PDA

View Full Version : Annoying or Genius?



Talakeal
2013-06-23, 04:17 PM
So last night my game ran more or less without a problem*, until the final battle. They were attacking the laboratory of an evil priest, and during the final battle I mentioned that the laboratory included the skeleton of a very large and very long dead dragon. The party wizard decided to animate it, giving the PCs an incredibly powerful minion. Of course, the cleric, who was much more powerful than the wizard, simply took control of the undead dragon. As a result the fight turned into a three hour long brawl that nearly resulted in a TPK, making everyone end the session extremely tired and cranky.

I can't tell, was the wizard animating the dragon being annoying and trying to "cheat" the situation, or merely trying to play smart? Any ideas?




*Actually, there was one other situation that I should ask about. The party fought a band of savage raiders, and killed all of them but two, included amongst the dead was the clan's spiritual leader. They tracked the two back to their village, and the party scout watched the two relate the tale. One decided to stay at the village to protect the women, while the other led the men who were too young or too old to participate in the battle to go and reclaim the body of their spiritual leader for proper burial.

The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched. I explained that they were both terrified of the PCs and infuriated at the (seemingly unprovoked) murder of their spiritual leader and their sons / brothers / fathers. Besides if they surrender they are putting their wives and daughters in danger.

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

jindra34
2013-06-23, 04:21 PM
For the first: Mostly likely the player thought they had a super smart cunning plan. After all adding a nasty minion to the fight will always swing it to its controllers favor (there being the flaw they missed).
The second? I wouldn't have done anything different. If the players were grumpy about being the bad guys, well maybe they should have thought through the ramifications more. Or tried to talk.

BWR
2013-06-23, 04:50 PM
In the first case: I don't really understand the question? Are you annoyed that the wizard did it? Was the player trying to ruin your game? If you set out the situation, how can it be cheating for players and PCs to act on it?

In the second case: I think you need to get new players. If they see a group of obviously harmless people, then decide to ambush them, kill them and then blame you for not stopping them they need to get their heads out of their arses. Seriously.
Even if you failed to tell them in advance that these are not a threat, the moment you told them they could kill everyone without a roll, they should have understood the situation. Right now it sounds like they want to play play complete jerks but don't want to admit that they are jerks, both IC and OOC.

You know what you could do: send them over here to read all the responses to your posts, because it seems like every week or so you come up with a new horror story about these folks. If they can't understand what's wrong with them after all this, you are probably better off getting a new group or letting someone else run a game where there isn't a fundemental disconnect between players and DM.

Talakeal
2013-06-23, 05:12 PM
In the first case: I don't really understand the question? Are you annoyed that the wizard did it? Was the player trying to ruin your game? If you set out the situation, how can it be cheating for players and PCs to act on it?
.

Not "cheating" no. I am trying to figure out if using something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene to gain a huge tactical advantage is simply genius tactics that think outside the box, or trying to break the game by introducing elements that the GM didn't account for.


As for the second case, that would only make the problem worse. The "bad" players in my group don't care about being evil, it is the "good" players who actually care about their in character consequences and see the game as a virtual world rather than a mechanism to power up their characters.

tensai_oni
2013-06-23, 05:39 PM
Is this DnD? Everything from your description makes it sound like it's DnD so I will post assuming that's the case.

Controlling Undead works only if you have at least twice the hit dice of the undead in question. It's hardly something that breaks the encounter. I think the cleric acted smart by utilizing tools at his disposal. Assuming you didn't break any rules regarding either creating or controlling undead (another important assumption), it was a fair thing to do.

The non-combatant encounter could have been solved in so many other ways than just make everyone surrender or slaughter them. The players realize they could just retreat, seeing the other party is not going to give up to them, right? Or that they could find non-lethally, trying to disarm or subdue the opponents rather than killing them. Why did they want to attack a group of non-combatants in the first place? But regardless of their motivations, if they failed to realize these options, it was your duty as the game master to nudge them towards them. Make them aware of their existence.

But overall it sounds like your players feel entitled to have easy victories all the time and throw tantrums each time a complication occurs.

prufock
2013-06-23, 05:45 PM
1. You provided the PCs with a hammer and expected them not to drive a few nails. Using the tools available is not cheating the system. If he was able to do it, there's no reason to think that he wouldn't.

2. If they wanted a different outcome they could deal nonlethal damage, make intimidation/bluff/diplomacy checks to make the enemy surrender, or disable them by other means. You took that choice away from them, by the sound of it. They had a right to be upset.

Emmerask
2013-06-23, 06:15 PM
2. If they wanted a different outcome they could deal nonlethal damage, make intimidation/bluff/diplomacy checks to make the enemy surrender, or disable them by other means. You took that choice away from them, by the sound of it. They had a right to be upset.

Hm, as i understood it the players wanted to attack the group, he said they would not need to play out the battle they could just win it.
At that point the players could have made alternative suggestions like intimidating them or dealing nonlethal dmg.

They did not so I would also assume that what they wanted is to slaughter some helpless stuff for the sake of ... something.

Also I hope the party is all chaotic evil... else they should be ^^

Raine_Sage
2013-06-23, 06:27 PM
1. If you mention specifically that there's a large dead dragon sitting nearby, and one of your players can create undead, then why wouldn't you expect them to raise the dragon. Lack of foresight aside I probably would have assumed you'd done that on purpose had I been in your player's place. "Oh cool a dead dragon? Clearly the DM is giving me a chance to do something awesome here thanks DM."

2. That one I can relate to since something similar happened in one of my games actually just yesterday (I was in the players place). I would ask, did you make very clear that there was the option to just not attack them? A player's default assumption is that if there are enemies on the board the only way out is with the end of the sword.

Our DM put us up against a group of vaguely sleepy yetis while we were trying to steal something from an ice temple. There were eight of them and they were huge and the party panicked and shot first on our surprise round which of course pissed off the yetis. It wasn't until half of them were dead and the rest run off that we learned the yetis were actually quite peaceful and all we would have had to do was run out of the room really fast before they had a chance to recognize us as thieves.

However since there weren't any clues about this before the encounter started we were a little annoyed with the DM for not outlining our options clearer. Your situation is very different of course since you did make it clear (I'm assuming) that this band wasn't any threat to your party, but I guess just make sure to make clear when nonviolence is the better option. And what specific kind of nonviolence is warranted (retreat vs diplomacy vs stealth etc.)

Kane0
2013-06-23, 06:43 PM
I can't tell, was the wizard animating the dragon being annoying and trying to "cheat" the situation, or merely trying to play smart? Any ideas?


Nah, no cheating or unfairness there. The wizard saw a tool and tried to use it. The BBEG saw a chance to use a tool as his own so he did. Both used their abilities appropriately.



The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?


They were the bad guys.
They defended themselves appropriately from an encounter than let the survivors escape, all well and good. But then they tracked them down and learned that some of the more helpless ones were going back to the scene to recover a body, so they decided to intervene?
Why? They had their victory, and wanted to rub it into what was left of these people? They didn't loot the body before tracking the survivors? They wanted a violent outcome regardless? Sorry man, there was enough chances for them to stop and say "Wait, isn't this kind of a d*** move?"

And as some have said already, you do seem to have a new horrible story about these people every couple of weeks, whats keeping you with them?

angry_bear
2013-06-23, 07:19 PM
They didn't do anything wrong with animating the dragon. If the wizard has animate dead as a spell, then it's honestly no different than saying that there's a pair of really nice swords hanging above the fireplace. If the party is able to, then they'll try and use anything at their disposal.

The second situation isn't as straightforward, but you said that the first group they fought were raiders? Tracking them back to their camp isn't a bad thing, and did you say clearly that the group going to retrieve the dead weren't a threat? It could have just been a miss-communication between you and the party is all...

Kazemi
2013-06-23, 08:01 PM
Not "cheating" no. I am trying to figure out if using something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene to gain a huge tactical advantage is simply genius tactics that think outside the box, or trying to break the game by introducing elements that the GM didn't account for.
This seems like a genius tactical maneuver. As far as I'm concerned, using things that the GM has provided cannot be cheating the situation. There's no such thing as a "window dressing" in metagame (I mean, the BBEG seemed to have considered it such, but that's in character). You, as the GM, have provided them with a skeletal dragon. Anything you give them is open for use, so it's something that you can't complain about when they Animate it. Likewise, you only learn the lesson to beware of Evil Clerics and "Command Undead" once. :smalltongue:

(Also, this reminds me so much of Crystal Cantrips :smallbiggrin:)


*Actually, there was one other situation that I should ask about. The party fought a band of savage raiders, and killed all of them but two, included amongst the dead was the clan's spiritual leader. They tracked the two back to their village, and the party scout watched the two relate the tale. One decided to stay at the village to protect the women, while the other led the men who were too young or too old to participate in the battle to go and reclaim the body of their spiritual leader for proper burial.

The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched. I explained that they were both terrified of the PCs and infuriated at the (seemingly unprovoked) murder of their spiritual leader and their sons / brothers / fathers. Besides if they surrender they are putting their wives and daughters in danger.

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

It sounds like this was poorly handled. As PCs, if you get cornered by something that obviously outpowers you, do you suicide into them? Only if you think you can at least cripple them. If they just killed your tribe's warriors and felt fit enough to come after the main village, you are NOT fit to fight. Your best bet to protect the village, then, is to negotiate.

I'd have run it through by rounds, starting with a Spot Check to see if the villagers notice first. Either before or after the ambush round, the NPCs would've immediately backed off and called for a parley. Their goal is not just to save the women. Their goal is to preserve the village. The injured guard would be furious, but held back by the village elder. The children would have been terrified, but putting up a strong front. Etc.

If I interpreted your original statement correctly, it's the difference between
This
PCs: "OK, we ambush them!"
DM: "Alright, I'm not going to roll it out. If you wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men you can do it without any rolls."
And This
PCs: "OK, we ambush them!"
DM: "Alright, you get a surprise round."
*several attacks later*
DM: "OK, their turn. The hunched old man quickly calls out, organizing the older villagers in front of the children, dropping into Defensive Fighting. He calls out 'Stop! We ask for parley so we may negotiate!' The injured warrior begins to draw his sword, but the old man holds his hand back, preventing him from drawing it."
PCs: "Wait, why aren't they fighting us?"
DM: "Are you asking them? It's your round."
etc.


This encounter could have been solved through ways other than the ambush, but what's important is that it was the player's choice, so you've got to roll with it in an interesting manner. This is where you think on your feet and come up with something that would give them the chance to parley. Perhaps a small onyx mine nearby? Or something else that helps match one of your player's goals and gives the tribe the chance to request the PCs remain to protect them while they recover from the fight (obviously the more rough part of the world) as well as giving them actual incentive to stay (needing to stay to reopen the mine and harvest some). This also turns a random encounter into a base of operations, depending on how many resources there are.
(I'm stuck on Crystal Cantrips, OK?) :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2013-06-23, 08:03 PM
And as some have said already, you do seem to have a new horrible story about these people every couple of weeks, whats keeping you with them?

I suspect Stockholm Syndrome, myself.

Winds
2013-06-23, 08:13 PM
Per the first part...I can't guess as to the wizard's particular motives, but I agree it is kind of an obvious thing to do if you can swing it. For your cleric, wresting control if possible is also kind of obvious. Against a mad scientist, that would have been a great tactical move. Against someone that (I assume) they knew was a divine caster? Not so much, really. Still, everyone made use of resources as best they could. I'd be annoyed at TPKing because of it, but I'd laugh it off sooner or later.

I feel like I should note something about keeping undead, though: both from what I've read here and my own thoughts on bookkeeping, any player that plans on using an Animate Dead spell should probably have a basic set of statted minions, rather than fuss with just animating the first thing they see. (Even if having a skeldragon minion would be cool.)



Per the second part...yeah, the party attacked a group of clearly defenseless noncoms/children, with one walking wounded combatant, whom they knew was only recovering a body for last rites? Evil. Pointless, puppy-punting evil, at that. I don't think I've ever played a game where the party would think that was worth doing, much less go through with it. And their reaction? You ambushed them, you morons. They will think their lives are in danger and react accordingly.

I think you handled the situation about as well as could be expected.

ThirdEmperor
2013-06-23, 08:19 PM
On the first situation- I have no clue why there would be anything wrong with how that scenario played out, except maybe that it took three hours. If it's 'cheating' for a player to do something unexpected, or make use of anything you weren't expecting to be relevant, then the game is just a bunch of dice rolls. The ability to do so is what seperates D&D from a video game.

On the second- I could see it being either way? It really depends on how precisely you handwaving the dicerolls and saying the ambushed group died happened. If the PCs were planning on trying to force them to surrender, then you went 'Hey, this isn't gonna be a real fight, so, they all just die' then I think that the players had every right to be mad. If not and they were angry you made them out as the bad guys for killing defenseless innocents, then okay.

TuggyNE
2013-06-23, 08:56 PM
Not "cheating" no. I am trying to figure out if using something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene to gain a huge tactical advantage is simply genius tactics that think outside the box, or trying to break the game by introducing elements that the GM didn't account for.

There's a difference? PCs can and will come up with wacky plans, it's just how things go. This one wasn't particularly bad even, and was a fairly obvious tactic both in and out of character (well, assuming a rather non-good caster, anyway).

prufock
2013-06-23, 09:15 PM
Hm, as i understood it the players wanted to attack the group, he said they would not need to play out the battle they could just win it.
At that point the players could have made alternative suggestions like intimidating them or dealing nonlethal dmg.

They did not so I would also assume that what they wanted is to slaughter some helpless stuff for the sake of ... something.

But they DID make an alternate suggestion - that the villagers surrender. The details here are a bit fuzzy. Did they suggest any sort of plan for forcing surrender? Did they talk about taking any prisoners? None of this is made explicit in the OP.

They could still do this without rolling anything. The DM asks "what do you do" to each of them, they give an action, if it's an attack it auto-succeeds. Rounds go quickly and it gives the players the option to change their actions.

valadil
2013-06-23, 09:53 PM
The dragon thing is legit. Your players are paying attention to your descriptions and they're trying to be clever about how they approach your game. That's a good thing. Let them get away with it. If they end a boss fight three hours early, they might go home unsatisfied tonight. But long term that will always be the session where a be of wit and observation trumped a tough encounter. That's what they'll remember and you shouldn't take that away from them.



The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched.

IMO the party needs to clarify what they're doing. It's okay that you told them they won't need to roll to fight. But they also could have demanded surrender after the first couple enemies fell easily.

Totally Guy
2013-06-24, 03:49 AM
You have conflict in your game. Why not try to resolve some of those conflicts using dice rolls?

The players wanted the mob to surrender and you wanted them to keep fighting. There's a few steps here that'll help.

First thing you need to do is identify that there is a conflict in what you want to happen. You will occasionally see a player directly state what they want to happen. Sometimes they will object to something that you say is happening.

Once that's done you need to ask your players "How will you make the enemies surrender?" "What do you do to make that happen?"

Listen to their answer! Is it appropriate? If not say why not and ask again for other ideas. If so reiterate what you want to happen and say that that's what's at stake.

Set a difficulty and roll some dice. Then if the players succeed then their characters get to do that thing to make their way happen. If not then you get your way.

A game system is quite literally a way of resolving conflicts between people. I think this is the most basic "rules unit" you would have.

There are some special designs that the above thing won't work for, In A Wicked Age being the first to spring to mind but I'd say my method up there is applicable to all the most traditional games.

holywhippet
2013-06-24, 05:55 AM
Um, exactly what spell did the wizard use to create the skeletal dragon? If it was animate dead, that spell only lets the caster control up to 4 hit die worth of undead anyway and unless it was a really young dragon it would immediately be over the limit. In that case, even if the cleric didn't take control of it the skeletal dragon would be out of control and attacking randomly.

For the raiders, what alignment are the PCs? Ambushing people, especially children and the elderly leans towards chaotic and/or evil. Remind the players of this when they argue it makes them seem like bad guys.

Badgerish
2013-06-24, 06:10 AM
1st issue:
Seems legit, but this is the equivilent of having a sword or rifle on a wall-plaque. If I didn't what the weapon to be used, I would deactivate it somehow.
For a Dragon Skeleton... replace some of the bones with plaster replicas, so it's incomplete?

Also, if I (as a game-designer) was designing a spell to animate undead monsters, I would make it a 5min+ ritual with a magic circle and black candles and stuff; but in 3rd it is need a standard action. There is still the actions to measure the Black Onyx, place it in the skeleton's skull and then cast the spell. Was it really a suitable in-combat action?

2nd issue:
I'd phrase this as:
"They fight like people with nothing left to lose... because they are indeed people with very little left to lose, but they are simply not in your league. You can defeat them all without taking any damage."
point at whoever would usually start the fight (e.g. a spellcaster/archer or someone in position to charge) "So, what do you do?"

If they want the enemies to surrender, but you don't think they will (due to "fate worse than death" things), get them to explain their actions and roll relevant skill checks. Knocking them out should involve similar checks to make sure no one escapes or is killed.

TuggyNE
2013-06-24, 06:34 AM
Um, exactly what spell did the wizard use to create the skeletal dragon? If it was animate dead, that spell only lets the caster control up to 4 hit die worth of undead anyway and unless it was a really young dragon it would immediately be over the limit.

Not that I am at all a fan of necromancy, but that's not what the spell says. It's 4 HD/caster level.

Totally Guy
2013-06-24, 07:44 AM
My initial thought about the dragon was that it'd be cool if the person controlling the dragon was under some penalty for doing so. That way the villain would be accepting the burden of the penalty and also freeing the original wizard from it.

But that's quite game specific.

valadil
2013-06-24, 08:31 AM
1st issue:
Seems legit, but this is the equivilent of having a sword or rifle on a wall-plaque. If I didn't what the weapon to be used, I would deactivate it somehow.


So I've actually seen the animated trophy thing a few times before. Enough that it should be something characters in the world are aware of and will always take precautions against. Personally I'd just introduce a new spell: Tenser's Trustworthy Taxidermy. The whole point is to prevent things from being animated.

While I don't think it's fair to introduce this spell in response to the players animating the dragon, I do think it's a good idea to put this out in the world early on, before they get clever ideas.

Mastikator
2013-06-24, 09:48 AM
[snip]

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

The PCs could've just said to the NPCs "surrender and nobody will be hurt". They made them selves into villains.

mcbobbo
2013-06-24, 10:55 AM
As a GM, never forget the power of 'are you sure?' Not only does it give you a communication opportunity, but it absolves you of some of the blame.

Kazemi
2013-06-24, 11:56 AM
So I've actually seen the animated trophy thing a few times before. Enough that it should be something characters in the world are aware of and will always take precautions against. Personally I'd just introduce a new spell: Tenser's Trustworthy Taxidermy. The whole point is to prevent things from being animated.

While I don't think it's fair to introduce this spell in response to the players animating the dragon, I do think it's a good idea to put this out in the world early on, before they get clever ideas.

I'm not sure why you'd introduce a new spell like that when he was already capable of taking control of it with ease. I assume if he's got that large a skeleton in his closet he can Rebuke it for a few rounds (unlikely that he's able to Command a Large dragon) while he grabs a Scroll of Command Undead. Of course, this also depends on how many minions he has left. If he's currently surrounded by the other PCs, then he's in a ton of trouble and should start executing escape protocols.

Unless I had it written on his character sheet, I would also not retcon having the spell prepared. That's a bit cheap (imo) and you're in his base, so he can just grab a scroll to deal with it. Obviously he has some scrolls in his desk or on the scroll rack.

valadil
2013-06-24, 12:16 PM
I'm not sure why you'd introduce a new spell like that when he was already capable of taking control of it with ease.

Unless I had it written on his character sheet, I would also not retcon having the spell prepared. That's a bit cheap (imo) and you're in his base, so he can just grab a scroll to deal with it. Obviously he has some scrolls in his desk or on the scroll rack.

I wasn't suggesting it as a way to counter the PC's cleverness. I was suggesting it as a thing that should exist in a world that has both taxidermy and necromancers. I've seen a million taverns with dragon's heads on the wall. No unnamed barkeeper is dealing with that if it comes to life. I'm suggesting adding the spell to the world for flavor. And once that flavor is there, the PCs might assume that wall mounted dragon corpses were prepared against necromancy shenanigans. (That said, I also like the possibliity of them trying to dispel and then animate it. That's a bit more of a time investment, but it really pays off if the players do it stealthily and unleash the dragon out of combat.)

Sutremaine
2013-06-24, 12:59 PM
....something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene....
Did you tell the players explicitly they couldn't interact with it? That's how obvious you need to be.

I think it's a bad idea to teach your players that parts of the GM's descriptions are irrelevant, especially if at some point in the future you want them to pay attention to something you're describing.

Talakeal
2013-06-24, 03:51 PM
As I said, I am unsure about the first case. I like it when my players think outside the box and come up with tactics more complex than hit the other guy and hope he dies first.

The problem is when I make a carefully crafted encounter and a gigantic dragon is suddenly introduced into the picture the encounter is now all about the dragon, and balance goes out the window. I don't want to have to have all my fights take place in "featureless gray room" for fear of an unexpected element throwing everything out of whack. But yeah, in retrospect, that probably would make for a more memorable evening than "balanced combat #345" so maybe that isn't a bad thing.

In retrospect I probably should have just gone with it and given the PC a powerful but not overwhelming minion to reward the plan and not had the NPC take it. But as it was I just applied the skeletal template to a full grown dragon and let it lose, which was RAW correct but mucked everything up.


As for the taxidermy thing, that actually doesn't really work. Taxidermy is not preserving a whole animal, it is about mounting a skin on a wooden statue, so if you animated one you would just have a helpless bag of skin trying to pull itself off the immobile frame it is affixed to.




For the second point, this group has a long history of not thinking their plans through and getting large numbers of NPCs killed. This really bothers one of the players, to the point where he threatens to quit the game every time it comes up.

I tend to have more complex plots than simple black and white kill the bad guy, and the players have told me they don't want me to break the fourth wall and tell them "the right thing to do" so I am at a loss as to how to handle it. Some examples of plans they have enacted that got a lot of people killed in the past:

-Hearing about a monster ambushing caravans, so hiring a fake caravan to walk back and forth until the monster attacks it, then springing out in ambush.

-A group of bandits are holding a number of children hostage. The players charge in guns blazing.

-A dragon has enslaved a town. The PCs kill the dragon, then leave without telling anyone, not realizing that the townspeople only put up with the dragon because it was protecting them from something worse.

-Attacking a dragon and failing to kill it, calling on a retreat, leaving the dragon to vent its frustration on the local town that sheltered and equipped the PCs on their quest.

-Drafting all the men in a town into an army for an attack on the dark lord's forces, killing most of them in battle. Also not realizing the dark lord's allies would counter attack the town which now lacked any form of defense.

-Being hired to rescue some prisoners from an illithid. Hacking through the illithid's dominated followers only to realize that they were the people they came there to rescue after they were all dead.

-Being hired to put an end to a generational conflict between two species who both claimed the right to a certain town. Resolving it by helping one of the species round up and exterminate every member of the other species in the area.

-Being the leaders of an empire's military which is currently at war with the fey. The players divine the location of the next attack and find it to be a small farming village. They go in and perform a raid on a group of rat hengeyokai which are the only fey they can find in the area, hoping it will cripple their military and scare them into submission, then leave. The truth behind the situation is that the rat folk were neutral and the fey military was trying to convince them that the humans were a threat and that they needed to join together to stop them. Of course, after the raid the rat people are convinced the fey are telling the truth, and ally with them for a joint attack on the nearby farming community now that the PCs are hundreds of miles away patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

There are many more instances, these are just what I can think of off the top of my head. My players simply don't think things through, and almost never actually investigate the situation (usually as simple as asking a question of a local NPC or rolling a gather information test) before attacking / leaving the area.

Emmerask
2013-06-24, 04:04 PM
Okay I think I see the problem ^^

Your plots for the current group of players are just too complex.
May I ask how old the players are on avg, because if they are around 16 to maybe 20 then I would first use very simple plots and gradually ramp it up over time so they slowly get comfy with none binary plots.

If they are older player > 30 then well they just dont seem to want complex plots and just want go in kill everything get out dungeon runs.
If this is something you are willing to dm (I certainly would not except for one shots because I would be bored to death) then I would suggest that ie playing dungeon runs no subplots only killing stuff ^^.

If not then sadly the only thing I see is to search for a different group because this will not end well :smallwink:

tensai_oni
2013-06-24, 04:27 PM
Emmerask, don't equate physical age with maturity. Just because someone is 16-20 doesn't mean all they care about is action and they never think things through. Likewise, a person in their thirties or later could be very emotionally immature.

That being said, generally dumbing down the plot seems like a good idea if you want to continue playing with this group. That's a really big "if" by the way.

Emmerask
2013-06-24, 04:44 PM
That was not really what I was trying to say, sorry if I explained badly.

What I was trying to say is that younger people might actually never have played a more complex plot and being new to such things need to be eased into it by slowly ramping it up.

An older "veteran" player on the other hand will most likely know very well what gamestyles he/she likes/dislikes, thats why I said that if a 30+++ year old group who are only playing " murder hobo" rpg likely like it that way and dont want to play differently.

So the emotional maturity really was not what I was going on about, more of a thing of experience and becoming rigid in once preferences etc ^^

valadil
2013-06-24, 07:47 PM
Your plots for the current group of players are just too complex.
May I ask how old the players are on avg, because if they are around 16 to maybe 20 then I would first use very simple plots and gradually ramp it up over time so they slowly get comfy with none binary plots.


I'm not sure I agree that that's the problem. I think the danger in complex plots is that you run the risk of fixing events to get the plots to line up right. Complex plots usually have a bunch of contingencies and aren't very robust if they players interact with the plots in an unexpected way. It's pretty easy to fall into the trap of limiting player choices to preserve the complexity of the plot, but it's not the right move. Let the players have their freedom and downgrade the plot from complex to merely interesting.

Anyway, that's tangential. From the comments about trying to preserve a balanced plot it might be related. But it might not. I stand by my original statement that a memorable short encounter beats yet another balanced encounter.

Here's something anecdotal. I've brought this up a few times, but it's stuck with me and I like repeating it. My last game almost lasted for two years. This was a big deal to me because I usually run games that last for a couple months. I took a lot of risks and told some fun stories.

After the game ended I went to a BBQ with the players and the rest of our friends. Eventually the players shut up about WOW and started sharing war stories from my game. As I sat back and listened I noticed a pattern.

Without fail, every story that they deemed worth sharing was a time when they took control of the game and I let them go along with it. They told some of my stories as background or setup, but everything they were interested in sharing was something they decided to make happen.

I see the animated dragon as that kind of story. It would have gone against the direction I'd set for the battle, and the players would have loved it for that reason.

Kazemi
2013-06-25, 01:26 AM
I wasn't suggesting it as a way to counter the PC's cleverness. I was suggesting it as a thing that should exist in a world that has both taxidermy and necromancers. I've seen a million taverns with dragon's heads on the wall. No unnamed barkeeper is dealing with that if it comes to life.
/snip


OK, I see where you're coming from with the non-casters now. Also, I'm glad none of my players read these forums, because that would become the first thing they do to each tavern they visit...



/snip
Without fail, every story that they deemed worth sharing was a time when they took control of the game and I let them go along with it. They told some of my stories as background or setup, but everything they were interested in sharing was something they decided to make happen.
/snip

I second this 150%. I did not realize that this was even an option until reading SCS and a few other choice journals with excellent campaign stories.

It's also why it's recommended not to have the entire campaign planned out, since the PCs (especially yours) have a tendency to derail everything remarkably fast. Have 2-3 sessions planned, with a loose idea of what's going to happen overall and mold that into specifics as the PCs progress in such a way that it fits what they do and what their goals are. Also, try not to outright counter everything the PCs do, either. Give them ways to use their boons and keep things interesting. Let them use the dragon skeleton to carve through the traps and defenders outside a Kobald mine that are not even close to prepared to handle an undead dragon. It's too big to get in there, so they'll leave it behind to watch the exit while they delve into the Kobalds' tra--I mean treasury. :smalltongue:

It also might inspire them to create Reduce Undead. :smallbiggrin:

Scow2
2013-06-25, 10:48 AM
1. If you describe "Window Dressing", the players WILL and SHOULD exploit it - it makes an encounter a LOT more memorable. If you don't count on something to happen, let it go anyway. Fun and dynamic events are far more entertaining than sanitized and balanced encounters. That said, I don't see how the Evil Cleric Scientist managed to take control of the Undead Dragon completely.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are rules for how the "Animate Dead" and Negative-energy "Control Undead" abilities conflict.In OotS, Redcloak was able to wrest absolute control of the Wights away from Tsukiko (Or however she's spelled) because they were created by "Create Undead" (Which does NOT grant control of the undead), not "Animate Dead", and were controlled either by either mutual respect or "Command Undead", which functions like Charm Person - Redcloak's "Control Undead" took advantage of the lack of a direct-control bond by establishing one. However, if someone cast "Animate Dead" and another used "Control Undead", it's likely that it would have been under both caster's commands, and needs special DM adjudication.


2. Looking at your other post... as legendarily bad as your players seem most of the time, there's a difference between "Not a straight "Beat up the Bad Guys"" and "Engaging enemies you provoke or are provoked by leads to NPCs dying and Bad Results".

Knaight
2013-06-25, 03:17 PM
May I ask how old the players are on avg, because if they are around 16 to maybe 20 then I would first use very simple plots and gradually ramp it up over time so they slowly get comfy with none binary plots.

If they are older player > 30 then well they just dont seem to want complex plots and just want go in kill everything get out dungeon runs.

This is absurd. New people, including those in the 16 to 20 range are perfectly capable of handling complex plots. I routinely start new people in the 16 to 20 range with scenarios involving complex webs of relationships, power structures, ambitions, etc. and they do fine.

Now, if you were to start with the attitude that, clearly, they are young and as such stupid and need to be spoon fed simple plots - that will probably get you people who think the game is simple and avoid thinking things through, or people who get sick of the condescension and leave.


What I was trying to say is that younger people might actually never have played a more complex plot and being new to such things need to be eased into it by slowly ramping it up.
Younger people will probably have read books with a complex plot, watched films with a complex plot, and for that matter probably played video games with a complex plot. Even if the age-newness correlation is granted (which isn't happening) the assumption that new people need to be presented with simple scenarios is dubious at best.


An older "veteran" player on the other hand will most likely know very well what gamestyles he/she likes/dislikes, thats why I said that if a 30+++ year old group who are only playing " murder hobo" rpg likely like it that way and dont want to play differently.
I see that new players who are older are just being dismissed entirely here. They exist.

Talakeal
2013-06-25, 03:39 PM
Okay I think I see the problem ^^

Your plots for the current group of players are just too complex.
May I ask how old the players are on avg, because if they are around 16 to maybe 20 then I would first use very simple plots and gradually ramp it up over time so they slowly get comfy with none binary plots.

If they are older player > 30 then well they just dont seem to want complex plots and just want go in kill everything get out dungeon runs.
If this is something you are willing to dm (I certainly would not except for one shots because I would be bored to death) then I would suggest that ie playing dungeon runs no subplots only killing stuff ^^.

If not then sadly the only thing I see is to search for a different group because this will not end well :smallwink:

Yeah, the players in question are neither young nor new to the game. The campaign has been ongoing for almost a decade now, and they are still making the same mistakes they made when they were rookies, the only difference is they are now more likely to throw a temper tantrum when they don't like the results of their actions.

Sebastrd
2013-06-25, 03:47 PM
For the second point, this group has a long history of not thinking their plans through and getting large numbers of NPCs killed. This really bothers one of the players, to the point where he threatens to quit the game every time it comes up.

I tend to have more complex plots than simple black and white kill the bad guy, and the players have told me they don't want me to break the fourth wall and tell them "the right thing to do" so I am at a loss as to how to handle it. Some examples of plans they have enacted that got a lot of people killed in the past:

-Hearing about a monster ambushing caravans, so hiring a fake caravan to walk back and forth until the monster attacks it, then springing out in ambush.

-A group of bandits are holding a number of children hostage. The players charge in guns blazing.

-A dragon has enslaved a town. The PCs kill the dragon, then leave without telling anyone, not realizing that the townspeople only put up with the dragon because it was protecting them from something worse.

-Attacking a dragon and failing to kill it, calling on a retreat, leaving the dragon to vent its frustration on the local town that sheltered and equipped the PCs on their quest.

-Drafting all the men in a town into an army for an attack on the dark lord's forces, killing most of them in battle. Also not realizing the dark lord's allies would counter attack the town which now lacked any form of defense.

-Being hired to rescue some prisoners from an illithid. Hacking through the illithid's dominated followers only to realize that they were the people they came there to rescue after they were all dead.

-Being hired to put an end to a generational conflict between two species who both claimed the right to a certain town. Resolving it by helping one of the species round up and exterminate every member of the other species in the area.

-Being the leaders of an empire's military which is currently at war with the fey. The players divine the location of the next attack and find it to be a small farming village. They go in and perform a raid on a group of rat hengeyokai which are the only fey they can find in the area, hoping it will cripple their military and scare them into submission, then leave. The truth behind the situation is that the rat folk were neutral and the fey military was trying to convince them that the humans were a threat and that they needed to join together to stop them. Of course, after the raid the rat people are convinced the fey are telling the truth, and ally with them for a joint attack on the nearby farming community now that the PCs are hundreds of miles away patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

There are many more instances, these are just what I can think of off the top of my head. My players simply don't think things through, and almost never actually investigate the situation (usually as simple as asking a question of a local NPC or rolling a gather information test) before attacking / leaving the area.

With the exception of the first two, those all sound like petty revenge for not playing your way. Your players seem to just want to kill stuff, but you keep presenting them with scenarios where violence isn't the answer. Get off your high horse and give them a simple dungeon crawl already.

Talakeal
2013-06-25, 04:06 PM
With the exception of the first two, those all sound like petty revenge for not playing your way.

Every single one of those scenarios was set up before the PCs got involved.

In #3 the village willingly entered into a contract with the dragon to protect them from their ancestral enemies. The players never asked anyone in the town or the surrounding countryside what the deal was (they were just after the dragon's hoard).

#4 An NPC specifically warned them that they had an uneasy truce with the dragon, and the mayor of the town flat out forbid them to attack the dragon for fear that the truce would dissolve. The PCs ignored the NPCs and attacked the dragon, but decided to retreat and leave the area when the fight went bad.

#5: They are in the middle of a global conflict with several enemies. If you put 100% of your forces on offense, why on Earth would you expect the enemy NOT to counterattack?

#6: Ok... the plot was to rescue some hostages who were enthralled and taken away as slaves to an illithid. I don't know how on Earth that could be a surprise, let alone a retcon, when the players see the illithid has a bunch of human mind slaves and decide to kill them.

#7: How in the world could this be petty revenge? The plot was to stop a conflict between two groups. The players decide to resolve this by killing all members of one group. I didn't have any say in the outcome other than to directly react to the PCs actions.

#8: Again, the plot about the negotiations with the fey was written out before the PCs got anywhere near them. They also knew that the farming town in question was going to be the next target of the fey. Why on Earth is it might fault if they simply run in, shoot a couple of guys, and then expect it to resolve the situation and leave, without EITHER investigating the motives OR EVEN KILLING ALL THE ENEMY SOLDIERS.


Your players seem to just want to kill stuff, but you keep presenting them with scenarios where violence isn't the answer. Get off your high horse and give them a simple dungeon crawl already.

That's actually not true. In my current group only one player is of the "hack and slash" mentality. I have given them plenty of dungeon crawls, dozens of them, perhaps even hundreds over the years. I don't mind doing occasional dungeon crawls, but both myself and all but one of the players gets bored of mindless combat week after week.

I suppose you could say that someone who ALWAYS appeals to the lowest common denominator has "gotten off their high horse", but I would say they are more likely to just be lazy and or stuck in a rut.

Autolykos
2013-06-25, 04:09 PM
The problem is when I make a carefully crafted encounter and a gigantic dragon is suddenly introduced into the picture the encounter is now all about the dragon, and balance goes out the window.That indeed is the problem. I don't mean your players somehow "unbalancing" the encounter. I mean you expecting the encounter to be balanced in the first place and try to make the game follow the story you had in mind when you wrote the adventure. D&D's level and class system somehow gives people the idea that everything should be "balanced", but it's a trap. It teaches your players to stop observing the situation and thinking about their options, because they will always have moderately difficult encounters, no matter what they do.
The first thing you need to understand about GMing is that players will always pull stuff on you that you don't expect, and they'll usually do it at the most inappropriate moment and make all your carefully crafted plans go out of the window. This is not a problem. On the contrary, it shows that you have a group that pays attention and thinks for themselves instead of waiting for you to feed them plot.
For a player, there is no such concept as "balance". They (should) live by the motto "If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your plans failed."
To get that to work, you need to become good at improvising, and do it in a way that feels fair to the players (or just admit defeat now and then). This is hard, and takes time to master.
All in all, the first story could've easily happened with one of my old groups. One of our GMs was a great storyteller, but absolutely incapable of improvising or seeing clever tricks the players could use to help solve a problem, and he had a pretty fixed idea on how the plot should run, complete with the expected difficulty of each battle. If we found some weakness he didn't expect us to use, he'd just pull obviously fabricated counters out of his hat to stop it (like enemies having just the right obscure spell or piece of equipment on them, even if they couldn't possibly have forseen to need it or carry it around in their standard kit). Claiming that we didn't play fair by animating the dragon skeleton and pulling a cleric with command undead out of thin air would've been right up his alley. I'm not implying you did exactly that, but your problem might be caused by the same mode of thinking.
On the other hand, we felt railroaded by his attempts to "restore balance", which created a competition between players and GM trying to outsmart each other. That would've been fine, if it wasn't for the players being better at thinking on their feet and the GM being a bad loser.

We finally sorted it out by having a good out-of-game talk about it. We made clear that:

We are not trying to "break" his game, we are just choosing the tactic that looks most effective to us, based on the information we have.
We do not expect encounters to be balanced, we expect them to be plausible within the game world. If we find an unexpected weakness that lets us win without breaking a sweat, we're not disappointed about the cheap victory, and if we charge the big bad dragon in our boxer shorts armed with a toothpick, we expect to be roasted to a crisp.
If we do something unexpected, it's OK for the GM to call a timeout and reorder his plans (if he can't just wing it). We're fine with everything being a little improvised if we leave the script.


EDIT: Do you know Darths & Droids (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html)? IMHO it's a great example of a group trying unexpected stuff at any chance they get and a GM making the best of it. I especially advise you to read the short pieces of text under the comics. They sometimes contain valuable insights for GMs.

The second problem is the more common and harder to solve. It's the PCs behaving like a bunch of armed hobos while pretending to be the saviors of humanity. There are plenty of people doing this IRL (luckily, mostly in a metaphorical sense), so it's hard to tell if your players are that way or if some of them chose their character to be that kind of guy. One of my Shadowrun characters was that kind of hypocrite, and I had to retire him after a few sessions because he sparked way more conflicts in the group than I had anticipated or deemed healthy.
Again, you should probably talk with your players about it. Maybe they want to play an amoral campaign now and then (or at least somewhere in the dark-gray area where the end justifies the means). I find D&D lends itself more to the puppy-punting type of all-caps EVIL, so another system that handles gray areas better may be a good choice here. Or you'd just throw in a game of Paranoia now and then to blow off a little steam.

Talakeal
2013-06-25, 04:20 PM
Again, you should probably talk with your players about it. Maybe they want to play an amoral campaign now and then (or at least somewhere in the dark-gray area where the end justifies the means). I find D&D lends itself more to the puppy-punting type of all-caps EVIL, so another system that handles gray areas better may be a good choice here. Or you'd just throw in a game of Paranoia now and then to blow off a little steam.

I have four players. One doesn't care about good and evil and just wants to hack and slash. One doesn't care about good and evil and just wants power.

The other two want to be heroes, but lack the common sense or social ability to actually make the right decisions in character or fully investigate a scenario, sometimes get over emotional and do something rash, or lack the confidence to stand up to the first two players when they are taking the easy way out and doing something villainous.


Claiming that we didn't play fair by animating the dragon skeleton and pulling a cleric with command undead out of thin air would've been right up his alley. I'm not implying you did exactly that, but your problem might be caused by the same mode of thinking.


No, I certainly would not do something like that. My players, however, certainly think I did, even though they knew the enemy's title was "priest king" and they had already fought several undead minions earlier in the adventure.


Another side note, the wizard in question was talking about how awesome it was to have a giant undead minion, and stated that he fully planned on taking the dragon with him and having it become a permanent member of the party and solve all encounters from now on. (Right before control was yanked from him).

If a party mage is insisting on having a giant undead horde (or a group of dominated mind slaves, which is something she has done in the past) with them at all times, should the DM factor in the undead horde when determining the " party's CR" and is it unreasonable that good churches, town militias, and relatives of the deceased react negatively to the character and try and put a stop to it?

Scow2
2013-06-25, 04:37 PM
If a party mage is insisting on having a giant undead horde (or a group of dominated mind slaves, which is something she has done in the past) with them at all times, should the DM factor in the undead horde when determining the " party's CR" and is it unreasonable that good churches, town militias, and relatives of the deceased react negatively to the character and try and put a stop to it?
Not unreasonable at all. 4e D&D explicitly states that encounters where the party has extra resources should take said resources into account when determining challenge and experience awards.

Kazemi
2013-06-25, 04:55 PM
If a party mage is insisting on having a giant undead horde (or a group of dominated mind slaves, which is something she has done in the past) with them at all times, should the DM factor in the undead horde when determining the " party's CR" and is it unreasonable that good churches, town militias, and relatives of the deceased react negatively to the character and try and put a stop to it?

You should certainly take that into account for the party's effective CR. That and whatever contacts they've made.

Having some negative reaction may also be called for, if they come riding into town with a horde of zombies and skeletons. Usually you leave those in hiding before, especially after the first group flips out.

By the way, what level are your players?

Waar
2013-06-25, 05:18 PM
For the second point, this group has a long history of not thinking their plans through and getting large numbers of NPCs killed. This really bothers one of the players, to the point where he threatens to quit the game every time it comes up.

I tend to have more complex plots than simple black and white kill the bad guy, and the players have told me they don't want me to break the fourth wall and tell them "the right thing to do" so I am at a loss as to how to handle it. Some examples of plans they have enacted that got a lot of people killed in the past:

-Hearing about a monster ambushing caravans, so hiring a fake caravan to walk back and forth until the monster attacks it, then springing out in ambush.

-A group of bandits are holding a number of children hostage. The players charge in guns blazing.

-A dragon has enslaved a town. The PCs kill the dragon, then leave without telling anyone, not realizing that the townspeople only put up with the dragon because it was protecting them from something worse.

-Attacking a dragon and failing to kill it, calling on a retreat, leaving the dragon to vent its frustration on the local town that sheltered and equipped the PCs on their quest.

-Drafting all the men in a town into an army for an attack on the dark lord's forces, killing most of them in battle. Also not realizing the dark lord's allies would counter attack the town which now lacked any form of defense.

-Being hired to rescue some prisoners from an illithid. Hacking through the illithid's dominated followers only to realize that they were the people they came there to rescue after they were all dead.

-Being hired to put an end to a generational conflict between two species who both claimed the right to a certain town. Resolving it by helping one of the species round up and exterminate every member of the other species in the area.

-Being the leaders of an empire's military which is currently at war with the fey. The players divine the location of the next attack and find it to be a small farming village. They go in and perform a raid on a group of rat hengeyokai which are the only fey they can find in the area, hoping it will cripple their military and scare them into submission, then leave. The truth behind the situation is that the rat folk were neutral and the fey military was trying to convince them that the humans were a threat and that they needed to join together to stop them. Of course, after the raid the rat people are convinced the fey are telling the truth, and ally with them for a joint attack on the nearby farming community now that the PCs are hundreds of miles away patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

There are many more instances, these are just what I can think of off the top of my head. My players simply don't think things through, and almost never actually investigate the situation (usually as simple as asking a question of a local NPC or rolling a gather information test) before attacking / leaving the area.

The first and second idea are sound in theory but require a significant advantage over the opposition. Good ideas against easy challenges, bad against hard ones. Unless there were hints towards the conntrary (such as "none of the monster raids have left any survivors from the well guarded caravans" or "these bandits are members of the legendary/infamous ... gang, known for their competence, skill and ruthlessness") I might be a bit annoyed if I significantly underestimated the difficulty of such a challenge.

For the third instance I can't blame you (nice twist) or your players (stopping the enslaving dragon = good (and profit :haley:)) ideas

The fifth is probably the only one in which the end result isn't neccesarily a resonable result (depends on how close the town was to the border and whether they won or not) Since a surgical strike against a low priority target is fairly unexpected when the is an army in the way.

As for the rest, I wonder what your players were thinking :smallfrown:, As a GM I would probably make sure to remind them that the Illithid prisoners were clearly mind controled (which you no doubt did) but apart from that I can't really think of anything, I certainly can't blame you for having the NPCs behave reasonably.

Edit:



Another side note, the wizard in question was talking about how awesome it was to have a giant undead minion, and stated that he fully planned on taking the dragon with him and having it become a permanent member of the party and solve all encounters from now on. (Right before control was yanked from him).

If a party mage is insisting on having a giant undead horde (or a group of dominated mind slaves, which is something she has done in the past) with them at all times, should the DM factor in the undead horde when determining the " party's CR" and is it unreasonable that good churches, town militias, and relatives of the deceased react negatively to the character and try and put a stop to it?
I sometimes wonder about the stuff this game gives the PCs access to :smallannoyed:, In most other RPG I have seen gaining the equivalent of another party member is difficult to say the least.

Autolykos
2013-06-25, 05:23 PM
I have four players. One doesn't care about good and evil and just wants to hack and slash. One doesn't care about good and evil and just wants power. [...]Well, none of them should be allowed to write "lawful good" on their character sheet. Other than that, the best way to make it work is not holding them up to standards they can't meet. They want different things from the game than you, so either you'll both have to compromise or part ways.
Again, this party composition is kinda typical and similar to the one in Darths & Droids. If you take it a little less serious (it's just a game, after all), there's no reason why it can't work.

If a party mage is insisting on having a giant undead horde (or a group of dominated mind slaves, which is something she has done in the past) with them at all times, should the DM factor in the undead horde when determining the " party's CR" and is it unreasonable that good churches, town militias, and relatives of the deceased react negatively to the character and try and put a stop to it?Well, of course the world should react appropriately. If you're approaching a town with a horde of undead, that town will probably view you as a threat and act accordingly. Keep it to a plausible level, though. This is not a free pass to have the PCs roflstomped by every good-aligned god and outsider in existence (unless they do enough evil stuff to make them feel threatened).
If they take reasonable precautions to hide the undead horde, they should get away with it. After all, if the rules allow them to do it, it should be appropriate for their level. D&D is high fantasy, and PCs flying around on their pet dragons and living on their private demiplane is normal for mid-high level play. If, on the other hand, you all feel this is an obvious exploit you shouldn't be able to do, houserule it away.
Adjusting the power of their enemies is also justified. If the characters are more powerful, they can take on bigger problems. It doesn't matter if that's because of their level, their gear or their private army of undead.
It does however become a problem once the undead horde starts stealing the spotlight of the other players. If that's the case, you should definitely find a out-of-game solution to this, because it's an out-of-game problem. But it really shouldn't be that big of a problem, as there are plenty of problems an undead horde is not well suited to solve (most of these involve subtlety, which is a foreign concept to Hack&Slashers, so YMMV).

Talakeal
2013-06-25, 05:28 PM
The fifth is probably the only one in which the end result isn't necessarily a reasonable result (depends on how close the town was to the border and whether they won or not) Since a surgical strike against a low priority target is fairly unexpected when the is an army in the way.


The fifth one requires a bit more knowledge about the campaign world. In short:

A cabal of evil sorcerers have conquered the world, and once all opposition was defeated they began fighting among one another for dominance. The players managed to put together an army capable of defeating the sorcerers and were taking them out one by one.

The players apparently didn't think that once the bad guys were faced with a serious threat they would put aside their petty struggles and work together against the interloper as they had done in the past.

So they are officially at war with a dozen or so powerful enemy kingdoms. One of them is especially wall defended, and so the players call together ALL of their forces to siege that enemy's fortress, including drafting all the men in their kingdom to take part in the battle.

So basically, they expected the other sorcerers to just say "well, this guy is picking us of one by one, and has left his own lands undefended for a several month period as well as taking any military pressure off of us. We should just sit back and fortify ourselves while his supply lines are unguarded".


Well, none of them should be allowed to write "lawful good" on their character sheet. Other than that, the best way to make it work is not holding them up to standards they can't meet. They want different things from the game than you, so either you'll both have to compromise or part ways.

CN (the power monger), LN (the hack and slasher), CG and NG for the other two respectively.

Waar
2013-06-25, 05:34 PM
The fifth one requires a bit more knowledge about the campaign world. In short:

A cabal of evil sorcerers have conquered the world, and once all opposition was defeated they began fighting among one another for dominance. The players managed to put together an army capable of defeating the sorcerers and were taking them out one by one.

The players didn't think that once they were faced with a serious threat they would put aside their petty struggles and work together against the interloper as they had done in the past.

So they are officially at war with a dozen or so powerful enemies. One of them is especially wall defended, and so the players call together ALL of their forces to siege that enemy's fortress, including drafting all the men in their kingdom to take part in the battle.

So basically, they expected the other sorcerers to just say "well, this guy is picking us of one by one, and has left his own lands undefended for a several month period as well as taking any military pressure off of us. We should just sit back and fortify ourselves while his supply lines are unguarded".

That explains it, thougt the mass drafting was from a single Town (low priority and hard to find/notice) not the entire kingdom (high priority, easy to find and notice). :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2013-06-25, 05:39 PM
That explains it, thougt the mass drafting was from a single Town (low priority and hard to find/notice) not the entire kingdom (high priority, easy to find and notice). :smallsmile:

Well, I suppose most kingdoms would count as city states in this campaign world. One large capital city and numerous small outlying communities.

Hell, even without enemy action there would have been some serious problems at home just from bandits and internal strife as the police forces and town militias were the first to be drafted.

Mr Beer
2013-06-25, 06:01 PM
Animating the dragon is an excellent player idea. I would be really pleased if my players routinely came up with this kind of stuff. It's only a "mistake" on your part in having the thing there ready to animate, but players always throw curve balls and indeed if they don't do stuff that you can't predict you may as well not play. Run with it and be happy.

The thing I'd do differently would be to not make it an encounter-breaking monster, at least in the case of a boss fight. This particular skeleton is old and fragile and likely to break easily when subjected to unkind usage, like enemies wacking it with heavy things. So it has 50% less HP or is slow or something. If it wasn't a climactic encounter, I'd be happy to let the skeletal dragon chew through the bad guys in an amusingly overpowered way. Like a sort of Benny Hill skit but with more screaming and blood.

All of the rest of your problems, well, I'm just going to go ahead and quote myself:


Talakeal, this is not a system problem. You're spending time making an elaborate and delicious cake for the kind of people who will put a fist through it and yell "I wanted HAM you bastard!".

You can continue to struggle to make intriguing settings and adventures for disinterested people or you can find players who are more your speed and more importantly, not a bunch of colossal douchebags.

I mean, you could also just dumb it down and invest less energy in it, but I think you'd still have problems with these guys because every one of your posts I've read indicates they're problem players.

Autolykos
2013-06-25, 06:02 PM
CN (the power monger), LN (the hack and slasher), CG and NG for the other two respectively.Pretty much what I expected, and probably fine if you loosen your standards a little. It's perfectly okay for neutral characters to (occasionally) do evil stuff when it helps them get the job done, and just as okay for good aligned non-Paladins not to fight them for this as long as it is still somewhat justifiable. They're only responsible for their own actions, and they have to balance the ultimate goal of the campaign and loyalty to their friends against whatever just happened. They should, however, have a serious in-character discussion with them after the fact. If they don't do that, they're probably fine with playing a little fast-and-loose with alignment.
EDIT: Or just take a break from GMing and let one of them step up. Maybe one of them does a better job of making divergent player expectations work together. And even if not, it's a nice change of perspective that helps you understand what kind of game they want.

Waar
2013-06-25, 06:05 PM
Well, I suppose most kingdoms would count as city states in this campaign world. One large capital city and numerous small outlying communities.

Hell, even without enemy action there would have been some serious problems at home just from bandits and internal strife as the police forces and town militias were the first to be drafted.

Fair enough, some real world "kingdoms" have been even smaller than that (turns out that local leader have a strong urge to call themselves kings when they do not serve under one :smallbiggrin:). On the other hand calling pesants to arm has been pretty common through history, the banditry and internal strife shouldn't be that bad, assuming ofcourse that the PCs have enough sense to let the pesants get back home in time for harvest :smallwink:

Scow2
2013-06-25, 06:07 PM
So they are officially at war with a dozen or so powerful enemy kingdoms. One of them is especially wall defended, and so the players call together ALL of their forces to siege that enemy's fortress, including drafting all the men in their kingdom to take part in the battle.
They should have drafted the women and children too. When it's a battle between Good&Evil, there are no noncombatants.

Sebastrd
2013-06-26, 04:15 PM
Every single one of those scenarios was set up before the PCs got involved.
...

I'm not arguing with the logic of your scenarios. I'm saying it seems the players don't want any of the complicated moral dilemmas you keep introducing. They want to kill the dragon and steal his hoard, so let them.

Note: Everyone at the table should be having fun, including you. If your tastes and those of your players don't match, that needs to be addressed out of game and a compromise reached.

ko_sct
2013-06-27, 05:57 PM
So, here's my 2cp.

First situation:
You are not to blame, and neither are your player. Someone compared it to having a sword laying around and not using it, while it is an adequate reason to explain the use of the dragon, I think it's perfectly normal for a DM to sometime forget one of the many many many abilities spellcasters have.

What you could have done (and I'm not critisizing, hindsight 20/20 and all that) is say something along the line of: when you start place the onyx used for the spell, you realise the bones are extremelly old and brittle, while the spell will bring them to unlife, it wont reverse the effect of time. This skelleton will be more fragile than usual.

And then you quickly adjust hp and dr, giving them a powerfull but not too powerfull ally.

For the second situation, well, I don't have much to say except this: You must keep in mind that the time that pass in-game and out-game is not the same. They may have had a lot of time to reflect on their actions in-game while they tracked, listened, and prepared themselves for an ambush, out-game that could take like 2min. That mean that if a player is absent-minded during 2 minutes, his character may very well spend 3 days tracking a petty thieve who stole 7 silver.

That's all I have to say.

Doug Lampert
2013-07-01, 05:37 PM
Skeletons run roughly 40% of HD in CR (never more than 50% for SRD skeletons). The caster can't make undead with more than double his HP (baring being in a desecrated area). So the skeleton has about 80% of his CR (never more than equal unless in a desecrated area).

But the Wizard expects this to roll all over the opposition? How?

Then the cleric type they're fighting takes control of the undead. Again, how? Taking control via rebuke requires that you have double the caster level of the target's HD, so again, you can't control anything nearly as powerful as you are. And Clerics don't get Command Undead.

For that matter, if it is possible to animate the skeleton as a useful minion for this level of combat, why hasn't the evil priest already done so? Sure, a big skeleton on the wall is impressive and all, but it's even more impresive when it bites the head off some silly little wizard who's trying to animate the already animated creature.

In general, if something can take away a powerful animated undead servant with Rebuke, then it can casually crush you, your party, and your little dog too whether or not you have a skeleton. I think I'd be upset if I thought you were violating the rules, and baring houserules this doesn't sound plausible in D&D 3.x.

Talakeal
2013-07-01, 06:28 PM
Skeletons run roughly 40% of HD in CR (never more than 50% for SRD skeletons). The caster can't make undead with more than double his HP (baring being in a desecrated area). So the skeleton has about 80% of his CR (never more than equal unless in a desecrated area).

But the Wizard expects this to roll all over the opposition? How?

Then the cleric type they're fighting takes control of the undead. Again, how? Taking control via rebuke requires that you have double the caster level of the target's HD, so again, you can't control anything nearly as powerful as you are. And Clerics don't get Command Undead.

For that matter, if it is possible to animate the skeleton as a useful minion for this level of combat, why hasn't the evil priest already done so? Sure, a big skeleton on the wall is impressive and all, but it's even more impresive when it bites the head off some silly little wizard who's trying to animate the already animated creature.

In general, if something can take away a powerful animated undead servant with Rebuke, then it can casually crush you, your party, and your little dog too whether or not you have a skeleton. I think I'd be upset if I thought you were violating the rules, and baring houserules this doesn't sound plausible in D&D 3.x.


Not d&d 3.5. Although even if it was, it is certainly possible to boost your animating skills to create things far more powerful than they have any reason to be. I remember skeletal hydras as being particularly nasty for. Heir hd / cr.

In the specific case the cleric in question was a priest king from an extinct alien species that had been imprisoned in a meteorite for millions of years. The meteor was being studied in a natural history museum and the priest accidentally freed. The fight took place in a muesum, and as terrain i had several exibits, one being the skeleton of a long dead dragon.

The priest WAS far more powerful than anyone inthe party. It was supposed to be a very challenging climactic fight for a six person party by itself. The reason it hadnt animated the skeleton on its own was that it had no reason to, the skeleton was too big to leave the museum, and the priest didnt expect to be attacked. Also, i didnt think of it.

Also, it isnt as if like i pulled it out of nowhere. The creatures title was priest king and the pcs had already fought several controlled undead.

Haarkla
2013-07-01, 08:45 PM
So last night my game ran more or less without a problem*, until the final battle. They were attacking the laboratory of an evil priest, and during the final battle I mentioned that the laboratory included the skeleton of a very large and very long dead dragon. The party wizard decided to animate it, giving the PCs an incredibly powerful minion. Of course, the cleric, who was much more powerful than the wizard, simply took control of the undead dragon. As a result the fight turned into a three hour long brawl that nearly resulted in a TPK, making everyone end the session extremely tired and cranky.

I can't tell, was the wizard animating the dragon being annoying and trying to "cheat" the situation, or merely trying to play smart? Any ideas?
Your party is at fault. You were merely playing the cleric as a smart opponent. The wizard has learnt that magic is a powerful force that can also be used against him. The wizard was trying to play smart, but was not smart enough.


The party fought a band of savage raiders, and killed all of them but two, included amongst the dead was the clan's spiritual leader. They tracked the two back to their village, and the party scout watched the two relate the tale. One decided to stay at the village to protect the women, while the other led the men who were too young or too old to participate in the battle to go and reclaim the body of their spiritual leader for proper burial.

The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched.
I think you are to blame. IMO you sought an out of character solution for an in character problem. You should have vividly discribed the youth, poor state and fearfulness of the opposing party, possibly leading to in-character negotiations.

Talakeal
2013-07-01, 09:01 PM
I think you are to blame. IMO you sought an out of character solution for an in character problem. You should have vividly discribed the youth, poor state and fearfulness of the opposing party, possibly leading to in-character negotiations.

And this is a bad thing? The party already had all of that information. As i said they were spying on the npcs before attacking. All i did was save time and mental duress by not rolling out a one sided massacre of numerous non combatants. This isn't FATAL, describig the incident in gruesome detail would have made the player MORE upset, not less, and less likely to speak out against it once the models were on the mat.

A couple days the player who gave the order to attack (not the player who got mad) told me the reason he did it was because they went out to recover the bodies almost immediately rather than hiding in wait for a few days, and that they wouldnt have done this unless they were capable of killing the pcs, thus he felt an ambush was fully justified.

Kazemi
2013-07-02, 12:02 AM
/snip
In the specific case the cleric in question was a priest king from an extinct alien species that had been imprisoned in a meteorite for millions of years. The meteor was being studied in a natural history museum and the priest accidentally freed. The fight took place in a muesum, and as terrain i had several exibits, one being the skeleton of a long dead dragon.
/snip

That's actually pretty cool. Getting blindsided in this case makes a whole lot more sense.


And this is a bad thing? The party already had all of that information. As i said they were spying on the npcs before attacking. All i did was save time and mental duress by not rolling out a one sided massacre of numerous non combatants. This isn't FATAL, describig the incident in gruesome detail would have made the player MORE upset, not less, and less likely to speak out against it once the models were on the mat.

A couple days the player who gave the order to attack (not the player who got mad) told me the reason he did it was because they went out to recover the bodies almost immediately rather than hiding in wait for a few days, and that they wouldnt have done this unless they were capable of killing the pcs, thus he felt an ambush was fully justified.

Their reaction to the in-game description would have depended on how adequate and believable they found the explanation as to why the villagers were traveling like that. Your player's reasoning, while logical, does not take the high emotional stress into account. He might do well to read this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html). The key would have been to use it in such a way that it is believable to your players, given the situation.

Emmerask
2013-07-02, 05:12 AM
A couple days the player who gave the order to attack (not the player who got mad) told me the reason he did it was because they went out to recover the bodies almost immediately rather than hiding in wait for a few days, and that they wouldnt have done this unless they were capable of killing the pcs, thus he felt an ambush was fully justified.


Heading out immediately to recover the corpse of your spiritual leader before carrion eaters desecrate the body is not that unusual ^^

Autolykos
2013-07-02, 05:40 AM
I'm not arguing with the logic of your scenarios. I'm saying it seems the players don't want any of the complicated moral dilemmas you keep introducing. They want to kill the dragon and steal his hoard, so let them.

Note: Everyone at the table should be having fun, including you. If your tastes and those of your players don't match, that needs to be addressed out of game and a compromise reached.
QFT. I'd advise you to just jump over your shadow and do a bunch of straight old-school dungeon crawls. Your players seem to flat-out not care about morality or character development, they want a tactical wargame. Planning a good dungeon is a completely different skillset that making believable NPCs and weaving intricate plots, but it's still one a DM should pick up eventually. Don't be confused by people telling you that one thing is Good Roleplaying(tm) while the other is "merely" Hack&Slash. You're there to spend some time together and have fun, not to satisfy someone else's artistic ideals.
If dungeon crawls aren't what you think is fun, well, strike a compromise, find a different activity with these friends, or leave. But at least give it a try. If nothing else, think of it as something new you can master that will make you a better DM.

That said, for the "tactical wargame" approach it is even more vital to play fair. Never deviate from what you've written down, even if it turns out to be a bad plan for the NPCs or a party wipe. And don't even think of fudging the rules to give NPCs/Monsters new cool abilities. The players must be able to rely on the rule books to make plans. That doesn't mean you need to feed them all the information. Scouting and intelligence gathering is their job, not yours. If they walk in blindly, they deserve a TPK.

dric_dolphin
2013-07-02, 11:13 AM
Quite honestly? I think all this might be your fault. For the first part... the ANIMATE UNDEAD should animate an skeleton with 4 HD/Caster Level. Not a FULL GROWN DRAGON. If it just had the simple melee attack of a skeleton, then it would be pretty much OK.

And about the second part... well, you COULD have said "Are you sure?" or even change the encounter altogether. Remember, YOU ARE THE DM. You can change the world "on the fly". The important part is to have fun, not to follow thru a plotline.

Emmerask
2013-07-02, 11:39 AM
Why should he change the encounter only because his players where bloodcrazy stupids?
Actions have consequences if every stupid thing you make during a game is retconned into something good, then there is no sense of accomplishment if you actually do something good and in the end really no reason to play a game in an elaborate world with elaborate rules at all.

I know that I would be bored to death in a game where every decision is good

Doug Lampert
2013-07-02, 11:44 AM
Quite honestly? I think all this might be your fault. For the first part... the ANIMATE UNDEAD should animate an skeleton with 4 HD/Caster Level. Not a FULL GROWN DRAGON. If it just had the simple melee attack of a skeleton, then it would be pretty much OK.

His response to me indicated that he's not playing D&D3.x, in which case he may want to seriously consider whether he may not have made minionmancy far too powerful.

I would ask if necromancy is that good (that a single character can combat animate something that can threaten his whole party) then why haven't the evil minionmancers already conquered the world, but I rather suspect that the reply would be "they have", that's what the PCs are fighting against.


And about the second part... well, you COULD have said "Are you sure?" or even change the encounter altogether. Remember, YOU ARE THE DM. You can change the world "on the fly". The important part is to have fun, not to follow thru a plotline.

Changing the encounter once you've set the stage destroys versamilitude. Let's not do that.

He said the PCs had scouted these guys out and watched them preparing to go out for the bodies. I'm not suddenly declaring someone's 12 year old little brother a major threat out of the blue just because my players want to feel justified in killing everything in sight.

And, "You don't need to roll for this" is in fact a flat statement that these characters are not a threat.

Scow2
2013-07-02, 11:47 AM
I'm bothered a lot by some of your machinations with some of the things - but I don't know your campaign. Yes, everything follows "logically", but it still feels a lot like "Aha! Players do X, and Y happens to punish them!"

Such as Mass-attacking the council thing: How did the one assault manage to unify what's formerly an incredibly fractious and backstabbing bunch? How much notice did they give? If they'd attacked quickly enough, it should have thrown the guys into disarray, and likely have the members try to exploit the weaknesses opened up in their 'allies', each believing themselves to have the only "True" answer to the threat of the sudden scary army.

Villain Logic:

Sending my forces to support Frenemies W, X, Y, and Z against Mutual Threat A WILL deplete my forces. If any of those opt to not send their forces, there's a chance Mutual Threat A will be annihilated anyway, or easily mopped up by my forces in a seperate attack - and that person would end up on top of everyone. Logically, I'm better off being the oen to hold my troops back to take advantage of that situation.

Frenemy X wants us to destroy Mutual Threat A's hometown, which is currently unguarded and undefended. If it's unguarded and undefended, why do ALL our armies need to strike it? It would be logical for Frenemy X to declare the assault, then keep his own troops in reserve while others take care of the sacking, and take the opportunity to strike at us to end up stronger after the situation resolves. If his assault is made in good faith, though, I can send a token force for the assault, and put another plan into motion that will ensure I come out on top of my rivals when this threat is eliminated instead.

Stuff like that. When villains see a mutual threat, they want to minimize their own investement in the conflict and maximize their gain, relative to their rivals. They have to make plans that focus on two goals - Destroying the threat, and ensuring they come out on top (Or at least not bottom) of their rivals. The goals are usually incompatible, but the villain who strictly comes up with a plan to destroy the Threat will find himself in a weakened position among his peers. And, if there are enough villains, any one of them can probably devote their entire planning capacity to coming out on top among his rivals instead of destroying the threat, and the threat would be destroyed if the rest do put effort into destroying it. This percieved imbalance in the situation would cause villains to err on the side of "Stab My Buddy in the Back".

Doug Lampert
2013-07-02, 02:42 PM
I'm bothered a lot by some of your machinations with some of the things - but I don't know your campaign. Yes, everything follows "logically", but it still feels a lot like "Aha! Players do X, and Y happens to punish them!"

Such as Mass-attacking the council thing: How did the one assault manage to unify what's formerly an incredibly fractious and backstabbing bunch? How much notice did they give?

I have no idea what it was in game, but realistically, weeks, minimum. More likely months.

It takes TIME to muster your full militia and you don't get the muster to show up without telling people WHY it needs to muster.


If they'd attacked quickly enough, it should have thrown the guys into disarray, and likely have the members try to exploit the weaknesses opened up in their 'allies', each believing themselves to have the only "True" answer to the threat of the sudden scary army.

Yeah, they shouldn't all suddenly really unite thier full focese against a common foe. But it's perfectly reasonable for them all to send a small contingent, since the one guy who DOESN'T at least do that, (a) cuts himself out of the loot division and (b) suggests an obvious target for the NEXT common enemy if the group that does go in together decides to stick together for one more fight.

Everyone sends 10-50% of their readily available field forces. Retaining full garrisons and a mobile reserve. That should be more than enough to win if Our Heroes have actually stripped their country's defenses.

And if one villain holds out and tries to attack someone during the campaign, well then, everyone else has their next common foe just volunteering to be the next target eliminated.

DougL

Scow2
2013-07-02, 02:54 PM
Yeah, they shouldn't all suddenly really unite thier full focese against a common foe. But it's perfectly reasonable for them all to send a small contingent, since the one guy who DOESN'T at least do that, (a) cuts himself out of the loot division and (b) suggests an obvious target for the NEXT common enemy if the group that does go in together decides to stick together for one more fight.

Everyone sends 10-50% of their readily available field forces. Retaining full garrisons and a mobile reserve. That should be more than enough to win if Our Heroes have actually stripped their country's defenses.

And if one villain holds out and tries to attack someone during the campaign, well then, everyone else has their next common foe just volunteering to be the next target eliminated.

DougLBut, they gain an advantage if they send fewer of their own troops to fight than their "allies". They're always looking for an opportunity to let their allies take the hits for them. The more time they dedicate to undercutting their allies, the stronger their advantage over them - And, if they find themselves turned upon, they are in the strongest position while the guys who "united" against them have to plan to avoid being backstabbed by each other.

A big enough threat can cause an Evil Sinister Omniscient Council of Vagueness to implode.

Talakeal
2013-07-02, 03:06 PM
Such as Mass-attacking the council thing: How did the one assault manage to unify what's formerly an incredibly fractious and backstabbing bunch? How much notice did they give? If they'd attacked quickly enough, it should have thrown the guys into disarray, and likely have the members try to exploit the weaknesses opened up in their 'allies', each believing themselves to have the only "True" answer to the threat of the sudden scary army.


Oh no, it wasn't "one assault", the players had already killed four or five of them. It wasn't until the players started actually killing their comrades that they put aside their petty squabbling and took notice of an actual threat.



QFT. I'd advise you to just jump over your shadow and do a bunch of straight old-school dungeon crawls. Your players seem to flat-out not care about morality or character development, they want a tactical war-game. Planning a good dungeon is a completely different skillset that making believable NPCs and weaving intricate plots, but it's still one a DM should pick up eventually. Don't be confused by people telling you that one thing is Good Roleplaying(tm) while the other is "merely" Hack&Slash. You're there to spend some time together and have fun, not to satisfy someone else's artistic ideals.
If dungeon crawls aren't what you think is fun, well, strike a compromise, find a different activity with these friends, or leave. But at least give it a try. If nothing else, think of it as something new you can master that will make you a better DM.


I don't know how I have given the impression that I only run complex plots or hate dungeon crawls. I run a lot of dungeon crawls, in fact the next adventure I am planning to run is a dungeon crawl, as was the adventure we are talking about.

The problem is that the players try and "outsmart the plot" and go off the rails to make the dungeon crawl easier. For example, the caravan instance I mentioned earlier, that was supposed to be a dungeon crawl. The players thought it would be easier if they lured the enemy out of the dungeon, thus hiring the fake caravan. It was done to avoid a dungeon crawl, not because the players secretly wanted a dungeon crawl.

Likewise the fight with the dragon skeleton took place in a dungeon crawl. The adventure started with a witch in the forest kidnapping some people from a village. The players went out to confront her, she called upon some local barbarians (who worship her as a god) for protection. The players killed her and all but two of the barbarians who fled. The players searched her hut and found the location of a local dungeon where the kidnapped people were held. Then, rather than heading off to crawl the dungeon as I expected, they decided to instead tail the two fleeing barbarians back to their village and ambush them.

Doug Lampert
2013-07-02, 03:14 PM
But, they gain an advantage if they send fewer of their own troops to fight than their "allies". They're always looking for an opportunity to let their allies take the hits for them. The more time they dedicate to undercutting their allies, the stronger their advantage over them - And, if they find themselves turned upon, they are in the strongest position while the guys who "united" against them have to plan to avoid being backstabbed by each other.

A big enough threat can cause an Evil Sinister Omniscient Council of Vagueness to implode.

They're not that big a threat. They needed their ENTIRE force to even besiege ONE member of the bad guys. So threat, but why should the council of evil implode? Far better to simply crush the upstarts while doing so costs NOTHING important.

There's a minimum force commitment, it isn't a hard limit, but send TOO FEW troops and your force disappears and you get nothing from the loot.

You NEED to send a creditable force, but not a really large one. THERE WILL BE LOOT. Someone will send enough force to collect the TOTALLY UNDEFENDED home city of that big army, which means you want to be at the table when that loot is divided. That means you need a strong enough force that it can't simply disappear and everyone else say "whoops, must have run into a huge force of three starving bandits and their pet doggie" or something similar. Or worse, your force doesn't disappear, and everyone else openly refuses to agree that your "contribution" deserves any return.

On the other side, hold back and so what? You've got NEGLIGABLY more force than anyone else who goes in, because 10-50% of your ready field force is a negligable portion of a kingdom's real might. Everyone else still has their militia, their garrisons, and 50-90% of their field force. Feel free to "take advantage" of that "weakness" while your agressive enemies are dividing the loot of a kingdom and getting practice in joint opperations WITHOUT you.

Balance of power works real well if everyone is vaguely similar in power, because you really can't afford to go all in on an attack (as Our Heroes demonstrated). And balance of power doesn't depend at all on anyone being non-evil, arguably it works BEST when everyone is pragmatic evil and out for their own benefit.

Scow2
2013-07-02, 03:19 PM
The problem is that the players try and "outsmart the plot" and go off the rails to make the dungeon crawl easier. For example, the caravan instance I mentioned earlier, that was supposed to be a dungeon crawl. The players thought it would be easier if they lured the enemy out of the dungeon, thus hiring the fake caravan. It was done to avoid a dungeon crawl, not because the players secretly wanted a dungeon crawl.

Likewise the fight with the dragon skeleton took place in a dungeon crawl. The adventure started with a witch in the forest kidnapping some people from a village. The players went out to confront her, she called upon some local barbarians (who worship her as a god) for protection. The players killed her and all but two of the barbarians who fled. The players searched her hut and found the location of a local dungeon where the kidnapped people were held. Then, rather than heading off to crawl the dungeon as I expected, they decided to instead tail the two fleeing barbarians back to their village and ambush them.

Murderhoboing, while pragmatic, does have moral drawbacks (As my favorite barbarian character learned the hard way). Either kill ALL the Barbarian-things, or risk an ambush when you're battered and bruised trying to leave when the dungeon's over.

While it seems that you have a tendency to make the consequences a bit too severe, the number of turns the players have to make to bring that about is actually balancing it. I'm really now out of words to say. You seem fine to me.

Talakeal
2013-07-02, 03:25 PM
His response to me indicated that he's not playing D&D3.x, in which case he may want to seriously consider whether he may not have made minionmancy far too powerful.


Maybe it is. But I don't think its any more powerful than in 3.5 where a high level wizard who buffs his caster level even slightly can easily raise 40+ HD with a single casting (double this in an area of desecration). That would be enough to raise a great wyrm gold dragon if skeletons didn't have the 20HD cap (and I am sure there is some way around that). 40HD worth of undead is quite a beat stick.

Necromancy is quite powerful, but there are limits on really big corpses to animate, and big corpses are very unsubtle. An undead horde takes a lot of time and resources to put together, and you are going to have people reacting violently if they find out you are making one.

Doug Lampert
2013-07-02, 05:11 PM
Maybe it is. But I don't think its any more powerful than in 3.5 where a high level wizard who buffs his caster level even slightly can easily raise 40+ HD with a single casting (double this in an area of desecration). That would be enough to raise a great wyrm gold dragon if skeletons didn't have the 20HD cap (and I am sure there is some way around that). 40HD worth of undead is quite a beat stick.

Necromancy is quite powerful, but there are limits on really big corpses to animate, and big corpses are very unsubtle. An undead horde takes a lot of time and resources to put together, and you are going to have people reacting violently if they find out you are making one.

IMAO abusive necromancy in 3.5 hits its high point at level 5 cleric. At that point your scenario where you can animate somthing that endangers your whole party is actually workable.

Desecrate is Clc 2; Animate dead is Clc 3 (Sor/Wiz 4). So a level 5 cleric able to cast evil spells can build an alter, desecrate an area, and then raise a 20 HD zombie or skeleton, and it gets 40 bonus HP on the side. That's the best the Animate Dead spell can ever do, and it's available to the lowest level character able to cast the spell from his own slots.

Oh, and it's all core and using the spells as intended. CR 5 clerics can make CR 8 minions with 40 extra HP for the minion.

The Grue
2013-07-03, 04:39 PM
...
I tend to have more complex plots than simple black and white kill the bad guy, and the players have told me they don't want me to break the fourth wall and tell them "the right thing to do" so I am at a loss as to how to handle it.

Is this the same group from your earlier thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288091)? If so, then the problem is that you caved to tantrum and vowed never to give OOG pointers. In doing so you've reinforced the notion that throwing their toys out the pram is a way for the players to get what they want, and hamstrung yourself as a GM at the same time.

Your players want to do things their way without regard to the scenario you've set up, and then get mad at you when their actions have consequences. I see no way to resolve this through YOUR actions. From your descriptions they don't seem to pay any attention to in-game sources of information, and they reject any out-of-game explanation or suggestion. In short, your players are playing THEIR game, not YOURs. I say let one of THEM run a session.

Is it really all the players who object to breaking "the fourth wall", or is it just the one guy? Regardless, I quote my post in your earlier thread:


...you need to decide whether having regular gaming sessions is more important to you than enjoying yourself. You do not sound like the current atmosphere...is a fun one to game in. D&D is a hobby, it's something you do for fun. So would you rather play D&D, or would you rather have fun?

Your posts regarding these people make you look like a battered spouse, refusing to leave your abusers despite the way they treat you, reassuring yourself that they do appreciate you, that if you just be patient and give them everything they ask then it'll all be better. It's not going to happen.

You need to kick this group out the door.

Talakeal
2013-07-03, 10:07 PM
Is this the same group from your earlier thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288091)? If so, then the problem is that you caved to tantrum and vowed never to give OOG pointers. In doing so you've reinforced the notion that throwing their toys out the pram is a way for the players to get what they want, and hamstrung yourself as a GM at the same time.


No, I didn't cave in, and will still give out of game pointers. No more so than ever after this incident. In fact, saying you can kill them without a fight WAS an out of game pointer trying to steer them away from stupid carnage, they just didn't take the bait.

Besides, as I said in the last thread, the player doesn't actually care about me giving OOC hints, he was just using it as an excuse for his bad behavior for throwing a tantrum because I "nerfed" him some weeks earlier.

This player has a habit of throwing a temper tantrum or refusing to play well with others and lying about his motivation for it. He will periodically refuse to heal or buff the other party members over some perceived slight, and never casts divination type spells because, I think, they are turning "power" into "useless RP fluff". However he will NEVER flat out say why he is doing it at first, instead he gives illogical and convoluted reasons why it is the "smart" thing to do in the situation.



Is it really all the players who object to breaking "the fourth wall", or is it just the one guy? Regardless, I quote my post in your earlier thread:


Just the one guy. The problem is I have one player who is, as a player, incapable of handling playing a good character, and another player who is, as a player, incapable of playing an evil character. Every session involves at least one of them ending the game unhappy no matter what I do.




Your posts regarding these people make you look like a battered spouse, refusing to leave your abusers despite the way they treat you, reassuring yourself that they do appreciate you, that if you just be patient and give them everything they ask then it'll all be better. It's not going to happen.

You need to kick this group out the door.

Yeah. I know. I would LOVE to find a new group, and have been trying, but haven't had any luck. Even with all the problems gaming is still the high point of my week, so I don't want to just up and stop without a fallback.

Emmerask
2013-07-04, 05:42 AM
Hm have you tried letting one of the other players dm for a while/a one shot?
Maybe even the problem player? ^^

In general if someone starts to dm it lets him/her get some perspective and shows that dming really is a hard job sometimes in comparison to what a player has to do during a game.

It improved one of our players greatly, he is far more reasonable as a player now that he has had the dm mantle on a few times :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2013-07-04, 03:58 PM
Hm have you tried letting one of the other players dm for a while/a one shot?
Maybe even the problem player? ^^

In general if someone starts to dm it lets him/her get some perspective and shows that dming really is a hard job sometimes in comparison to what a player has to do during a game.

It improved one of our players greatly, he is far more reasonable as a player now that he has had the dm mantle on a few times :smallsmile:

I would love to have someone else DM for a while. Unfortunately all the other players in our group either flat out refuse to DM or get bored after a couple of sessions and stop.

The few times someone else has DMed however, the problems in the group don't disappear, they only get worse. Other DMs aren't used to controlling the problem players, and I don't put up with their BS and passively sit by when I PC like the player who is always talked into evil actions by the rest of the group. I will put my foot down, and usually break up the group as a consequence.

BWR
2013-07-04, 04:53 PM
Sad to say, it seems like you've exhausted your options except kicking that one whiner out. If this one guy really messes up your games that badly, you really need to think seriously about surgery. Can't remove a cancer without a little blood and pain, but a cancer-free life is preferable to a little immediate unpleasantness.

Because it sounds like if you gave this guy an ultimatum like "shape up or ship out", he'd flip and go all petty drama queen on you guys and try to make you all feel responsible. Once that happens, just bite the bullet and get rid of him. If the main problem goes, it would not surprise me to hear that the rest of them quickly recovers and becomes a happier, less disruptive group.

The Grue
2013-07-04, 05:26 PM
Yeah. I know. I would LOVE to find a new group, and have been trying, but haven't had any luck.

You hear, but you do not listen. Would you rather have fun, or play D&D? Because this -


Even with all the problems gaming is still the high point of my week, so I don't want to just up and stop without a fallback.

- seems like a hollow justification. Even though you're pulling your hair out, posting new threads every week complaining about your players behaviour, even though that one guy is by all measure an awful person to be around, in spite of all that it's still the high point of your week? I find that hard to believe. You're acting the battered spouse again, proclaiming that despite all the things your abusers do they're still the best thing that ever happened to you. Do you really believe what you're saying?

"I can't find a new group" is an awful reason not to throw this one out the door. An addict might as well say "I can't find a new drug" as a reason not to quit.

Mr Beer
2013-07-04, 05:51 PM
Then, rather than heading off to crawl the dungeon as I expected, they decided to instead tail the two fleeing barbarians back to their village and ambush them.

So have the barbarians flee to the dungeon instead, problem solved.

Really though your problem is that your players are douchebags and you won't kick them to the curb because you're an enabler.

Talakeal
2013-07-04, 05:56 PM
You hear, but you do not listen. Would you rather have fun, or play D&D? Because this -



- seems like a hollow justification. Even though you're pulling your hair out, posting new threads every week complaining about your players behavior, even though that one guy is by all measure an awful person to be around, in spite of all that it's still the high point of your week? I find that hard to believe. You're acting the battered spouse again, proclaiming that despite all the things your abusers do they're still the best thing that ever happened to you. Do you really believe what you're saying?

"I can't find a new group" is an awful reason not to throw this one out the door. An addict might as well say "I can't find a new drug" as a reason not to quit.

You can think what you want about me, but you don't know anything about me or my situation.

My group has a lot of problems, but frankly I am used to it, I don't think I have ever had a friend who didn't have some sort of crippling personality disorder, so for me it is normal.

The other gaming groups I have briefly been a part of have all been just as bad, and we have had a few players join our group and turn out to be even worse than our current roster. Like the guy who threw his shoes at other people's faces when he was upset about the game.

Maybe it's just low self esteem or a warped perspective on my part, but in my experience most people who are good at people skills are spending their lives doing something other than playing games.

Even so, gaming is an overall positive experience, at least in my mind. You only hear about the bad stuff, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good. I just don't post about it, because what would be the point. If there is a problem I can get advice to fix it, if there isn't a problem what sort of feedback would I ask for?


So have the barbarians flee to the dungeon instead, problem solved.

In the context that wouldn't make any sense. They don't know where the dungeon is, don't have any reason to go there, can't get to it (the entrance was under water), and two wounded guys wouldn't survive for an instant in a dungeon full of powerful man eating monsters.

Besides, I had to come up with something in a manner of seconds and didn't realize the players were planning on attacking. I thought they were just curious, and were planning on learning about the barbarians, who they were, where they came from, and what their relationship was with the witch. Perhaps they were even interested in making peace with them or talking to them to solve a mutual problem. I know I should have expected them to attack, but my players are anything but predictable.

TuggyNE
2013-07-04, 06:35 PM
You can think what you want about me, but you don't know anything about me or my situation.

You say this, and it sounds plausible, because that may well be the case…


My group has a lot of problems, but frankly I am used to it, I don't think I have ever had a friend who didn't have some sort of crippling personality disorder, so for me it is normal.

The other gaming groups I have briefly been a part of have all been just as bad, and we have had a few players join our group and turn out to be even worse than our current roster. Like the guy who threw his shoes at other people's faces when he was upset about the game.

Maybe it's just low self esteem or a warped perspective on my part, but in my experience most people who are good at people skills are spending their lives doing something other than playing games.

… and then you say this and make The Grue's point for him. :smallsigh:

Seriously, dude, this is not a good situation.

Talakeal
2013-07-04, 06:59 PM
You say this, and it sounds plausible, because that may well be the case…



… and then you say this and make The Grue's point for him. :smallsigh:

Seriously, dude, this is not a good situation.

Let me boil it down to this:

I have never seen a gaming group (or indeed any social activity) that didn't have its share of problems.

Despite all the problems, I still find the experience to be overall a positive one.

I would rather work on removing the problems from my overall positive experience than throw the baby out with the bath water and start over from scratch, hence my frequent threads asking for advice.

Scowling Dragon
2013-07-04, 07:02 PM
Have you tried PBP gaming? I can't speek for others, but I am a serious GM, and online almost 24/7.

Edit:

Because that is ONE ugly baby. It actively wants to hurt you and just looks like a bomb waiting too go off.

Mr Beer
2013-07-04, 07:59 PM
In the context that wouldn't make any sense. They don't know where the dungeon is, don't have any reason to go there, can't get to it (the entrance was under water), and two wounded guys wouldn't survive for an instant in a dungeon full of powerful man eating monsters.

I'm not sure how your players are going to know it doesn't make sense. You are allowed to change things on the fly you know. Like one of the barbarians has a deal going on with one of the intelligent monsters or whatever.

Point is, if you want to point them at the dungeon, you can do so. You have all the options here. It doesn't have to be "that's where the barbarian runs", you can do it however you want.

Mr Beer
2013-07-04, 08:01 PM
I have never seen a gaming group (or indeed any social activity) that didn't have its share of problems.

I have never seen a gaming group (or indeed any social activity) that had problems like your group has problems.

EDIT

I tell a lie, I did attend an RPG club which had a bunch of freaks and weirdos in it:

1. Autism / facial boil guy.

2. Sarcastic schoolteacher control freak guy.

3. Argumentative nob guy.

I stopped going after 2 sessions because I don't need people like that in my life.

The Grue
2013-07-04, 08:19 PM
Let me boil it down to this:

I have never seen a gaming group (or indeed any social activity) that didn't have its share of problems.

Despite all the problems, I still find the experience to be overall a positive one.

I would rather work on removing the problems from my overall positive experience than throw the baby out with the bath water and start over from scratch, hence my frequent threads asking for advice.

The battered spouse again. You'd rather try and change your abuser than be without them.

You can't make other people change.

Scowling Dragon
2013-07-04, 08:31 PM
You can't make other people change.

Thats a lie. But you established pretty well that these people are the kinds of people that would let everybody down, if it meant that they get petty revenge.

You can change people. You can't change THOSE kinds of people.

The Grue
2013-07-04, 08:38 PM
Thats a lie. But you established pretty well that these people are the kinds of people that would let everybody down, if it meant that they get petty revenge.

You can change people. You can't change THOSE kinds of people.

Semantics. You can convince someone else to change themselves, but you can't make someone change.

Talakeal
2013-07-04, 09:29 PM
The battered spouse again. You'd rather try and change your abuser than be without them.

You can't make other people change.

You could say that about literally anything. You are basically using "battered spouse" as a derogatory term for anyone who doesn't fall for a nirvana fallacy.



I'm not sure how your players are going to know it doesn't make sense. You are allowed to change things on the fly you know. Like one of the barbarians has a deal going on with one of the intelligent monsters or whatever.

Point is, if you want to point them at the dungeon, you can do so. You have all the options here. It doesn't have to be "that's where the barbarian runs", you can do it however you want.

Changing things on the fly feels like cheating, and if my players catch me doing so they will certainly accuse me of such.

Still, it might be a good idea, but keep in mind this would require me to rework large portions of the adventure on the fly, in the span of a few seconds between the players stating their actions and me narrating the results.

I would also need to be able to predict when such elements would be required, always being two steps ahead of my players and able to predict player decisions before the players themselves have even been presented with the problem. If I was that good at forward thinking and predicting player behavior I would never need to change things on the fly, they would be perfect the first time.

The Grue
2013-07-04, 09:35 PM
You could say that about literally anything. You are basically using "battered spouse" as a derogatory term for anyone who doesn't fall for a nirvana fallacy.

And now you're redirecting. This thread isn't about me and my fallacies, it's about you and your gaming group.

TuggyNE
2013-07-04, 09:39 PM
You could say that about literally anything. You are basically using "battered spouse" as a derogatory term for anyone who doesn't fall for a nirvana fallacy.

No indeed. There is all the difference in the world between a person who makes mistakes but is willing to fix them and try to avoid them in the future, and a person who makes mistakes and causes problems without caring. One of them can change, the other one won't. Mind you, someone can choose to switch between those, but there is absolutely nothing you can do that will make someone decide to be open to changing and fixing their problems.

Don't make excuses for someone who just doesn't care about being a decent person and is unwilling to put any effort toward that.

Scowling Dragon
2013-07-04, 09:42 PM
You could say that about literally anything. You are basically using "battered spouse" as a derogatory term for anyone who doesn't fall for a nirvana fallacy.

Every time you say that you also say stuff like:


Changing things on the fly feels like cheating, and if my players catch me doing so they will certainly accuse me of such.

THIS.

This isn't a bloody competitive game. Its one thing to GM bluff your way to force your characters to do something, but your just trying to make things run smoother.

I NEVER have a full plot. I just write stuff on the fly and as I go along until it solidifies into a single solid.

And the results are FINE.

Mr Beer
2013-07-04, 11:02 PM
Changing things on the fly feels like cheating, and if my players catch me doing so they will certainly accuse me of such.

I will change things on the fly every single time I think it will make for a better game, in exactly the same way I will allow players to execute good ideas that didn't previously occur to me, if it will make for a better game. I'm not playing chess here, I'm cooperatively creating an enjoyable narrative.

I couldn't care less about "cheating" in this way and I don't get caught "cheating"...but of course the real issue here is that I don't have the kind of douchebag players who try to catch me out and then use my "cheating" as some kind of stick to beat me with.

Scowling Dragon
2013-07-04, 11:08 PM
Seriously brah, you have been beaten down SO much that the very act of making things easier for the players make you go "But they will get upset over that".

You have been playing for 10 YEARS. 10 YEARS. They are NOT going to get any better. Search for a Skype group!

BWR
2013-07-05, 04:02 AM
Talakeal, you are coming to us for help. We are trying to help. Some are wording it better than others, but we are honestly trying to point out the real problems. And, looking at your responses, it seems as though you are aware of this even if you back off from openly admitting it.

You say you've been gaming ten years with this sort of problem? That's not normal and it's not healthy. I've been playing with one of my groups for nearly 20 years and we've never had this sort of problem. We may have been annoyed at the DM for something, we may have argued about this and that, we may have thought another player was being annoying, but we never, ever throw tantrums or ruin the game for everyone or act like spoiled brats.

Throughout the last 10 years I've been DMing with other groups I have had my share of bad games I've run, bad calls I've made, and my players will act like effing adults and point out that they didn't like it and why they didn't like it instead of throwing a hissy fit. They never intentionally sabotage the game for their own gratification, they do not regularly enforce their will on the other players. RPGs are supposed to be a cooperative effort and fun for everyone. The Knights of the Dinner Table sort of gaming is meant as a comedic exaggeration.

What you have is not an in-game problem, it's a player problem, and it will not ever be solved in the game. Abusive (not necessarily violent) relationships exist, whether or not they are romantic. It can be between neighbors, work colleagues, business partners or friends. From what you have told us, this one player has all the hallmarks of an abusive party.

We are not trying to order you around, we are trying to help you. You have already started the process, now finish it: think long and hard about what this player is worth to you.

Talakeal
2013-07-06, 09:43 PM
Well, so I spent the last two weeks doing everything in my power to create a gaming situation free of conflict. Today was the big day.

The game completely imploded, for reasons I have not even hinted at so far. Tears were shed, knives were drawn, and relationships were ended.

So it looks like I don't have to worry about kicking anyone out of the group after all. Anyone got any suggestions for finding a new gaming group?

Scowling Dragon
2013-07-06, 10:25 PM
Play by post/ Skype/ Maptool games. What kind of game are you looking for?

The New Bruceski
2013-07-07, 12:24 AM
-Being hired to rescue some prisoners from an illithid. Hacking through the illithid's dominated followers only to realize that they were the people they came there to rescue after they were all dead.


This was one of my greatest gaming moments ever when a similar situation came up in my group 15 or so years ago (I'm old.) We had a wizard's tower full of mind-controlled slaves, and while the DM expected us to slaughter our way up there we pinged on them being innocents and tried guile. After a horrible experience with character/RL matchup (I was playing the sorceror face, and even today cannot talk my way out of a paper bag) we used a bunch of cantrips to convince the guards they were crazy (probably some DM leniancy as well given my flub trying to talk us in) and knocked them out while "helping" them. Then we fought our way up the castle with nonlethal damage, grappling checks (UGH, remember those?) and desperately running around healing guys and making first aid checks to keep them from bleeding out.

Final casualties: the wizard, and I think one of us jumped out a window at him when he tried to escape with feather fall. I can't recall if they survived.

BWR
2013-07-07, 04:56 AM
I'm sorry it came to this, Tal.
But from all you've told us, this is probably for the best. It sucks right now, but hopefully it will get better.

Finding a new group.
1) I suggest you take some time off and reflect and get your own feelings in order. I get the feeling this has been rather stressful for you. Rather than finding, if you'll pardon the phrase, a rebound group just do something else for a month or so. Watch movies, read books, try another hobby. Something to get your mind off this.

2) Once you've had some time to come to grips with the unfortunate situation, you can try to find a new group.
Is there a local comic book or gaming store? hang "group wanted" flyers there. Hang them at any local store that allows it.
Use the internet. Lots of fora have specific parts for trying to find fellow gamers in the area. Spend some time trawling the net and finding these.

Good luck.

Sith_Happens
2013-07-07, 04:27 PM
The game completely imploded, for reasons I have not even hinted at so far. Tears were shed, knives were drawn, and relationships were ended.

This part was figurative, right? Right?:smalleek:

Mr Beer
2013-07-07, 06:21 PM
Well, so I spent the last two weeks doing everything in my power to create a gaming situation free of conflict. Today was the big day.

The game completely imploded, for reasons I have not even hinted at so far. Tears were shed, knives were drawn, and relationships were ended.

So it looks like I don't have to worry about kicking anyone out of the group after all. Anyone got any suggestions for finding a new gaming group?

What were the non-hinted reasons? Were knives actually drawn? What happened? Details man, details!

In terms of finding other games, I just trolled around the internet. I live in Sydney which is a decent sized city and found 4 or 5 groups that I could have conveniently attended via public transport.

However what ended up happening was I used the last remaining player of my collapsed group to get me into a 40K gaming group that he was playing with.

I played some sessions there, got to know the guys and proposed running RPGs, with me GM-ing. So now I'm running two campaigns, alternated with 40K/Deathwatch as a player and basically having a blast. I also went on a recruiting drive online but only got one player out of it. He's shaping up really well though so it was certainly positive.

My suggestion with a new group is to play a couple of games even if you are not super keen on the system or setting and get to know people before suggesting that you run sessions. It's much more demanding to form bonds with people and try to GM at the same time. Most groups will let you have a crack at GM-ing because decent GMs are always in demand and because it's so much more work than just playing, GMs are often in danger of burnout and happy to let someone else shoulder the burden for a while.

I much prefer running games to playing in them, but this is the second time I formed a gaming group where I got it working exactly the way I wanted by first spending time getting to know the people involved and playing a game I wasn't super keen on. The previous group I ran for about 10 years, what happened was I went to a gaming group in a council-owned site and after a few sessions proposed I run a game at my place. I was a better GM than the previous one and my house was more convenient for me so it worked out well for everyone.

That was the second group I tried, the first one was chock-full of annoying weirdos so I didn't go there more than two or three times.

You need to understand that most people are not mentally deranged hatebots like your now-ex group and chances are this incident will allow you to get a decent game going.

Talakeal
2013-07-08, 03:01 PM
What were the non-hinted reasons? Were knives actually drawn? What happened? Details man, details!


I am not sure I feel comfortable posting the whole story, as a lot of it doesn't directly involve me or gaming.

One of the players is the wife of another player who only comes to the game because the couple don't like to do activities separately. She has trouble remembering rules, doing addition, and making decisions. She doesn't usually disrupt the game though, so I have no problem helping her. Instead of trying to teach her how to calculate attack bonus for the 50th time I just started saying "you need to roll a 15 or higher to hit".

She is playing a monk, and recently she had some left over skill points she didn't know what to do with. As the party has no rogue to fill up the critically lacking "scout" role I suggested that she pick up the stealth skill, as she had the lowest ACP, highest dex, and stealth as a class skill.

Well, on Saturday she had to use her stealth ability for the first time, and couldn't understand the mechanics. After trying to explain it to her for fifteen minutes she finally rolled and failed, and at that point she exploded, saying she doesn't understand the skill and didn't even want to take it in the first place, and said that she hated my game because everyone was always telling her what to do, burst into tears, and ran from the room.

Her husband followed her. The rest of the group sat there in silence while the sounds of screaming, sobbing, and smashing objects came from the other room. After an hour of this I decided to call the game and leave.

I have heard second hand some of the details of what happened after I left, but I am not going to post the details. Let's just say it is rather extreme and wouldn't be out of place in a Lanky Bugger story.

Today I was informed that the two of them where leaving the group because MY GAME was responsible for almost ending their marriage and MAKING THEM do things they will regret for the rest of their life.


This part was figurative, right? Right?:smalleek:

I hear it was literal, although I had already left by that time.





So now, I have two players left. One of them is the problem player who I 90% of my advice threads are about and I have been told repeatedly to kick (who strangely enough played no part in the groups collapse). The other is a formally good player and good friend who is, unfortunately, currently suffering from clinical depression and lacks the ability to put any enthusiasm into the game. There is no way I can continue the game with just these two.

So at this point I need to find a new gaming group.

BWR
2013-07-08, 03:21 PM
Man, that was worse than I imagined.
Still, at least you don't seem to labor under the misapprehension that this was in any way your fault. Because this is all other people's ****, not yours. You just had the misfortune to be the target these monkeys used.

So, I'll say again I suggest you take a break from gaming.
When you have your breath back, hopefully you will find another, better group.
I'd cut all contact with the jerk, however little he had to do with the meltdown.

Keep in touch with your depressive player. It's a pain to deal with depressives sometimes but remember he has it worse. The fact that he shows up enough to be considered a regular player shows this is something he cares about, even if he is rather passive.

Mr Beer
2013-07-08, 09:35 PM
I am not sure I feel comfortable posting the whole story, as a lot of it doesn't directly involve me or gaming.

:sadface: but yeah, fair enough. Thanks for the details provided, that sounds mental.


Today I was informed that the two of them where leaving the group because MY GAME was responsible for almost ending their marriage and MAKING THEM do things they will regret for the rest of their life.

LOL, well obviously them voluntarily attending an RPG session you were kind enough to run for them = you ruining their marriage. Sounds like things are otherwise perfect with them with no underlying issues and I'm sure it will be all wine and roses from now on!


So now, I have two players left. One of them is the problem player who I 90% of my advice threads are about and I have been told repeatedly to kick (who strangely enough played no part in the groups collapse). The other is a formally good player and good friend who is, unfortunately, currently suffering from clinical depression and lacks the ability to put any enthusiasm into the game. There is no way I can continue the game with just these two.

So at this point I need to find a new gaming group.

Good decision and good luck.

I second the above suggestion about keeping in touch with the depressed guy.