How much plot control constitutes Railroading?

[Scarce]

[3.5, btw]

As a newish DM, I've seen my fair share of dungeon crawling, traps, and monsters. For my players, some crave roleplay, others to create cool minis, and other still, to fight challenging encounters. For me, D&D is a storytelling output. My question is, how far can I let the story control the world before players start feeling claustrophobic?

Example: An upcoming session will mark the end of Act 1 of 3 in this summer campaign. By the end, the players, who are en route to the current BBEG should find and "kill" him (no good BBEG dies for real :smallwink:)

As they are traveling by water and I feel that a race against the clock provides some dramatic tension, I was going to deprive them of their ship by means of Kraken (well over their expected CR, but will leave them alive) and strand them on a desert island.

Herein lies my quandary: I know I will provide them with at least one way out in the form of a mysterious magical stranger that can make a bargain with them (ultimately at the cost of one character's paladinhood.)


If they don't take that option?

How else to give them options, as they have no wizard and very limited other casting?

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Is using this as a very free-form puzzle better, when I'm not sure how I would get off the island?

Is using the too-high CR Kraken to control the situation evil as a DM?

How would a more experienced DM attack this problem?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Unless you've already discussed it with him or are -dead certain- that he'll enjoy the RP experience and mechanical challenges, don't make the paladin's fall a plot-point.

It'll come off as unnecessarily antagonistic no matter how artfully done and your player -will- resent it.

Beyond that, how much railroading is too much railroading is entirely subjective to the group at play.

Some players are quite happy to have a DM scripted plot that they're only filling in details for while others will take any kind of event they have little to no control over as nothing less than a personal insult. Most people fall somewhere in between those extremes. Only experience with your players will tell you where on the spectrum they fall.

Personally, I wouldn't make the kraken-island obstacle a thing unless there was some plot-relevant mcguffin on the island. As a simple hurdle it's pretty contrived, but as a point that -can- (not must) be important to the overall plot it might go down easier.

Example: if the BBEG is a dragon then having an orb of dragonkind hidden on the island might make the "unexpected side-trip" worthwhile instead of just irritatingly rail-roady.

That's my 2cp, anyway.

[hymer]

Some thoughts.

The Kraken: Try to make the encounter interesting for the players. Yes, they can't kill the kraken, but have it be possible to do other stuff, like saving others on the ship, getting a lifeboat out rather than ending up floating on debris, maybe even get the kraken to pull off after the ship is so damaged it has to head for the nearest shore and beach itself. Someone (possibly the PCs, if the island is interesting and they'd like to go back when they have more time) can come back and repair and float it later. All these are lesser things the players can succeed at without derailing your wanting them on that island. Reward the players for these limited successes too (XP is always one way, a helpful NPC is another, getting some supplies off the ship a third, etc.).

Getting off the island: You really ought to have some other way of getting them off the island. I'd feel extremely put upon as a player, if I were expected to sacrifice my PC's paladinhood to get back on your railroads. And why would you do a deal with someone so evil as to cause a paladin to fall? Sounds like something you would regret very soon.
Fortunately, the possible options are limitless. Someone may be able to call in a flight of pegasi who can help, all in return for help now or at a later date. The dilletante adventurer Lord Duke Proudmoore III has built the world's fastest sailing ship, and welcomes a chance to save the world by breaking all speed records getting the PCs where they need to go. Or there is a network of caves you can go through to get out near a port on another island, you just have to have a guide or a good map. And so on.

Limited options: Providing only one known option to get past a certain point isn't railroading in itself. Say you can only talk to the prince if you get permission from his secretary, and the DM has established the secretary won't waste the prince's time unless a knight of the realm will vouch for the PCs. That's not railroading. But if the players then find out where the prince goes every wednesday and make sure they'll be able to meet him there, and you nix that outhand, now it's starting to look like railroading. And if the PCs decide this isn't worth their time and they start doing other reasonable things, and you force them back to the plot, then it is definitely railroading.
Groups have very differing tolerance for railroading.

Not having a solution to the problem of the day: This should be discouraged. You really ought to know of at least one viable way for the adventure to go ahead if you want it to go ahead. Just be open to other solutions that the players present as well. At least the plot moves forward if they succeed.
You probably want to have consequences for poor ideas attempted, but don't be too harsh. You want the players to try and do stuff, after all.

Using NPCs/monsters that are more powerful than the party: It's perfectly acceptable to have creatures too powerful to fight. Succeeding in an encounter against such a creature will usually lie in diplomacy, escape, trickery, or other such means. Try not to make a habit of it, though. It's hard to feel heroic if you keep encountering enemies that are stronger than the party.

In general: There are degrees of railroading, and some amount of railroading is probably inevitable for your group. You, the DM, want to tell a story. That means you're wise to be wary of your own railroading. The players should also be telling stories of their own. What happens if these stories conflict? Why should your story take precedence? Well, sometimes there are good reasons, but certainly not always.
You're already taking away a lot of choice from the players when you put them in a position with something horrible happening and no time to deviate from that storyline. Some groups are fine with this. Personally I'd go along, but I'd start to get weary of it after a while.
So, how do you avoid making the players feel claustrophobic? Talk to them. Ask them. Try to make your plot a little more open-ended, and then let the players decide on what direction they want to take it. The better timing for that is asking at the end of a session what they want to do next time (and then you're free to hold them to that: "Sorry guys, I didn't prepare the senate meeting, because you said you were doing the dungeon next." That way, you won't have to prepare nearly so much stuff that doesn't get used.

[nedz]

Some thoughts:

You are using Deus Ex Machina to strand them on a desert island.
You supply one method of them getting off, which they are unlikely to take.


I would expect them to not realise that they are stranded, or at least not be concerned by it (due to DEM).

If they had decent casters then I would expect them to be able to get off the island, but apparently they don't.

Your ultimate choices are likely to be :-

DEM them off the island (passing ship possibly — whatever)
End the campaign with them stuck there — forever.

[Captainspork]

Yea I wouldn't call it "railroading", but if your PC (and presumed friend?) wants to play a paladin, I think you should find a way off the island that allows him to do so. There are countless options, be open with your story and don't limit yourself by going with your first idea. If you want the stranger on the island as an option, sure, let the PCs have that available to them as a choice. But have other avenues available.

In general I am of the belief that its your job as DM to make the game fun for your PCs. Your story and plot development is an important part of that, but you can't compromise your PCs to accomplish it. If they aren't having fun, you aren't having fun, which tends to make for short campaigns.

As far as railroading, Every group's tolerance and expectations are different; some groups prefer more linear stories where others like the world to be more open. It also depends on your ability to think on your feet and DM without being prepared, as PCs tend to take games in random directions when given free rein.

Anyways, is there a reason you are having them stranded on the island? Is there a goal you are looking to accomplish there? That info might help ppl when suggesting help for getting off the island, aside from the more obvious solutions.

[limejuicepowder]

What the others have said is truth; it depends on your group. I will say however that what you laid out sounds pretty railroady to me.

1) BBEG's never actually die? Then why should the PC's bother fighting him? I know it was a joke, but this sent red flags up in my head.

2) Encountering unbeatable foes where the only way out is a player's character being "ruined" or following the one path is not much of a choice.

3) Stranding them in a place where they have no hope of leaving short of DM intervention isn't great. I imagine they are going to wander the island for awhile, figure out they can't leave, then settle down and wait for you to get them back off again. Again, not much of a choice.

Instead, I'd recommend a few changes -

1) Instead of the stranger's help costing the paladin his paladinhood, make it an opportunity for the party face (which may be the paladin). Let them broker a deal. Make up a few different options for favors (in secret of course) they can trade in exchange for help. Depending on how well they sweet-talk the stranger, they get better or worse deals. Don't just make this a diplomacy check either, role play it out.

2) Even if they can't beat the kraken directly, have them contribute somehow. Someone else's suggestion of organizing the exodus of the ship is a good one.

3) I'm not really sure what to tell you about the island...I'm just not in love with that idea. Something should definitely happen there though, rather than it just be a massive speed bump. Meet a helpful hermit shaman, find the ruins of ancient civilization that provides incites to the main quest goal, or something else.

[Keneth]

(no good BBEG dies for real :smallwink:)

Every good BBEG dies for real. No one likes a recurring villain, especially if you spend the better part of the campaign making sure your players hate them. It completely kills one's sense of accomplishment and is just plain annoying. Even more so than "This Isn't Even My Final Form" or "There's Always a Bigger Fish" when used as a deux ex machina. In a good ending, the BBEG dies, or is irrevocably defeated (barring alternate realities).

[Regitnui]

Every good BBEG dies for real. No one likes a recurring villain, especially if you spend the better part of the campaign making sure your players hate them. It completely kills one's sense of accomplishment and is just plain annoying. Even more so than "This Isn't Even My Final Form" or "There's Always a Bigger Fish" when used as a deux ex machina. In a good ending, the BBEG dies, or is irrevocably defeated (barring alternate realities).

Recurring villains are okay, especially if they scale to the party and get an appropriate comeuppance. Even so, the maximum a BBEG should be encountered is three times: An introduction where the party first comes to the BBEG's notice, a near-miss encounter where the PCs actually start to threaten the BBEG, and the final showdown.

[Keneth]

Even so, the maximum a BBEG should be encountered is three times: An introduction where the party first comes to the BBEG's notice, a near-miss encounter where the PCs actually start to threaten the BBEG, and the final showdown.

That's not really a recurring villain, it's just a villain making several appearances. Recurring villains are ones that you actually defeat on at least one occasion, but they come back again to annoy you, often involving completely contrived reasons for how they managed to do so that entirely invalidate the heroes' effort.

[BowStreetRunner]

It all comes down to the choices available to the PCs and the feeling that the players have some degree of control over their characters.

You can limit the choices available to a character, as long as you don't limit the player's ability to control those choices. Everyone knows that sometimes people end up in situations with limited options. Players should expect this will happen to their character at some point. What they don't expect is for their control of the character to be taken away from them. Avoid telling them what their PC would or wouldn't do as much as possible. You can inform them of the potential consequences of their choices, but make sure they still feel that they are the ones ultimately making the choice. Personally, once I feel that my character is being run by the DM more than by me, I'm out the door.

Respect the player's plans for his character. Ask your players to give you an idea of what their long-term goals are, whether they have a 20-level build already mapped out or just some general idea of where things are going. Don't put them in a situation where they can't have the character they want to play, just because you would rather have them play something else. It's one thing to have a player with a paladin go through a fall and have to atone, it is another thing entirely to decide you think it would be cool for the character to become a blackguard and railroad the player into that class whether he likes it or not.

[nedz]

Recurring villains are okay, especially if they scale to the party and get an appropriate comeuppance. Even so, the maximum a BBEG should be encountered is three times: An introduction where the party first comes to the BBEG's notice, a near-miss encounter where the PCs actually start to threaten the BBEG, and the final showdown.

There's no reason the PCs need to ever meet the BBEG. They just happen upon his schemes/minions and defeat those.

Another approach that can be fun is for the BBEG to recruit the PCs. The players don't have to be aware that the Good v Evil fight that they think are in is really Evil v Evil for world domination.

[dascarletm]

That's not really a recurring villain, it's just a villain making several appearances. Recurring villains are ones that you actually defeat on at least one occasion, but they come back again to annoy you, often involving completely contrived reasons for how they managed to do so that entirely invalidate the heroes' effort.

Though I guess some come back like that, I have a recurring villain, and I never make up BS ways for him to come back at the PCs.

Though next session I think he'll finally do something that they may end up killing him for reals for.

The best recurring villains are those that you can't legally kill, and are protected by the same forces/nation/guild/etc. the PCs work for.:smallbiggrin:

[Talya]

That's not really a recurring villain, it's just a villain making several appearances. Recurring villains are ones that you actually defeat on at least one occasion, but they come back again to annoy you, often involving completely contrived reasons for how they managed to do so that entirely invalidate the heroes' effort.

Hmm.

Evil bbeg spellcaster is finally vanquished, party is happy.

Several levels later, overlooked fanatical cultist/apprentice performs the profane ritual to turn his beloved master into a lich.

I'd like it.

[Barstro]

I will say however that what you laid out sounds pretty railroady to me.

Agreed. But if I've completed Act I, I don't mind whatever the DM needs to do to get the story to the start of Act II.

If Prelude is the group meets up at the City and the mayor gives them a quest, Act I is the Dungeon, and Act II is the mayor is actually evil, then there isn't much that needs to be done.

If Prelude is the group meets up at the City and the mayor gives them a quest, Act I is the Dungeon, and Act II is they need to get stranded on an island, then there is A LOT that needs to be done. Maybe the evil mayor summoned the Kracken, maybe a powerful "good" wizard (who must remain hidden for now) allowed the PCs to get to safety in the one area where a heretofore unknown McGuffin awaits. Whatever the case may be; I, as a player, want Act II (or at least the interlude) to start. Stagecoach or spaceship, just get me there.

But if your players feel differently, then just don't do it.:smallsigh:

[Scarce]

Unless you've already discussed it with him or are -dead certain- that he'll enjoy the RP experience and mechanical challenges, don't make the paladin's fall a plot-point.


I really want this to be a place where the paladin has to make a decision, and a tough one at that. Kill an innocent man with an evil sword for the power to thwart an even evil-er plot that will ultimately kill thousands, or maintain his paladinhood and find a way through his wits to get off the island and reach the location of said plot. Problem is, I haven't figured out too many concrete ways that I would get off the island. I think I need to flesh out the island more and give them some bigger options.

Also, some great ideas!

[Scarce]

Every good BBEG dies for real.

A good BBEG dosen't die in Act 1. We're coming in at the end of Act 1 of 3. At the end of this act, players will have time to level up and then I'll introduce another quest having nothing to do with this BBEG his plot or schemes, but I plan to let his final death something of a mystery. When he returns in act 3, he'll have taken a shift from LE to CE with a focus on ending the world he couldn't conquer.

[Barstro]

Kill an innocent man with an evil sword for the power to thwart an even evil-er plot that will ultimately kill thousands, or maintain his paladinhood ...

This was part of a conversation last month that went on far longer than I thought it would.

While I would look to the greater good, I'm pretty sure that Paladins do not believe that ends justify the means. Period.

Maybe if the paladin mistakenly thought that the man were evil, or the sword tricked him...

To my mind; just like "Kraken attacking the ship" means "you cannot win this fight so do not try", so too does "Paladin needs to willfully commit a purely evil act" means "this path is a dead-end, find another way".

NOTE: That doesn't change my earlier post. If the DM demands that I fall to keep the story going, and the DM is a good enough storyteller that I think it will be fun to play out, then I wouldn't mind. But I'd also just want the DM to say that I am being forced to do it instead of having me spend a lot of time trying to find the nonexistent third option.

[Scarce]

While I would look to the greater good, I'm pretty sure that Paladins do not believe that ends justify the means. Period.


I agree. But as the DM, I want a player who picks the paladin to understand that doing so isn't the same as picking a fighter or rogue. The paladin is a set of ideals, and a struggle to uphold them. And thus I face my player with a quandary which he is free to choose either outcome. The reason for creating this thread was that I felt I had written myself into a trap; preparing for one option was quite easy, but I was having trouble seeing what else to do if he refuses. I think now I have a few more options for the party as a whole to try if he maintains his paladinhood.



If the DM demands that I fall to keep the story going, and the DM is a good enough storyteller that I think it will be fun to play out, then I wouldn't mind.

Again, to clarify, I wish to give him the option. There are advantages on both sides: killing innocents with the sword gives it great power, at a cost of the paladin's class powers, and vice-versa. Mechanics will be fine either way. And I'm confident there are two great stories to tell here. It then falls to my player to decide (really decide, under pressure) whether being a paladin is for him.

[Axinian]

If they don't take that option?

How else to give them options, as they have no wizard and very limited other casting?

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Is using this as a very free-form puzzle better, when I'm not sure how I would get off the island?

Is using the too-high CR Kraken to control the situation evil as a DM?

How would a more experienced DM attack this problem?


1) Plan for what happens should they defeat/fend off the Kraken successfully. Yes it's unlikely. But if you don't plan for it it's gonna happen. Make sure your plot does not rely on them being on the island. If they do come up with a valid way to win against the Kraken, let them try it. Don't shut it down on the basis that you want them to go to the island.

2) I would say you should have AT LEAST TWO possible escape routes planned in advance. You can push the mysterious stranger plotline on them a bit more, but it'll be railroading if they feel you've made that they're only option. What would not be railroading is to make their other options extremely difficult by comparison, that way the "dark deal" idea would actually be up for consideration.

3) Make sure there is plenty of stuff to do on the island. Perhaps put some obscure creatures with strange cultures for them to interact with. This will provide them with potential outs, and possibly quests to do in the meantime.

4) The suggestion above to have something of plot relevance on the island is a good one.

[Deepbluediver]

I really want this to be a place where the paladin has to make a decision, and a tough one at that. Kill an innocent man with an evil sword for the power to thwart an even evil-er plot that will ultimately kill thousands, or maintain his paladinhood and find a way through his wits to get off the island and reach the location of said plot. Problem is, I haven't figured out too many concrete ways that I would get off the island. I think I need to flesh out the island more and give them some bigger options.

Why does it always have to be the paladin that DMs pick on in this situation? Are you also planning out scenarios where the rest of the party will need to make tough decisions?
Suppose a cleric loses his spells or a druid his ability to wildshape, or maybe the party fighter is cursed with pacifism; that's kind of the sort of thing you're pushing here.

Also, if the paladin elects NOT to interact with said individual, and keep his paladinhood, are you planning on punishing him for it? Because that's not really a choice so much as you just retroactively disagreeing with what class the player wanted to use.


Alternate ideas for getting the players off the island-

they find a wrecked boat that they can repair (or they build one from scratch)
they make friends with a group of mermaids or some other aquatic denizen who can help them out
they go on a mini-adventure and find a dues ex machina to help them out (the players stop a cult on the island from sacrificing humans or something, and a diety grants them one favor)



3) Make sure there is plenty of stuff to do on the island. Perhaps put some obscure creatures with strange cultures for them to interact with.

Unihabited islands are a fun way to introduce dinosaursproto-dragons into a campaign :smallbiggrin:


Edit:
I agree. But as the DM, I want a player who picks the paladin to understand that doing so isn't the same as picking a fighter or rogue. The paladin is a set of ideals, and a struggle to uphold them. And thus I face my player with a quandary which he is free to choose either outcome.

Honestly, this is the sort of thing that I really feel should be discussed with a player BEFORE they become emeshed in the game world. If they want to be pushed to it then fine, but if your player was expecting the same light-hearted fun that everyone else is getting, he (or she) is going to feel like your singling them out and picking on them. It's like saying "here's a problem, and here's a solution, but if you pick that solution you're going back on everything you've put into the game so far".

[Big Fau]

That's not really a recurring villain, it's just a villain making several appearances. Recurring villains are ones that you actually defeat on at least one occasion, but they come back again to annoy you, often involving completely contrived reasons for how they managed to do so that entirely invalidate the heroes' effort.

The repercussions of a villain's actions should be felt throughout parts of the campaign, even after the villain's death/defeat.

However, it is unrealistic for a villain to not have at least some contingency plan for his inevitable demise in a campaign where Resurrection is commonplace.

[Winter_Wolf]

I just stopped reading the OP once I got to the 'paladin will ultimately fall as a plot point.' Better have a backup plan.

No. Just No. Unless you shoehorned the player into playing a paladin and they'd be thrilled to lose that status, no. Even then I'd say No.

From a personal perspective (and even disliking paladins to not allowing them in my games), if I were playing a paladin and he was damned because the plot demands it, I'd tell you to stuff it and walk from the game on the spot. As we don't play together you don't need to worry about me doing it. But I'm hardly unique in the way I'd react to that kind of thing.

[Zombimode]

I really want this to be a place where the paladin has to make a decision, and a tough one at that. Kill an innocent man with an evil sword for the power to thwart an even evil-er plot that will ultimately kill thousands, or maintain his paladinhood and find a way through his wits to get off the island and reach the location of said plot. Problem is, I haven't figured out too many concrete ways that I would get off the island. I think I need to flesh out the island more and give them some bigger options.

Also, some great ideas!

First: what you are trying to do is to construct a moral dilemma as a means to make the Paladin fall.

The question remains: why should a Paladin fall for choosing in a situation of a moral dilemma?
Maybe I'm just wrong about this, but I always thought that the "falling"-mechanic is their to deprive Paladins from their divine blessing if they don't live up to their ideals anymore. Be it for being delusional, or because the (Ex-)Paladin has become jaded, or simply of shifting interest (at the age of 20, the thought of going through the world protecting the people and fighting the wicked sounded great - but now with 45 the Paladin is more interested to settle down and live a fulfilling life).

But in a moral dilemma the paladin does not fail to live up to the ideals. In fact you could say that recognizing a situation as a dilemma is a very good indicator that the paladin is very much living up to the ideals.


Second: as other have pointed out, it is questionable if the situation evens is a dilemma. At least if I would be the Paladin's player, I would say:"Kill an innocent men to proceed? Never! There has to be another way."

[Scarce]

Why does it always have to be the paladin that DMs pick on in this situation?

Because the paladin strives to be better than other people. Would my assassin/rogue player kill the innocent man for quick power? Certainly. Asking the paladin to make the tough decisions makes for better storytelling and roleplaying than other characters because the life of the paladin is a struggle to be an embodiment of the good and the right, and I should see the player reflect that in his/her decisions. If he stays pure, or if he falls, there is a great story to be told. It's the player's job to decide which one they will play.



Also, if the paladin elects NOT to interact with said individual, and keep his paladinhood, are you planning on punishing him for it?


Not at all. Whichever decision he chooses will have consequences, otherwise it isn't much of a decision. If he simply interacts with someone, his alignment never changes. If he falls to temptation and commits a purely evil act for the Greater Good, then our paladin falls. Should he deny our mysterious stranger, he and the party must find another way off the island, but he remains a paladin.

[Flickerdart]

I don't understand this obsession with making paladins fall - it wasn't an interesting outcome even before it was done to death. Losing your paladin levels is frankly a blessing, because you can then retrain into something that isn't rubbish.

You want to be marginally less boring? Make the cleric fall. At least nobody will see that coming.

[Scarce]

I just stopped reading the OP once I got to the 'paladin will ultimately fall as a plot point.' Better have a backup plan.


I apologize, Mr. Wolf for your lack of tenacity in reading my posts so far. I crafted this thread to explore possible background plans I could implement in the very likely case that the paladin decides to take the high-road. I'm here asking what a more experienced DM might construct for a backup plan that doesn't reek of railroading. The fact that you decided, much to the contrary of that which was stated in this thread, that the fall of one of my player's character was predecided, is neither helpful or informative.

[Pickford]

[3.5, btw]

As a newish DM, I've seen my fair share of dungeon crawling, traps, and monsters. For my players, some crave roleplay, others to create cool minis, and other still, to fight challenging encounters. For me, D&D is a storytelling output. My question is, how far can I let the story control the world before players start feeling claustrophobic?

Example: An upcoming session will mark the end of Act 1 of 3 in this summer campaign. By the end, the players, who are en route to the current BBEG should find and "kill" him (no good BBEG dies for real :smallwink:)

As they are traveling by water and I feel that a race against the clock provides some dramatic tension, I was going to deprive them of their ship by means of Kraken (well over their expected CR, but will leave them alive) and strand them on a desert island.

Herein lies my quandary: I know I will provide them with at least one way out in the form of a mysterious magical stranger that can make a bargain with them (ultimately at the cost of one character's paladinhood.)


If they don't take that option?

How else to give them options, as they have no wizard and very limited other casting?

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Is using this as a very free-form puzzle better, when I'm not sure how I would get off the island?

Is using the too-high CR Kraken to control the situation evil as a DM?

How would a more experienced DM attack this problem?


You could give them the materials at hand to make a raft and escape the island that way. That would be the more mundane method, or build a signal fire to flag down the next ship that comes by...though that doesn't seem to synch with the idea of a race against time.

Is there any other reason for stranding them on the island than to try and make the Paladin fall? If not, just don't do it, because if the Paladin's player does it right, they're going to be stuck on the island.

[Scarce]

Make the cleric fall. At least nobody will see that coming.


:smallbiggrin: Had I a cleric PC to bounce around, I would be doing just that.

I think any player that makes a morally or religiously-focused character (as the paladin is traditionally both) should be regularly challenged to see that they uphold their ideals. It provides some fun roleplay and storytelling for both players and DM.

And yes, it's done to death, but most of my players are fairly new and I think they might like to try and savor some of the classics.

[Demidos]

The last time our DM tried that with our 19th level, Saint templated party (Complete with a cleric of Pelor) we ended up attempting to annihilate all of creation. Yes, even the bacteria. Yes, across EVERY plane. Our DM had to rewrite large, large portions of plot. :smallamused:

[Scarce]

You could give them the materials at hand to make a raft and escape the island that way.

I had a feeling they might try and make a raft, so I'll place it well within their grasp, but give some consequences for such a slow method (they arrive in time to stop the plot, but not before some people die.)



Is there any other reason for stranding them on the island than to try and make the Paladin fall?

Certainly. The paladin's player has been out of town and I intend to give him some spotlight time to make up for missing two sessions jam-packed with awesome.

Secondly, I need to fill the session because after confronting the BBEG, they'll be leveling up, best held for the end of the session. Some dramatic tension in fighting against the clock dosen't hurt either.

Third, the mysterious stranger is someone they've met before and will be something of a recurring character. He's due for another appearance, as it's been quite a while in the game since he's showed up.

[dascarletm]

Every paladin should take a lesson from Kirk, and not believe in the no-win scenario.

[BowStreetRunner]

If all else fails and they end up stuck on the island, send in some Pirates! Do the PCs end up as prisoners in the ship's hold? Do they avoid detection and stow away in the cable tier, then slip away in the ship's launch during the night? Or do they negotiate a deal with the pirates to take them off the island for some common cause? The only possibility I would rule out is handing them a pirate crew of sufficiently low CR that they could just take the ship.

[Barstro]

I do like how much thought you have given this so far.

I've always felt that Paladin was not powerful enough (and should be tempered with even more restrictions to go along with greater power) and falling is too hard. But that's all part of how these sorts of things evolve.

F) I have a fighter.
P) Well, I have a paladin. He's the same thing, but with spells.
F) That's not fair. He's inherently better.
P) It's fair. I have a lot of restrictions, but lose all my powers if I violated them
F) Ok, fine.

Two years later.
Some kid) Wah, it's not fair that I lost all my powers.
Exasperated DM) Fine, he didn't fall.

Next year.
Paladins get nerfed because nobody ever makes them fall.

But, back to the issue at hand.
What if, instead of having it be something that only effects the paladin, it is something that the whole party must do? Make it something that nobody else would have a problem with, but the paladin ShOuLd have a problem with. He can help and make the fight easy and then fall, or he can keep his pride and it becomes difficult for everyone else. (they might even need to do it behind the paladin's back) Frankly, this is how I think every party should have to deal with a paladin at least once.

Party wins the fight(s), they get rewards. Paly didn't help, he gets squat. You can even up the odds in later in the game from something that only a non-fallen paladin can do.

[Deepbluediver]

I had a feeling they might try and make a raft, so I'll place it well within their grasp, but give some consequences for such a slow method (they arrive in time to stop the plot, but not before some people die.)

If you think that building a boat from scratch is too much effort, you could have them find a previously-wrecked ship, which gets you a little bit of both worlds (adventuring and construction) and has plenty of room for mini-quests or other plothooks. A wrecked ship can hold any number of treasures, artifacts, supplies or information. It could even be a treasure itself! There was one long quest-log on these forums where the party finds a magical-hovering ship, and it becomes their moving base of operations.

Another potential idea might be that the shipwreck might be old, but there are signs some one has tried to repair it recently; the party can either ignore this or go exploring to try and find the individual(s) responsible. If they choose to abandon the island quickly, they might get attacked by whoever else was their fist for trying to "steal the ship". Lots of fun to be had.

[Raineh Daze]

I think any player that makes a morally or religiously-focused character (as the paladin is traditionally both) should be regularly challenged to see that they uphold their ideals. It provides some fun roleplay and storytelling for both players and DM.

Start prodding at less easy targets, will you? It's always making Paladins do something they don't like...

Though I should point out that if this one act is a violation of the Lawful Code of Conduct and not an evil act, they don't immediately fall, as it's a gross violation that's grounds for that.

[Keneth]

Several levels later, overlooked fanatical cultist/apprentice performs the profane ritual to turn his beloved master into a lich.

"Beloved master" is generally not a thing on the evil side of the axis. It's more likely that the apprentice turns himself into a lich if he has enough power, and then takes the throne, so to speak. That way the players don't feel cheated for somehow missing that one apprentice hiding behind the curtains.


A good BBEG dosen't die in Act 1.

He also doesn't get defeated, that's what lieutenants are for. If he does make an appearance and picks a fight, he should wipe the floor with the party. Hopeless Boss Fights are a common plot element, but then you need a pretty stellar reason to explain why he doesn't outright kill the PCs.


However, it is unrealistic for a villain to not have at least some contingency plan for his inevitable demise in a campaign where Resurrection is commonplace.

If resurrection is a thing, the PCs should generally be prepared for that eventuality. But once defeated, most villains should be substantially weakened, and it should take a while before they're able to put another plan in motion. It would have to be a pretty extensive contingency plan to justify bringing the villain back.

[Raineh Daze]

"Beloved master" is generally not a thing on the evil side of the axis. It's more likely that the apprentice turns himself into a lich if he has enough power, and then takes the throne, so to speak. That way the players don't feel cheated for somehow missing that one apprentice hiding behind the curtains.

Evil does not preclude love, affection, or loyalty. Evil does not preclude feeling normal emotions at all. :smallannoyed:

[Keneth]

Evil does not preclude love, affection, or loyalty. Evil does not preclude feeling normal emotions at all. :smallannoyed:

Of course it doesn't, I merely said it's not a "thing", as in not a common trend. Not because there's no love on the dark side, but because priorities and motivations are different. Unless the apprentice also happens to be the BBEG's love interest, and not just a loving follower, it's far more likely that greed or revenge will drive the apprentice to assume the BBEG role themselves.

[Raineh Daze]

Of course it doesn't, I merely said it's not a "thing", as in not a common trend. Not because there's no love on the dark side, but because priorities and motivations are different. Unless the apprentice also happens to be the BBEG's love interest, and not just a loving follower, it's far more likely that greed or revenge will drive the apprentice to assume the BBEG role themselves.

Fanaticism. Acknowledgement of their own limitations. Desire for a reward. Not wanting to get caught in the power struggle that would crop up if any one person tried to assume the position.

[Tvtyrant]

"Beloved master" is generally not a thing on the evil side of the axis. It's more likely that the apprentice turns himself into a lich if he has enough power, and then takes the throne, so to speak. That way the players don't feel cheated for somehow missing that one apprentice hiding behind the curtains.

Bellatrix Lestrange and the Crouch boy both come to mind as tropes for fanatical loyalty to an evil man.

[Deepbluediver]

Fanaticism. Acknowledgement of their own limitations. Desire for a reward. Not wanting to get caught in the power struggle that would crop up if any one person tried to assume the position.

And those are just the "logical" reasons; there are plenty of notable antagonists who are simply messed-up in the head, either a little or a lot.

[Keneth]

All of those also imply a weak-minded wretch that wouldn't be capable of performing a ritual meant for high necromancers seeking immortality (or any other realistic way of bringing them back). Unless it's a plot device that requires nothing except maybe human sacrifice. But then we're back to the DM just cheating the players out of their victory because he doesn't want to make a new villain.

As for Bellatrix, she's square in the Dark Mistress category. When it comes to love interests (one-sided or otherwise), they should be apparent, and dealt with along with the BBEG in order to avoid just this situation.

[Raineh Daze]

All of those also imply a weak-minded wretch that wouldn't be capable of performing a ritual meant for high necromancers seeking immortality (or any other realistic way of bringing them back). Unless it's a plot device that requires nothing except maybe human sacrifice. But then we're back to the DM just cheating the players out of their victory because he doesn't want to make a new villain.

"Hmm, I know how to make a lich... on the other hand, I'm not really up to scratch when it comes to combat. And my master does reward his followers... I know!"

It is not as impossible as you make out. >_>

[Water_Bear]

A good BBEG dosen't die in Act 1. We're coming in at the end of Act 1 of 3. At the end of this act, players will have time to level up and then I'll introduce another quest having nothing to do with this BBEG his plot or schemes, but I plan to let his final death something of a mystery. When he returns in act 3, he'll have taken a shift from LE to CE with a focus on ending the world he couldn't conquer.

The difference between a game and non-interactive media is, unsurprisingly, that the PCs have the power to change how things play out. A three-act narrative arc is great for structuring a story told by one person, but a game needs more freedom.

If the party achieves their goal early, then what? Do you undo their victory, just so that you can delay them until you think it's the "right" time?

If the party suffers a TPK, then what? Do you undo their failure, potentially giving them a "win" they never earned?

Without the possibility of success or failure as a result of player choice, the game is just a cold-reading of your script. That is why railroading is bad; it makes the events which happen meaningless, because for good or for bad they are not a result of player choice.

[Talya]

Evil does not preclude love, affection, or loyalty. Evil does not preclude feeling normal emotions at all. :smallannoyed:



Indeed. And fanatical doomsday cults dedicated to reviving an ancient dead overdeity are likely to contain both evil and love!

[Keneth]

It is not as impossible as you make out. >_>

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's unlikely and serves no purpose. I've been around a long time, read hundreds of books, watched hundreds of films and tv series, and played hundreds of games. I can't think of a single instance where a recurring villain wasn't damaging to the story. If you wanna introduce a fanatic and powerful follower that plans on resurrecting the defeated BBEG, that's fine. But don't just do it and bring the bad guy back for round 2, that makes for a poor story. Instead, let the PCs hear about this nefarious plan, and have them set out to thwart it. Introducing an entirely new goal and a fresh face for the BBEG is far better than repeating the same thing again.

There is one notable exception to the recurring villain theme, however, and that's the archnemesis to a superhero. Not that it makes for a good story development overall, but it serves its purpose in that specific genre.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's unlikely and serves no purpose. I've been around a long time, read hundreds of books, watched hundreds of films and tv series, and played hundreds of games. I can't think of a single instance where a recurring villain wasn't damaging to the story. If you wanna introduce a fanatic and powerful follower that plans on resurrecting the defeated BBEG, that's fine. But don't just do it and bring the bad guy back for round 2, that makes for a poor story. Instead, let the PCs hear about this nefarious plan, and have them set out to thwart it. Introducing an entirely new goal and a fresh face for the BBEG is far better than repeating the same thing again.

There is one notable exception to the recurring villain theme, however, and that's the archnemesis to a superhero. Not that it makes for a good story development overall, but it serves its purpose in that specific genre.

... my only conclusion is that you must have some irrational hatred for the concept in general, honestly. :|

[Deepbluediver]

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's unlikely and serves no purpose. I've been around a long time, read hundreds of books, watched hundreds of films and tv series, and played hundreds of games. I can't think of a single instance where a recurring villain wasn't damaging to the story.

What about Sauron from LotR? He gets the hurt laid down on him, like, half a dozen times, and keeps coming back in another form.


There is one notable exception to the recurring villain theme, however, and that's the archnemesis to a superhero. Not that it makes for a good story development overall, but it serves its purpose in that specific genre.

I think there's a difference between "recurring villian" and an enemy who comes back from the dead or as an encore.

A recurring villian is the same guy showing up week after week, often with only slightly altered schemes, against whom you never really achieve anything conclusive. Such an enemy WOULD likely get annoying for an adventuring party, unless it was somehow tied into the plot; i.e. the POINT of the campaign is not beating the BBEG, but to find a way to keep him from getting back up.

In D&D, a repeat villian can take at least one of two paths without being overdone or repetative: he shows up briefly, cackles about revenge, and then gets curbstompted by the party because they've been leveling up while's he's been wormchow. This can go along way towards showing character growth, particularly if this villian was some one who used to be a major threat.

The second idea is for the same villian to come back with a new face and/or new powers. He might have the same overall goal, but this time with a hate-on for the party. So the confrontation might end up being much more personal and dangerous, because the BBEG is willing to make sacrifices or utilize resources he wasn't the first time around.

[Scarce]

The difference between a game and non-interactive media is, unsurprisingly, that the PCs have the power to change how things play out. A three-act narrative arc is great for structuring a story told by one person, but a game needs more freedom.


Well I thought through the three act narrative as a means to have a few big quests, space out the leveling up, and throw in a bunch of smaller quests in the middle of the big ones, without detracting from the larger goals.

Each act is a (mostly) separate quest with different important locations and NPCs and for the most part, I have them thought out roughly to act as separate books in a recurring series. Unless the PCs manage to do something so drastic I need to rewrite my maps, I don't think laying out these quests on paper ahead of time (to ensure I can get through everything in the allotted time for the campaign) is a poor idea.

Moreover, I take this idea in a slightly different iteration from the great and powerful Chris Perkinks of Wizards. He writes a fantastic article on dungeon mastering called the Dungeon Master Experience. To read a great one, go here:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20121018

[Venger]

[3.5, btw]

As a newish DM, I've seen my fair share of dungeon crawling, traps, and monsters. For my players, some crave roleplay, others to create cool minis, and other still, to fight challenging encounters. For me, D&D is a storytelling output. My question is, how far can I let the story control the world before players start feeling claustrophobic?

Example: An upcoming session will mark the end of Act 1 of 3 in this summer campaign. By the end, the players, who are en route to the current BBEG should find and "kill" him (no good BBEG dies for real :smallwink:)

As they are traveling by water and I feel that a race against the clock provides some dramatic tension, I was going to deprive them of their ship by means of Kraken (well over their expected CR, but will leave them alive) and strand them on a desert island.

Herein lies my quandary: I know I will provide them with at least one way out in the form of a mysterious magical stranger that can make a bargain with them (ultimately at the cost of one character's paladinhood.)


If they don't take that option?

How else to give them options, as they have no wizard and very limited other casting?

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Is using this as a very free-form puzzle better, when I'm not sure how I would get off the island?

Is using the too-high CR Kraken to control the situation evil as a DM?

How would a more experienced DM attack this problem?


this is applicable regardless of system. The only question you really need to ask yourself is:

"Will the outcome of the story change depending on my players' choices?"

if the answer is no, you are railroading too much. If the answer is yes, you (probably) don't need to worry (at least not about railroading)

I'll reply to the rest of your post in sequence:

if you have decided the outcome of the fight before your PCs have even had it, then what's the point of them even bothering? you've said that their actions will not have any bearing on whether they kill the kraken or not.

also: what is the breakdown of your party? what lvl, classes, etc. I ask because the kraken may be a fat wall of HP, but isn't much of difficult fight if you fight it smart.

have your PCs paid gp or otherwise invested resources into their ship? I paid essentially all my WBL for my ship early in the game and was royally pissed off when my DM took it out of commission via hurricane with no save or opportunity to intervene. if you're dead set on railroading them to the island you want the story to take place on, make sure the ship is able to be repaired when the adventure is over, even if it's too damaged to sail away on right away.

mysterious magical stranger = NPC playing the game instead of your players. do not do this.

I agree with the crowd about the "paladin falls" conversation. it will only end in tears.

knowing the party's class breakdown, level, and levels of experience/system mastery will let us know whether they can punch above their weight or not. depending on what people play as, you might not need to make the fight easier

providing limited options (accept NPCs request to fight the boss for you or not) is not railroading. providing no options (NPC is the only way the party can beat the boss) is railroading.

freeform is how to play this game. if you have one plan in mind, the game transforms from D&D into "guess what the DM is thinking" and that's not a fun game for anyone, so don't worry about it. if the party comes up with something that make sense, let them do it.

the kraken isn't "evil" it's just sort of clumsy. here are your possible outcomes here (assuming that your party is very low level, playing weak classes, or inexperienced with the system)

1) the kraken kills someone (or someones) with a lucky roll and it sticks. players are upset at having an unwinnable challenge
2) kraken kills someone and you say it didn't count or otherwise retcon it. players are upset at not having any real element of risk and realize the combat encounter is pointless

if the combat is unimportant (you've decided they'll lose and that they won't get hurt) then just remove it. if you want them to get to the island, do this:

as an experienced DM, I would ask myself why the PCs are looking for the end boss IC. are they seeking him out for personal revenge? are they killing him for a bounty? etc. would they be likely to respond to clues left behind? could they find wreckage from his ship? does he always travel with a lieutenant or use a particular kind of uniform for his henchmen? would the party investigate if they see a bunch of wreckage and corpses leading in the same direction towards the island? would they think "boss is wounded and cut off from resources, now would be a good time to move in and kill him while he's starving to death and half-mad with sunstroke on this island" or are your players the type to think "maybe he is setting a trap for us" and to proceed cautiously (divining on the island, etc) before moving in?

this would yield the same result (players are on the island looking for the boss) but the choice would be theirs.

any of the info I asked for will help me give more specific advice

[Fitz10019]

Some immobile undead-repelling macguffin is on the island. The locals depend on it to keep the drowned undead away. The mysterious stranger tells the paladin how to turn it off (making it non-repellent and mobile) and on again (returning it repellent and immobile). What to do? Which innocents to protect?

It's not just pallys that should be debating this. And it's no reason to make the pally fall.

[Keneth]

... my only conclusion is that you must have some irrational hatred for the concept in general, honestly. :|

It's a completely rational dislike of the concept. :smallconfused:


What about Sauron from LotR?

The funny thing about Sauron is that he was made a recurring villain retroactively, and I'm not entirely sure if that was a good idea. Plus he was one of the Maiar, living for thousands of years, so he represents something more than just a simple villain. I'm fine with there being villains that can't truly be destroyed, but ultimately there should only be one fight with them in any single story. The Fellowship didn't confront Sauron once in every book either. Nor did Sauron come back every two months to nag the people of Middle Earth.

My "every good villain dies" remark should probably have a footnote that says "unless they're immortal and sleep for centuries between attempts to destroy/enslave reality". There's nothing wrong with fighting Cthulhu in multiple campaigns, so long as he stays defeated for a good long time.


A recurring villian is the same guy showing up week after week, often with only slightly altered schemes, against whom you never really achieve anything conclusive. Such an enemy WOULD likely get annoying for an adventuring party, unless it was somehow tied into the plot; i.e. the POINT of the campaign is not beating the BBEG, but to find a way to keep him from getting back up.

Ugh, the villain that just won't die is the worst kind of recurring villain, especially if he keeps pestering the heroes. It's ok if you want to introduce a MacGuffin to defeat an invincible foe, but he should stay down once you do, and there should really only be one meaningful encounter with them.


In D&D, a repeat villian can take one of two paths without being overdone or repetative: he shows up briefly, cackles about revenge, and then gets curbstompted by the party because they've been leveling up while's he's been wormchow. This can go along way towards showing character growth, particularly if this villian was some one who used to be a major threat.

Why would you want that? The villain would have to be extremely likable for this to be good idea. And at this point they don't really count as a villain anymore, they're just a recurring character used for little more than comic relief. If you want character growth, it's generally a better idea to redeem the villain (at least to the point where they're not bent on unleashing hell anymore). Hardly a novel idea, but allows the character to stick around and doesn't rob the players of their sense of completion.


The second idea is for the same villian to come back with a new face and/or new powers. He might have the same overall goal, but this time with a hate-on for the party. So the confrontation might end up being much more personal and dangerous, because the BBEG is willing to make sacrifices or utilize resources he wasn't the first time around.

Yes, but this smells horribly of DM fiat. The villain that comes back stronger for no good reason is only slightly better than the villain that just won't die. This sort of works mid-combat, it's alright to pull a One-Winged Angel with the boss, but I see no reason why you need to bring a villain back from the dead once the fight is done. If you want to make things more personal, have the players ruin the BBEG's plans without ever confronting him directly. Of course then you also shouldn't dangle him in front of the players' noses, otherwise you haven't really improved the situation.

[chainer1216]

[3.5, btw]

As a newish DM, I've seen my fair share of dungeon crawling, traps, and monsters. For my players, some crave roleplay, others to create cool minis, and other still, to fight challenging encounters. For me, D&D is a storytelling output. My question is, how far can I let the story control the world before players start feeling claustrophobic?

Example: An upcoming session will mark the end of Act 1 of 3 in this summer campaign. By the end, the players, who are en route to the current BBEG should find and "kill" him (no good BBEG dies for real :smallwink:)

As they are traveling by water and I feel that a race against the clock provides some dramatic tension, I was going to deprive them of their ship by means of Kraken (well over their expected CR, but will leave them alive) and strand them on a desert island.

Herein lies my quandary: I know I will provide them with at least one way out in the form of a mysterious magical stranger that can make a bargain with them (ultimately at the cost of one character's paladinhood.)


If they don't take that option?

How else to give them options, as they have no wizard and very limited other casting?

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Is using this as a very free-form puzzle better, when I'm not sure how I would get off the island?

Is using the too-high CR Kraken to control the situation evil as a DM?

How would a more experienced DM attack this problem?



*head exploding rage*

[nedz]

Some further comments:

Desert islands are boring, ones you can't get off doubly so.
So make the island interesting.

You could do something like:


Put some ruins in the middle of the island.
Listen to the player's comments taking note of anything they seem enthusiastic about.
End the session (Insert a 'random' beach encounter if necessary)
Add some twists to their ideas.
Write the ruins up as an adventure based on the player's input.
Run it.


Note: 3) is unnecessary if you can adlib

[dascarletm]

It's a completely rational dislike of the concept. :smallconfused:


I'm curious, but would you dislike this concept.

The party-face (Given this is a Warhammer40k RT game, but could be don in DnD.) is a noble of sorts. His family was once great, and his father was completely wrecked politically/religiously to the point that to save what was left of his he had to go into hiding and give everything to his son (the PC). The house that destroyed them was a bitter rival, and had a son roughly the same age as the PC, who is an arrogant punk. yadda yadda yadda... they are now rivals, and the NPC (I'll call him Geller) is now in a sense the biggest villain. They have come into conflict, both of which have come to public duels as the climax of the story arch.

The first: pistols. Both shot, the NPC missed and the PC hit the NPC, but not for enough to kill him. With honor satisfied they had to go their separate ways, and though the PC won what they were fighting over the NPC lived.

The second: swords. The fight was fairly long, and at the end of the player's round Geller was knocked to negative HP but not dead (critical damage in RT). On his turn Geller's bodyguard called off the duel surrendering for his master interposing himself between Geller and the PC. The PC could of finished him off, but would of been breaking the law so decided not to.

The NPC will probably be coming back at them a third time in a couple of sessions directly opposing them with full force now that they have scorned him twice.

I would call this a recurring villain, would you, if you were a player, dislike a scenario such as this?

[Keneth]

I would call this a recurring villain, would you, if you were a player, dislike a scenario such as this?

Is he a villain though? As I see it, he's just a rival to one of the characters, and getting rid of him was never the point of the encounters (or the campaign). Ultimately, I would expect to kill him in the third encounter, or at least defeat him in a way that won't result in him coming after me again. If he did pick another fight after that, I would start to get seriously annoyed. At that point, it's no longer fun, and I don't see it contributing to the story in any meaningful way. The character has outgrown his rival and should be moving on to fight tyranids (or whatever the next step in his career is).

[Jerthanis]

Essentially the litmus test for Railroading is that the PCs have options, and selection between options has concrete effects on the world they inhabit.

For instance, you could have them get word that they need to get to X location quickly, but tell them that location lies across the sea and through waters rumored to be inhabited by sea monsters. Now they're presented with a choice between sailing through Monster Infested Waters to get where they need to go quickly (leading to an encounter with a Krakken), or they can take the way across the sea avoiding the monster infested area to arrive on the target continent and go the rest of the way on land, leading to other flavors of adventures.

Now, if they choose to risk sea monster attack and as a direct result they have a 100% chance to get in a fight with a Krakken, that's not railroading. In the Krakken fight they should have more options than just "Flee/Lose/Get Shipwrecked", they should be able to wound the Krakken such that it retreats, leaving the ship fatally wounded and bound for the island for repairs, but the blood in the water attracts sharks and those who were tossed overboard die... or they can help people to lifeboats and save a larger percentage of the crew, or they can launch a lifeboat and flee selfishly and maybe avoid shipwreck entirely depending on their nautical abilities. The party makeup, abilities and choices form the story around them, rather than simply progress the story in a linear directly.

Finally, they're on the island (or they're on a lifeboat, or they're becalmed on the injured ship bereft a large portion of the crew) and a mysterious figure approaches and offers a deal that would require the Paladin lose his Paladinhood. This can't be the only way off the island, but it CAN be the fastest. Perhaps the mysterious NPC tells of a loved one in peril back in civilization, and that they can save this loved one if they do something evil for the mysterious stranger.

Putting a Paladin in this position is a bad idea since you're cutting away his class features or his character's goals by putting him in a no-win situation. However, if you assure him that Redemption is available eventually or that the loved one is merely in danger, or both, you can mitigate the negative aspects of this. Remember that Paladin is kind of a terrible class even WITH its class features intact.

Essentially, you don't want the game to have one and only one possible sequence of events and choices, but you can have all paths they choose lead to SOMETHING interesting.

[Talya]

Ugh. I completely disagree. I hate it when a continuing series kills off a good villain. I want the Joker to keep coming back. Loki is never supposed to be gone for good. Think of how awful it would have been had Whedon killed off Spike while he was still a bad guy? The only time it is okay for such a character to die, is when the series is done.

For good.

While it's okay to have several different threats over the course of a campaign, if you do have an overarching plot, the best time to permanently kill the BBEG, is at the very end of the campaign, where he will no longer matter.

[BowStreetRunner]

Ugh. I completely disagree. I hate it when a continuing series kills off a good villain. I want the Joker to keep coming back. Loki is never supposed to be gone for good. Think of how awful it would have been had Whedon killed off Spike while he was still a bad guy? The only time it is okay for such a character to die, is when the series is done.

For good.

While it's okay to have several different threats over the course of a campaign, if you do have an overarching plot, the best time to permanently kill the BBEG, is at the very end of the campaign, where he will no longer matter.

Besides, the ultimate accomplishment for the good guys should never be to kill off the bad guy. Sure, you can dust yourself off and say 'job well done' if you do, but it's still no more than a B+ performance on your final exam. If you really want to earn an A, you have to redeem the bad guy and win him back to the side of good!

[Kyberwulf]

Sea turtles, mate. Savvy?

[Flickerdart]

Besides, the ultimate accomplishment for the good guys should never be to kill off the bad guy. Sure, you can dust yourself off and say 'job well done' if you do, but it's still no more than a B+ performance on your final exam. If you really want to earn an A, you have to redeem the bad guy and win him back to the side of good!
Disagree. The ultimate accomplishment is letting the BBEG live and watch helplessly as you replace him and earn everything that you denied him.

[georgie_leech]

Disagree. The ultimate accomplishment is letting the BBEG live and watch helplessly as you replace him and earn everything that you denied him.

Eh, either way the BBEG ends up on the same side of the heroes and not in a commanding role.

[Mutazoia]

[3.5, btw]

As a newish DM, I've seen my fair share of dungeon crawling, traps, and monsters. For my players, some crave roleplay, others to create cool minis, and other still, to fight challenging encounters. For me, D&D is a storytelling output. My question is, how far can I let the story control the world before players start feeling claustrophobic?

Example: An upcoming session will mark the end of Act 1 of 3 in this summer campaign. By the end, the players, who are en route to the current BBEG should find and "kill" him (no good BBEG dies for real :smallwink:)

As they are traveling by water and I feel that a race against the clock provides some dramatic tension, I was going to deprive them of their ship by means of Kraken (well over their expected CR, but will leave them alive) and strand them on a desert island.

Herein lies my quandary: I know I will provide them with at least one way out in the form of a mysterious magical stranger that can make a bargain with them (ultimately at the cost of one character's paladinhood.)


If they don't take that option?

How else to give them options, as they have no wizard and very limited other casting?

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Is using this as a very free-form puzzle better, when I'm not sure how I would get off the island?

Is using the too-high CR Kraken to control the situation evil as a DM?

How would a more experienced DM attack this problem?


Hokay.... after skimming the other replies I'll ad my 2cp to the fray....

1. Don't deprive them of the ship...simply have the Kraken damage the ship which must now put into the island for repairs. The party is in a race agains the clock so they can:
a) Wait for the ship to be repaired, knowing full well that this has a high probability of not getting them to the BBEG in time.
b) Encounter your moral dilema but reworked a bit. On the island we find a tribe of savages who worship a strange idol up on the mountain in the center of the island. Thrust into the base of the idol is your sword. It has all the features and benefits it would have if you went with the "pally has to murder a guy to get it" plan. However... either by deciphering the runes on the idol or by talking to the old witch doctor they learn that the sword is a seal keeping a terrible dark force trapped within the idol. The sword would make the fight with the BBEG a LOT easier but taking it will unleash terrible dark force and pretty much wipe out the savages to the last man woman and child. (Not to mention the sailors repairing the ship.) The PC's would probably be able to survive long enough to make their escape but if they stay and try to fight it, they're toast. The Pally shouldn't want to play "the sword in the stone" and reduce the population of the island to zero plus some nameless, shapeless evil. The rest of the party might not really care, especially if they had to wade through a sea of savages to get to the idol. (Have the savages try to scare the party off of "holy ground" before attacking to give the pally some moral ammo.) If your party doesn't yank the sword and makes nice with the savages, the old witch doctor can lead them to another magic item hidden on the island (as kind of a "good riddance to bad rubbage" solution to the PC's)...give them a folding boat (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Folding_Boat) left behind by the hero that sealed the evil in the idol.

[nedz]

Sea turtles, mate. Savvy?

Nice one.
There's always the big hat too.

[GoddessSune]

[3.5, btw]My question is, how far can I let the story control the world before players start feeling claustrophobic?

Herein lies my quandary: I know I will provide them with at least one way out in the form of a mysterious magical stranger that can make a bargain with them (ultimately at the cost of one character's paladinhood.)

Does providing them some limited options limit the players too much and railroad the plot?

Wow, wow, wow....ok, as a newbie DM let me say that you are setting off on the way wrong road. And you should note my criticism as I'm way, way, way on the other side compared to 95% of the rest of the gamers. I'm an Unfair Hardcore Old School Killer DM to say the least. I'm of the ''you fall through a trap door and through a portal...into The Abyss...into a lake of acid...surrounded by acidborn fendish sharks..with lightning bolt wands on their heads'' or ''As you attempt to teleport into the demon's castle you trigger the teleport ward's translocation shift and are shot away across seven planes of existence and finally slam into a mountain side in The Beastlands.''

But I would never do the type of thing you mentioned doing to the paladin player. To attack that player just as they are a paladin for some odd reason of your own....is wrong. Now I love moral, ethical and such twists, and when my characters are not dying they get tons of them...but your doing it the wrong way. You doing it in the way that will make no player ever want to be a paladin again, or even want to game with you again.

Just look at your idea: Group is trapped on an island. There is only one way off the island. And that one way requires that the player of the paladin be punished and have their character ruined and made useless. Unless the player does not want to do that and they just sit on the island until the end of time or the player just says ''fine DM if you want to ruin my paladin he just kills himself and I'll just make a fighter character.'' And then you though it would be fun for the next couple of games to have the useless not a paladin character not do much. Have him just endlessly say ''To bad the DM ruined my character or I could do something..sigh guess I'll swing my sword''.

Having the player ruin his character by a no choice plot, is wrong. Even I would never do that....and I'm hardcore. The way to 'get' a paladin is the classic: evil is easy, good is hard. You have problem A. There is an easy way to fix it, and a hard way. The easy way is evil and the hard is good.....but it's always tempting to do the easy path. Example: The Prophecy says that the evil dragon god will be reborn this night and eventually destroy the world. Easy way to stop him: kill every dragon hatching born that night(evil). Hard way:find the evil dragon god hatching and try and raise him right and convince him his ways are wrong.

You should almost never give players ''just one choice''. The minimum for me is about three.

[Regitnui]

You should almost never give players ''just one choice''. The minimum for me is about three.

And on top of that, be open to whatever plan the players come up with. You say you can a) accept the entity's offer and lose a paladin, b) repair the ship of the course of weeks or c) explore the island and find the device that'll make your objective easier. Great.

Now your ranger character starts walking along the beach searching for a turtle nest. "What are you doing?" you ask. The player replies "I'm going to train the sea turtles to tow a raft." That's not one of the options you thought of. Don't clamp down on the player's creativity, let them find a sea turtle nest and start rolling Handle Animal checks.

And if that actually works, let the party rejoice in making an obscure joke from a pirate movie actually help. Restrictions breed Creativity, but there's no need to stifle original thought just because 'it isn't done that way'.

[Keneth]

I want the Joker to keep coming back. Loki is never supposed to be gone for good.

Loki and Joker are both arch-nemeses to superheroes. As mentioned on the previous page, I see that a category of its own, and while it doesn't make for a good and realistic story as a whole, the plot device serves its purpose in that specific genre because superheroes need to be counterbalanced and the individual stories are mostly self-contained.


Think of how awful it would have been had Whedon killed off Spike while he was still a bad guy? The only time it is okay for such a character to die, is when the series is done.

William is the perfect example of a redeemed villain and his journey towards becoming truly good. While generally bad throughout most of the series, I didn't really see him as an actual villain after the second season. He's also pretty amiable, despite being up to bad things at the start. If he wasn't, I'd be perfectly fine with him being killed by Buffy.


While it's okay to have several different threats over the course of a campaign, if you do have an overarching plot, the best time to permanently kill the BBEG, is at the very end of the campaign, where he will no longer matter.

It's also best if the only time a real encounter with the BBEG happens is at the end of the campaign. If you kill/defeat him six times over the course of the campaign, and he keeps coming back stronger, you're doing it wrong. Unless you're playing in DBZ universe and he's Vegeta. :smallbiggrin:

[Raineh Daze]

It's also best if the only time a real encounter with the BBEG happens is at the end of the campaign. If you kill/defeat him six times over the course of the campaign, and he keeps coming back stronger, you're doing it wrong. Unless you're playing in DBZ universe and he's Vegeta. :smallbiggrin:

It just means you have a villain as stubborn and determined as the heroes, that's all. Evil is allowed its virtues.

[Keneth]

It's unrealistic for a villain to always come ahead of the heroes after being defeated. Tenaciousness has nothing to do with it. And even if he somehow manages to do that, what could a story possibly gain by you letting him be defeated before the final encounter? I can think of exactly zero reasons why that would be a good idea.

[Regitnui]

It just means you have a villain as stubborn and determined as the heroes, that's all. Evil is allowed its virtues.

An amateur mistake that most people make, whether writing or DMing, is to make the villain and even the BBEG obstacles or an objective rather than a character. Having a 'Sauron'-type sitting in a tower somewhere sending armies to assault enemy castles is all well and good, but that's far less memorable than the 'rival'-type villain or the 'aggressive'-type who actively antagonizes the PCs as well as setting his own plans in motion. I'd much rather have the PCs take issue with the villain because he outsmarted them rather than because he's kicking puppies in a far-off land.

EDIT: Keneth, you're reminding me of a puppy on loose gravel, scrambling constantly to stay where he is while ending up with nothing but sore paws.

There's every benefit to having a BBEG show up personally before the final battle. If he's defeated ahead of schedule, fine. Roll with it. If he uses an escape plan, great.

The problem would be bringing back the BBEG after the Very Definitely Final Dungeon. If the DM says the BBEG is permanently gone, then he's gone. Bringing back permanently defeated villains is bad. Recurring villains aren't. There is a distinction.

[Keneth]

You're trying to make an argument, but you provide not a single good reason how bringing back a dead or defeated villain benefits the story. Not only does it screw with the pacing, the sorting algorithm of evil, and the verisimilitude of the story, but it invalidates a well deserved win for the heroes and generally makes them look like idiots. There is no benefit to a villain being defeated midway, unless you plan on transforming him into something different.

[Raineh Daze]

You're trying to make an argument, but you provide not a single good reason how bringing back a dead or defeated villain benefits the story.


Not only does it screw with the pacing,

Not really. Pacing is a mutable thing. Heroes can take time off, thinking their job done. There is no causal link between a recurring villain and bad pacing.


the sorting algorithm of evil,

The heroes can rise above their initial station. So can villains. Especially those motivated by something other than maximum possible gain. The sorting algorithm of evil is utterly ridiculous to take as a holy guide to story-writing, because the world apparently tailors itself to the heroes in that case.

Where are all the people vastly stronger and weaker than them?


and the verisimilitude of the story,

So does everyone you ever defeated once staying out of the world for good. Unless every plotline ends in complete annihilation of the villain, there is a way for them to be back.

And if you defeated someone once, you're more likely to defeat them again--either because you're the only one that can do it or because they have it out for you. Such things happen in real life. They're called grudges.


but it invalidates a well deserved win for the heroes and generally makes them look like idiots.

"Congratulations! You prevented Villain McEvil from completing the ritual to obtain infinite power! ... you did make sure to get his leading followers, right?"

Then Villain McEvil comes back for revenge because they messed up his master plan. The heroes' efforts aren't invalidated, they just weren't quite as finished as the thought.

And there's this thing called ontological intertia. There are quite a lot of cases where the problem won't just go away because you took out the leader, so assuming they will and not cleaning things up is a way to facilitate a recurring villain.


There is no benefit to a villain being defeated midway, unless you plan on transforming him into something different.

Sense of progress. Change of plot to something more personal. Giving the heroes an enemy that personally has it in for them.

In short: you're wrong.

[Agincourt]

Bringing back a villain from the dead can add to the verisimilitude of the story. It's just internally consistent for a world where resurrection/reincarnation is not hard to come by. There's no reason a henchman would not attempt to bring their trusted leader back from the dead.

I've been reading this discussion passively, Keneth, and most of your reasons seem to come back to "it robs the players of their victory." However, if a DM is allowing the players to feel like they thwarted the villain and kept him from taking control, then the players should feel like the accomplished something.

[Barstro]

Think of how awful it would have been had Whedon killed off Spike while he was still a bad guy?

Spike was minor at the time.

Think of how awful it would have been if Whedon HADN'T killed off that stupid kid from the bus accident. He was supposed to be BBEG at the time.

[Kyberwulf]

I don't buy into bringing back villains is a bad thing. Why shouldn't you? In a world where you have raise dead, resurrection, wishes and Gods. Why shouldn't there be a contingency for dying? Why are the PC's the only one with that ability. Why wouldn't they have minions or loved ones that would want to bring them back? Why wouldn't they perform a function of a god, and the god bring them back to do their evil bidding?

[Keneth]

Not really. Pacing is a mutable thing. Heroes can take time off, thinking their job done. There is no causal link between a recurring villain and bad pacing.

Every good story has good pacing, it's the job of the one telling the story to ensure that much. Having a recurring villain is like throwing a wrench in the gears.


The sorting algorithm of evil is utterly ridiculous to take as a holy guide to story-writing, because the world apparently tailors itself to the heroes in that case.

D&D is specifically designed to tailor itself to the heroes. Encounters that fall from the sorting algorithm are generally speaking only used as foreshadowing and for setting the tone. I fully support an evolving villain, but if that villain gets defeated prematurely, he falls out of the race, and since he's not part of the algorithm, his entire setup no longer poses a threat because the heroes don't just stop after that (at least not in a story with good pacing).


Such things happen in real life. They're called grudges.

Granted, and revenge is a powerful thing. I suppose it was unfair to imply that verisimilitude is only affected by one extreme.


"Congratulations! You prevented Villain McEvil from completing the ritual to obtain infinite power! ... you did make sure to get his leading followers, right?"

Then Villain McEvil comes back for revenge because they messed up his master plan. The heroes' efforts aren't invalidated, they just weren't quite as finished as the thought.

There are endless ways of bringing a villain back after their demise. "Sorry, you missed that one small detail," works for as long as DM wants to play that card. And it does invalidate the heroes' efforts. How could it possibly not? Especially if the villain comes back stronger, which is really the only way he remains relevant.

Ontological inertia just means that dismantling the villain's plans takes more effort than simply killing the villain. If the PCs ignore that fact, then they really are idiots, and should face the consequences. I still don't see that as a good excuse to bring the villain back when there's a plethora of other options there.


Sense of progress. Change of plot to something more personal. Giving the heroes an enemy that personally has it in for them.

How is it progress when you're stuck having to defeat the same guy all over again? If anything it ruins any sense of progress. And if you want to make things more personal, there are far better ways of going about it. I mean are you seriously going to argue that being killed by the heroes is a good way for a villain to take special notice of them? No villain is that self-absorbed.


Bringing back a villain from the dead can add to the verisimilitude of the story. It's just internally consistent for a world where resurrection/reincarnation is not hard to come by.

In a world where you have raise dead, resurrection, wishes and Gods. Why shouldn't there be a contingency for dying?

You're focusing on the how, rather than the why. As mentioned, the DM can do this indefinitely. So the question is, how many times should you repeat this? My opinion is: Don't do it in the first place. At least not without the heroes having any say in it. I see it as being damaging to the story in every way.

[Raineh Daze]

*SUBJECTIVE STUFF*

This is going on way too far: it's something like eight or nine people now that have told you that recurring villains aren't necessarily bad, given examples, and explained how they can be. Either accept you're wrong or just stop insisting that a villain coming back even once somehow ruins the entire story. Heroes are not 100% successful and should not be omnipotent superbeings that never make any mistakes when defeating someone. :smallannoyed:


D&D is specifically designed to tailor itself to the heroes. Encounters that fall from the sorting algorithm are generally speaking only used as foreshadowing and for setting the tone. I fully support an evolving villain, but if that villain gets defeated prematurely, he falls out of the race, and since he's not part of the algorithm, his entire setup no longer poses a threat because the heroes don't just stop after that (at least not in a story with good pacing).

Also, this is just plain wrong. Yes, D&D encounters can be tailored to the exact party, but that doesn't mean entire world and campaigns should be set up such that the heroes can beat anything they choose to fight; that's appalling writing.

And being defeated once does not mean that they're no longer a threat. You are somehow jumping from 'villain is defeated' to 'villain is erased from existence'. You are, for some reason, ruling out entire narrative devices for no reason other than 'I think they're bad for a story'.

[Kyberwulf]

Why shouldn't you?

Why should the players have any say in it at all?

Why should it be damaging to the story?

Isn't the most common complaint amongst players, is that the GM has a story at all? Isn't any pretext of a story, "Railroading"?

Besides, you need a good Villain. One that has plots and schemes. Trying to come up with a new villain for every campaign seems silly. After you kill so many villains, they just seem random most of the time. After a couple bouts, they all just end up being the same bag guy in a different bodysuit. Having a good villain leads to continuity. Over using the villain is bad, yes.
Having a villain, leads to some interesting stories. It breed familiarity. It lets the players know they have an effect on the word, and that the world goes on with or without their actions. Also, it also shows that there is a problem with always just solving everything with hack n slash. If you don't put any thought in how to actually dealing with the problems, it can come back to haunt you.

[RFLS]

Disagree. The ultimate accomplishment is letting the BBEG live and watch helplessly as you replace him and earn everything that you denied him.

Ran an artificer once who did roughly this. However, he realized early on that the best way to retain power was to maintain a happy populace that would self-maintain the illusion of self-choice and personal power. So...I kinda recreated Fahrenheit 451. That session ended the campaign.

[graymachine]

Greater than or equal to 10 GigaGygaxes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ Keneth, Raineh Daze, and others:

You realize you're all arguing opinion, right?

The recurring villian, however you define it, is a literary tool. It's neither inherently good or bad. Whether it becomes good or bad is a matter of taste and execution.

You're all wrong, since you're telling someone their opinion is invalid, but you're all right at the same time since you're actually just talking about what floats your individual boats. Opinion's funny that way.

[Raineh Daze]

@ Keneth, Raineh Daze, and others:

You realize you're all arguing opinion, right?

The recurring villian, however you define it, is a literary tool. It's neither inherently good or bad. Whether it becomes good or bad is a matter of taste and execution.

You're all wrong, since you're telling someone their opinion is invalid, but you're all right at the same time since you're actually just talking about what floats your individual boats. Opinion's funny that way.

I'm arguing that they're a literary tool that's neither good nor bad, though. Basically, Keneth is trying to argue that they're never good, ever, except for some reason where superheroes are involved. So no, I'm not arguing opinion, I'm arguing what you're saying. >_>

Albeit by providing examples where a recurring villain works because that is the only way to definitively prove 'it's always bad' wrong. ._.

[Regitnui]

Every good story has good pacing, it's the job of the one telling the story to ensure that much. Having a recurring villain is like throwing a wrench in the gears.

Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty.
Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort.
Sometimes the interaction between the heroes and villains sets the pacing. Voldemort is a recurring villain and his appearances throughout the series are the beat by which the pace of the plot is set.

-Philosopher's Stone: Rumours and hearsay lead to the villain's introduction in a weakened form/proxy

-Chamber of Secrets: The villain attacks the hero personally and with force.

-Prisoner of Azkaban: The effects of the villain's plots deny the hero something valued.

-Goblet of Fire: The villain strikes again, in his full power and nearly killing the hero but for a twist of fate.

-Order of the Phoenix: The hero now actively fights the villain, culminating in an accidental defeat of the villain

-Half-Blood Prince: Everything the hero has held to dearly is turned upside down. Things are now deadly serious.

-Deathly Hallows: The villain is a constant and menacing presence, and the villain's end is a memorable and definitive event in the history of the world.

How, I ask you with tears in my myopic hazel eyes, does the recurring villain ruin the plot or make the series less interesting than a series of villains?


Ontological inertia just means that dismantling the villain's plans takes more effort than simply killing the villain. If the PCs ignore that fact, then they really are idiots, and should face the consequences. I still don't see that as a good excuse to bring the villain back when there's a plethora of other options there.

Ontological inertia is not a good reason to bring a villain back from the dead in a world where a hero's friends will make sure Death is Cheap?

The villain has access to everything than the PCs do and more. That is precisely why they're a threat to the world and why only the PCs can stop them. If he could be stopped by being killed, why don't the king's wizards drop a meteor on his hideout? Why have the people of the land been forced to recruit 4-6 ragtag heroes to destroy a villain they could overwhelm by sheer numbers?

[Mando Knight]

Every paladin should take a lesson from Kirk, and not believe in the no-win scenario.
The TOS Kirk, by the way, not the JJ-Trek Kirk. I don't hate the films (Into Darkness was an enjoyable action-adventure flick), but the original Kirk was a passionate yet intelligent captain who weighed his options and respected the value of the law and the repercussions of illegal actions, knowing that the fate of his crew and ship was always on his shoulders, acting boldly even in defiance of the rules when required, but taking responsibility for his actions when they turn sour. The reboot Kirk is a clever but reckless womanizer who was promoted far too quickly, and has no regard for the rules or greater consequences, especially when his closest friends are endangered.

The former is a decent guide for anyone who wants to be a heroic leader and can even function as a role model for a Paladin (note: even after the Klingons killed his son, he worked towards a peaceful resolution with them, while grappling with his own prejudices), while the latter is an impulsive adolescent who has his heart in the right place (probably) but needs to mature before he's ready for the responsibilities of the command he's assumed.

[Mutazoia]

Why have the people of the land been forced to recruit 4-6 ragtag heroes to destroy a villain they could overwhelm by sheer numbers?

What do 10,000 zero level pesants do the moment they reach the magically locked gates to the BBEG's lair?

Peasant 1: Hmmmm....didn't see that comming....
Peasant 2: Anybody know how to dispel magic?
Peasant 3: I have 4 levels in "Harvest wheat!"
Peasant 2: Shut up Fred.

[Mutazoia]

Opinion's funny that way.

Opinions are like rear ends...every body has one...and you always get into trouble for sharing yours in public...

[Kyberwulf]

Not always. Sometimes you can show rear ends in public. Like during Marti Grais. Or .. women can show their rear ends, on the beach with certain kind of swimwear.

Just saying, in certain situations.

[Talya]

Not always. Sometimes you can show rear ends in public. Like during Marti Grais. Or .. women can show their rear ends, on the beach with certain kind of swimwear.

Just saying, in certain situations.

I like you.

[Regitnui]

Peasant 1: Hmmmm....didn't see that comming....
Peasant 2: Anybody know how to dispel magic?
Peasant 3: I have 4 levels in "Harvest wheat!"
Peasant 2: Shut up Fred.

Peasant 1: Call the wizard's guild!
Wizard 1: We need three hundred wizards to take this down.
Wizard 2-300: Knock!
Lackey 1: (Opens door) Yes?
Peasant 1-1000: CHARGE!
BBEG: Oh, the slicing and the dicing and the owies!

Peasants aren't just human-shaped obstacles. They're intelligent human beings and I would like to think that they can at least figure out a basic military strategy.

[Mutazoia]

Peasant 1: Call the wizard's guild!
Wizard 1: We need three hundred wizards to take this down.
Wizard 2-300: Knock!
Lackey 1: (Opens door) Yes?
Peasant 1-1000: CHARGE!
BBEG: Oh, the slicing and the dicing and the owies!

Peasants aren't just human-shaped obstacles. They're intelligent human beings and I would like to think that they can at least figure out a basic military strategy.

Never been in the military have you? lol Groups of untrained individuals will react to a situation according to their own inpulses, not as a cohesive unit.

Whatch video's of the LA riots and see how organized the mob gets. Because that's all untrained people are...a Mob. A mob is a hive mind that is influnced by the basest ideas and emotions and strategy doesn't enter into the picture lol.

Besides if the BBEG could be taken down by 300 wizards there wouldn't be a campaign now would there? And "Lackey 1" opening the door is more likely to be the BBEG's pet dragon that says "Fricasseed peasant...my favorite! (NOM NOM NOM BURP)"

[Mando Knight]

Or hit a cloudkill trap. No save for the thousand-peasant army.