2011-04-28, 06:03 PM
Absolutely. If players had their characters act like that in one of my games, I would have done exactly the same, maybe worse. (Players tend to value their character's equipment more highly than their characters. Equipment is fair game.)

Kaun
2011-04-28, 06:05 PM
you reap what you sow.

Shpadoinkle
2011-04-28, 06:05 PM
You didn't throw them into an impossible encounter, they threw themselves into a difficult fight for no reason.

That was incredibly stupid. Doing incredibly stupid things tends to have really bad consequences.

If they REALLY don't get that attacking armed people with no provocation is stupid, you're probably better off not playing with them.

Maryring
2011-04-28, 06:10 PM
Cuff them.

Hard.

With a newspaper.

On the nose.

Doesn't really sound like a group you want to play with, since it seems you want to make a story, and they just want to kill stuff and take their loot.

Talakeal
2011-04-28, 06:13 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters. You should have predicted that is how we would play our characters and adjusted the encounter CR accordingly." I thought was insane, but I have seen a lot of similar sentiments on this forum, so I thought maybe I was the one who didn't get it.

As for "playing favorites" I am not sure if not wanting to punish a player qualifies. Now, if I had said "the temple guards kill everyone accept my girlfriend's character, whom they merely give a stern talking to even though she was just as guilty" that would be playing favorites. I merely didn't want to kill off the only remaining player because a: it wasn't his fault that he was in the situation, and b: killing off everyone would result in a break in continuity for the campaign world.

dsmiles
2011-04-28, 06:14 PM
Cuff them.

Hard.

With a newspaper DMG.

On the nose.

Doesn't really sound like a group you want to play with, since it seems you want to make a story, and they just want to kill stuff and take their loot.Sorry, Maryring, I think that looks better. :smallwink:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-04-28, 06:14 PM
Cuff them.

Hard.

With a newspaper.

On the nose.

Doesn't really sound like a group you want to play with, since it seems you want to make a story, and they just want to kill stuff and take their loot.

Yes. Totally. It sounds like they all want to play barbarians, sorcerers, and clerics of Gruumsh.

Lord Vampyre
2011-04-28, 06:28 PM
Your actions were completely reasonable. To have them disrespect the hospitality that the goddess offered to them in such a manner, they were lucky that the goddess didn't intervene directly and have them all killed at the first act of violence within her temple.

Gavinfoxx
2011-04-28, 06:31 PM
Tell them that their characters all died with the alignment "Chaotic Evil".

Jallorn
2011-04-28, 06:36 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters. You should have predicted that is how we would play our characters and adjusted the encounter CR accordingly." I thought was insane, but I have seen a lot of similar sentiments on this forum, so I thought maybe I was the one who didn't get it.

Yeah, worst reasoning ever. CN doesn't mean stupid. They might not accept the quest, but they shouldn't attack an overwhelming force and expect to live.

However, it looks like they want to play a game where they can't lose. Do something sarcastic to make them realize this, like giving them level 20 characters, and then making all their enemies be below level 6.

Severus
2011-04-28, 06:46 PM
kill them. Then insult them for being idiots for making war upon a goddess.

Chaotic neutral doesn't mean chaotic stupid. If they want to be stupid, then they get the full benefit of stupid.

Pigkappa
2011-04-28, 06:50 PM
I usually give them a little chance to save their lives.

When three party members cowardly ran away and let the other 2 alone during the fight with the BBEG, those 2 were taken as prisoners so that the other 3 could try to save them. They didn't bother to, and so the two prisoners were killed.

When the psychopath rogue attacked a few good and strong NPCs (and killed one of them), they sent him in the negatives and sentenced him to death. He tried to escape before being sentenced and died in the attempt, but I gave him a chance.

BRC
2011-04-28, 07:00 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters.

This would be excellent reasoning if it was a snotty magistrate telling them to give up their rooms at the inn so he need not demean himself by going to the cheaper inn across town. THAT might be CN to punch him in the face then fight his bodyguards.


What they did was both Evil and Stupid. First of all, the Goddess had already offered them anything in the temple, provided they not desecrate it. They wern't even looting out of greed that could be justified as helping them on their quest, they were desecrating out of sheer maliciousness. The fact that it was a Goddess makes it stupid.

The reason the Goddess acted like she was better than them was because she IS better than them.
As for their Complaints, I stand behind you 100%. You did not throw an unbalanced encounter at them, they threw themselves at an unbalanced encounter. They really had no excuse here, they were fully aware that they were cheesing off a deity, they did so entirely of their own accord. All you did was what any good DM should do, put consequences to their actions.

Kill them, make them CE, then give them all a -8 to wisdom to reflect how stupid their characters would have to be to do that.


As for playing favorites, you didn't do that either. The surviving character did not perform the action, so he receives no consequence. That's not playing favorites, that's rewarding having more braincells than eyeballs.

Knaight
2011-04-28, 07:07 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters.

If you are playing characters that are suicidal, you don't get to complain when role playing them gets them killed.

Maryring
2011-04-28, 07:08 PM
Sorry, Maryring, I think that looks better. :smallwink:
Eh. I suppose you're right. I was a bit mean towards dogs after all.

But honestly. If you raid a temple, you get killed by the temple wardens or maybe even smacked by the god of the temple. You attack the archmage, and you get turned into fine dust. Attack the medusa, and you become a lawn ornament. Tell the Yuan-ti his mother is a guppy, and you get to measure his length from the inside. Tell the dragon his father is a human, and he'll either eat you, or demand how you know and then kill you.

If people pick fights with things that are beyond their level of power, they should expect to suffer for it. Not all creatures will kill you, true, but while a gnoll may catch you as a slave instead, an orc will kill you, because it is in their culture. You shouldn't pull any punches in that regards towards players. Your job is to create an initial scenario that can be won, and can be lost, but never starts out unwinnable. If they entered the temple and were attacked and utterly decimated just like that, they would have a point, but since they chose to attack without even assessing the strength of their target, they have none to blame but themselves.

Dienekes
2011-04-28, 07:12 PM
I told my players early on, the world is not catered to you. Sure, I won't throw anything hard at you on purpose, but if I say that "this town over here is run by an ancient black dragon" that does not mean "ooh you guys can totally go fight that thing for loot at level 3." An ancient black dragon will always be an ancient black dragon.

Mostly I think it makes sense to kill them off for being stupid. And so far my players have understood and responded reasonably. They don't go charging off after every single enemy because they think they can win. In fact they tend to focus more on ambushes and trapping targets. Much more interesting that way I think.

dsmiles
2011-04-28, 07:19 PM
Eh. I suppose you're right. I was a bit mean towards dogs after all.I just meant that the DMG is more solid than a rolled up newspaper. It hurts more. :smallbiggrin:

Waker
2011-04-28, 07:27 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters.
Seeing dumb stuff about CN "roleplaying" like that always bothers me. So I present the following on how I hear players who try and use their alignment to act stupid. (This conversation never actually took place.)

CN Player: I'm gonna jump off this cliff!
DM: Okay. You fall and take 20d6 damage. Your character is dead.
CN Player: What?! But I was roleplaying being chaotic and breaking the Law of Gravity! Why do you hate my character?!
DM:...

mathemagician
2011-04-28, 07:32 PM
To avoid marring continuity, and because there's a hope that the party could have some redemption because one of the players didn't go along with it, and to teach the characters a lesson in humility--

You could give their characters a chance to come back to life if they pay penance by doing some quests in the afterlife, especially by rebuilding the temple to a state more glorious than it was previously.

It's a trick I would only use once, and only because they did die fighting in a goddess' temple. This gives the players a clear message that the world is not balanced according to their level, but gives them a chance to keep and grow their characters.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-04-28, 07:35 PM
To avoid marring continuity, and because there's a hope that the party could have some redemption because one of the players didn't go along with it, and to teach the characters a lesson in humility--

You could give their characters a chance to come back to life if they pay penance by doing some quests in the afterlife, especially by rebuilding the temple to a state more glorious than it was previously.

It's a trick I would only use once, and only because they did die fighting in a goddess' temple. This gives the players a clear message that the world is not balanced according to their level, but gives them a chance to keep and grow their characters.

Based on that they would attack a temple after a full-fledged goddess told them not to, they aren't role-players, which means they don't have any character growth.

olthar
2011-04-28, 07:37 PM
So, do they have a point? Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches? Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?

Yes. If you don't kill PCs when they do amazingly stupid stuff, then when will you kill PCs? If the players don't feel like there are any repercussions to their amazingly stupid actions, then you might as well just make them gods and let them play out whatever they want to do on the world.

mathemagician
2011-04-28, 07:37 PM
Based on that they would attack a temple after a full-fledged goddess told them not to, they aren't role-players, which means they don't have any character growth.

Everyone has to start somewhere...give them a chance, see if it sticks...if it doesn't, well, now the DM has learned a lesson and earned his license to kill.

Yukitsu
2011-04-28, 07:38 PM
This is a wonderful slide to evil sort of thing. Just having some inconsequential encounter in the middle of nowhere is wasting so much potential.

Just imagine, the Goddess sends all of her followers a vision of what happened. The word spreads, the players aren't trusted anymore, the stores won't sell them anything, barring the door when they come into town, the inns are always "full", the generous, well meaning and honest quest givers no longer trust them.

After months of getting fleeced into doing the work of some two bit scam artist without getting paid, without loot, they start to turn to more direct evil. Finding a few shops here or there that would make for easy loot. Murder, loot pillage and all that. All the better if the player still doesn't realize that he's evil yet. Eventually, they're so obviously reviled that they would probably just go on some arbitrary, murderous rampage against all those peasants that "wronged" them, at which point you can introduce the heroes of the story.

Talakeal
2011-04-28, 07:39 PM
Well, the player who died to the hydra got so mad he left the game never to return.

One of the others wanted to continue playing has character, and so I had a powerful mage clone him and then attempt to guide him, telling him he had great power and destiny, but needed to learn to look past common greed and base violence if he was ever to reach his full potential.

The mage continued to guide the character for a while, until the player got mad at him for "being condescending and telling me what to do" and decided to attack him, dying in the process. Which, once again got me labeled a killer DM for putting such a powerful NPC in his way.

So no, second chances didn't seem to teach them anything.

Ranos
2011-04-28, 07:43 PM
I'm not sure I agree with all this talk of punishing and rewarding. We only get one side of the story here. It's perfectly fine (if dangerous) for them to go on a killing spree if they hate the hell out of that goddess and her followers and her temple and her little dog too. There's no reason they should be punished for it, beyond the logical consequences of their actions.

Dying because you attack something too powerful for your own good is fine by me. Being punished for doing something the DM doesn't approve of, or being rewarded for doing what the DM wants you to do, is much more questionable.

cattoy
2011-04-28, 07:46 PM
Step 1: Never Allow CN aligned PCs ever again.

Step 2: see step 1.

Bovine Colonel
2011-04-28, 07:46 PM
Well, the player who died to the hydra got so mad he left the game never to return.

One of the others wanted to continue playing has character, and so I had a powerful mage clone him and then attempt to guide him, telling him he had great power and destiny, but needed to learn to look past common greed and base violence if he was ever to reach his full potential.

The mage continued to guide the character for a while, until the player got mad at him for "being condescending and telling me what to do" and decided to attack him, dying in the process. Which, once again got me labeled a killer DM for putting such a powerful NPC in his way.

So no, second chances didn't seem to teach them anything.

How--how old are these two guys?

Talakeal
2011-04-28, 07:49 PM
Early 20s.

Actually, now that I think about it, the same player did something almost identical in another game some time later. He was playing a fire mage and was on a magic island. He defeated a bunch of trolls and used a very potent aoe spell one them that started a forest fire. The spirit of the island asked him to refrain from such obvious displays of destruction, and his response was too immediately attempt to "kill the island" by setting off as many powerful AOEs as he could around the island. Again "I don't like being told what to do by uppity NPCs" as his only justification, and again he died because I was a "killer DM".


I'm not sure I agree with all this talk of punishing and rewarding. We only get one side of the story here. It's perfectly fine (if dangerous) for them to go on a killing spree if they hate the hell out of that goddess and her followers and her temple and her little dog too. There's no reason they should be punished for it, beyond the logical consequences of their actions.

Dying because you attack something too powerful for your own good is fine by me. Being punished for doing something the DM doesn't approve of, or being rewarded for doing what the DM wants you to do, is much more questionable.

There really isn't that much more to tell. It was the goddess of nature, and the temple was really just an area of wilderness which was still lush and fertile growing around a stone circle, so they couldn't have hoped to rob it, and neither of them had any sort of anti religion or anti nature goal's that I knew about. One of them was a ranger, so I can't imagine his goal was to destroy nature. When the goddess appeared to them to guide them to the oasis she appeared in the form of a humanoid woman clothed only in leaves, and they, having no prior relationship with the goddess or her followers, decided to call her a whore and mock her for lack of clothing. After that she treated them like rude children, but did not threaten them or order them around in any way except asking them politely to take only what food they needed and not do anything to despoil the land as it was the last bastion of nature in the region. The guardians of the temple were all awakened animals native to the region, and the players had no contact with them other than me mentioning them as background dressing.


I agree 100%. I did not set out to "punish them", merely to consistently play the world as a reaction to their activities. I only used the word punish in reference to the player who did not participate, but what I should have said was "force him to suffer the consequences of the other player's actions".

The one player who died to the hydra was one who simply wanted to backtrack across unfamiliar wilderness alone and with insufficient supplies. I played it straight, the hydra was just a random encounter determined by the dice.

The player who kept on the adventure had to go it solo, and the only punch I pulled was having the "boss monster" having been already killed by a larger monster when he got there because it was an impossible fight to solo and I really didn't want to end the campaign on a TPK.

Bovine Colonel
2011-04-28, 07:55 PM
Do you uh...do you have another group you can play with? Because--and I say only the truth from my perspective--they sound maybe 8.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-04-28, 07:57 PM
Do you uh...do you have another group you can play with? Because--and I say only the truth from my perspective--they sound maybe 8.

Yeah, they sound like their characters are all Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes, but with the flamethrower, nukes, and dynamite he wants.

Knaight
2011-04-28, 07:58 PM
Dying because you attack something too powerful for your own good is fine by me. Being punished for doing something the DM doesn't approve of, or being rewarded for doing what the DM wants you to do, is much more questionable.
Exactly. Rewards and punishment are unnecessary, inherent consequences deal with everything.

NichG
2011-04-28, 08:32 PM
I'd also try to find another group in your position. You could try to 'teach' them, playing everything absolutely straight and not going easy on consequences even if it means a weekly TPK. The thing is, I doubt the other players see their actions as stupid, and so it'd just end in tears all around as the players would think they're being unjustly 'punished' or even just randomly tormented by a cruel DM, and you'd be stuck running juvenile murder fantasies with no real depth.

holywhippet
2011-04-28, 08:36 PM
As a rule a DM should anticipate their players taking a swing at anything that can be killed for XP. In this case though you did nothing wrong. Your players sound like they should be in the cast of the Knights of the Dinner table - gamers who think that everything is there for them to kill or loot.

They aren't playing in a video game where every enemy is lined up in order of difficulty. They shouldn't expect to attack everything on sight - and especially not just because it ticks them off.

Personally I'd either ditch the players or tell them to get their act together. If they don't like it, show them the door and get some replacements.

BTW, when they propose an action that will likely lead to their death, give them an incredulous stare and clearly ask them "Are you sure?". If they still proceed, drop the hammer on them - hard.

Only a really crazy character would attack a temple - you are literally picking a fight with a God. Unless you have another God backing you up you are in for a world of hurt.

Traab
2011-04-28, 08:40 PM
Try this, attempt to convince them that although uppity npcs need to die, that instead of attacking ones they obviously cant handle at level 1 or whatever, they should make a list. Put the name and location of every npc along with approximate level on it that they come across, then once they are all epic level adventurers and could actually DO something other than die, you can take them back on a campaign of vengeance! Bring back the oasis goddess, and sunder her face!

Hiro Protagonest
2011-04-28, 08:40 PM
They aren't playing in a video game where every enemy is lined up in order of difficulty. They shouldn't expect to attack everything on sight - and especially not just because it ticks them off.


I think I figured out the problem with the players. They expect it to be like a video game. In a video game, if you're allowed to do something, you can succeed at it, but in D&D, you can do anything, so these players expect to be able to succeed at anything.

Yukitsu
2011-04-28, 08:53 PM
Can is one of those operators that should always be in effect. If there's something literally impossible, save me some time, just tell me it is and wake me up when you're done lipping off about how amazing your setting is.

erikun
2011-04-28, 09:01 PM
So, do they have a point? Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches? Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?
The problem with killing players is hiding the bodies. And responding to the police when they inevitably stop by to ask questions. :smalltongue: Characters are fair game, though.

To answer your question, though, having the "world" respond naturally to stupid actions is perfectly acceptable. Simply throwing out a monster because the PCs do something you dislike is bad, but having the opponents they see fight back is just fine.

If anything, allowing the remaining party member to continue might have been an issue. Closing up the game at that point, saying that the surviving (smart) character remains at the oasis for the day and wrapping things up there would have been acceptable. I'm not saying that continuing as you did was wrong, but giving things a week of downtime and allowing the other players to come up with non-suicidal characters might have worked better. At the very least, you could have wrapped things up there and started a new campaign without all the fuss at the table.

Then again, given that the same players have given the same complaints in other situations, perhaps nothing would have been different.

Kaun
2011-04-28, 09:02 PM
When i get players complain that the game is to hard i like to give them an option;

I will make the game easy but once i do it there are no take backs.

If they decided they want the game easy i just tell them what ever they do succeeds regaurdless of what they roll.

All oponents miss their attacks or fail any abilitys they try to use the PC's.

Any damage done to a non-PC kills is.

And i get a loot generator and set it to rediculous for working out loot from any encounters.

The players usually enjoy it for a session or so but after two or three sessions they start to complain that its borring and there is no challenge.

Then you can tell them well, i said no take backs but i guess we can start again and play something more challenging.

Talakeal
2011-04-28, 09:02 PM
Try this, attempt to convince them that although uppity npcs need to die, that instead of attacking ones they obviously cant handle at level 1 or whatever, they should make a list. Put the name and location of every npc along with approximate level on it that they come across, then once they are all epic level adventurers and could actually DO something other than die, you can take them back on a campaign of vengeance! Bring back the oasis goddess, and sunder her face!

I actually had such a list when I PCed. Good times.

Knaight
2011-04-28, 09:02 PM
Can is one of those operators that should always be in effect. If there's something literally impossible, save me some time, just tell me it is and wake me up when you're done lipping off about how amazing your setting is.
No, no it really shouldn't be. Whatever the characters are, they have limits, and those limits have every reason to exist. If a gritty modern game allows people to single handedly kill armies, there is a problem. If a half way realistic fantasy game allows some random person to walk into a throne room and convince the leader to abdicate to them despite having never met them before (without magic) there is a problem. "Lipping off" about a setting need never be a part.

dsmiles
2011-04-28, 09:04 PM
No, no it really shouldn't be. Whatever the characters are, they have limits, and those limits have every reason to exist. If a gritty modern game allows people to single handedly kill armies, there is a problem. If a half way realistic fantasy game allows some random person to walk into a throne room and convince the leader to abdicate to them despite having never met them before (without magic) there is a problem. "Lipping off" about a setting need never be a part.Well played.

Shpadoinkle
2011-04-28, 09:36 PM
When i get players complain that the game is to hard i like to give them an option;

I will make the game easy but once i do it there are no take backs.

If they decided they want the game easy i just tell them what ever they do succeeds regaurdless of what they roll.

All oponents miss their attacks or fail any abilitys they try to use the PC's.

Any damage done to a non-PC kills is.

And i get a loot generator and set it to rediculous for working out loot from any encounters.

The players usually enjoy it for a session or so but after two or three sessions they start to complain that its borring and there is no challenge.

Then you can tell them well, i said no take backs but i guess we can start again and play something more challenging.

I second this.

Yukitsu
2011-04-28, 09:53 PM
No, no it really shouldn't be. Whatever the characters are, they have limits, and those limits have every reason to exist. If a gritty modern game allows people to single handedly kill armies, there is a problem. If a half way realistic fantasy game allows some random person to walk into a throne room and convince the leader to abdicate to them despite having never met them before (without magic) there is a problem. "Lipping off" about a setting need never be a part.

People can single handedly wipe out armies. And nations. And worlds. They're called nukes.

Limitations are things set by small picture people. They don't want to look back and see all of the possibilities. Yes, maybe the particular plan of action cannot defeat the particular enemy, but that does not, should not and isn't realistically correlate to the impossibility, in general of the task. If you see a line you don't think you can reasonably cross, don't get irritated when I find out the line was just in your head, or maybe it's the limit of what you can do in that situation.

Is just waltzing into a throne room and becoming king impossible? Well, no, that's what conquering generals do all the time, often through reputation, but sometimes through combat. And if you carve a new feudal domain for yourself, starting your own castle and declaring yourself king, you've done it as well. You could even earn the throne legitimately if you're on par with one of the legendary heroes of old, but then again, most of the classical heroes of legend started as kings. Funny that, that most legendary heroes were kings.

A legendary hero by the way, is level 11, according to D&D logic anyway. Seems a lot less realistic, that all the nobility, royalty, petty villages, farmhouses and back alleys contain legends or near legends specifically to thwart the players selfishness when they start acting up.

Talakeal
2011-04-28, 10:01 PM
A legendary hero by the way, is level 11, according to D&D logic anyway. Seems a lot less realistic, that all the nobility, royalty, petty villages, farmhouses and back alleys contain legends or near legends specifically to thwart the players selfishness when they start acting up.

I agree with you there, and that is not the type of game I run, trust me. However, if the players make a big enough stink they do tend to attract the attention of the whatever powers might be in the region.

Traab
2011-04-28, 10:02 PM
People can single handedly wipe out armies. And nations. And worlds. They're called nukes.

Limitations are things set by small picture people. They don't want to look back and see all of the possibilities. Yes, maybe the particular plan of action cannot defeat the particular enemy, but that does not, should not and isn't realistically correlate to the impossibility, in general of the task. If you see a line you don't think you can reasonably cross, don't get irritated when I find out the line was just in your head, or maybe it's the limit of what you can do in that situation.

Is just waltzing into a throne room and becoming king impossible? Well, no, that's what conquering generals do all the time, often through reputation, but sometimes through combat. And if you carve a new feudal domain for yourself, starting your own castle and declaring yourself king, you've done it as well. You could even earn the throne legitimately if you're on par with one of the legendary heroes of old, but then again, most of the classical heroes of legend started as kings. Funny that, that most legendary heroes were kings.

A legendary hero by the way, is level 11, according to D&D logic anyway. Seems a lot less realistic, that all the nobility, royalty, petty villages, farmhouses and back alleys contain legends or near legends specifically to thwart the players selfishness when they start acting up.

1) But if noone HAS nukes then that doesnt really matter does it? Its one thing to exploit the stuff you have to work with, its a totally different scenario to do randoms tupid things and get upset when they get you killed.

2)Once again, there is a difference between saying, "I can use my ring of jumping to launch myself an extra 50 feet in the air while the dragon is busy roasting the cleric, and that will add on a damage multiplier from my spear due to momentum" or some other way of working the rules to your benefit. Its something else entirely for a group of low level adventurers to walk up to a temple that has the goddess herself inside of it, pick a fight with no way of winning, (remember the dm let them try, its not like he said, "rocks fall, everyone is dead") then complain when you lose because you tried to start something there was no way outside of a deus ex machina to win.

As for the taking over a kingdom thing, yeah, generals do it all the time, but not by walking into the throne room by themselves, and saying, "Hey king beardy beard, give me your crown." They generally do it by military coup, subverting the guards, or as the end result of a civil war.

valadil
2011-04-28, 10:19 PM
Kill. If the players can't accept that, don't GM for them.

I think you're obliged to tell them when they're getting in over their heads. If they ignore the warnings, that's their own fault.

Yukitsu
2011-04-28, 10:25 PM
1) But if noone HAS nukes then that doesnt really matter does it? Its one thing to exploit the stuff you have to work with, its a totally different scenario to do randoms tupid things and get upset when they get you killed.

My point being, gritty and realistic and "can wipe out all of Seattle" aren't reasonably mutually exclusive. I could be playing low op CoC and wipe armies, I'd just be insane by the end of it for instance. Not that call of Cthulhu's d100 mechanic is all that realistic.


2)Once again, there is a difference between saying, "I can use my ring of jumping to launch myself an extra 50 feet in the air while the dragon is busy roasting the cleric, and that will add on a damage multiplier from my spear due to momentum" or some other way of working the rules to your benefit. Its something else entirely for a group of low level adventurers to walk up to a temple that has the goddess herself inside of it, pick a fight with no way of winning, (remember the dm let them try, its not like he said, "rocks fall, everyone is dead") then complain when you lose because you tried to start something there was no way outside of a deus ex machina to win.

I'm not getting that tremendously low level vibe from this description. One player stood and fought against a hydra solo, where running would have been both possible and reasonable, so it's likely he thought he had a chance of winning against it solo. The DM also expected they would have outright won if all the players were contributing to the fight. Level 7 or so sounds like the region where this stuff tends to happen in my experience, but then again, I think Dante of Devil May Cry is only around level 13.


As for the taking over a kingdom thing, yeah, generals do it all the time, but not by walking into the throne room by themselves, and saying, "Hey king beardy beard, give me your crown." They generally do it by military coup, subverting the guards, or as the end result of a civil war.

Well, mostly it was just having a scarier army, which would normally be the players at mid levels. Most sieges didn't involve any long, drawn out waiting or any actual fighting, unless it was a relatively close affair, or if winter was particularly harsh. But ultimately, becoming a king shouldn't be any tremendous issue for any character level 9 or higher. By then you can just found a kingdom anyway.

NichG
2011-04-28, 11:17 PM
My point being, gritty and realistic and "can wipe out all of Seattle" aren't reasonably mutually exclusive. I could be playing low op CoC and wipe armies, I'd just be insane by the end of it for instance. Not that call of Cthulhu's d100 mechanic is all that realistic.


Building and deploying a nuke is not a trivial thing for a random individual. It's not even trivial for a non-random individual in a particularly advantageous position. Heck, even building an electric toaster from scratch without the tools/etc of society is difficult. That's something that breaks down in D&D, where a solitary wizard out in the middle of the wilderness with nothing but himself can develop and deploy the Locate City bomb and end the world.

At a certain point you just cut out those extrema, either via houserules or gentlemens' agreement, because they make the game devolve into the same boring tricks over and over.

So while you can always just do a Pun-Pun, Anti-osmium, or Locate City bomb (develop and deploy a nuke in the D&D sense), generally its best to assume that characters cannot or do not have access to such things, lest there be no real game after the mushroom cloud clears.

Short of that kind of cheese, I don't really see many things a solitary PC can do pre 8th or so level spells that would count as a 'nuke' (there are some Energy Transformation Field/Summons hijinks that could probably pull it off earlier than the usual chain-gating Solars tricks).



I'm not getting that tremendously low level vibe from this description. One player stood and fought against a hydra solo, where running would have been both possible and reasonable, so it's likely he thought he had a chance of winning against it solo. The DM also expected they would have outright won if all the players were contributing to the fight. Level 7 or so sounds like the region where this stuff tends to happen in my experience, but then again, I think Dante of Devil May Cry is only around level 13.


Keep in mind though that the GM in question is basically saying 'my party gets in over their head in fights' - maybe the PC thought he could win because the player is very bad at estimating difficulty and assumes the GM never throws an over-CR'd fight at him. If they're actually bothering with desert travel they're probably below Lv9 at the highest end (since otherwise they'd likely be Teleporting).



Well, mostly it was just having a scarier army, which would normally be the players at mid levels. Most sieges didn't involve any long, drawn out waiting or any actual fighting, unless it was a relatively close affair, or if winter was particularly harsh. But ultimately, becoming a king shouldn't be any tremendous issue for any character level 9 or higher. By then you can just found a kingdom anyway.

If any Lv11 character can march into a throne room and seize the crown, before long all kings will be at least Lv11. Based on DMG population demographics there are a large number of Lv11+ characters in a given world, so there'd be every reason for them to gravitate to positions of power or the employ of said people. Really, the fact that Lv11 is legendary means that by default D&D takes place in an age of legends where you're going to be running into legendary people left and right.

For example, a randomly generated small city (5000-12000 people) gave me:

1 Lv18 NPC
1 Lv16 NPC
1 Lv15 NPC
3 Lv14 NPCs
2 Lv12 NPCs
6 Lv11 NPCs

(plus scads of lower level NPCs)

Conners
2011-04-29, 02:21 AM
With the player who complains that everything is too hard, answer every sentence (sometimes before they eve finish it, with: "You succeed." As was basically suggested earlier. You can say it before the dice finish rolling, too (careful if they're also prone to violence, though... people can be stupid in real life too).


@Yukitsu: ...It sounds like you've misunderstood what is being said... because you're playing both sides. "Yawn at your campaign setting where I can't do what I want," yet also, "well, if I had a nuke it would be perfectly reasonable". Point is, this players don't have nukes. They didn't go to trouble to get nukes. They never even thought of getting a nuke to make their objective easy.

Instead, with the players described, it's a matter of going up to the King, kicking him between the legs, then expecting to be able to go to sleep in the middle of the throne room, without being thrown in jail or killed. AKA: Completely unrealistic reaction from the setting, and winning without any real effort.


Generally, I advocate helping the PCs out a bit. Let's say they don't realize how powerful the crimelord is in their plan to attack him. Instead of having the realistic reaction of getting them killed, have them stripped and made to fight his Monk-like bodyguard unarmed/unarmoured.
.....
They're beaten so bad that they will surely bleed to death over the course of a couple of days (not modelled well with DnD's system), but a kindly priest brings him to the church and nurses them back to health. The rest of the adventure, they need to avoid the crimelord for now.

PetterTomBos
2011-04-29, 02:46 AM
You could have made an evil deity appear during the fight... Freezing time.. Offering the good ol' "Sell your soul" bargain, for their own evil schemes against the gods of nature and humanity as a whole MOAHGAHAHAYHAHASHAHA!

Firechanter
2011-04-29, 02:52 AM
I am really not one to hand out death quickly to PCs, but in this case... they totally had it coming.
You did everything right. Your players are douchebags. Well, except the one who made it, of course. Nice to see that he made it, too.

FlyingScanian
2011-04-29, 03:53 AM
I'm sorely tempted to show this whole thread to our last GM... he would laugh, hard, at the silly idea that your players DIDN'T fully deserve what they got

(suffice to say, our campaign ended prematurely because we tried to kill a bunch of golems, leaving two dead, including the cleric. Then the remaining two encountered mummies, resulting in one living adventurer and a pile of dust. Last one didn't find anywhere to go, and so we failed to stop the summong ritual. World ended... Sorry, I needed that rant)

Crossblade
2011-04-29, 04:48 AM
Your players are douchebags.

This. Find a new group. /thread

Conners
2011-04-29, 05:03 AM
Except for the one who didn't slaughter the people, I suppose. You should keep that player.

Tengu_temp
2011-04-29, 05:32 AM
Actually, now that I think about it, the same player did something almost identical in another game some time later. He was playing a fire mage and was on a magic island. He defeated a bunch of trolls and used a very potent aoe spell one them that started a forest fire. The spirit of the island asked him to refrain from such obvious displays of destruction, and his response was too immediately attempt to "kill the island" by setting off as many powerful AOEs as he could around the island. Again "I don't like being told what to do by uppity NPCs" as his only justification, and again he died because I was a "killer DM".

Something tells me that this guy is a rebel without a cause who hates any and all authority on principle, no matter is it reasonable or not. In other words, Chaotic Stupid in real life. Most people grow out of this stage when they stop being teenagers, but he's in early twenties and still hasn't? I suggest dropping that guy, he sounds like nothing but trouble.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-29, 06:25 AM
Killing is not, strictly speaking, necessary. If situation allows, getting captured or otherwise roughed up could be sufficient.

But generally, yes, player characters should encounter consequences for their actions. More than half of a game's potential is lost if that rationale is not followed. You can explain it to your players thusly: there's this thing called karma. Actions have reactions. Stupid actions have stupid reactions.

I mercilessly lampshade and mock foolishness in my PC's actions when they happen. Mid you, I don't try to stop them most often. I trust they stop themselves once the fundamental infeasibility of what they're trying to do hits them. If not, it's their own darn fault. >=D

ILM
2011-04-29, 06:36 AM
The mage continued to guide the character for a while, until the player got mad at him for "being condescending and telling me what to do" and decided to attack him, dying in the process. Which, once again got me labeled a killer DM for putting such a powerful NPC in his way.

So no, second chances didn't seem to teach them anything.
After what happened in the first story, this is the funniest thing I've read all day. Seriously, it's either terminal stupidity, or a bad case of short-term memory loss.

I think you were fairly nice. Having them fight the guardians was fair, I would've said that the goddess just wiped them from existence (I mean, if a god takes the time to come down here - or send an aspect to do so - and personally tell me not to do something, I'm not going to piss him off without carefully thinking it through). Then you actually played the survivor going off in the desert, I would've just declared that with no supplies nor aid, he died a miserable and agonizing death under the sun. At least he got to see a hydra, those are cool.

If you ever see them again, you may want to link them this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) (starting at "Decide to React Differently").

Traab
2011-04-29, 06:43 AM
After what happened in the first story, this is the funniest thing I've read all day. Seriously, it's either terminal stupidity, or a bad case of short-term memory loss.

I think you were fairly nice. Having them fight the guardians was fair, I would've said that the goddess just wiped them from existence (I mean, if a god takes the time to come down here - or send an aspect to do so - and personally tell me not to do something, I'm not going to piss him off without carefully thinking it through). Then you actually played the survivor going off in the desert, I would've just declared that with no supplies nor aid, he died a miserable and agonizing death under the sun. At least he got to see a hydra, those are cool.

If you ever see them again, you may want to link them this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) (starting at "Decide to React Differently").

Honestly, this. You were merciful if anything. You at least gave them a CHANCE in their stupidity. You didnt just get mad and say, "Rocks fall, everyone dies" you let them fight it out without just insta killing them for being morons.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-29, 06:46 AM
The other players all got pissed at me for throwing an "impossible" encounter at them, and then for "playing favorites" and allowing one of them to survive.

So, do they have a point? Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches? Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?

Alright, let's break it down.

Impossible fight. Hah. Point at the DMG where it says that 5% of encounters should be overwhelming. Laugh evilly. If you're feeling kind, point out that just because people exist does not mean they are an encounter you need to stab to death.

"Playing your alignment" isn't really a thing. Or at least, it shouldn't be for most people not playing paladins and things. Alignments are descriptive of the character's behavior, not a list of things you must do. Nor are they an excuse for acting like an idiot. Your character values freedom above rules and order? Bam, chaotic. That doesn't mean you have to kill everyone for trivial reasons. Even chaotic evil need not mean suicidal.

Favoritism. Ok, they have you here. A little bit. It doesn't excuse their stupidity in any way, mind you...but the guy who chooses to continue his quest alone shouldn't get breaks just because you like his choice. Sure, it's heroic...and he avoided the earlier mistake(though in doing so, he avoided damage and/or possible death)...but adjusting the world to fit the player's preferences and current capabilities makes the world less realistic. Note that this exact reasoning is all sorts of useful for shutting down the "but we SHOULD be able to kill everything we meet" craziness.

So hey, you have one fairly minor thing you could improve, but the players still deserved to die. No point feeling guilt over that, they brought it on themselves.

Knaight
2011-04-29, 07:32 AM
Limitations are things set by small picture people. They don't want to look back and see all of the possibilities. Yes, maybe the particular plan of action cannot defeat the particular enemy, but that does not, should not and isn't realistically correlate to the impossibility, in general of the task. If you see a line you don't think you can reasonably cross, don't get irritated when I find out the line was just in your head, or maybe it's the limit of what you can do in that situation.

Limitations are upon specific tasks. In this case, the specific task was to burn down a temple with no preparation and survive it, that turned out to be beyond the character's capabilities. Just like the action "I flap my arms and try to fly" should get a response of "you fail". Its beyond human capabilities, though that doesn't mean we can't get into the air through technological means.

NecroRick
2011-04-29, 07:50 AM
Q: Should the GM kill characters who provoke fights out of their league?

A: NO.

----- reasons why -----

(1) You shouldn't take it upon yourself to kill characters, the game system is the thing that should kill characters, not you (it sounds like your PCs aren't the only ones in need of taking a couple of levels of maturity).

(2) If you do decide that your job is to punish or reward the players for their actions, you should do it with roleplaying XP, possibly with some editorialising on their stupidity if they ask why they got no XP for the encounter.

e.g. in the GMs toolbox the game system is the stick, the xp rewards are the carrot.

(3) Nothing you said indicates that the temple they trashed was a high level encounter. Nothing. It sounds very much like you arbitrarily decided to stock it with high level clerics, fighters and or paladins "just to show the PCs who is boss".

Seriously, if they had the kind of firepower to go toe to toe with the party in the first place, then why would they need the players. I like the suggestion of making them go to Chaotic Evil on the alignment spectrum (even if just temporarily). If they survived and the later atoned for their actions, have the atonement involve building a better temple and training up a new generation of clerics etc.

(4) For a heaping dose of "Chaotic Stupid" I count all the people who said "of course if you trash a temple the deity will make war on you". That is the worst kind of GM spite. Almost half of what PCs do is trashing temples to somebody or other. Why should the good gods react any differently from Devils/Demons/Evil Gods/Eldritch Horrors?

With that logic the next time you send those players on a quest to trash some temple of ancient evil or any time they find themselves going up against an evil cleric or other evil divine spell caster they'd be fully justified in telling you to go **** yourself.

(5) It sounds like the root problem was the players were bored.

(6) Or maybe they just got tired of playing the goody-two shoes types and wanted to play the anti-heroes for a while.

Remember: Team Evil is always hiring.

Maybe you should take a break from that campaign and play something a little darker and more gritty for a while, where the players can be evil without getting smited by your "righteous" vengeance.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-29, 08:48 AM
Q: Should the GM kill characters who provoke fights out of their league?

A: NO.

----- reasons why -----

(1) You shouldn't take it upon yourself to kill characters, the game system is the thing that should kill characters, not you (it sounds like your PCs aren't the only ones in need of taking a couple of levels of maturity).

Now hang on a minute. If he just said "you all die", I'd agree with you. But he played it out. One of the foolish players even survived. This does not sound like arbitrary punishment to me....but the players suffering the logical outcome of a slash and burn approach to things.


(2) If you do decide that your job is to punish or reward the players for their actions, you should do it with roleplaying XP, possibly with some editorialising on their stupidity if they ask why they got no XP for the encounter.

e.g. in the GMs toolbox the game system is the stick, the xp rewards are the carrot.

Not even necessary in this case. Stupid reactions bring their own consequences. If an action works, it's obviously not stupid.


(3) Nothing you said indicates that the temple they trashed was a high level encounter. Nothing. It sounds very much like you arbitrarily decided to stock it with high level clerics, fighters and or paladins "just to show the PCs who is boss".

They talked directly to the deity in charge of said temple, who gave them explicit instructions. I would assume that this would be a significant warning.

Note also that the players made no effort to ascertain that it was a fight they could win. This is not 100% a DM thing. Players have ways to play smart.


Seriously, if they had the kind of firepower to go toe to toe with the party in the first place, then why would they need the players. I like the suggestion of making them go to Chaotic Evil on the alignment spectrum (even if just temporarily). If they survived and the later atoned for their actions, have the atonement involve building a better temple and training up a new generation of clerics etc.

Did...did you read this? They were en route to such and such, and they were permitted to grab stuff from the temple for use. Now, I don't know the plot, but presumably they were stopping for significantly helpful stuff.

Any place with significant goodies(consider ye olde magic shop) tends to have power.


(4) For a heaping dose of "Chaotic Stupid" I count all the people who said "of course if you trash a temple the deity will make war on you". That is the worst kind of GM spite. Almost half of what PCs do is trashing temples to somebody or other. Why should the good gods react any differently from Devils/Demons/Evil Gods/Eldritch Horrors?

Look, if you make an enemy of any organization by trashing their toys and killing their people, there will be logical repercussions. This holds true for evil organizations too. You trash an evil temple, and you might get evil people coming after you. This is standard adventure fodder.


With that logic the next time you send those players on a quest to trash some temple of ancient evil or any time they find themselves going up against an evil cleric or other evil divine spell caster they'd be fully justified in telling you to go **** yourself.

Yeah, I've killed a lot of evil clerics in evil temples. The last was, er...two sessions ago. Hell, he had some juice too, killed one party member outright, and tore us up pretty bad. This does not strike me as at all unusual.


(6) Or maybe they just got tired of playing the goody-two shoes types and wanted to play the anti-heroes for a while.

Remember: Team Evil is always hiring.

So is Team Stupid Evil, apparently. Look, Evil is fine. But be smart about it. Trashing and killing everything for the lulz isn't going to make you friends.

Conners
2011-04-29, 08:59 AM
Favoritism. Ok, they have you here. A little bit. It doesn't excuse their stupidity in any way, mind you...but the guy who chooses to continue his quest alone shouldn't get breaks just because you like his choice. Sure, it's heroic...and he avoided the earlier mistake(though in doing so, he avoided damage and/or possible death)...but adjusting the world to fit the player's preferences and current capabilities makes the world less realistic. Note that this exact reasoning is all sorts of useful for shutting down the "but we SHOULD be able to kill everything we meet" craziness.

So hey, you have one fairly minor thing you could improve, but the players still deserved to die. No point feeling guilt over that, they brought it on themselves. With this point, you might as well say that encounters shouldn't be balanced to players. I mean, not every adventurer group gets a job they can handle, after all.



Hey, I play like that! Strop cramping my style! This.... is a problem. Really, if you always want to win, you should act as GM and player.

Choco
2011-04-29, 09:04 AM
With this point, you might as well say that encounters shouldn't be balanced to players. I mean, not every adventurer group gets a job they can handle, after all.

Well yeah, some encounters will be well above and some well below what the PCs can handle. They gotta know when to run. Now if the DM railroaded the PC's into an encounter they could not win OR run from, that I would take issue with. But if the lvl 1 PC's voluntarily charge into the lair of a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, they kinda deserve what they get.

obliged_salmon
2011-04-29, 09:11 AM
My two cents.

It sounds like the goddess, as you said, treated them like "rude children." While that's no reason to desecrate her temple, it does kinda sound like a bad NPC. I hate it in games when divine NPCs show up and bark orders at you like you're a simpleton (not that that's what's actually happening here, but your players may have taken it as such).

That being said, if the players insist they do something, then you are required as GM to dole out the consequences. Before the characters act, though, everyone at the table should know why the action is being performed, how it will be performed, approximately how hard it will be to succeed, and what potential consequences for failure might be.

In the above example, I would have told them, "You're weak, and the guardians are at full strength. Attacking them head on as a whole group will likely mean casualties, let alone one party member short. Also, what do you hope to gain from this action?"

YMMV.

Edit: The characters called the nature goddess a whore? To her face? Again, I would've asked why, and what they wanted to accomplish by doing that. If they didn't have a reasonable response, and insisted on doing it, I would've had the goddess curse them. No natural cause shall ever bring them any kind of pleasure so long as they live, through food or drink or woman's comfort. Then the goddess would leave them in the desert with nothing. Seems appropriate.

Traab
2011-04-29, 09:22 AM
My two cents.

It sounds like the goddess, as you said, treated them like "rude children." While that's no reason to desecrate her temple, it does kinda sound like a bad NPC. I hate it in games when divine NPCs show up and bark orders at you like you're a simpleton (not that that's what's actually happening here, but your players may have taken it as such).

That being said, if the players insist they do something, then you are required as GM to dole out the consequences. Before the characters act, though, everyone at the table should know why the action is being performed, how it will be performed, approximately how hard it will be to succeed, and what potential consequences for failure might be.

In the above example, I would have told them, "You're weak, and the guardians are at full strength. Attacking them head on as a whole group will likely mean casualties, let alone one party member short. Also, what do you hope to gain from this action?"

YMMV.

She treated them like rude children after they insulted her, called her a whore, and basically did everything they could to try and start a fight. Apparently when that failed they decided to take more direct actions. The blame for this falls entirely on Team Stupid, the gm even tried to ignore their deliberate sabotage attempt by making the goddess react like a disapproving mother to a scenario that in any realistic setting would have ended in their deaths right on the spot.

Pro tip- Dont call a goddess a whore. I dont even PLAY D&D and I know that much. In addition, while attacking temples IS a semi standard type of mission, if the deity of that temple is STANDING RIGHT THERE, try NOT attacking the temple this time. Especially when said deity is already letting you take whatever the heck you want.

Vladislav
2011-04-29, 09:24 AM
The OP should just dump his group and start a new one. Well, maybe keep the "good apple" player. The others are just a waste of time to DM for.

Conners
2011-04-29, 09:25 AM
@obliged_salmon: ...Didn't you notice the part saying, "They called her a whore" when she was being nice to them...?


Well yeah, some encounters will be well above and some well below what the PCs can handle. They gotta know when to run. Now if the DM railroaded the PC's into an encounter they could not win OR run from, that I would take issue with. But if the lvl 1 PC's voluntarily charge into the lair of a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, they kinda deserve what they get. Partially depends on the sandboxness of the game. If you're running a dungeon crawl, they're usually designed to be adequate challenges for the PCs--of course, if a sandbox game, the PCs could go to a terrible dungeon and have to know that it is time to run.

Generally, RPG games work well if you make them story-ish. There are plenty of video-games to model pure challenge, but nothing really gives the level of narrative that a GM can, if skilled.

Of course, this depends on the type of game. Just that, if you happen to roll the "Death Comes and Takes your Souls" option on the Random Encounter chart... even if it is realistic to the setting, it isn't very fun. That's an extreme example, but like that, you need to make sure your players won't be killed without a chance--especially if they're being good story-wise.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-29, 09:31 AM
With this point, you might as well say that encounters shouldn't be balanced to players. I mean, not every adventurer group gets a job they can handle, after all.

It....wasn't their job. At all.

And I see nothing wrong with players being hired for a job they can't possibly do. That actually strikes me as an interesting start to a campaign.

_Zoot_
2011-04-29, 09:33 AM
After what happened in the first story, this is the funniest thing I've read all day. Seriously, it's either terminal stupidity, or a bad case of short-term memory loss.

I think you were fairly nice. Having them fight the guardians was fair, I would've said that the goddess just wiped them from existence (I mean, if a god takes the time to come down here - or send an aspect to do so - and personally tell me not to do something, I'm not going to piss him off without carefully thinking it through). Then you actually played the survivor going off in the desert, I would've just declared that with no supplies nor aid, he died a miserable and agonizing death under the sun. At least he got to see a hydra, those are cool.


I think this is a very good way to look at it, you gave them all the chances they needed.

Killer Angel
2011-04-29, 10:04 AM
Q: Should the GM kill characters who provoke fights out of their league?

A: NO.

----- reasons why -----

(1) You shouldn't take it upon yourself to kill characters, the game system is the thing that should kill characters, not you (it sounds like your PCs aren't the only ones in need of taking a couple of levels of maturity).


:smallconfused:
the characters would have been able to overcome the temple's defences, if they weren't already hurt and without a companion.
It was a fair fight, that they losed 'cause they acted foolishly and in bad conditions and still, one of them escaped alive.
...and do you really think it's the same as "rocks fall?" :smallamused:



(2) If you do decide that your job is to punish or reward the players for their actions, you should do it with roleplaying XP, possibly with some editorialising on their stupidity if they ask why they got no XP for the encounter.



"My low level fighter enters the dragon's lair and charges the titanic beast!"
"...oh, well, your screams scare the dragon, that run away."
Yeah.

Conners
2011-04-29, 10:16 AM
It....wasn't their job. At all.

And I see nothing wrong with players being hired for a job they can't possibly do. That actually strikes me as an interesting start to a campaign. It was their job to go to the quest place. That's what the one good player did. Should he have said, "You did the right thing--which is why I'm going to kill you."
"What? So, I should've done the wrong thing...?"
"No, no, that would've killed you too... Basically, anything you do gets you killed, now."

That's what it comes down to, an amount, if you play things without account for your players. If your players do stupid things, they deserve bad repercussions--but if players do good story things or smart things, they shouldn't get the same result as the guys who did stupid stuff.
Like I said, work something in the setting that makes sense, is storyish, ad is also fun.


Notably, with a proper sandbox games, you can work things better. For example, the PC could've stayed with the Goddess for some weeks, helping to repair the damage his friends did. Then, he could get aid in reaching his destination alive--hopefully. Or abandoning the quest in some way that gets him out of the main danger (he could wait there till a caravan or pilgrims come, which he can travel with).

Friv
2011-04-29, 10:29 AM
(3) Nothing you said indicates that the temple they trashed was a high level encounter. Nothing. It sounds very much like you arbitrarily decided to stock it with high level clerics, fighters and or paladins "just to show the PCs who is boss".

The goddess that the temple was dedicated to personally appeared to note that it was a particularly special place to her, before the possibility of the PCs smashing the place came up. This is usually a sign that, I don't know, the temple was a particularly special place to her. And particularly special places to powerful gods often have decent defenses.


Seriously, if they had the kind of firepower to go toe to toe with the party in the first place, then why would they need the players.

Their entire temple had only enough strength to go up against the party while it was short one PC (so, presumably down 20% of its strength), and lose. That's not an equal encounter, that's a slightly weaker enemy.

*EDIT* Oh, wait, the PCs were also injured from previous battles, so they would have been that much stronger at full health.


(4) For a heaping dose of "Chaotic Stupid" I count all the people who said "of course if you trash a temple the deity will make war on you". That is the worst kind of GM spite. Almost half of what PCs do is trashing temples to somebody or other. Why should the good gods react any differently from Devils/Demons/Evil Gods/Eldritch Horrors?

Evil gods get pissed off about that sort of thing all the time! And besides which, it wasn't just a temple. It was a particularly sacred oasis that was so special to the goddess that it warranted a personal visitation. That's a Big Deal.

Jay R
2011-04-29, 10:29 AM
On Gunsmoke, Marshal Dillon once said, "I don't hang anybody - the law does."

No the DM should not kill the players - the situation they chose should kill them. Don't confuse the two.

ILM
2011-04-29, 11:09 AM
(4) For a heaping dose of "Chaotic Stupid" I count all the people who said "of course if you trash a temple the deity will make war on you". That is the worst kind of GM spite. Almost half of what PCs do is trashing temples to somebody or other. Why should the good gods react any differently from Devils/Demons/Evil Gods/Eldritch Horrors?
... Dude, the deity was there. She appeared to them. The talked to them. She told them not to drag any dirt on the carpet. They insulted her, destroyed the temple and killed all the followers. Yeah, I'd make war on them too.

McSmack
2011-04-29, 12:05 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters. You should have predicted that is how we would play our characters and adjusted the encounter CR accordingly." I thought was insane, but I have seen a lot of similar sentiments on this forum, so I thought maybe I was the one who didn't get it.

A) She's a goddess, by definition she IS better than them.
B) Wholesale slaughter of non-hostile NPC's is evil. Not neutral.
C) Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean psychotic. Just because you don't like authority doesn't mean you kill everyone in a building because they want to 'stick it to the man'.
D) You are under no obligation to adjust your 'encounters' to justify their asinine actions.

You were perfectly justified in letting the single reasonable PC live. You were also well in line adjusting the encounters that player faced, since the party size had changed.

Hopefully this teaches them a lesson. If not, find a different group or see if someone wants to run an evil campaign, since all they seem interested in doing is killing things.

gomanfox
2011-04-29, 12:46 PM
So the players were contacted by the Goddess and basically told they would be given any assistance the temple could provide, free of cost, just as long as they don't cause harm to the land or its followers... and they decide to desecrate the temple and kill all the followers just because they think they can? I think the OP could have reasonably done a lot worse to his players than what happened. I wouldn't think it's unreasonable for a Goddess to intervene directly if guests in her sacred land start killing her loyal followers for no reason at all. She could have taken down the PCs herself, or provided some sort of extra protection to her followers, the players should feel lucky that at least one of them survived.

I personally don't think the OP did anything wrong, stupid actions should be met with the proper consequences, although there are other alternatives to actually killing the PCs. The goddess could have stepped in and expelled them from her temple, leaving them in the wasteland in the same poor condition they arrived in, without any of the supplies the temple was offering. I doubt the players would have been much happier with that, since they could feel the DM was abusing his power to prevent them from doing something... but it's an action that makes sense and is better than having most of the party die.

Maybe you could try showing the players how stupid their alignment excuses are by having their group constantly attacked by Chaotic Neutral NPCs that hate the group because they are organized in an adventuring party. :P

cfalcon
2011-04-29, 12:57 PM
What you did was fine. Don't budge. Sometimes it takes a few TPKs to get the players to pretend they are in a fantasy world you are describing, instead of Southern Barrens.

Edited to add: You didn't kill those characters, the NPCs did. You played your world as presented, and you didn't go and take them apart for no reason- they just went and did something suicidal, and got owned for it. That's you doing your job right.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-29, 01:02 PM
Talakeal, you have a lot of Problem Players, don't you? :smallsmile:

My only criticism is "going easy" on the Good PC in the Desert Survival Challenge and "going hard" on the Bad PC in the same situation. Tilting the tables with DM Fiat without in-game justification is bad form.

That said, you could have easily made the Desert Survival Challenge difficult from the start and have given the Good PC a boon from the Goddess if that was appropriate. Personally, I would have warned either PC that wandering in the desert alone was a death sentence and killed-without-rolling anyone who did. If you wanted the campaign to continue, they could have been picked up by a caravan or other travelers seeking to use the oasis.

Talakeal
2011-04-29, 01:22 PM
No, I really just have one problem player and a lot of borderline players who go along with him and have occasional bad (and good) moments of their own.

I didn't "tilt the chart" per se. The player who continued on the adventure I had planned followed the pre written adventure path, although I did modify the difficulty to be appropriate for only one player.

The player who abandoned the adventure I just rolled random encounters for and played them by the book.

Yukitsu
2011-04-29, 01:27 PM
@Yukitsu: ...It sounds like you've misunderstood what is being said... because you're playing both sides. "Yawn at your campaign setting where I can't do what I want," yet also, "well, if I had a nuke it would be perfectly reasonable". Point is, this players don't have nukes. They didn't go to trouble to get nukes. They never even thought of getting a nuke to make their objective easy.

I am playing both sides. I think that stupid actions should have no inherent punishments other than themselves, but too many of you seem to think is should be "stupid action, ergo death". Not many stupid actions should lead to death, frankly this one included. Players shouldn't be going around doing stupid things, but if the dice fall in their favour, you can't just start pulling level+10 CR encounters, arguing that it exists and using it on the players. It's simply not realistic for those to just be hanging around, waiting to punish arrogance.

You can't make the argument that 4 or so sociopathic murderes go to a temple and decide to kill them all, that the stupidity of the action=a difficult fight. That's not a direct result of their actions, that's the direct result of their actions+the addition of strangely powerful individuals in the world all over the place for pretty much no good reason, that I don't think the players could have readily predicted. "There was a goddess there" is no indication in my mind, that the temple guardians should be a difficult encounter, nor is a desert oasis often assailed by large enough groups of bandits to make an elite guard necessarily realistic.

Do you know why it's stupid to insult and attack people trying to help you? Because you don't get help, and your reputation tanks. Not because they suddenly turn out to be badasses that automatically kill you, or even provide a challenge. That's just bizarre.


Instead, with the players described, it's a matter of going up to the King, kicking him between the legs, then expecting to be able to go to sleep in the middle of the throne room, without being thrown in jail or killed. AKA: Completely unrealistic reaction from the setting, and winning without any real effort.

No, what's described is, a group of adventurers was unable to determine the CR of a bunch of random nobodies in a desert, and got beaten up when it turns out that the random clerics were apparantly more dangerous than an average group of that size generally are assumed to be. If they know the King happens to be stronger than them, sure, that's unrealistic, but I honestly can't appreciate a setting where the king and his guard autoscale to always just be that extra bit above the party, but for some reason they get the party to do all their work anyway.


Generally, I advocate helping the PCs out a bit. Let's say they don't realize how powerful the crimelord is in their plan to attack him. Instead of having the realistic reaction of getting them killed, have them stripped and made to fight his Monk-like bodyguard unarmed/unarmoured.
.....
They're beaten so bad that they will surely bleed to death over the course of a couple of days (not modelled well with DnD's system), but a kindly priest brings him to the church and nurses them back to health. The rest of the adventure, they need to avoid the crimelord for now.

I just play it. I don't say "it's stupid to attack these guys, so death/strangely difficult encounter" I say, "it's stupid to attack these guys, so you don't get there help later on when they would have otherwise given it."


Limitations are upon specific tasks. In this case, the specific task was to burn down a temple with no preparation and survive it, that turned out to be beyond the character's capabilities. Just like the action "I flap my arms and try to fly" should get a response of "you fail". Its beyond human capabilities, though that doesn't mean we can't get into the air through technological means.

Except the way most DMs actually play these things, is that they render something that is impossible from a certain approach, actually impossible, or at any rate, the method with which the players are attempting something is so utterly irrelevant to the common forum response "kill them" that there is never any question as to what tactics they were planning on using. "Just play it out" is so much more realistic to the question, and if it turns out that they do succeed, I guess what you're calling stupid wasn't so stupid after all. And if it was, you didn't have to say "just kill them all" they let it happen themselves.

Severus
2011-04-29, 01:30 PM
Step 1: Never Allow CN aligned PCs ever again.

Step 2: see step 1.

This is really good advice.

Talakeal
2011-04-29, 01:41 PM
Yukitsu, again, I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. That is not the type of game I run. The temple defenders are roughly as strong as the other groups in the area. The party still won the fight, but because they were already injured and one of their number refused to participate they suffered casualties, but still won the battle.

Let me be a little more clear on the specific details, because some people don't seem to be getting it:

The thing is, it isn't just a desert. It is a wasteland that makes Mordor look like a vacation spot, and is the most inhospitable place on the planet. There are no caravans or any settlements inside except for a few settlements of hostile mutants or undead. The players were on an epic quest (which they seemed to enjoy overall) to find all the pieces of an artifact that had been destroyed long ago before their enemies could, and one of the pieces was in an ancient ruined city in what had, in the thousands of years since it was abandoned, become the wasteland. There are no towns, no caravans, or anything of that sort.

The temple was not a traditional church as such, but rather an ancient druid circle which shielded the surrounding forest from the outside climate. There were no priests, or paladins, or treasures per se. There was merely fresh water, shade, clean air, fresh herbs, nuts, and fruit to forage, and most important a safe place to rest. I believe I also let the players apply a free metamagic to all the spells they memorized within to represent the ambient magical energy.

The defenders of the oasis were not humans, they were all awakened animals who had migrated to the grove as their natural habitats were consumed by the wasteland.

The players went in, slept the night, filled their bags with fruit and water. Then they started torching the forest. When the animal guardians attempted to stop them, they fought. All of the guardians, and all of the players save one (and the one who didn't participate) were killed in the battle. The surviving attacker then finished torching to trees, told the player who "betrayed them" by not helping them fight the guardians that he would no longer aid him in his quest, and set off wandering through the wasteland to return home despite the fact that he had no survival skills.

Also, the god's in my world are pretty hands off, because they have an uneasy cease fire with the diabolic powers which they do not want to break. They will occasionally send visions, but actual miracles or avatars are only for the most extreme of circumstances.

Yukitsu
2011-04-29, 01:44 PM
Yeah, I know you agree. I'm mostly just adressing my post to all those people around who are still trying to argue "just kill them" or "there are always unwinnable encounters" are wrong, as those are definitely not the solutions to this instance.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-29, 01:50 PM
You can't make the argument that 4 or so sociopathic murderes go to a temple and decide to kill them all, that the stupidity of the action=a difficult fight. That's not a direct result of their actions, that's the direct result of their actions+the addition of strangely powerful individuals in the world all over the place for pretty much no good reason, that I don't think the players could have readily predicted. "There was a goddess there" is no indication in my mind, that the temple guardians should be a difficult encounter, nor is a desert oasis often assailed by large enough groups of bandits to make an elite guard necessarily realistic.

It doesn't indicate that the punishment will arrive in that particular way, no...but it would mean that the temple WAS important to her. And in D&D, importance and levels tend to go side by side quite frequently.

I would certainly expect some sort of repercussion involving high leveled foes at some point for blatantly trying to anger a god.


Do you know why it's stupid to insult and attack people trying to help you? Because you don't get help, and your reputation tanks. Not because they suddenly turn out to be badasses that automatically kill you, or even provide a challenge. That's just bizarre.

Well, if it were an auto-kill, I'd be totally with you. But mid-level people isn't that unreasonable, and a fight that can, with one party member standing out, almost but not quite take the party...that's reasonable.

And we have no indication that the party members made any attempt to determine how tough the fight was before diving in head first. If approaching a location of some importance, and I decide I'd prefer to fight them, I'll at least make a casual effort to determine what I'm up against.

I think when many people say "kill them all", they are saying "don't hold back, let them suffer the natural outcome of their actions" not "say they all died without playing it through". The latter one would indeed be terrible.

Geddoe
2011-04-29, 03:17 PM
If you are playing characters that are suicidal, you don't get to complain when role playing them gets them killed.

Come on now, they are adventurers. If they weren't a little suicidal to start with they would still be at home mucking out stables for their dad.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-29, 03:37 PM
Adventuresome, sure... but there's a limit. Foolish adventurers become dead adventurers in the natural order of things.

valadil
2011-04-29, 03:39 PM
If you can't kill stupid, where exactly does your game end up? I can just imagine a group of level 1 adventurers deciding to take on an ancient dragon because they know the GM won't punish their bad planning.

askandarion
2011-04-29, 03:59 PM
:smallmad: I think you were fine. The game killed them, not you. They simply lost the game, ironically, a game that isn't supposed to be win/lose. Give the players Darwin awards and kick them out. Inertia keeps a lot of maladjusted players in games when there is absolutely no need for them.

I'm big on my characters doing their own thing too, but knee-jerk, pigheaded contrariness is not being chaotic, it really is being stupid. If they're looking for a game like that where they can attack any authority figure, then I guess run it for them or tell them to look elsewhere for it. I don't know if your players have serious problems at home or mentally, but you might want to suggest counseling to help them through it.

...

Oh, wait. I forgot who we were talking about. Tell them they absolutely can't go to counseling. :smallfurious:

Seb Wiers
2011-04-29, 04:47 PM
In a video game, if you're allowed to do something, you can succeed at it,

Most good sandbox games (Elder Scolls, GTA) will let you locate opponents you have no real hope of defeating yet.
Even in WOW I've gotten into places where they had a lifespan measured in seconds, and then respawned in an even WORSE location. Yeah, I eventually got out by leaving a trail of my own corpses across half the zone, but it took HOURS.

The real difference is, in a video game, you get to reload you last save / respawn.

Anyhow, I gotta side with "**** em, they killed themselves". Its a pretty basic tenet of mythology that, when offered hospitality or spoken to by a god, you don't **** on the offer / god without expecting years of misery (or simple death, if you are a secondary character). If they don't know that much mythology, fantasy RPGs may be a bit to sophisticated for them.

dsmiles
2011-04-29, 05:57 PM
This is really good advice.:smallconfused:
Not particularly. CN does not necessarily mean Chaotic Stupid. Alignment builds itself around the character, not: the character has to "fit into" an alignment.

Also, @Tyndmyr: I didn't want to go through and multi-quote all of your posts, but as often as we don't see eye to eye, I'm 100% with you on this one.

holywhippet
2011-04-29, 06:07 PM
Adventuresome, sure... but there's a limit. Foolish adventurers become dead adventurers in the natural order of things.

This is one of the great ironies of RPGs. Players are in control of a character who, up until this point, has presumably lived a normal life in society - or something approximating a normal life. Then the player gets control of them and runs them like a sociopath with either a deathwish or no basic survival instincts/common sense.

There's also the whole character INT/WIS vs. player INT/WIS. The player making the character do things that they should be no means even contemplate doing.

Traab
2011-04-29, 06:09 PM
:smallconfused:
Not particularly. CN does not necessarily mean Chaotic Stupid. Alignment builds itself around the character, not: the character has to "fit into" an alignment.

Also, @Tyndmyr: I didn't want to go through and multi-quote all of your posts, but as often as we don't see eye to eye, I'm 100% with you on this one.

True it doesnt always mean that, but I have to admit, from reading these boards ive been seeing a LOT of stories where people try to justify their actions by chaotic neutral alignment. Its like people define chaotic as either insane, or a license to commit random acts of evil. At least if that alignment no longer exists, they have to try harder to come up with an excuse as to why they just turbo mooned the king and french kissed his queen than, "We are chaotic! We can do whatever we want! How dare you have his guards slaughter us like cattle!"

dsmiles
2011-04-29, 06:13 PM
True it doesnt always mean that, but I have to admit, from reading these boards ive been seeing a LOT of stories where people try to justify their actions by chaotic neutral alignment. Its like people define chaotic as either insane, or a license to commit random acts of evil. At least if that alignment no longer exists, they have to try harder to come up with an excuse as to why they just turbo mooned the king and french kissed his queen than, "We are chaotic! We can do whatever we want! How dare you have his guards slaughter us like cattle!"I say that because my gaming group consists entirely of 30-somethings, who are also mentally/emotionally mature. No alignment presents an issue for us. I'm sure other groups have had their issues with alignments, but I'll probably never understand why.

Talakeal
2011-04-29, 06:22 PM
In my experiance players will do whatever they want to do and then justify their actions using their alignment, no matter how flimsy it may be. It may be easier as you get more chaotic or more evil, but those alignments don't cause the behavior, nor is it exclusive to them.

comicshorse
2011-04-29, 06:51 PM
You can't make the argument that 4 or so sociopathic murderes go to a temple and decide to kill them all, that the stupidity of the action=a difficult fight. That's not a direct result of their actions, that's the direct result of their actions+the addition of strangely powerful individuals in the world all over the place for pretty much no good reason, that I don't think the players could have readily predicted. "There was a goddess there" is no indication in my mind, that the temple guardians should be a difficult encounter, nor is a desert oasis often assailed by large enough groups of bandits to make an elite guard necessarily realistic.



No there was a godess there is a HUGE indication that the place is important. The fact that the Deity herself has taken an interest in that place couldn't make a plainer case that the place is important and so the place will be correspondingly well protected.
Seriously short of putting 'Important Temple' in letters of burning fire the G.M. couldn't have been clearer about this. The fact that the P.C.s didn't bother checking the defences or even finding out if all the group actually wanted to attack the place first indicates a lack of forethought that was always going to get them killed.

Conners
2011-04-29, 07:27 PM
I am playing both sides. I think that stupid actions should have no inherent punishments other than themselves, but too many of you seem to think is should be "stupid action, ergo death". Not many stupid actions should lead to death, frankly this one included. Players shouldn't be going around doing stupid things, but if the dice fall in their favour, you can't just start pulling level+10 CR encounters, arguing that it exists and using it on the players. It's simply not realistic for those to just be hanging around, waiting to punish arrogance.

You can't make the argument that 4 or so sociopathic murderes go to a temple and decide to kill them all, that the stupidity of the action=a difficult fight. That's not a direct result of their actions, that's the direct result of their actions+the addition of strangely powerful individuals in the world all over the place for pretty much no good reason, that I don't think the players could have readily predicted. "There was a goddess there" is no indication in my mind, that the temple guardians should be a difficult encounter, nor is a desert oasis often assailed by large enough groups of bandits to make an elite guard necessarily realistic.

Do you know why it's stupid to insult and attack people trying to help you? Because you don't get help, and your reputation tanks. Not because they suddenly turn out to be badasses that automatically kill you, or even provide a challenge. That's just bizarre.



No, what's described is, a group of adventurers was unable to determine the CR of a bunch of random nobodies in a desert, and got beaten up when it turns out that the random clerics were apparantly more dangerous than an average group of that size generally are assumed to be. If they know the King happens to be stronger than them, sure, that's unrealistic, but I honestly can't appreciate a setting where the king and his guard autoscale to always just be that extra bit above the party, but for some reason they get the party to do all their work anyway.



I just play it. I don't say "it's stupid to attack these guys, so death/strangely difficult encounter" I say, "it's stupid to attack these guys, so you don't get there help later on when they would have otherwise given it."



Except the way most DMs actually play these things, is that they render something that is impossible from a certain approach, actually impossible, or at any rate, the method with which the players are attempting something is so utterly irrelevant to the common forum response "kill them" that there is never any question as to what tactics they were planning on using. "Just play it out" is so much more realistic to the question, and if it turns out that they do succeed, I guess what you're calling stupid wasn't so stupid after all. And if it was, you didn't have to say "just kill them all" they let it happen themselves. Wow, you really don't seem to be paying attention to the thread.... People have been saying, "let the game kill them", and no one has really said, "use 'rocks fall and everyone dies'!", they have said "play it out".

Mostly, it sounds like you would be unhappy to have lost in this way, and take it personally due to similar behaviour patterns...

Yukitsu
2011-04-29, 07:44 PM
No, I'm irate because it's honestly a situation where "Players=jerks" doesn't seem to automatically lead to death. Punished yes, maybe attacked by the "good guys" later on, but really, I don't really know why people litter their settings with random high level encounters just to discourage jerk behavior by being as tough or tougher than them. That's the least realistic way for jerks to be punished.

While I'm never civil to Gods, I don't outright attack their followers (unless that's the plot of course), and I've only lost 1 character out of lord knows how many. Ironically to a freindly fire incident. My irrateness is that I hate it when DMs make a setting based on "realism" and make CR 10+ things common, or worse, ones where the peasants scale with the players. I generally run NPCs at their peak at about level 6, with virtually every random peasant being level 1 commoners. Saying "Durr, the party started a fight for no good reason in bar X, that sure was stupid, I'll just let this play out" and then run the bartender as a level 7 something, the bar patrons as level 6 somethings, and throw in spells and gear harms my versimilitude far more than Chuck Norris walking into a bar and beating everyone senseless.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-04-29, 07:45 PM
Step 1: Never Allow CN aligned PCs ever again.

Step 2: see step 1.

Hey! Don't tell me what to do!




In all seriousness, though, this is a good start. I'm seeing a lot of people say that "chaotic neutral needn't be terrible" and I completely agree... But it's not easy to do that. Especially if your party has trouble with chaotic neutral roleplaying, sometimes a blanket ban is justified.

Mostly though, stop dming for that group. They have no interest in playing the campaign you are trying to run.

Now to play Devil's Advocate... On another note, it seems like a lot of the situations you brought up involved goddesses or something of the sort. Temple Goddess, Forest guardian, uber-wizard... Your players might be acting out because they feel like they have no control of the game. In the real world, who hasn't, at least once, just wanted to punch their boss in the face? The real world prevents us from doing this because of eternal consequence, but in a game world it's easier to act off these desires. Perhaps your players feel like you're constantly creating NPCs breathing down their necks. This makes them feel powerless, and this makes them act out in ridiculous ways.

I know the game rules say there will always be people out their more powerful than the party, but "in existence" isn't the same as "right next to the player". Creating a chaotic neutral character means wanting freedom, and if you are denying this to them they'll probably act weird.

With this in mind: Communicate. Ask the players why they want to play these sorts of characters. People keep joking about making it "easy" but maybe that's actually the right move, to an extent. Do they hate being surrounded by high level NPC gods? What about a campaign where they are gods themselves, and they fight against the highest forces of darkness without the support of higher powers? Seriously, D&D is about having fun. If you and your players are upset all the time, that's a problem. If your players don't get to play the game they wanted to play, then why are they playing? If you're not having fun with your group, then no solution will work.

NichG
2011-04-29, 07:48 PM
Banning CN means that someone will just play TN 'badly' or they'll play 'LG' as 'I'm Lawful, therefore what I say is the Law. Do it or die.' or some other justification. People will play what they want to play, and the only thing really stopping them there is either social contract or rational consequences for their actions. If you say 'if you do this you'll become CN and NPC out' then they'll accuse you (somewhat rightly, unfortunately) of taking control of their PCs.

You could just not use explicit alignment at all. Tell the players 'alignment-based spells and pre-reqs don't apply, and there's no 'alignment' in this setting: do what your character would do'. That way you'll see very quickly who is going to play a sociopath no matter what.

comicshorse
2011-04-29, 07:58 PM
No, I'm irate because it's honestly a situation where "Players=jerks" doesn't seem to automatically lead to death. Punished yes, maybe attacked by the "good guys" later on, but really, I don't really know why people litter their settings with random high level encounters just to discourage jerk behavior by being as tough or tougher than them. That's the least realistic way for jerks to be punished.

While I'm never civil to Gods, I don't outright attack their followers (unless that's the plot of course), and I've only lost 1 character out of lord knows how many. Ironically to a freindly fire incident. My irrateness is that I hate it when DMs make a setting based on "realism" and make CR 10+ things common, or worse, ones where the peasants scale with the players. I generally run NPCs at their peak at about level 6, with virtually every random peasant being level 1 commoners. Saying "Durr, the party started a fight for no good reason in bar X, that sure was stupid, I'll just let this play out" and then run the bartender as a level 7 something, the bar patrons as level 6 somethings, and throw in spells and gear harms my versimilitude far more than Chuck Norris walking into a bar and beating everyone senseless.

All fair points and I sympathize ( there was a Vampire game where wherever my character went he encountered methuselah who semed to regard my charcter as their favourite toy, but I digress) BUT I'm not convinced this was actually what the GM set up here. I'm really not sure this was that difficult an encounter. The players, according to the OP, where caught by suprise as they were torching the place, one of the P.C.s refused to fight and they technically won (they killed all the bad guys and one of them survived).
Given they made no attempt to find who might opposse them, made no preparations for the fight, didn't even seem to consider someone would object to their desecration, didn't even find out if all the party would fight with them they managed to stack the deck against themselves horrendously and could easily turn a moderate encounter into a killer one.
And while I agree the 'every barman is a retired 18th level adventurer' bit is silly there should be places of great power and wonder in a magical world. If you go around burning everything then pretty soon you are going to hit one and you will only have yourself to blame

MidnightOne
2011-04-29, 08:18 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters. You should have predicted that is how we would play our characters and adjusted the encounter CR accordingly." I thought was insane, but I have seen a lot of similar sentiments on this forum, so I thought maybe I was the one who didn't get it.

Yea, about Chaotic Neutral: It still has a survival instinct.

Teron
2011-04-29, 11:31 PM
When i get players complain that the game is to hard i like to give them an option;

I will make the game easy but once i do it there are no take backs.

If they decided they want the game easy i just tell them what ever they do succeeds regaurdless of what they roll.

All oponents miss their attacks or fail any abilitys they try to use the PC's.

Any damage done to a non-PC kills is.

And i get a loot generator and set it to rediculous for working out loot from any encounters.

The players usually enjoy it for a session or so but after two or three sessions they start to complain that its borring and there is no challenge.

Then you can tell them well, i said no take backs but i guess we can start again and play something more challenging.
Seriously? You respond to suggestions that your game isn't perfect by ruining it for everyone and then blaming them for it?

Conners
2011-04-30, 01:41 AM
No, I'm irate because it's honestly a situation where "Players=jerks" doesn't seem to automatically lead to death. Punished yes, maybe attacked by the "good guys" later on, but really, I don't really know why people litter their settings with random high level encounters just to discourage jerk behavior by being as tough or tougher than them. That's the least realistic way for jerks to be punished.

While I'm never civil to Gods, I don't outright attack their followers (unless that's the plot of course), and I've only lost 1 character out of lord knows how many. Ironically to a freindly fire incident. My irrateness is that I hate it when DMs make a setting based on "realism" and make CR 10+ things common, or worse, ones where the peasants scale with the players. I generally run NPCs at their peak at about level 6, with virtually every random peasant being level 1 commoners. Saying "Durr, the party started a fight for no good reason in bar X, that sure was stupid, I'll just let this play out" and then run the bartender as a level 7 something, the bar patrons as level 6 somethings, and throw in spells and gear harms my versimilitude far more than Chuck Norris walking into a bar and beating everyone senseless. Yes, that does sound annoying. However, I don't think that is the case with this scenario. Apparently, the animals were just smart animals, not boosted animals. So, it was mostly poor planning on the PC's part, I'd say.

Realism for levels seems like a sensible idea to me... but then, I recall "level 5 being the equivalent of the King's Elite Bodyguards" from somewhere, and it does sound reasonable... People aren't generally super-powered like adventurers, so even some of the King's best men won't be able to tangle with the stuff PCs deal with regularly. So, yeah, level 6 PCs should be able to kill most anything in their way--save the King's personal Bodyguard, the archmage, gods and the gods' high priests, various dragons, and etc..
Sound reasonable?

Firechanter
2011-04-30, 04:36 AM
I don't buy into this "all NPCs are lowlevel" nonsense, except if you're running an E6 game. It may be in the DMG but it's still nonsense. I don't believe in town guards that can be killed by a common housecat.
Look at how many PrCs are there that would fit well into the world, but would be altogether out of reach for any NPC using such a reading. In Forgotten Realms for instance, but also in other splats, there are several PrCs that go into the direction of "King's Bodyguard" which require roughly character level 10 to be effective. Likewise for "Temple Guardians", "Hospitaller Knights" and so forth.

In my games, I prefer a different take on levels. A young adult with some professional training is level 3, and we go from there. The King's Bodyguards would be more like level 11 and up.

Saph
2011-04-30, 05:11 AM
I have to say, I think the OP ran it pretty much perfectly in this case. Don't try to "punish" players, just play out the consequences of their actions. I can't fault the OP for giving the non-murderous PC a break, either, because it really wasn't his fault that the rest of his party acted as they did.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play as the PCs who are the conquering heroes. The problem is where you get players who think that they're the conquering heroes by definition, no matter how they're actually behaving.


I generally run NPCs at their peak at about level 6, with virtually every random peasant being level 1 commoners.

Just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else does.

There seems to be a fairly common belief out there that NPCs are supposed to be inferior to the PCs - you can treat them however you want and expect to come out on top. The funny thing about this attitude is that players stick with it even when it's blatantly obvious that it's wrong.

I had something like this happen in my current campaign. Two players were bringing in a pair of new/returning characters. They ran into a squad of NPCs who had been sent to arrest the party. The NPCs weren't hostile but were blocking their way, so the PCs demanded to go past. When the NPCs didn't let them past, the two PCs insulted them, threatened them, and eventually started a fight.

Now, three things to bear in mind here:

1) The rank-and-file soldiers facing the PCs outnumbered them by six to one, not counting the two NPC leaders.
2) The two NPC leaders had names, and full-colour pictures that I showed the PCs right at the start of the encounter.
3) The squad had been sent to arrest a mid-level adventuring party. (Would you send low-level nobodies to arrest a mid-level adventuring party?)

It should come as absolutely no surprise that the PCs got their backsides handed to them. (It didn't surprise the rest of the party, anyway, who were laughing their heads off.) For some reason, however, it came as a great surprise to the new player, who protested that their enemies were "just a couple of guards". (In case you're wondering, the two PCs were subdued rather than killed, and were broken out of prison by the competent members of the party within twenty minutes.)

Oddly enough, the new player's alignment just happened to be CN. :smallbiggrin:

Atcote
2011-04-30, 05:30 AM
So, do they have a point? Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches?

You remind me of a very similar situation in my campaign world. They had spent an awful amount of time getting someone to act as a base for the avatar of a God to arrive in the flesh.
After he had successfully become an avatar of ridiculous Godly power... The party decides to try and destroy him to get the experience so they'd be strong enough to take on the bad guy themselves.
The explanation that experience points aren't an organic thing the characters would necessarily be aware of didn't dissuade them, so, they fought it. I quickly made up its statistics.
The 22-feet tall conduit of Godly power decimated them in three moves.
They argued that they thought up a good theory, and I said I was suitably impressed. Also, they weren't get level 10 and there was a reason they needed the Gods help, so they hadn't thought it out.
We then went back to before hand. I admit, I rail-roaded the situation, which was bad of me. But on the other hand, they acted totally irrationally, and not in such a way as 'It's so crazy it could work', but more in the 'It's so crazy we'll all die' sense.

Conners
2011-04-30, 05:58 AM
I have to say, I think the OP ran it pretty much perfectly in this case. Don't try to "punish" players, just play out the consequences of their actions. I can't fault the OP for giving the non-murderous PC a break, either, because it really wasn't his fault that the rest of his party acted as they did.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play as the PCs who are the conquering heroes. The problem is where you get players who think that they're the conquering heroes by definition, no matter how they're actually behaving.



Just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else does.

There seems to be a fairly common belief out there that NPCs are supposed to be inferior to the PCs - you can treat them however you want and expect to come out on top. The funny thing about this attitude is that players stick with it even when it's blatantly obvious that it's wrong.

I had something like this happen in my current campaign. Two players were bringing in a pair of new/returning characters. They ran into a squad of NPCs who had been sent to arrest the party. The NPCs weren't hostile but were blocking their way, so the PCs demanded to go past. When the NPCs didn't let them past, the two PCs insulted them, threatened them, and eventually started a fight.

Now, three things to bear in mind here:

1) The rank-and-file soldiers facing the PCs outnumbered them by six to one, not counting the two NPC leaders.
2) The two NPC leaders had names, and full-colour pictures that I showed the PCs right at the start of the encounter.
3) The squad had been sent to arrest a mid-level adventuring party. (Would you send low-level nobodies to arrest a mid-level adventuring party?)

It should come as absolutely no surprise that the PCs got their backsides handed to them. (It didn't surprise the rest of the party, anyway, who were laughing their heads off.) For some reason, however, it came as a great surprise to the new player, who protested that their enemies were "just a couple of guards". (In case you're wondering, the two PCs were subdued rather than killed, and were broken out of prison by the competent members of the party within twenty minutes.)

Oddly enough, the new player's alignment just happened to be CN. :smallbiggrin: Hmm... I see your point. It's just because of the way I see DnD, I guess... it's annoying to have soldiers who can be shot four times with a longbow and keep fighting.

BlackestOfMages
2011-04-30, 06:04 AM
@ Yukitsu

This dosen't even seem to have been a CP + 10 encounter, or anything like that. let's look at it in detail:

We have an injured party, sure they've rested to regain spells but that's not much healing, and as the OP explained they where injured when the attacked, either no-ones playing a healer, or they where and the group is irrevocabbly stupid (when the healer refuses to heal them before starting an action obvious to cause problems, then the group is doomed anyway)

This was a grove of awakened animals - which are quite nasty. also, owing to the fact it's the only spot for realistic survival (thus an oasis) it'd reasonably be rather crowded - 10 critters minimum, some of them rather big

so we have 4 injured PC's with (what appears to be) no access to in-battle healing. yeah, that's dosen't seem to be a boosted CR or anything, that seems to be a rather realistic outcome

also, due to the fact there are aliving creatures here, and his is described at the only place they can live, burning it had a 100% chance of causing a fight, unless the DM should just have enemy creatures impale themselves on the PC's weapons for free XP. thus they knew a fight would happen, the knew they where injured, and they still did it. That's not unfair DMing, that not 'rock drops', the the game giving us a combat system and not being free-flow. The thing about having ules for combat, is that you CAN die through combat, and if you cut this, then why bother playing a structured, rule-based RPG in the first place?

also one of them did survive the fight, while injured, meaning it wasn't boosted to stupidly high levels. in fact, with a reduced party that's already injured, I'd say this was a soft encounter.

I think the problem here is the thread title, namely the question he asked is this:

should I throw my PC's really soft encounters at all times/ so they don't get upset when they start a fight when injured and die from it?

or

Should I have things in the game have reprocusions that are PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, or should I just stop, let then turn of gravity and just sit there eating a pizza while they go aroudn ending existance?

or lastly

would it have been easir to give them Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, where they can just kill everyting they walk up to and expect to survive

Tetsubo 57
2011-04-30, 06:34 AM
There are times that the dice go against you and a character will die.

But the only time I will actually kill a character is if they are stupid. I will pay out the rope but they have to hang themselves. I've seen it happen. I've given warnings. Two is my limit. Third time, dead.

Firechanter
2011-04-30, 07:31 AM
Off topic:

it's annoying to have soldiers who can be shot four times with a longbow and keep fighting.

So? The PCs also can eat more than 4 arrows and keep fighting. Well, after 4th level or so, that is.

On topic: generally, I am fervently opposed to the attitude you often read on these boards, "If they did this or didn't do that they deserve to die". I am very slow to hand out death to a PC. Also, I keep saying that the players can't read the DMs mind, and just being in the position of DM doesn't automatically gain you a perfect understanding of the workings of the world. So something that a DM may consider "an obvious Don't" may not feel all that obvious to the players.

I stress this so much because I want to make it clear how extreme I view the actions of these players that _even I_ say this Wipe was justified.

In this case, it was not merely to be _presumed_ that aggression may not be smart here, the players were _told_ very clearly. Granted, maybe it was the "direct orders" thing that ticked them off and made them rebel against what they might perceive as railroading. But the DM probably knew his players and had his reasons to establish the Warning scene in the first place.

Concerning Alignment:
CN can be problematic, true. For some, immature players, this is merely a poorly disguised CE. Then again, it doesn't have to be. For instance, one of my characters is a highlevel Elf Wizard that's CN, but tbh I picked this alignment only because she's a follower of Shevarass (FR elven god of revenge), and I play it according to her faith, not as insane psychopath.

But it's true, when I see a character sheet with CN on it, I am already on my guard.

Blackjackg
2011-04-30, 08:09 AM
You know, come to think of it, if I see the image of a goddess appear before me and my mid-level party, I probably won't think it's an actual goddess. I'll probably think it's a cheeky illusionist trying to steer me away from the good loot.

If I'm chaotic neutral, there is a slim chance that I will do exactly the opposite of what said illusionist told me to do. Because let's face it: odds of a real, live goddess appearing before me just to direct me to the buffet? Short. Very short.

Ranos
2011-04-30, 08:34 AM
You know, come to think of it, if I see the image of a goddess appear before me and my mid-level party, I probably won't think it's an actual goddess. I'll probably think it's a cheeky illusionist trying to steer me away from the good loot.

If I'm chaotic neutral, there is a slim chance that I will do exactly the opposite of what said illusionist told me to do. Because let's face it: odds of a real, live goddess appearing before me just to direct me to the buffet? Short. Very short.

Hm, very true, now that you say it like that. Especially since none of them were worshippers. Sounds a lot like a trap.
They do lack food in that desert, right ? Steering food towards you would probably be the best thing to do. It's not even cannibalism, since they're all animals.

MickJay
2011-04-30, 09:16 AM
Hm, very true, now that you say it like that. Especially since none of them were worshippers. Sounds a lot like a trap.
They do lack food in that desert, right ? Steering food towards you would probably be the best thing to do. It's not even cannibalism, since they're all animals.

They were already allowed to take whatever they needed, and did so.

@Blackjackg: What reason would have even the cheekiest gnome illusionist (who for some reason found himself in the middle of a wasteland in an oasis) to tell them "not to desacrate" the place? It was an oasis, the only thing you could do to it that would be desacration would be to destroy it (which the PCs tried to do). If they wanted to search for loot, there was nothing stopping them from it. Being asked not to destroy the only life-giving area in a wasteland is hardly unreasonable, and doesn't sound like a particularly cunning trick, either.

Conners
2011-04-30, 09:16 AM
So? The PCs also can eat more than 4 arrows and keep fighting. Well, after 4th level or so, that is. Yes, but even that is hard to swallow...

comicshorse
2011-04-30, 10:45 AM
You know, come to think of it, if I see the image of a goddess appear before me and my mid-level party, I probably won't think it's an actual goddess. I'll probably think it's a cheeky illusionist trying to steer me away from the good loot.

If I'm chaotic neutral, there is a slim chance that I will do exactly the opposite of what said illusionist told me to do. Because let's face it: odds of a real, live goddess appearing before me just to direct me to the buffet? Short. Very short.

possibly I'd still actually look for the Illusionist first before moving straight to the 'calling the goddess a whore' section of the encounter in case it actually is a Godess

Blackjackg
2011-04-30, 11:03 AM
possibly I'd still actually look for the Illusionist first before moving straight to the 'calling the goddess a whore' section of the encounter in case it actually is a Godess

Sure. I'm not defending the carelessness of the players or even saying they didn't earn a hard smackdown; they did. I'm just saying that failing to respect the wishes of every apparition in the sky is not necessarily suicidal.

Knaight
2011-04-30, 11:39 AM
Yes, but even that is hard to swallow...

Assuming they are armored properly, its somewhat realistic (mail is pretty much the best thing ever). Otherwise, there are games besides D&D 3.5 where 4 arrows will almost certainly kill one outright, unless they were 4 completely pathetic shots.

dsmiles
2011-04-30, 11:42 AM
Assuming they are armored properly, its somewhat realistic. Otherwise, there are games besides D&D 3.5 where 4 arrows will almost certainly kill one outright, unless they were 4 completely pathetic shots.*COUGH*Rolemaster*COUGH*

Knaight
2011-04-30, 11:44 AM
*COUGH*Rolemaster*COUGH*

Ideally without that many tables. The harder Fudge wound track for instance, or GURPS.

dsmiles
2011-04-30, 11:59 AM
I was speaking from personal experience. I had a level 6 character taken out by two swings of a sword.

Talakeal
2011-04-30, 01:19 PM
Off topic:
So? The PCs also can eat more than 4 arrows and keep fighting. Well, after 4th level or so, that is.


If you look at the real world most people are disabled, although not killed, by a single serious wound. However there are many "heroic" people, such as Joan of Arc or Alexander the Great, who were injured many times by what could have been fatal wounds, but kept on fighting through pure grit and determination.

I see the PCs as the type who have the strength of will to make history, while most NPCs are not.

The game I was running was a heavily modified version of E6. In that world level 1 is a child, 2 a youth, 3 an unskilled adult, 4 a skilled adult, 5 a veteran, 6 a starting PC, a leader of a small organization, a gifted individual, or a low ranking officer in a large organization.
Levels 7-9 are leaders of large organizations, generals, kings, warlords, and world renowned experts, while level 10 are legendary heroes (or villains). The only 11+ in the world are gods or their avatars.

Also, I learned long ago that PCs, at least my PCs, hate powerful NPCs in positions of authority, particularly DMPCs, former PCs made NPCs, and quest givers who are high enough level to do it their self or act self important (even if they are gods.)
The last major (six year) campaign I ran I made sure that there were no good NPCs in the world stronger than the PCs by having them all killed or corrupted in the first act. After that the players were free to kill anyone they wanted, and by the end of it they were the stronger things in the world save a few slumbering elder evils and ancient dragons. They had even killed the gods of both good and evil by the end.
Of course, at the end of the PCs chose to take their power and become a god herself, and the player who hates gods wanted to kill her, and when I said no, killed herself, but that was another thread.

*BTW, I think the players whose idea it was to burn the shrine simply hates gods for some real world reason. I was just thinking back, and I remember in the Dead Gods module there is a part when Anubis tells the players of the ritual to resurrect Orcus. Said player asked why he didn't stop it himself, and Anubis said he was forbidden to interfere directly. Then the player says "That sucks, because I refuse to do a god's handiwork" and sat out the mission, his absence resulting in failure of the quest.

Firechanter
2011-04-30, 02:59 PM
If you look at the real world

Insert at this point a kind of M-card showing a wizard casting a fireball at a dragon that's flying overhead, captioned
"Fantasy Roleplaying Game
your argument is invalid"

:smalltongue:

Sorry for the polemic, what I mean to say is that I'm kinda allergic to words like "realistic" in what is one of the most high-magic, high-fantasy games on the market.

Be that as it may (I'm not even sure how we got on this sidetrack) :

As a matter of fact, a single arrow is probably not all that lethal in itself, unless it strikes in a real inconvenient place (heart or major artery). The victim is probably still out of the fight, and applying realistic *cough* conditions there's a serious risk of being crippled or the wound getting infected etc., but D&D doesn't have mechanics for all that. As long as you still have 1HP, you can still fight 100% effectively.
But, nothing says you must. "A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to slow down". Most players/PCs get the hint, but for some reason 99% of NPCs fight to the death under all circumstances. That's okay for stupid monsters where that's explicitly stated in their description (e.g. Owlbear), but for an intelligent being, not so much.
A more useful application of realism would be to consider how likely, say, a townguard is to keep fighting if some stranger they were supposed to arrest for public urination just dealt them a blow for half their HP.

dsmiles
2011-04-30, 03:06 PM
An answer for the new question:

NO, GMs should not protect characters from the consequences of what they start. If the characters poke the proverbial dire bear with the stick enough times, it's gonna eat them. (Of course, they don't have to outrun said bear, they only have to outrun the dwarf.)

Talakeal
2011-04-30, 03:07 PM
It appears we simply have too different a view on fiction to ever see eye to eye in a discussion of it. In my mind, just because something in a setting does not follow normal rules does not mean that nothing does. A dragon is a dragon, a fantastic creature. A wizard is someone channeling a mystical energy that doesn't exist in our world. A human is a human, which does exist in our world.
Superman is an alien from krypton, he can fly, lift huge weights, and is immune to bullets. He is not normal. He is special. Just because Superman exists does not mean that any random guy in Metropolis can suddenly leap tall buildings in a single bound. Except for a few super humans they are all normal people, and they need to more or less act like humans do in the real world to make a plausible story. When the super powered alien Superman breathes in space it is accepted, when Batman, who is a normal, if improbably gifted, human, does it everyone stops and goes "wtf" and makes fun of it for 20 years.

Also, yeah, the HP system in D&D is abstract and kind of dumb when it comes to disabled / dying. In the game I run normal people do not continue fighting to anywhere near the point of death, that is the domain of berserkers and strong willed heroes.

Yukitsu
2011-04-30, 03:46 PM
*BTW, I think the players whose idea it was to burn the shrine simply hates gods for some real world reason. I was just thinking back, and I remember in the Dead Gods module there is a part when Anubis tells the players of the ritual to resurrect Orcus. Said player asked why he didn't stop it himself, and Anubis said he was forbidden to interfere directly. Then the player says "That sucks, because I refuse to do a god's handiwork" and sat out the mission, his absence resulting in failure of the quest.

Here's a good test. Give him a God who does things instead of being a "holier than thou" lazy twit who sits around on high doing jack **** all while handing out quests, edicts and tests to random people who probably couldn't care less if he was smote by a Titan while he was sitting there. Instead make it a God locked in epic combat, whom, if he dies, is losing to some even bigger jerk who is very likely to simply end the world, and as such he actually has a reason to delegate something over to players whom have as much reason to worship him as Odysseus had to worship Poseidon.

If he still hates the God, I can't help you. If he doesn't hate that God, it's probably because you normally make your Gods test their character and worthiness, while giving them no redeemable qualities that qualify them for even a preschooler's adoration. He'll probably be slightly more amicable to the God if they do something to deserve some respect, instead of simply demanding it.

Talakeal
2011-04-30, 03:58 PM
In my campaign world gods don't interfere directly with the affairs of mortals, they are too busy keeping the world running on a cosmic level. They are eternally locked in combat with the powers of evil. The only time they ever interact with mortals is through visions. I have had the gods request a service of the players maybe 5 times in 15 years of gaming, and I think three out of those five times said player has either ignored the request or lashed out at the gods mortal followers. I have never had the gods demand, threaten, or punish a player in any way.

Although, maybe you are on to something.
Of the two times I can remember that he didn't respond negatively one was the Gods as a whole asking the party to be their champions and defeat the BBEG who was beyond their reach and would have destroyed reality as a whole, the gods along with it, if he succeeded.
The other was a long dead god who, it turned out, was the character's "parent", and sent her on a quest to recover the god's power for herself.

Bovine Colonel
2011-04-30, 04:05 PM
Here's a good test. Give him a God who does things instead of being a "holier than thou" lazy twit who sits around on high doing jack **** all while handing out quests, edicts and tests to random people who probably couldn't care less if he was smote by a Titan while he was sitting there. Instead make it a God locked in epic combat, whom, if he dies, is losing to some even bigger jerk who is very likely to simply end the world, and as such he actually has a reason to delegate something over to players whom have as much reason to worship him as Odysseus had to worship Poseidon.

If he still hates the God, I can't help you. If he doesn't hate that God, it's probably because you normally make your Gods test their character and worthiness, while giving them no redeemable qualities that qualify them for even a preschooler's adoration. He'll probably be slightly more amicable to the God if they do something to deserve some respect, instead of simply demanding it.

Wouldn't that be somewhat er...spotlight hoggy?

Edit:

It appears we simply have too different a view on fiction to ever see eye to eye in a discussion of it. In my mind, just because something in a setting does not follow normal rules does not mean that nothing does. A dragon is a dragon, a fantastic creature. A wizard is someone channeling a mystical energy that doesn't exist in our world. A human is a human, which does exist in our world.
Superman is an alien from krypton, he can fly, lift huge weights, and is immune to bullets. He is not normal. He is special. Just because Superman exists does not mean that any random guy in Metropolis can suddenly leap tall buildings in a single bound. Except for a few super humans they are all normal people, and they need to more or less act like humans do in the real world to make a plausible story. When the super powered alien Superman breathes in space it is accepted, when Batman, who is a normal, if improbably gifted, human, does it everyone stops and goes "wtf" and makes fun of it for 20 years.

Also, yeah, the HP system in D&D is abstract and kind of dumb when it comes to disabled / dying. In the game I run normal people do not continue fighting to anywhere near the point of death, that is the domain of berserkers and strong willed heroes.

In my games, when an arrow takes off any less than, say, 25% of someone's HP, the arrow just barely grazes the target or something.

Yukitsu
2011-04-30, 04:19 PM
In my campaign world gods don't interfere directly with the affairs of mortals, they are too busy keeping the world running on a cosmic level. They are eternally locked in combat with the powers of evil. The only time they ever interact with mortals is through visions. I have had the gods request a service of the players maybe 5 times in 15 years of gaming, and I think three out of those five times said player has either ignored the request or lashed out at the gods mortal followers. I have never had the gods demand, threaten, or punish a player in any way.

Although, maybe you are on to something.
Of the two times I can remember that he didn't respond negatively one was the Gods as a whole asking the party to be their champions and defeat the BBEG who was beyond their reach and would have destroyed reality as a whole, the gods along with it, if he succeeded.
The other was a long dead god who, it turned out, was the character's "parent", and sent her on a quest to recover the god's power for herself.

How often do you explain that the Gods do all of this, and that their mortal followers and the Gods holy places help in this war against this cosmic threat? Players won't act on information they don't know.

The thing is as well, you have to realize a request from a God will almost always come off as a sort of threat, or a demand. It's very difficult for someone in that position of power to not sound as though they are doing explicitly that, without making the God seem weak or timid, which they should not be. From the player's shoes, it may very well seem they are being coerced by some entity from afar that they shouldn't care about.

Knaight
2011-04-30, 04:34 PM
How often do you explain that the Gods do all of this, and that their mortal followers and the Gods holy places help in this war against this cosmic threat? Players won't act on information they don't know.

The thing is as well, you have to realize a request from a God will almost always come off as a sort of threat, or a demand. It's very difficult for someone in that position of power to not sound as though they are doing explicitly that, without making the God seem weak or timid, which they should not be. From the player's shoes, it may very well seem they are being coerced by some entity from afar that they shouldn't care about.

Fundamentally, a request from a god comes with the implicit understanding that the god inherently deserves to be followed. Finding that obnoxious is entirely reasonable, if the god was willing to give something to the characters in exchange for their services it would be much less obnoxious. "I'm better than you, do this" is somewhat less palatable than "I need this done, and I have this to offer."

DontEatRawHagis
2011-04-30, 05:04 PM
My view on this has changed, mainly because I was given a mission that was certain doom via the hands of my own GM. I had to kidnap or kill the "Girlfriend" of one of my allies(Player) the result ended with my character's head being smashed in killing him instantly.

However when the person who killed me almost lost his character from a huge explosion everyone tried desperately to make sure he was still alive by tacking on modifiers.

There are two differences between me and the other player though I will not leave the game if I lose a character. He on the other hand will.

As long as it doesn't lose a player than I think the DM should let it happen.

cattoy
2011-04-30, 05:15 PM
So, do they have a point? Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches? Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?

Sure they have a point. It's right on the top of their thick skulls.

It's like this: The game system is not going to make people suffer the consequences of acting horribly. There is no Karma tracking mechanic that, once it hits a certain point, forces them to roll on a table of awful results.

The only agency in a D&D game that is going to reward the good and punish the evil is the DM.

So do your job and make them suffer. Make it clear that this is a world with real gods with real power to act. Make it clear that the righteous are rewarded and that smacktards suffer. Feedback needs to be immediate and consistent. That's what works with dogs. It'll work with players, too.

They'll learn. Or they'll quit. Either one is ok in my book. I'd rather not share my hobby with borderline sociopaths.

Kylarra
2011-04-30, 05:36 PM
There are two differences between me and the other player though I will not leave the game if I lose a character. He on the other hand will.

As long as it doesn't lose a player than I think the DM should let it happen.A person like that is effectively holding the game hostage though.

dsmiles
2011-04-30, 05:39 PM
A person like that is effectively holding the game hostage though.Indeed. Said person probably needs to grow up (at least a little).

Fiery Diamond
2011-04-30, 09:11 PM
I don't buy into this "all NPCs are lowlevel" nonsense, except if you're running an E6 game. It may be in the DMG but it's still nonsense. I don't believe in town guards that can be killed by a common housecat.
Look at how many PrCs are there that would fit well into the world, but would be altogether out of reach for any NPC using such a reading. In Forgotten Realms for instance, but also in other splats, there are several PrCs that go into the direction of "King's Bodyguard" which require roughly character level 10 to be effective. Likewise for "Temple Guardians", "Hospitaller Knights" and so forth.

In my games, I prefer a different take on levels. A young adult with some professional training is level 3, and we go from there. The King's Bodyguards would be more like level 11 and up.


I have to say, I think the OP ran it pretty much perfectly in this case. Don't try to "punish" players, just play out the consequences of their actions. I can't fault the OP for giving the non-murderous PC a break, either, because it really wasn't his fault that the rest of his party acted as they did.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play as the PCs who are the conquering heroes. The problem is where you get players who think that they're the conquering heroes by definition, no matter how they're actually behaving.



Just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else does.

There seems to be a fairly common belief out there that NPCs are supposed to be inferior to the PCs - you can treat them however you want and expect to come out on top. The funny thing about this attitude is that players stick with it even when it's blatantly obvious that it's wrong.

I had something like this happen in my current campaign. Two players were bringing in a pair of new/returning characters. They ran into a squad of NPCs who had been sent to arrest the party. The NPCs weren't hostile but were blocking their way, so the PCs demanded to go past. When the NPCs didn't let them past, the two PCs insulted them, threatened them, and eventually started a fight.

Now, three things to bear in mind here:

1) The rank-and-file soldiers facing the PCs outnumbered them by six to one, not counting the two NPC leaders.
2) The two NPC leaders had names, and full-colour pictures that I showed the PCs right at the start of the encounter.
3) The squad had been sent to arrest a mid-level adventuring party. (Would you send low-level nobodies to arrest a mid-level adventuring party?)

It should come as absolutely no surprise that the PCs got their backsides handed to them. (It didn't surprise the rest of the party, anyway, who were laughing their heads off.) For some reason, however, it came as a great surprise to the new player, who protested that their enemies were "just a couple of guards". (In case you're wondering, the two PCs were subdued rather than killed, and were broken out of prison by the competent members of the party within twenty minutes.)

Oddly enough, the new player's alignment just happened to be CN. :smallbiggrin:


These two, pretty much. I always tell my players what levels equate to what before the game starts, too. I had one campaign where the highest level character (of which there would only be a handful) in any individual city was 7, except for the capital. My last campaign and my current campaign have it looking like this:

1-2: Normal folk, all over the place
3-4: Career people, your run-of-the-mill soldier (not your conscript, though) is this, as would be your local town blacksmith (though he would be an expert, probably).
5-6: Professionals in their field. A captain would be this, as would your friendly city blacksmith.
7-8: Experts in their field. These people would only rarely be seen in a settlement other than a full-fledged city, and would be well-known within their city and any surrounding towns.
9-10: Top Brass Experts. Generals and such. These people would be well known throughout an entire nation, but might or might not be known outside the nation.
11-12: Champions. Only a handful of people in each nation would be this. The Archmage who is the Emperor's right hand would be this, as would the King's personal chief bodyguard.
13+: Legendary. These people either hide their existence or they are household names.

With PCs and other people in similar positions (like the BBEG, for example) being the exceptions to the general rule.

In short: Don't act like all NPCs have to cap at level 6 while PCs can be whatever level. You may play your games like that, but there is no reason to be imposing that on anyone else, Yukitsu.



It appears we simply have too different a view on fiction to ever see eye to eye in a discussion of it. In my mind, just because something in a setting does not follow normal rules does not mean that nothing does. A dragon is a dragon, a fantastic creature. A wizard is someone channeling a mystical energy that doesn't exist in our world. A human is a human, which does exist in our world.
Superman is an alien from krypton, he can fly, lift huge weights, and is immune to bullets. He is not normal. He is special. Just because Superman exists does not mean that any random guy in Metropolis can suddenly leap tall buildings in a single bound. Except for a few super humans they are all normal people, and they need to more or less act like humans do in the real world to make a plausible story. When the super powered alien Superman breathes in space it is accepted, when Batman, who is a normal, if improbably gifted, human, does it everyone stops and goes "wtf" and makes fun of it for 20 years.

Also, yeah, the HP system in D&D is abstract and kind of dumb when it comes to disabled / dying. In the game I run normal people do not continue fighting to anywhere near the point of death, that is the domain of berserkers and strong willed heroes.


At least you acknowledge that there isn't anything inherently wrong with having a different view of fantasy. So many people refuse to do that, unfortunately. Personally, I like the whole thing you see in anime and such where someone is damaged beyond physical possibility and still keeps fighting. If I want something realistic, I'll keep it in the real world and without magic. Personally, I hate Superman, not because he's so overpowered but because he's so overpowered and no one else is.


And to respond to the initial question: I think you did everything right.

Haarkla
2011-05-01, 04:54 AM
The survivor tells the other PC that he killed the rest of the party by not helping them assault the temple. He then tells him that he is abandoning him and the quest and returns the way he came. At this point he is already deeper into the wasteland than out, and he has no survival skills alone, nor a party to back him up. I play the adventure straight, and a short time later he dies to a random encounter. It happened to be a hydra, and the player through a fit about how unrealistic hydras are, because no real creature could survive without a head.

The other player, who did not participate in the attack, chose to continue the mission alone. I played a little easier on him then the other player,
I think this is where you went wrong.

While certainly you were right in not pulling your punches when your players foolishly attacked the temple, you should treat all your players the same, and throwing a random hydra at one survivor, while going easy on the other, was unfair and bad dungeonmastering.

Saph
2011-05-01, 05:11 AM
I think this is where you went wrong.

While certainly you were right in not pulling your punches when your players foolishly attacked the temple, you should treat all your players the same, and throwing a random hydra at one survivor, while going easy on the other, was unfair and bad dungeonmastering.

I don't agree at all. I think it's a perfectly valid way of DMing, and I probably would have done something very similar.

The key is that the non-murderous PC hasn't done anything wrong. The rest of the party have acted like psychotic idiots and gotten themselves killed. As DM, you know perfectly well that one PC isn't going to be able to beat an encounter designed for five, so you have the choice of either altering the adventure to match your new number of players, or leaving it as is.

If you leave it as is, the remaining PC is going to die, full stop. This is 'fair', from a certain point of view, but it violates one of the basic rules of DMing, which is that the PCs should always have a chance to succeed. (Note that 'succeed' does not mean 'kill everything'. When you're faced with friendly NPCs, as this party was, 'succeeding' just requires that you don't act Chaotic Stupid/Chaotic Evil for five minutes, which you'd think would be easy but apparently is quite a challenge for some players.)

If you do change the adventure, then the rest of the players are going to complain, but the thing to remember is that they're going to do that anyway. If some of your players decide to play their characters as Stupid Evil, then as long as you run the game with any kind of internal consistency the Stupid Evil players are pretty much always going to end up unhappy. All you can do by this point is try to make sure the non-Stupid Evil party members don't end up unhappy as well.

Haarkla
2011-05-01, 05:52 AM
I don't agree at all. I think it's a perfectly valid way of DMing, and I probably would have done something very similar.

...

If you leave it as is, the remaining PC is going to die, full stop. This is 'fair', from a certain point of view, but it violates one of the basic rules of DMing, which is that the PCs should always have a chance to succeed.
In fact I would have gone equally 'easy' on both survivors, I am not a killer DM.

I have no problem with killing the PC's as a consequence of their own stupidity, but having survived those consequenses, I do not think the other PC should have been punished further.

Saph
2011-05-01, 06:02 AM
In fact I would have gone equally 'easy' on both survivors, I am not a killer DM.

I have no problem with killing the PC's as a consequence of their own stupidity, but having survived those consequenses, I do not think the other PC should have been punished further.

As I understand it, the last PC's death wasn't due to his first act of stupidity (burning down the forest). It was due to his second act of stupidity (arguing with the last remaining member of the party and choosing to split up and head off alone into the desert).

I suppose Talakeal could have waited for the PC in question to do yet another stupid thing (probably wouldn't have taken long), but frankly, by the time you've got 60% of the party dead and the remaining 40% splitting up as mortal enemies, the session's basically over anyway. The only choice you've got left as DM is which way you want to nudge the trainwreck. :smalltongue:

Firechanter
2011-05-01, 06:14 AM
(re Saph) That's true.
Also, while it's not a DM's job to educate the players, there's nothing wrong with a little Karmic action, aka "What goes around, comes around". I feel it would be very wrong to screw over the single one player who didn't act like a psychotic idiot, by having him pay for said psychotic idiots' moronic behaviour.

dsmiles
2011-05-01, 06:14 AM
This is 'fair', from a certain point of view, but it violates one of the basic rules of DMing, which is that the PCs should always have a chance to succeed. (Note that 'succeed' does not mean 'kill everything'. When you're faced with friendly NPCs, as this party was, 'succeeding' just requires that you don't act Chaotic Stupid/Chaotic Evil for five minutes, which you'd think would be easy but apparently is quite a challenge for some players.)
However, there is a certain line in a certain DMG that states that a certain percentage (5%, IIRC) of encounters should be unbeatable. That particular PC should have run from the hydra.

Maryring
2011-05-01, 06:20 AM
Am I the only one who runs a world where level 30 is perfectly achieveable even by NPCs, and where a level 8 fighter is a decent warrior, but by no means the champion of his kind? I've found that by stretching the levels out you get far more different builds to work with when creating NPCs, even if the players aren't going to fight them.

Saph
2011-05-01, 06:23 AM
However, there is a certain line in a certain DMG that states that a certain percentage (5%, IIRC) of encounters should be unbeatable. That particular PC should have run from the hydra.

Hydras also have a 20 foot move speed. This means any character with a move speed of 25 and up can automatically escape from one, and even an encumbered PC has a decent chance as long as he spots it at a distance (which shouldn't be hard).

So odds are, all that player would have had to say was "I run away" and he would have been fine.

Conners
2011-05-01, 07:02 AM
I don't agree at all. I think it's a perfectly valid way of DMing, and I probably would have done something very similar.

The key is that the non-murderous PC hasn't done anything wrong. The rest of the party have acted like psychotic idiots and gotten themselves killed. As DM, you know perfectly well that one PC isn't going to be able to beat an encounter designed for five, so you have the choice of either altering the adventure to match your new number of players, or leaving it as is.

If you leave it as is, the remaining PC is going to die, full stop. This is 'fair', from a certain point of view, but it violates one of the basic rules of DMing, which is that the PCs should always have a chance to succeed. (Note that 'succeed' does not mean 'kill everything'. When you're faced with friendly NPCs, as this party was, 'succeeding' just requires that you don't act Chaotic Stupid/Chaotic Evil for five minutes, which you'd think would be easy but apparently is quite a challenge for some players.)

If you do change the adventure, then the rest of the players are going to complain, but the thing to remember is that they're going to do that anyway. If some of your players decide to play their characters as Stupid Evil, then as long as you run the game with any kind of internal consistency the Stupid Evil players are pretty much always going to end up unhappy. All you can do by this point is try to make sure the non-Stupid Evil party members don't end up unhappy as well. This! So many people have been saying the only good player should be killed for "fairness". I find this annoying, since it would be totally boring.

Example: Which is more interesting? The GM telling you you die, or having a fight where your chances of success are 10%... Anything where you lose automatically is boring. Similarly, anything where it is nearly impossible will get frustrating fairly quickly.

dsmiles
2011-05-01, 07:05 AM
and where a level 8 fighter is a decent warrior
I lol'd so hard at this. :smallbiggrin:

@Saph: I apologize, I thought you were speaking out against the hydra encounter. That PC got what he deserved for trying to fight it.

Killer Angel
2011-05-01, 09:17 AM
This is a little derailment, but anyway...


It appears we simply have too different a view on fiction to ever see eye to eye in a discussion of it. In my mind, just because something in a setting does not follow normal rules does not mean that nothing does. A dragon is a dragon, a fantastic creature. A wizard is someone channeling a mystical energy that doesn't exist in our world. A human is a human, which does exist in our world.

(snip)

When the super powered alien Superman breathes in space it is accepted, when Batman, who is a normal, if improbably gifted, human, does it everyone stops and goes "wtf" and makes fun of it for 20 years.


I see where you're from, and obviously you can run the kind of game you and your players like, but D&D doesn't work this way.
At mid-low levels, you're doing something totally crazy (from our "real world" pov) on a regular basis, and most of the time you don't even notice it.




9th level Rogue. He has 12 ranks of Balance, started with 16 Dex and boosted it twice to 18 (+4). He gets a +2 synergy bonus from Tumble ranks, for a total modifier of 12+4+2=+18. Taking 10, he will, every time, be able to move at full speed across a one inch wide marble-covered beam. (18+10-5=23 for the check, 20+2(scree) =22 for the DC.)

9th level Barbarian. 12 ranks of Climb, now has 18 (+4) Strength, for a final modifier of 12+4=+16. Taking 10, he gets a 26. He can now climb most mountains while raining, moving 40 feet every 6 seconds. (Check is 26-5=21 for accelerated climbing, DC is 15+5=20 for climbing a rough natural rock surface that's slippery.)

9th level Swashbuckler. 12 ranks of Jump, 12 (+1) Strength, +2 synergy from Tumble. His modifier is 12+1+2=+15. Taking 10 gets him a 25. The female world record for the long jump is (7.52 meters)*(3.28 feet/meter) = 24.7 feet. This character beats that every time he wants to. The men's record is 8.95*3.28= 29.3 feet, which his character could swing pretty easily if he so desired. When the character rolls instead of taking 10, he can hit as much as 35 feet, blowing past the world record by two yards.

9th level Ranger goes tracking. 12 ranks in Survival, 14 (+2) Wisdom, +4 from Search and Know: Nature synergy, and +2 from some manner of tracking kit. Modifier is 12+2+4+2= +20, which means he takes 10 to get a 30. To match this, the DC is going to look like this: 4+5+1+20. That comes from tracking a single Toad (+4 DC for being Diminutive) that is covering his tracks (+5) after an hour of rainfall (+1) over bare rock (20).

Conners
2011-05-01, 11:12 AM
Mostly, it just comes to the system being poorly thought out as far as reality goes. If one wants a remotely realistic game, don't use DnD.

WeLoveFireballs
2011-05-01, 12:22 PM
Well, their logic was "The Goddess told us not to desecrate her sacred lands, and acted like she was better than us. We are chaotic neutral, and don't like being told what to do by people in power, so we were only RPing our characters. You should have predicted that is how we would play our characters and adjusted the encounter CR accordingly." I thought was insane, but I have seen a lot of similar sentiments on this forum, so I thought maybe I was the one who didn't get it.

If they really were CN not CS they would have taken all they could without upseting the keepers and then pee on the altar when no one is looking. They desecrate it and they come out on top.
Picking fights has consequences that can be far worse then fighting unavoidable encounters.

Talakeal
2011-05-01, 01:10 PM
I think this is where you went wrong.

While certainly you were right in not pulling your punches when your players foolishly attacked the temple, you should treat all your players the same, and throwing a random hydra at one survivor, while going easy on the other, was unfair and bad dungeon mastering.

My players certainly agree with you, and that is kind of the crux of the issue. What do you think I should have done?

One of them, out of spite, abandoned the party and the adventure I had written, and instead wanted to aimlessly wander one of the most hostile environments in the world alone.

Meanwhile, the other player, due to actions that were neither my fault nor his, was in a position where he wanted to complete the written adventure, but could no longer do so as written.

At the time what I did seemed the only solution that wouldn't end the game.

As for why he couldn't just run for the Hydra, if I recall correctly he was sleeping in a cave when the encounter occurred, and the hydra was blocking the exit, so running would have been difficult. Although I don't think he tried running, he is pretty convinced of his own "badassness".

Also, the player I went easy on, the whole experience kind of ruined his character, as from that point on the other players mocked him mercilessly and called him, names including: Bubble Boy, DM's Pet, Unflinching Coward, and Goody Goody.
Several sessions later, when the campaign got back on track, there was a scenario where his sister was kidnapped by an evil cult and sacrificed to their god, a very young black dragon. He rescued her, and then decided to kill the dragon for revenge.
I didn't pull any punches when the dragon's parents came looking for him, because if I did I knew neither of us would ever hear the end of it, and that was the end of that PC. I kind of feel bad about that, because I feel like I put a player in a no win situation do to peer pressure.

comicshorse
2011-05-01, 01:15 PM
Also, the player I went easy on, the whole experience kind of ruined his character, as from that point on the other players mocked him mercilessly and called him, names including: Bubble Boy, DM's Pet, Unflinching Coward, and Goody Goody.


You are sure you're players are in their twenties 'cause I've meet more mature 12 year olds than these

Conners
2011-05-01, 01:16 PM
@Talakeal: Yeah... you should really drop those bad players like a sack of garbage--due to the obvious similarity.

It's bad enough for them to complain about in-game stuff. But bashing on people outside of the game, over the GAME!? It sounds like you may be throwing pearls before swine... Waste of lovely pearls, and the swine don't appreciate them.

Saph
2011-05-01, 01:17 PM
That's, um . . . wow. Yeah. I don't think there's any possible way you could have had things turn out well.

Nice group you've got there. :smallyuk:

Kalirren
2011-05-01, 01:43 PM
Also, the player I went easy on, the whole experience kind of ruined his character, as from that point on the other players mocked him mercilessly and called him, names including: Bubble Boy, DM's Pet, Unflinching Coward, and Goody Goody.

Yeah, that's a new low. Why do you play with these fools?

You know these guys in person? I'm not saying you could find better for easier on 4chan, but that's pretty close to scraping the bottom of the barrel there.

Arrakiz
2011-05-01, 01:43 PM
Normaly I'd say it was a problem of simple misunderstanding between You and your players and that they should state before the begining of the game they wanted to play evil psychopats. Even then I think the team of players should never be composed of characters whose aligment is drasticly different (like a team of three players- one lawfull good, one chaotic evil, and one neutral good- that's probably the single WORST possible team there is). But reading this thread i get the picture they were just thinking You would deliberetly create no consequences for their actions, just so they can have their fun. Yeah- I love the expretion on their faces when they find out the world doesn't actually work that way- serves them just right :smallwink:. Therfore- I suggest an experiment. Start a new game with your players- them being evil all right. And since that guy who refused to participate in this madness seems like an inteligent fellow- give him the ambition to kill the rest of the party. As brutally as possible :smallamused:. It basicly goes like this- they can easily say You are playing dirty with them bicouse You are a DM. They can say You left them in no-win situation and that you have your favourite within the team. And that's bad. I mean- even if You kill them, punish them for their actions- they are not gonna learn anything. They can't see the source of their mistakes. BUT- You can implement some good influence within the team with that one smart player who seems to think fairly logically. Since they can't respect Him based on His actions, they can fear him once they get totally outsmarted by Him. Once they do- they start to watch him closely and hopefully learn something. A tactic I used myself both as a DM and as a player. Fear isa very good motivator to respect.

Yukitsu
2011-05-01, 01:51 PM
Normaly I'd say it was a problem of simple misunderstanding between You and your players and that they should state before the begining of the game they wanted to play evil psychopats. Even then I think the team of players should never be composed of characters whose aligment is drasticly different (like a team of three players- one lawfull good, one chaotic evil, and one neutral good- that's probably the single WORST possible team there is).

I'm going to go on an aside here and say this isn't always a problem. I played in a party consisting of a triad of necromancers. A lawful good one, a neutral one and a chaotic evil one. The party was always cohesive, and we had a great time, we just had to come to an agreement before hand, what each of us would be, and how we were going to make that work together. Discussion and compromise were the keys to keeping that from falling apart, and it made for a really interesting experience.

Traab
2011-05-01, 02:00 PM
This is a little derailment, but anyway...



I see where you're from, and obviously you can run the kind of game you and your players like, but D&D doesn't work this way.
At mid-low levels, you're doing something totally crazy (from our "real world" pov) on a regular basis, and most of the time you don't even notice it.

To put it into a D&D setup, its like having a fighter all of a sudden declare he is going to cast greater teleport.... and it happens. Im not talking finding some magic item scroll, or whatever, I mean he just rears back, waves his hands, and bango, suddenly he just teleported the entire party to another continent or something. Yes crazy stuff that doesnt conform to rl reality happens all the time in D&D but there is still stuff that just doesnt or shouldnt happen.

Also, the more I hear about the OP's group, the more I hate them and wish that instead of killing them off, you had made them suffer. "Ok, for every round of attack you performed, you have been cursed with a - to hit chance to match it. For every guardian killed, you now have your primary stat lowered by that much. And the final coup de grace curse, for defiling the temple? You have to roll a 10 or higher to save against attacking a random member of your party instead, as you have to keep fighting through the permanent illusion the goddess cast on you." Make them struggle till they give up and quit for the night, then inform them that they are no longer welcome in any group you are either a part of, or dming for.

Talakeal
2011-05-01, 02:23 PM
When people say " it's a fantasy game it doesn't have to be realistic" I always wonder how their games actually run. At first I imagine they just follow the rules to the letter, but the I wonder what happens if someone wants to do something outside of the rules.

I mean, if you aren't using the rules or reality as a guide, what happens? There are no rules, for say, going to the bathroom. If one player wants to use the privy, do you let them? What if, they are short on cash and they want to lay a golden egg? After all, this is no more allowed by the rules than using the bathroom, and if reality need not apply then what is stopping it?

A lot of people say they do whatever is more fun / cool at the time rather than listening to reality. Do you actually let your games devolve into Looney Toons physics?

Arrakiz
2011-05-01, 02:29 PM
Also, the more I hear about the OP's group, the more I hate them and wish that instead of killing them off, you had made them suffer. "Ok, for every round of attack you performed, you have been cursed with a - to hit chance to match it. For every guardian killed, you now have your primary stat lowered by that much. And the final coup de grace curse, for defiling the temple? You have to roll a 10 or higher to save against attacking a random member of your party instead, as you have to keep fighting through the permanent illusion the goddess cast on you." Make them struggle till they give up and quit for the night, then inform them that they are no longer welcome in any group you are either a part of, or dming for.

It's easy to say- harder to do. I know the problem of not having a choice of people You are playing with- it's not like they grow on trees or can be grabed on the way to home from shoping. Besides- maybe that's just me, but teaching is fun- I personaly enjoy making my session as educative as possible- I treat every gaming session as a sociologiacl experiment. But I will concur- if they are THAT hopless then, quoting my favourite teoretical physisist- "screw them, they were weak". It's hard to find people who really care about their game, so hold to that one smart guy.

MickJay
2011-05-01, 02:36 PM
When people say " it's a fantasy game it doesn't have to be realistic" I always wonder how their games actually run. At first I imagine they just follow the rules to the letter, but the I wonder what happens if someone wants to do something outside of the rules.

I mean, if you aren't using the rules or reality as a guide, what happens? There are no rules, for say, going to the bathroom. If one player wants to use the privy, do you let them? What if, they are short on cash and they want to lay a golden egg? After all, this is no more allowed by the rules than using the bathroom, and if reality need not apply then what is stopping it?

A lot of people say they do whatever is more fun / cool at the time rather than listening to reality. Do you actually let your games devolve into Looney Toons physics?

Same here. What you want in any game (that is not an obvious parody or an absurd setting to begin with) is verisimilitude. That a mage can kill a dozen peasants with a spell is realistic within the reality of the setting. When killing said peasants has no negative consequences whatsoever, it is not realistic in any way, and just spoils the game.

Traab
2011-05-01, 02:55 PM
It's easy to say- harder to do. I know the problem of not having a choice of people You are playing with- it's not like they grow on trees or can be grabed on the way to home from shoping. Besides- maybe that's just me, but teaching is fun- I personaly enjoy making my session as educative as possible- I treat every gaming session as a sociologiacl experiment. But I will concur- if they are THAT hopless then, quoting my favourite teoretical physisist- "screw them, they were weak". It's hard to find people who really care about their game, so hold to that one smart guy.


True, I know its easy to say, and hard to do, but honestly, they sound like the type of group that just ruins the game for everyone else. I still wish that they had to suffer something like that. Even better would be to spontaneously form a community of dms, so that anyone else they try to play with does the same thing to them. Give them rude and bossy npcs, when they attack, spring all sorts of unpleasantness on them, and see how many times it can happen before they either figure out the lesson, or just quit playing entirely.

Guys like that are poison to any group hobby. They ruin everyone elses good time and never see a problem with how they act. When they were just morons thats one thing, despite what ron white says, sometimes you CAN fix stupid. But these guys were stupid, rude, and total jerks.

Firechanter
2011-05-01, 03:08 PM
I know the problem of not having a choice of people You are playing with- it's not like they grow on trees or can be grabed on the way to home from shoping.

That's true. When one of our regulars broke away from the group, it took us over a year to find what we hope will show to be a good replacement. Problem is even if you count out the total douchebags, the odds are like >9:1 that a random player prefers a different playing style than you do.

And as for douchebags, I've learned the lessen: Even no gaming is still better than bad gaming. Don't play with douches.

Arrakiz
2011-05-01, 03:34 PM
True, I know its easy to say, and hard to do, but honestly, they sound like the type of group that just ruins the game for everyone else. I still wish that they had to suffer something like that. Even better would be to spontaneously form a community of dms, so that anyone else they try to play with does the same thing to them. Give them rude and bossy npcs, when they attack, spring all sorts of unpleasantness on them, and see how many times it can happen before they either figure out the lesson, or just quit playing entirely.

Guys like that are poison to any group hobby. They ruin everyone elses good time and never see a problem with how they act. When they were just morons thats one thing, despite what ron white says, sometimes you CAN fix stupid. But these guys were stupid, rude, and total jerks.

Hell yeah- I can understand Your hatred towards people like that. The problem is- they don't really give a damn. They actually think that it's a duty of a DM to provide them with a light entertainment as if He/She is some kind of lowly service provider and not a passion fueld individual with an ambition to create a great story! And this kind of people basicly gives up on gaming after a year tops. But people who are presistant? The ones who keep playing no matter the odds and learn more with each session? They are a handfull and it's a waste to just throw away enyone who makes mistakes. So I try to teach my players something each time. But with brain and not brawl bicouse basiclly- punishing the douches isn't even worth the effort and can cloud Your insight into who might become a good gamer in future. After all- not everyone is a gaming prodigy.

Bovine Colonel
2011-05-01, 10:10 PM
Also, the player I went easy on, the whole experience kind of ruined his character, as from that point on the other players mocked him mercilessly and called him, names including: Bubble Boy, DM's Pet, Unflinching Coward, and Goody Goody.

Find a new group. My brother was more mature when he was five.
Edit: Wait no. Make that three.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-05-01, 10:13 PM
Find a new group. My brother was more mature when he was five.
Edit: Wait no. Make that three.

I have a 9-year old in my roup. He's a little irritating, but he generally does act realistically in the game. Well, except for that time he killed some guards in Stormhome... at least we escaped, and his actions weren't out of the blue, just not the best option.

But yeah, find a new group.

Belobog
2011-05-01, 11:22 PM
Save yourselves some heartache and switch game systems. If you have players who have a hankering for railing against gods both mortal and immortal, then changing the game to Exalted might be just the thing that needs to happen.

Killer Angel
2011-05-02, 05:21 AM
Also, the player I went easy on, the whole experience kind of ruined his character, as from that point on the other players mocked him mercilessly and called him, names including: Bubble Boy, DM's Pet, Unflinching Coward, and Goody Goody.

:smallfurious:
As already said, find a new group of players.
Or better, find a group of real players, not this kind of peoples.


When people say " it's a fantasy game it doesn't have to be realistic" I always wonder how their games actually run. At first I imagine they just follow the rules to the letter, but the I wonder what happens if someone wants to do something outside of the rules.

I mean, if you aren't using the rules or reality as a guide, what happens?

Short answer? common sense and verisimilitude.

And when the rules let you do something extraordinary, with mundane abilities, don't you let the player achieve the results? Or do you negate his jump result, 'cause it's not sufficiently realistic?

When you must judge something new, often the only references are the rules (find something similar and act accordingly) and the real world.
R.W. physics can help, but you cannot stay too much on it. Some game systems mantain a good degree of realism (GURPS), others not so much (Exalted), and some noothing at all (Toon).
The chassis of D&D, is built to do extraordinary things... the characters, if wholly developed, will became Hercules.
At epic levels, they can swim climbing a waterfall, and they can balance on clouds, with they mundane abilities. I don't like such extremes, but I cannot negate that the rules of D&D are made to let the characters (and the npcs) to do things beyond the human abilities, sometime even without magic. If you want, you can logically justify this thing, with magical enhancements of mundane abilities (you effectively jump so high thanks to your boots of springing. Of course you're so good in swimming: no real human got 24 strenght, thanks to the belt).
The key is to mantain the verisimilitude.

Lord Vampyre
2011-05-02, 12:20 PM
Exactly. Rewards and punishment are unnecessary, inherent consequences deal with everything.

"Inherent consequences" is merely the politically correct way of saying reward and punishment, especially punishment. Any time some one is worried about offending someone by punishing them, they call it an "inherent consequence".

Knaight
2011-05-02, 12:42 PM
"Inherent consequences" is merely the politically correct way of saying reward and punishment, especially punishment. Any time some one is worried about offending someone by punishing them, they call it an "inherent consequence".

Hardly. One is not punished for touching a hot stove, however they are burnt. Touching a hot stove has an inherent consequence of burning ones self. Similarly, skydivers are not punished for failing to properly maintain parachutes, the parachutes will eventually not deploy due to carelessness, and they will go splat. Its a consequence of not maintaining the parachute, no tthe ground punishing you for it.

The same thing applies to people to some extent. If someone takes a swing at someone, and they hit them back it isn't punishment for taking a swing. Its a consequence of starting a fight. In the case of the thread, the characters burned down the home of a large group of people, having said people attack the characters is not a punishment, its a consequence. A punishment would be the next town mysteriously hating the characters even if there is no way the information of what they did could have reached the place.

Lord Vampyre
2011-05-02, 08:39 PM
Hardly. One is not punished for touching a hot stove, however they are burnt. Touching a hot stove has an inherent consequence of burning ones self. Similarly, skydivers are not punished for failing to properly maintain parachutes, the parachutes will eventually not deploy due to carelessness, and they will go splat. Its a consequence of not maintaining the parachute, no tthe ground punishing you for it.

The same thing applies to people to some extent. If someone takes a swing at someone, and they hit them back it isn't punishment for taking a swing. Its a consequence of starting a fight. In the case of the thread, the characters burned down the home of a large group of people, having said people attack the characters is not a punishment, its a consequence. A punishment would be the next town mysteriously hating the characters even if there is no way the information of what they did could have reached the place.

Getting burnt is the "punishment", it is nature's way of teaching the stupid. Similarly, skydivers are "punished" by the fact that they go splat.

A punishment can also be reffered to as a penalty. A penalty is defined as the loss, suffering, or other unfortunate result of one's own action, error, etc.

A consequence is defined as the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.

By reading these two definitions, we find that a punishment is a consequence due to one's own actions. I feel you must come from the belief that a punishment must be imposed by someone outside of a given situation. Such as, me telling my children to go to their rooms, because they are in "trouble". Perhaps, you simply don't like the idea of a DM punishing the PCs' characters, even if the characters deserve it. Therefore, rather than the DM "punishing" the characters, you say he is merely applying the "inherent consequences" of their actions.

This is really just arguing the somantics.


Also, the player I went easy on, the whole experience kind of ruined his character, as from that point on the other players mocked him mercilessly and called him, names including: Bubble Boy, DM's Pet, Unflinching Coward, and Goody Goody.
Several sessions later, when the campaign got back on track, there was a scenario where his sister was kidnapped by an evil cult and sacrificed to their god, a very young black dragon. He rescued her, and then decided to kill the dragon for revenge.
I didn't pull any punches when the dragon's parents came looking for him, because if I did I knew neither of us would ever hear the end of it, and that was the end of that PC. I kind of feel bad about that, because I feel like I put a player in a no win situation do to peer pressure.

Honestly, you need to recruit slightly more mature gamers. If they're resorting to name-calling, I'd kick them out of the game.

Also, if the black dragon is old enough to be worshipped by its own cult, his parents are probably not going to care. Although, this does go along with the Oots own plot. But even the Giant gave Varsuuvius a way out, thus making it an ECL appropriate encounter.

Talakeal
2011-05-02, 08:47 PM
Punishment and Consequence are normally used in different ways. By boiling them down to definitions which are essentially the same you have termed it into a debate over semantics, but I am pretty sure most people can tell that there is a fundamental difference between a child burning his finger on the stove and a father spanking the child for playing with fire. Primarily, it is in the motive (or lack thereof) of the thing inflicting the pain.

As for the dragon, it's a rather complex situation. The dragon was young enough to that it probably wouldn't have survived on its own in the wild, but still stronger than your average human. It was being worshipped by the cult not for its physical prowess, but simply because it was a dragon. It was being raised by the cult rather than its mother because she owed the cult's leader a very large debt, and the cult leader knew that if it could indoctrinate a young dragon to its ideals it would one day have a very valuable asset. While the mother was being forced to do work for the cult leader, the child was being raised in luxury believing itself to be a divine force of the cults god, and would likely serve them willingly in time.

Knaight
2011-05-02, 08:50 PM
Getting burnt is the "punishment", it is nature's way of teaching the stupid. Similarly, skydivers are "punished" by the fact that they go splat.

A punishment can also be reffered to as a penalty. A penalty is defined as the loss, suffering, or other unfortunate result of one's own action, error, etc.

A consequence is defined as the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.

Punishment and penalty are roughly synonymous at best. Lets see what dictionary.com says about punishment.
–noun
1.
the act of punishing.
2.
the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3.
a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.

This is pretty much useless without a concrete definition of punish, though the term "penalty inflicted" does indicate imposition from an exterior entity. In any case, lets see how dictionary .com defines punish.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.

So, clearly, punishment comes from an outside source. Getting burnt is not punishment, it is consequence, and the difference between a reward-punishment system and a consequence system is nontrivial.

Lord Vampyre
2011-05-02, 08:54 PM
Punishment and penalty are roughly synonymous at best. Lets see what dictionary.com says about punishment.
–noun
1.
the act of punishing.
2.
the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3.
a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.

This is pretty much useless without a concrete definition of punish, though the term "penalty inflicted" does indicate imposition from an exterior entity. In any case, lets see how dictionary .com defines punish.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.

So, clearly, punishment comes from an outside source. Getting burnt is not punishment, it is consequence, and the difference between a reward-punishment system and a consequence system is nontrivial.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, I don't have any more time to continue such a debate.

Yukitsu
2011-05-02, 08:57 PM
Punishment and penalty are roughly synonymous at best. Lets see what dictionary.com says about punishment.
–noun
1.
the act of punishing.
2.
the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3.
a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.

This is pretty much useless without a concrete definition of punish, though the term "penalty inflicted" does indicate imposition from an exterior entity. In any case, lets see how dictionary .com defines punish.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.

So, clearly, punishment comes from an outside source. Getting burnt is not punishment, it is consequence, and the difference between a reward-punishment system and a consequence system is nontrivial.

Unless you ate a burner, I'm pretty sure that getting burned by it is an outside source. :smallconfused:

Fiery Diamond
2011-05-02, 09:10 PM
Unless you ate a burner, I'm pretty sure that getting burned by it is an outside source. :smallconfused:

Precisely. No one said the outside source had to be sentient or autonomous.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 09:13 PM
I tend toward leniency - at least when I get the feeling that's what my players want, which has been always so far. In one example, the heir to the old empire lead the party into a hostile warlord's camp with flimsy disguise and proceeded to throw his weight around. They recognized him as an outsider, attacked, and won. A TPK would have made sense, but instead I had them captured and placed in various situations according to who they were. The warlord's attempt to win over the heir to the empire and the debate it provoked proved to be one of the campaigns highlights.

Knaight
2011-05-02, 09:41 PM
Unless you ate a burner, I'm pretty sure that getting burned by it is an outside source. :smallconfused:

Your own actions are directly causing you getting burned. An outside source (though I had meant to use the term entity) would be someone pressing your hand onto a burner. In any case, the definition clearly shows that penalties are inflicted upon someone by conscious entities, which isn't necessarily the case for consequences.

MickJay
2011-05-03, 05:10 AM
Both first and second definition of punishment (the only two applicable here, since the third one refers to a different meaning of the word) clearly mention an offence or a fault. You can only "punish" someone for an act of wrongdoing, and that hinges on whether there are any rules in place, and the punishment has to be caused by breaking them. Therefore, unless there's some cosmic principle in play, the child burning its finger on a stove is not receiving a punishment, since the stove is not inflicting the burn according law. If the parent decides to punish the child for the act, it will be a punishment, but only if the child was told not to touch the stove.

Are there rules about maintaining your skydiving gear? Yes, lots, but getting splattered on the ground is not a punishment for not obeying them, since the ground is not acting to enforce these rules; falling on it is "merely" a consequence of not having your parachute taken care of properly.

In other words, for something to be considered a punishment, both pre-existing rules and a will to enforce them have to be involved (which, incidentally, also allows for self-inflicted punishments).

Traab
2011-05-03, 07:51 AM
Your own actions are directly causing you getting burned. An outside source (though I had meant to use the term entity) would be someone pressing your hand onto a burner. In any case, the definition clearly shows that penalties are inflicted upon someone by conscious entities, which isn't necessarily the case for consequences.

Nah, an outside source would be, you touched a hot burner and to teach you a lesson I set you on fire.Being burned by touching a hot burner is neither a penalty nor a punishment, its a consequence. Letting nature take its course isnt the same as someone punishing them for the same action. Attacking a king in his castle should trigger a huge fight with tons of guards. It isnt the dm punishing you, its the natural consequence of your actions. If, on the other hand, your party picks that fight, starts winning, and has the king down to his last hp, only for the gm to declare that he suddenly turns into a mecha and roflstomps your party into the ground, THATS dm interference.

If, before you picked the fight, and as the dm is reading the scenery description, he makes a point of extolling the obviously high end gear, and very strong looking guards, you also shouldnt be surprised if, upon deciding to attack the king, the guards hack you to pieces. He even warned you ahead of time that these guards were obviously not weakling mooks. That isnt dm interference, thats a preemptive warning you chose to ignore. Much like, ignoring your mother saying, "Dont touch that stove, its hot!" and doing it anyway.

I agree that gm interference can be a bad thing. But by interference I more refer to retconning in stuff to counter whatever you did that he doesnt like. If you dont want someone to be attacked, make certain to describe the ways in which they are well out of the adventurers league before hand. "The goddess leads you to a beautiful oasis. Surrounded by clearly strong looking awakened animals lounging about. She tells you, "You may take whatever you like from this place so long as it remains unspoiled. Know that if you do, I shall be most angry, and I will return."

There. Now we have the scene setup properly. There are plenty of tough guards, though not necessarily an impossible fight, along with a final warning from a goddess who basically promised horrible vengeance if you make the wrong choice here. It is noones fault but the partys if they choose to attack and get crushed. If on the other hand you get this,

"The goddess leads you to a beautiful oasis. The surrounding area is full of peaceful animals playing in the grass and drinking from the water. The goddess says to you, "Take whatever you like, just please dont despoil the oasis. Goodbye." then vanishes.

Then when you decide to attack, the dm sighs, and says, "Suddenly the peaceful bears turn into elder red dragons, the deer turn into hydras, and the goddess returns with a bolt of lightning in each hand, eyes blazing with fury. You all die in the next round of combat." Then you just got dm interference because you did something he didnt want you to do and he didnt plan for.

Morghen
2011-05-03, 10:03 AM
This thread is spinning into a semantics war. On topic:


Should GMs protect characters from the consequences of what they start?No.


The other player, who did not participate in the attack, chose to continue the mission alone. I played a little easier on him then the other player, because I didn't feel right that he should be punished for their action.I think this is the only mistake you made. When you say you "played a little easier on him" what do you mean? If you scaled the rest of the adventure to make it solo-able, that's one thing. Fudging rolls and making the AI of the NPCs/monsters super-dumb ("The guard wanders away from his post for no apparent reason.") is another.


The other players all got pissed at me for throwing an "impossible" encounter at them, and then for "playing favorites" and allowing one of them to survive.1. Those guys are dumb. Other people have covered this.
2. I don't know if you "allowed" one of them to survive.


Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches?Respond as your world is designed. It's your world. Don't sell it out because you play with meatheads.


Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?This is tougher. I'll give this a "Maybe". Auto-death, no. If he chooses to solo the adventure, then don't just let him walk through it. Scale it to make it a solo, but then go after him. If he doesn't run away when he's out of [spells, HP, etc.], it's on him.

Conners
2011-05-03, 10:09 AM
Any time the players say they want to do something stupid, i'd probably say, "Are you sure...?" That mightn't be a strong enough hint, though--so I maybe I should go as far as to explain to them why it's a bad idea--but they can do it anyway. You wouldn't want to do this all the time, unless you have particularly thick players and it's a really bad idea a TPK idea).

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 02:14 PM
I think this is the only mistake you made. When you say you "played a little easier on him" what do you mean? If you scaled the rest of the adventure to make it solo-able, that's one thing.


Yes, that is what I did. There was no roll fudging or world breaking or anything of that nature, just scaling down the pre planned adventures for one person.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 02:27 PM
Yes, that is what I did. There was no roll fudging or world breaking or anything of that nature, just scaling down the pre planned adventures for one person.

That's still questionable at best. If some arbitrarily large part of the party dies, why should every group of beings in the area fracture to a similar amount?

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 02:30 PM
That's still questionable at best. If some arbitrarily large part of the party dies, why should every group of beings in the area fracture to a similar amount?

It sure is questionable, which is why I ask. I was kind of in a no win situation at that point, either dumb down the campaign or end it entirely. I think I chose the lesser of two evils, but I am not sure.

Bovine Colonel
2011-05-03, 02:41 PM
That's still questionable at best. If some arbitrarily large part of the party dies, why should every group of beings in the area fracture to a similar amount?

Because otherwise what you get is an adventure that curbstomps the player during the first encounter. I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't like to play in a solo adventure designed for five people. Also, anything that the players don't know about doesn't have to have happened.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 02:44 PM
Because otherwise what you get is an adventure that curbstomps the player during the first encounter. I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't like to play in a solo adventure designed for five people. Also, anything that the players don't know about doesn't have to have happened.

The players have seen the groups in the desert before. In any case, its not as if there are no options for the lone person, they are merely different options, which will likely take the story in a new direction.

Bovine Colonel
2011-05-03, 02:51 PM
The players have seen the groups in the desert before. In any case, its not as if there are no options for the lone person, they are merely different options, which will likely take the story in a new direction.

Won't that lead to a need to write an entirely new adventure, with all the effort put into the old one in the scrap pile?

Killer Angel
2011-05-03, 02:54 PM
That's still questionable at best. If some arbitrarily large part of the party dies, why should every group of beings in the area fracture to a similar amount?

We all know it's a stretch for verisimilitude, but a DM is supposed to modify the CR of the encounter, accordingly to the party's strenght.
No one will object, if the DM put at the mountain pass only 2 giants, instead of three, if during that session the cleric's player is absent.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 02:59 PM
Won't that lead to a need to write an entirely new adventure, with all the effort put into the old one in the scrap pile?

This is the downside of a plan reliant style. If you have any improvisation skills whatsoever, it shouldn't be an issue. Granted, certain systems (among them D&D) magnify the work load a bit. Moreover, there is a limited amount of scaling inherent in a setting with verisimilitude. A large group of people perceived to be a threat are probably going to be addressed with either military action or large, well prepared groups. One person doesn't warrant that, and might not be seen as a threat at all, which completely removes much of the potential combat. Not all of it by any means, but a decent amount,.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-03, 04:14 PM
Because otherwise what you get is an adventure that curbstomps the player during the first encounter. I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't like to play in a solo adventure designed for five people. Also, anything that the players don't know about doesn't have to have happened.

I would. I'd optimize like crazy, and play crazy paranoid. It'd be a blast.

It's not unusual for my players to discuss plans entirely in character, pointing out that X or Y task should probably wait because the cleric is off doing (whatever the excuse was for his absence). If they deem it urgent enough, they might pay off a hireling to cover for him. They adjust their plans based on the resources they have available.

The problem only really comes up when players lack the sort of tactical flexibility and freedom to do this. If they HAVE to do encounter x next, and have no way of getting additional reinforcements, then the lack of players will hurt them dramatically, and it'll probably suck. I tend not to design adventures in that way. I see it as brittle, and prone to failure.

Firechanter
2011-05-03, 05:15 PM
Any time the players say they want to do something stupid, i'd probably say, "Are you sure...?"

I've got that from a former DM. I don't remember an exact situation, but very often in fact I _was_ pretty sure I knew what I was doing. More often than not, it turns out my plan was fine, and the DM was just misinformed on some spell or rule, so he thought I was being stupid.
Sometimes I think quick enough to anticipate what kind of misunderstanding there might be. Sometimes I have to ask why the DM thinks it's a bad idea. After all, I'm not infallible either, far from it.

One example that comes to mind:
We're trying to catch an escaping Vrock who's flying away fast. My character is the only one in the party able to Fly etc (Travel Cleric for teh win). I know I can't catch up to the Vrock by flying, so I cast Dimension Door and drop on his ass (without having cast Fly beforehand). And here the DM asks "Are you sure?" - I just said yes I am. So I port, we grapple a bit (I didn't DimAnchor him because I wanted to Planeshift him to Baator) and the Vrock casts his funny barb stuff on me. I say I cast Bless on myself. Then had to explain to the DM how Bless cures this affliction; he looks it up in the MM and says I am right. In the end, the Vrock makes his save, teleports out and I start falling. Now the DM thinks I'm in for a world of hurt, which is why he thought it was a bad idea. I just say I cast Fly. DM goes Oh, can you do that.

Yeah well, stuff like that.

P.S.: All that is not to say that I don't want a GM to ask "Are you sure?" if he thinks I am about to do something stupid. Sometimes I do have a bad idea and then I really appreciate being set straight before it's too late. Just saying that sometimes the player knows better than the GM.

Conners
2011-05-04, 04:26 AM
That sounds quite good, that you and the GM set each other straight. OF course, if it was done too much, and players could never make an non-optimal/bad decision (especially if their GM is very quick-witted about making good decisions), then that'd get annoying. So, you need to save it for important times (people new to the game should get it a bit more when they start out).

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 08:20 AM
P.S.: All that is not to say that I don't want a GM to ask "Are you sure?" if he thinks I am about to do something stupid. Sometimes I do have a bad idea and then I really appreciate being set straight before it's too late. Just saying that sometimes the player knows better than the GM.

This is absolutely true. The "are you sure?" is an indication that you might benefit from pondering your course of action again. It isn't a flat out "no, you'll die".

I occasionally disregard it when I have some grand plan in place that I haven't bothered to inform anyone else of.

cattoy
2011-05-05, 01:37 PM
Punish Characters. Teach Players.

Traab
2011-05-05, 02:18 PM
Heh, I was just thinking about the whole, "Making sure the npcs you dont want to be attacked are clearly strong enough to destroy the players" and I came up with this.

"You enter the throne room of the warrior king Hamsfeld. Trophies of his past battles litter the walls, banners of conquered kingdoms, clearly magical weapons of defeated foes, even a stuffed elder red dragons skull directly behind his throne with the plaque reading, "Soloed in a single shot" A list of the neighboring countries pantheon of gods is displayed, with half the names crossed out. He looks at your party with mild contempt as your group approaches the dais. What do you do?"

"I cast magic missile at the arrogant bastard!"

Hiro Protagonest
2011-05-05, 02:32 PM
Heh, I was just thinking about the whole, "Making sure the npcs you dont want to be attacked are clearly strong enough to destroy the players" and I came up with this.

"You enter the throne room of the warrior king Hamsfeld. Trophies of his past battles litter the walls, banners of conquered kingdoms, clearly magical weapons of defeated foes, even a stuffed elder red dragons skull directly behind his throne with the plaque reading, "Soloed in a single shot" A list of the neighboring countries pantheon of gods is displayed, with half the names crossed out. He looks at your party with mild contempt as your group approaches the dais. What do you do?"

"I cast magic missile at the arrogant bastard!"

The players this guy has, according to all the info I have on them, will still whine when they get killed by this guy.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 02:38 PM
Punish Characters. Teach Players.

Fire is the best teacher.

Traab
2011-05-05, 02:39 PM
The players this guy has, according to all the info I have on them, will still whine when they get killed by thus guy.

True, but at least in a case like this he has no leg to stand on and the dm can feel like he did his best to keep the party from killing itself pointlessly.

Golden-Esque
2011-05-06, 12:58 AM
So, do they have a point?

Yes. Whether its valid or not depends upon you as a DM.



Should a DM respond to "chaotic stupid" attacks on their world realistically, or pull their punches?

You responded correctly, so long as you played out the encounter fairly. The players were at a HUGE disadvantage; they attacked a major fortification with no preparation, at partial strength, and all because a goddess asked them to respect her follower's house of worship. She didn't say "tithe half your belongings to my church," heck, she didn't event directly ask for payment in exchange for staying in her temple; she only asked that they respect her home. And so your players ran out into the mud and began dancing all over the nice, white carpet. That was a stupid decision, and their deaths were warranted as long as you played out the encounter fairly.


Likewise, should you kill players for other players actions which they are not involved in?

Depends on the situation. For example, if the party aggravated a creature with a low Intelligence, then when that beast rages, it doesn't care who did or didn't have a hand in pissing it off. But for intelligent creatures, such as your worshipers, if provoked, there's no need for them to attack someone who is not acting openly hostile to them. "Realistic" combat is not Final Fantasy combat, where every party member is forced to battle the enemies all at the same time just because the hero stepped on its tail or something.

All in all, it sounds like you played things out fairly, and I see no reason not to reward a player who went through the story while staying in character and not going insane for no reason (god, I hate the 'its what my character would do!' argument).

dsmiles
2011-05-06, 07:39 AM
(god, I hate the 'its what my character would do!' argument).(god, I hate it when people say that).
If you have a fully fleshed out character with a developed personality, why would you not have that character do what someone with that personality would do in a given situation? (Granted, not everyone comes to the table with a fully developed character, and tries to metagame using that rationale, but doing something 'that my character would do' is a perfectly logical rationale for a fully developed character.) If a character is not tactically smart, how can you justify making tactically smart decisions? If your character is developed as a thief, why would you not steal when it's to your advantage to do so? If your character is developed as a raging sociopath frenzied berserker why would you not frenzy when there's trouble? If you character is developed as a stick-up-the-butt paladin, why would you not play him/her that way? I'm not there to play me, I'm there to play a character. That character need not have the same personality as me. It's a role, I'm playing it.

MickJay
2011-05-06, 09:18 AM
(god, I hate it when people say that).
If you have a fully fleshed out character with a developed personality, why would you not have that character do what someone with that personality would do in a given situation? (Granted, not everyone comes to the table with a fully developed character, and tries to metagame using that rationale, but doing something 'that my character would do' is a perfectly logical rationale for a fully developed character.) If a character is not tactically smart, how can you justify making tactically smart decisions? If your character is developed as a thief, why would you not steal when it's to your advantage to do so? If your character is developed as a raging sociopath frenzied berserker why would you not frenzy when there's trouble? If you character is developed as a stick-up-the-butt paladin, why would you not play him/her that way? I'm not there to play me, I'm there to play a character. That character need not have the same personality as me. It's a role, I'm playing it.

It's a fine line between roleplaying your character well and making that character be massively annoying to other players, and having it detract from everyone's enjoyment of the game. Usually when people complain about "but that's what my character would do", it refers to something like a CN character stabbing the innkeeper in the face for no other reason than "I'm CN, woo-hoo".

Most players actually expect a paladin to be a bit too rigid for other party members' liking, but it's up to the paladin's player to decide whether that will manifest itself as admonishing other PCs when they try to rob a caravan, or trying to kill the party thief for knowing how to pick locks. One is staying in character and good roleplaying, the other might be staying in character, but is also extremely disruptive and aggravating to everyone else.

Golden-Esque
2011-05-06, 09:52 AM
Usually when people complain about "but that's what my character would do", it refers to something like a CN character stabbing the innkeeper in the face for no other reason than "I'm CN, woo-hoo". .

Exactly. People, for some reason, tend to think that Chaotic means "I can do whatever I want because I'm insane." That's not what Chaotic means at all. At its core, being Chaotic means that you prefer personal freedom and expression over institutionalized conglomerates. Its the typical individual vs. the masses argument that you always hear about when comparing western values to eastern values. Nowhere in the description for a Chaotic alignment of any sorts does it say that they are all insane and can do whatever it is they choose.

An example (though admittedly not a very good one) comes from a Pathfinder Antipaladin my friend whipped up. The reason this isn't a great example is that he is Chaotic Evil, but it works fairly well. A woman behind a counter was acting a little grumpy towards him, so he grabbed her by the face, smashed her into her desk, destroying it, and leaving her at -1 HP and dying. Then for good measure he set her paperwork on fire. This was extremely, EXTREMELY random, and based on his back story, the character wouldn't have bothered with tormenting this old lady; he might have settled for destroying her possessions, but her life wasn't worth the hassle of the town's guards (Chaotic people DO have a sense of cause and effect, after all).

If you're playing a character that is legitimately insane, as in your wrote it into your background, I would personally thing that such an individual would usually turn out to be Neutral. After all, someone who is so throughly detached from reality and has no sense of what he or she is doing can't be expected to make the distinction between Good or Evil and Law or Chaos. It stands to reason that many (not all, but many) such individuals would have those lines blurred for them, after all, to the point where they may not realize what they are doing. Of course, there are many definitions of insanity, so lets not go down the avenue of which one should D&D use. After all, "insanity" in D&D is already defined as a permanent confused condition :P.

Talakeal
2011-05-06, 12:50 PM
Why has no one yet posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmgLOKRl5J0#t=2m53s’

Pigkappa
2011-05-12, 02:41 PM
This issue is someway related to this topic so I post it here.

Should a GM protect characters from the consequences of what they start if they didn't know what they were doing was dangerous?


The in-game situation is this. I'm DMing a pre-written D&D 3.5 module; an important NPC is Ireena. She is a Good NPC who is secretly loved by the BBEG (who's much stronger than the party and doesn't want to kill them - yet). The PCs received some hints about this, but they didn't really care (the adventure has tons of plot hooks).
One of the PC went in a fight with her for trivial reasons, but he didn't kill her. He was later bitten by a werewolf, and now he's permanently become Chaotic Evil, and I'm afraid he will try and kill her.
The reasonable reaction the BBEG would have in game is to attack the whole party as bad as he can, certainly killing some of them and likely killing all of them.

Morghen
2011-05-13, 11:27 AM
Should a GM protect characters from the consequences of what they start if they didn't know what they were doing was dangerous?No. They should assume that they will face the consequences of their actions. Adventuring is dangerous, no matter the system.


[snip] an important NPC is Ireena. She is a Good NPC who is secretly loved by the BBEG [snip] The PCs received some hints about this, but they didn't really care (the adventure has tons of plot hooks).
One of the PC went in a fight with her for trivial reasons [snip] and I'm afraid he will try and kill her.They SHOULD HAVE known what that guy was doing was dangerous. PC attacked a good-aligned character. A good-aligned NPC that is hinted to be a favorite of the BBEG. You gave them the hints and they ignored them. Just because they chose to not follow the hook you offered doesn't mean that you didn't offer the hook. They ignored information. Consequences should follow.

If one of the PCs had dragged his pal off of Ireena or healed her, or attacked the crazy party member who was attacking her, then your BBEG may cut the party some slack. But If I was a maniac with tons of zoochy powers and some chump killed my crush, that guy would have a pretty rough death scene.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 11:57 AM
The reasonable reaction the BBEG would have in game is to attack the whole party as bad as he can, certainly killing some of them and likely killing all of them.

They reasonably should have known.

Alternative: If just the one player kills her, have the BBEG kill him. Just him. And you can certainly divulge more information at that point about just why he was killed.

Talya
2011-05-13, 01:12 PM
Short answer: yes.

Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.




Go Go Zero Punctuation Reviews!

Anyway, I agree.


I had my wicked mercenary pirates meet the Simbul on a battlefield in Aglarond near the start of the campaign. (She was the initiator of their plot-hook). One of them was itching to attack her, but the party convinced him not to do so. They were Level 2.

Do you think for a second I would have hesitated to kill him? (Actually, more likely a baleful polymorph, because it's funnier and gets the point across better...)

dsmiles
2011-05-13, 03:10 PM
(Actually, more likely a baleful polymorph, because it's funnier and gets the point across better...)I have to agree there.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-13, 03:16 PM
I just have to wonder why the knee-jerk reaction of a "Chaotic Stupid" character is to attempt to murder whatever they believe to be imposing rules on them. Like it's been said before, these players could have defied the goddess in a less dangerous way, like littering or something, but instead, they chose to fight. And they didn't even fight the goddess herself, they fought her servants.

It just seems ridiculous that whenever these players get their characters killed by attacking something clearly out of their league, it seems to simply be that they thought the NPC in question was arrogant or condescending to them. People are arrogant and condescending all the time (even if in this case, the PCs were really asking for it, how'd you let them get away with calling a goddess a skank?!), but they don't get murdered for it. You don't try to strangle a cop because he pulls you over and lets you off with a warning.

Why is killing things always the first option with these people?!

Talakeal
2011-05-13, 03:41 PM
I assume they were trying to provoke a reaction. When calling names didn't get one, they decided to step up their level of provocation.

MidnightOne
2011-05-13, 10:15 PM
I assume they were trying to provoke a reaction. When calling names didn't get one, they decided to step up their level of provocation.

And it worked, merely not in the way they had hoped. Speaking of which, what were they hoping to accomplish by essentially kicking the goddess in the shins?

Balain
2011-05-13, 11:22 PM
This came up last time we played. One of the players was getting the party into a fight that I wasn't expecting them to get into. The monster/npc was a much higher level than them. Party level 10ish monster level 21ish.

Anyways through talking with the monster I gave him a couple chances to back off and take the chance to just leave like monster was offering. But he kept arguing and insulting the monster. Gave the player one more chance to leave. With more arguing the monster just attacked in the middle of the players sentence. To which the player was killed.

comicshorse
2011-05-14, 10:38 AM
This came up last time we played. One of the players was getting the party into a fight that I wasn't expecting them to get into. The monster/npc was a much higher level than them. Party level 10ish monster level 21ish.

Anyways through talking with the monster I gave him a couple chances to back off and take the chance to just leave like monster was offering. But he kept arguing and insulting the monster. Gave the player one more chance to leave. With more arguing the monster just attacked in the middle of the players sentence. To which the player was killed.

And the rest of the party ?

SanguinePenguin
2011-05-15, 05:15 PM
If a player seems to have designed a character that through no conceivable means could possibly have survived X # of years without being killed, as a DM, I rule that the character can't be used. Pretty much all "problem" "CN" characters are out the window then.

CN gets such a bad rap. It's a great alignment but everyone seems to think is is something its not. Besides if your alignment dictates your characters action, you just don't understand alignment. Your character and your character's identity dictates the actions, the alignment is just the general pattern that arises.