Keeping the DM honest.

[Oddman80]

Here's the situation. An NPC in our campaign was wearing 4 rings of protection (how she got to wear more than 2 is beside the point). One protected against evil, one against good, one against chaotic, and one against lawful. My character is chaotic neutral. When I tried to slap her after she slapped me I rolled a 18+4+3=25 to hit vs her touch AC. My hand flew back away from her before making contact. Since only one of the rings would have been in play, it should be safe to assume these are pretty damn powerful rings. Later, when Things took an accidental, and unfortunate turn, I delivered a decapitating coup de grace against her. When I rolled a 24 on that blow, the dm said that due to her rings, I took 4d4+4 damage. The thing was, just a moment earlier, our cleric snagged the rings from her. Now her heads gone, I took no damage, and we've got the rings. We have asked the DM for the stats on the rings, but are still awaiting them.

Given the facts stated above, what would you all expect the stats to be on these rings. I want to make sure the DM stays honest, and isn't nerfing the rings cuz we killed an important NPC to his story line (again... Whoops).

Thanks.

[hymer]

Stays honest? Maybe you should try to stop this mutually assured not-having-fun rather than what you're apparently all doing right now.

[Oddman80]

Stays honest? Maybe you should try to stop this mutually assured not-having-fun rather than what you're apparently all doing right now.

What?!?! We weren't trying to derail the DM's story.. And everyone is having fun. The NPC accidentally got hit when I crit failed an attempt to knock down a wall. It was a die roll that directed the damage at the npc. We couldn't heal her due to party limitations, and when she went unconscious, the protective wardings fell - the only think keeping back the hordes of villagers that wanted to kill her. Killing the npc to save ourselves from the villagers anger seemed like the only solution at the time.

[Kazudo]

It IS well within the DM's purview to fudge information once in a while especially if it adds challenge and interest or narrative value to the game.

I wouldn't like a game where I won every time.

EDIT: And it's possible (and well within, again, said DM's purview) that the rings were any of the following:

A) Actually cursed items bound to one individual with much more mundane actual effects when worn by anyone else
B) A "combo set" that if you had the feat/natural ability/weird supernatural quality/racial trait/template trait that she did (that allowed her to wear four rings simultaneously without benefit of a wizard's hand, etc) worked like that, but individually worked much less effectively
C) Temporary Use Magical Items with a set number of charges (See Ring of the Ram and other such things) and she expended all of the charges to keep them all active at the same time.
Or any of the above.

[hymer]

@ OP: I'm feeling heavily biased against you, so I should probably say no more.

[atemu1234]

Well, they could have the Extra Rings feat. That would allow for four. And just because the rings don't have stats in the DMG doesn't mean he homebrewed them or lied about them. They could be from elsewhere, or if he did homebrew them there's nothing wrong with that. If he's just being a jerk, you should tell him. But you're forgetting one of the most important rules in all of gaming: The DM only rolls dice for the sound effects.

[jedipotter]

Given the facts stated above, what would you all expect the stats to be on these rings. I want to make sure the DM stays honest, and isn't nerfing the rings cuz we killed an important NPC to his story line (again... Whoops).

Thanks.

Lets see.....

Immunity to physical attack vs set alignment. Plus they do damage. So like always active Stoneskin and Fire Aura? Guess you could make a non-epic item that did that. With the alignment limit.

But it souds much more like your DM is just being crazy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

...Yeah, no. "Critical Fumble" is still the worst part of this situation. I thought for second it might not be the biggest problem with the OP's game, but upon thinking about it, fumble rules take the gold once again.

[Kazudo]

The DM only rolls dice for the sound effects.

There are a few games in which the GM/DM/Storyteller/whatever's segment pretty much says that.

For example, quoting from the Paranoia Guidebook:

Dice are handy for giving players the illusion
they control their destiny. This is valuable, but
roll your dice out of the players’ sight, behind
a screen. If a die roll gives you a result you
don’t like, the die is wrong. Change the result
to the number you want. You can dock the die
credits or beat it up, though in our experience
this has little effect.
If a player tries an action you like, roll lots
of dice and consult lots of tables. Whatever
they tell you, have the action succeed. If you
don’t like the action, roll the dice and have it
fail. If you’re undecided, use the rules.

[Oddman80]

Thank you Kazudo. I wasn't aware of the possibilities you mentioned. Maybe I should have pointed out that I am a new player, but I definitely wasn't expecting the type of reaction hymer had to my Q.

So far in this campaign, it has been anything but always wining. In a 5 person party, there have already been 5 character deaths and we're only lvl 3. The lowest CR our party has faced thus far has been a 5... So in the midst of all the party carnage and mayhem, something fortuitous seems to have occurred, though unexpectantly. So I was just looking for (again, as a new player) what I (and the rest of the party) should reasonably expect from these rings, the powers of which, the DM had cleary illustrated during game play.

If, per your hypothetical, its impossible to even guess a baseline... So be it.

[nedz]

Paranoia is a parody of RPGs, now don't get me wrong Paranoia is hilarious; but claiming that Paranoia is typical of all RPGs is misguided.

In any event, other than when playing Paranoia etc., the DM has to maintain their integrity, or at least the illusion of it, or the game will suffer. From the title of this thread it seems that this DM has failed here — whether he played fair or not.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh . . . while a DM can do that sort of thing, making an NPC immune to physical damage is such a ham-fisted method that it really should be called out on. It smacks of a DM who is afraid of you ruining their precious lil' plot. It's hard enough to take from computer games, but when you have a Real Live DM™ it's even worse.
Maybe there's a reason that's totally legitimate beyond I Am The DM, but it still feels wonky to me.

[Oddman80]

...Yeah, no. "Critical Fumble" is still the worst part of this situation. I thought for second it might not be the biggest problem with the OP's game, but upon thinking about it, fumble rules take the gold once again.

Yeah, seriously. I tried to save the situation beforehand. Before I swung, I told everyone to back up. One of the pc's chose to leave the room, the DM's npc didnt. Upon crit failing, but before the target was selected, I tried convincing the DM that the damage shouldn't be full, as a metal bludgeoning weapon bouncing off a stone wall wouldn't have the same kickback power of the initial swing against the wall. In his "hope" to hit one of the pc's, he over-ruled and said FULL DAMAGE. He knew I was raging, and had charged the wall with a two handed power attack of 3. He shot himself in the foot this time.

[Kazudo]

It's beginning to sound like you might also have a new DM. You may want to bring up your concerns in a kind, understanding way. Early on in a gaming experience, communication is pretty much key. Now, I'm not going to say that I've never done these things (I was a new DM once too, obviously). Critical fumbles, punishing players for when they interrupt my precious story or do things against it, fudging rules that only work one way, etc.

Now, sometimes I still do those things. My NPCs sometimes will critically fumble when it makes for a good narrative or dramatic feeling, my players will do so whenever they feel they should, and sometimes the players act in ways that cause consequences to form and only coincidentally interrupt whatever "plot" I was working on. As the above statements have said, I also fudge rules once in a while again for dramatic appeal and to add challenge and fun to the game. However, there's another line that is repeated in many if not most of the DM/GM/Whatever sections/books:

The players are not your enemies. They are your friends and entertainment and you should realize that you are the same to them.

Now, most new DMs don't get that. And most new DMs that are also relatively new players will often go into it with the wrong ideas in mind, but you can't really hold that against them either. They don't know that what they're doing isn't fun unless you tell them.

Now, if it IS fun, don't worry about it and just enjoy yourself. Ultimately, that's all it's about. The rules are there for people who like rules, the dice are there for people who like to imagine that they control their fate, and the rest is pretty much just guidelines. Ultimately, it's a game to have fun and that should be the primary goal of both players and game masters alike at all times. So don't be too upset if he gives you the rings and they're pretty craptastic opposed to how they appeared. You could even make a small subplot about investigating why that is, if the DM allows.

There are a few hallmarks of a good DM that you should probably bring up, however, from my personal experience.

A) Concerning critical fumbles: They aren't necessary and they really contribute nothing to the game except for aesthetics, they only take away mechanically even if the NPCs do it too. Make sure to keep them that way if you decide to use them.
B) The plot is NOT that important, trust me. If the group goes off on a tangent, you can either just mentally note that the plot fixed itself (surely there are other adventurers in the world) or you could even have a "Life goes on" mentality about it. If the group deviates from the main plot you had in mind for many in-game months, how far along would that plot have gotten in that time? How much more interesting and exciting could it be? How could you reintroduce it to the players again?
C) As I said earlier, the PCs are your friends and your entertainment, as you should be to them. Keep it fun. If it's not fun, it's not worth playing.

So to answer your question, there's no real way that we at the Playground can tell you exactly what to look for on those rings. The DM is using some interesting custom item rules, which kinda throws any PO out the window. To answer a statement you said, however, the notion of DM honesty is just a bubble that needs breaking sometimes. When you're the one who bends the truth to your will and whose ultimate interpretation affects every rule, when you're the one who makes the world, you're not being dishonest when you display it. Now, it's still entirely possible for you to be a really big jerk, and the more you abuse your power and general jerkishness the less fun the game will be and the fewer people will want to play with you. But ultimately it isn't the players' job to keep the DM in line the same way it's really not the DM's job to keep the players in line. It's everyone's job to keep the game fun, and that's all.

EDIT:

Paranoia is a parody of RPGs, now don't get me wrong Paranoia is hilarious; but claiming that Paranoia is typical of all RPGs is misguided.

Paranoia XP Service Pack One isn't as much a parody as it is a comedic distillation. That whole general feeling is pretty much what Rule Zero is all about. Some DMs don't like the way it paints them, sure, but it's kind of hard to ignore.

[lunar2]

if the rings were already removed when you took damage, that means she either has a class feature, a feat, or another magic item that did the damage.

as for the rings themselves, a ring of continuous divine metamagic persistent protection form evil costs just 1,000 gp, but if you are wearing one for each alignment (4,000 gp total), you get the benefits of a +2 ring of protection (8,000 gp), +2 cloak of resistance (4,000 gp), immunity to possession and mental control (?), and immunity to the melee attacks of summoned creatures (?).

so, yeah. really really cheesy, but just getting the rings on the cheap is doable. only issue is, they don't scale.

also, off the top of my head, the only thing that would damage you for hitting her is a retributive amulet. but if he's dropping that kind of treasure on her, you seriously need to grab that, it's worth 56k gp. and also, good on you for killing the overpowered DMPC.

[jedipotter]

It's beginning to sound like you might also have a new DM.

I think so too. And this DM has a common problem: how to keep NPC's alive? D&D makes this hard. The characters will slaughter anything they encounter and the NPC can't really get away. They can't even have a trick or an item as the rules are so restrictive. So the DM turns to ''off the wall crazy stuff'' to keep the NPC alive for a couple games.......

[Kazudo]

Keeping PCs alive is easy when the punishment for breaking laws and rules in the game world isn't always death, but equally as annoying, like loss of wealth, being stripped of title or rank, being forbidden from certain practices, etc.

Keeping NPCs alive through force and shenanigans is usually a symptom of "my plot above all else".

A few personal rules I keep to end up with the outcome of my DMing being enjoyable by most if not all present. The DM is required to be an adaptive force in the game world, not rigid like a computer would be. How would NPCs react? What if the lord of the land sees this reckless band of adventurers running around and killing everything in sight? Aren't there other adventurers who could go after them? Aren't there laws and rules that the players shouldn't be/aren't above having to follow?

That sort of thing. Aside from having genuinely reckless players there to spoil everyone else's fun, the primary fault for game failure and fun ruination lies squarely with the DM in experiences I've had and seen. Now, that's not to say that players don't have a hand in it. A kick-in-the-door player should be responsible for finding some way to enjoy an intrigue-heavy game as long as the DM can compromise between the two play-styles and not just whinge about how bad the game is simply because it doesn't suit his style.

EDIT:

Another important thing I forgot to mention is that if your players are just killing NPCs willy-nilly, it's probably because they don't CARE about the NPC(s) that they're killing. They won't care how long a party NPC has been with the group if they haven't gained any kind of emotional attachment to that particular character. The reason NPC villagers often get slaughtered by the handful is because to the players and even the PCs, they're just faceless goons that no one cares about. In D&D, that's typically acceptable. However, it's my experience that good people just having fun will often think twice about senseless slaughter if they're forced to see the aftermath of what they did and how it impacts the game world, if even slightly. A punishment my PCs had to go through at one point for the senseless murder of a few soldiers of their country "for fun, to train yaknow?" was that they were forced to attend their funeral. Not death, not disbarment, not theft, nothing else. It was more to punish the players than their characters.

Long story short, if you want the NPC alive, make them more valuable to the PCs alive than dead, whether it be intrinsic value or emotional. Failure to do so will end up with a lot of NPC sized coffins and apathetic players.

[Ravens_cry]

I think so too. And this DM has a common problem: how to keep NPC's alive? D&D makes this hard. The characters will slaughter anything they encounter and the NPC can't really get away. They can't even have a trick or an item as the rules are so restrictive. So the DM turns to ''off the wall crazy stuff'' to keep the NPC alive for a couple games.......
If you have a game where the PCs are slaughtering allied NPCs, then you have a bigger problem than PC/NPC transparency.

[jedipotter]

Keeping NPCs alive through force and shenanigans is usually a symptom of "my plot above all else".

The problem is most players play D&D like they must kill everything they encounter that is not 110% freindly. And D&D is set up a bit that way....if someone is a foe, then you must kill them for XP.

[Kazudo]

The problem is most players play D&D like they must kill everything they encounter that is not 110% freindly. And D&D is set up a bit that way....if someone is a foe, then you must kill them for XP.

If that's your experience with D&D, then I feel for you, but that's definitely not how it's supposed to be. Unless it is, in which case it would be wrong not to have it that way.

[Ravens_cry]

If that's your experience with D&D, then I feel for you, but that's definitely not how it's supposed to be. Unless it is, in which case it would be wrong not to have it that way.
XP comes from solving the problem. Combat is one way, and it what most of the rules are about, but it is hardly the only way.

[Kazudo]

Right.

Inevitably though NPCs are more mental and psychological entities than anything tangible, since with PCs, there's someone else sitting right there who has control over that character. The NPCs though just form into the pool of personalities the DM has, so it's harder to attribute a face or meaningful characteristics to them, especially if they're not with the party long and doubly so if the DM doesn't describe every single NPC in detail, as would be difficult to do in large cities or places with actually really unimportant NPCs. If there are NPCs you REALLY want to survive you have to MAKE them important to the PCs, or they simply won't take it that way.

That, I agree, is a game-wide problem since it goes very little in detail with it. Keep in mind, D&D was originally a module of the game Chainmail (sp?) which was a combat game and that a lot of the game is taken up with combat. However, there is still a rather large amount of fluff text in the actual books (not the online SRDs and cut-and-dry sites out there) that goes towards actual non-combat roleplaying as well. Combat is just the focus, since it's mathematically derived and easier to remember and, let's face it, that's what a good majority of players are in it for: How good is my attacking? How powerful can I hurt something? How many somethings can I hurt?"

Combat-heavy adventures are, in my experience at least, much less difficult to run and DM with some degree of success while intrigue, romantic, and other non-combat oriented playstyles require much more writing and, typically, less player fluidity.

It all comes down to how much WORK the players and DM are willing to put into the game.

[OldTrees1]

D&D does not work without trust.
Trust does not exist if honestly is being enforced.

You have an out of game problem to settle. It is hard to tell if it involves you or both you and the DM.

[Brookshw]

D&D does not work without trust.
Trust does not exist if honestly is being enforced.

You have an out of game problem to settle. It is hard to tell if it involves you or both you and the DM.

Well said. Sounds like the dm may have put a few walls in that didn't need, or shouldn't have been, there. Something to discuss so you all have a clear consistent idea of what type of game world it is.

[ericgrau]

So crit failure house-rules killed the DMPC with super powerful DM provided magic items... I think you should talk to the DM about not having all of these because of the messes they tend to make with such tremendous yet arbitrary power.

But as long as you're having fun... write down everything the rings have done so far. That's all you know about them: AC bonus, backlash damage. And each one is against a specific alignment. Point out to the DM how/why you know it, but beyond that don't argue too much and have fun. If suddenly the items get way weaker in spite of this and it's ruining your fun then, well, see first paragraph again.

[CrazyYanmega]

If you have a game where the PCs are slaughtering allied NPCs, then you have a bigger problem than PC/NPC transparency.

Okay, to be fair, we've been having a LOT of trouble identifying who is and who isn't an ally. We're an Evil aligned party split on the Law and Chaos axis, one of the PCs tributed himself in order to curse the rest of the party, different factions have been telling us conflicting stories, and generally it's been a wash as to who to believe since Sense Motive dice haven't been to cooperative.

[Malimar]

It sounds to me like custom rings of constant Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos, with an alteration or misreading that the "prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures" line applies to all creatures of the warded alignment (a misreading that comes up every time anybody uses these spells in any game I play).

Taking damage when you hit her with a weapon is a little more mystifying.

[Morphie]

Well, on the player's guide to the Age of Worms Adventure Path, published by paizo, there is a periapt of protection from evil that costs 30.000 gp. If this guy wears 4 rings that do the same thing you have just acquired an amazing treasure, so congratulations. The fact that the ring damages anyone who attacks the wearer is also a great bonus, by the way.
Aside from that, if you don't trust he's being honest, just talk to him about it, maybe he wasn't expecting to have that npc die so he just made up the items without thinking about the stats and the power level. But now the NPC is dead so he will have to work it out. I also think the DM is kind of new at this, otherwise he would already tell your group about the items.
As it has been said already, this is a game so everyone should follow the same rules. The DM is the story-teller, he may bend the rules every once in a while but he isn't above them. If he's just cheating no good can ever come from that.

[Dr.Starky]

Here's the situation. An NPC in our campaign was wearing 4 rings of protection (how she got to wear more than 2 is beside the point).She'd put one on each finger, duh.:P

[nedz]

She'd put one on each finger, duh.:P


Magic Rings

Rings bestow magical powers upon their wearers. Only a rare few have charges. Anyone can use a ring.

A character can only effectively wear two magic rings. A third magic ring doesn’t work if the wearer is already wearing two magic rings.

The second paragraph is relevant.

[Ravens_cry]

Right.

Inevitably though NPCs are more mental and psychological entities than anything tangible, since with PCs, there's someone else sitting right there who has control over that character. The NPCs though just form into the pool of personalities the DM has, so it's harder to attribute a face or meaningful characteristics to them, especially if they're not with the party long and doubly so if the DM doesn't describe every single NPC in detail, as would be difficult to do in large cities or places with actually really unimportant NPCs. If there are NPCs you REALLY want to survive you have to MAKE them important to the PCs, or they simply won't take it that way.

Or the players make them important themselves. I had my Paladin fall in love with a harpy NPC, and eventually proposed and got married. It was glorious. You can guide but you can't force a player to respond a certain way. Look at all the scrappy NPC in various games, tabletop and otherwise. Making such characters immortal is just, gah, even worse.

[Alex12]

The second paragraph is relevant.

There's a feat in Eberron Campaign Setting that explicitly overrides this, allowing one to wear up to 4 rings.

[icefractal]

But you're forgetting one of the most important rules in all of gaming: The DM only rolls dice for the sound effects.Wat.
If you're saying that's how most groups do or should play, then BS. If you're saying that's how your group plays - well, different strokes, but personally I'd hate it.

If the DM is going to ignore the result of dice - then don't roll them in the first place. If fiat is an acceptable way to determine things, then it's fine if the players know that. After all, in most cases the DM just declares what the weather is, and nobody complains about that. If you need to hide it, that's because the players actually wouldn't be ok with it, and you're lying to them. Not a good foundation for a gaming group.


Also, "the DM runs the world" has several different levels it operates at: House rules, deciding what things exist, deciding how NPCs react, making spot ruling - fudging dice is only one of those, and (IMO) not generally a necessary one.

You have an unlimited supply of NPCs, and if one of them dies way before you planned, that just means a new threat needs to step up to the plate. Plus, resurrection is a thing. If you want a NPC to escape guaranteed, don't send them there in the first place - projected illusion, minion disguised as them, and Simulacrum clone are all options.


Also, this is a good demonstration of why critical fumbles are dumb.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The second paragraph is relevant.

There is some hidden white text in his post that is also relevant. Also, :P

[jedipotter]

XP comes from solving the problem. Combat is one way, and it what most of the rules are about, but it is hardly the only way.

Well D&D has lots of rules about getting XP from defeating and killing monsters. Tables and everything. Where are the pages on this other XP? The vague line or two that says ''oh you can get xp other ways''? Is there a table in the DMG that I missed for Story XP(one that takes up a whole page)? How about a whole page table for non-combat XP? If a character defeats an encounter with a monster, hazard or trap, the rules have a system to tell you how much XP the character gets. Where is anything else?

[Kazudo]

So get XP from killing monsters and obviously evil people, but for PCs to instinctively kill good or neutral NPCs for no reason is uncalled for.

And gaining XP is just one reason people play: gaining wealth (of which NPCs have relatively little compared to Monster Manual monsters, for example), gaining non-wealth related things like titles and glory (which you arguably need NPCs for) and, I dunno, fun? Which is a big part of the book as well?

You are correct. Gaining XP for the purposes of leveling and class advancement is definitely best if not only done by killing creatures, as there are tables for that kind of thing and mathematical differences. However, one could easily take those tables and assign a CR to a social encounter. Traps also come with a CR, as do some poisons. Why SHOULDN'T rogues gain XP for every trap they disable or lock they drop?

[Ravens_cry]

Well D&D has lots of rules about getting XP from defeating and killing monsters. Tables and everything. Where are the pages on this other XP? The vague line or two that says ''oh you can get xp other ways''? Is there a table in the DMG that I missed for Story XP(one that takes up a whole page)? How about a whole page table for non-combat XP? If a character defeats an encounter with a monster, hazard or trap, the rules have a system to tell you how much XP the character gets. Where is anything else?
The XP you get for defeating creatures is the same if you kill them, sneak by them, bop them over the head but leave them alive, bribe them into letting you pass, intimidate them into running away, making friends with them, disguising yourself as their boss and moving past like you own the place, etcetera, etcetera.

[The Grue]

Here's the situation. An NPC in our campaign was wearing 4 rings of protection (how she got to wear more than 2 is beside the point). One protected against evil, one against good, one against chaotic, and one against lawful. My character is chaotic neutral. When I tried to slap her after she slapped me I rolled a 18+4+3=25 to hit vs her touch AC. My hand flew back away from her before making contact.

Are you a summoned creature? If not, the GM is already fudging.


...Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature.

[Ravens_cry]

The DM has obviously being playing too much Skyrim and Fallout 3.

[Nightcanon]

So far in this campaign, it has been anything but always wining. In a 5 person party, there have already been 5 character deaths and we're only lvl 3. The lowest CR our party has faced thus far has been a 5... So in the midst of all the party carnage and mayhem, something fortuitous seems to have occurred, though unexpectantly. So I was just looking for (again, as a new player) what I (and the rest of the party) should reasonably expect from these rings, the powers of which, the DM had cleary illustrated during game

It seems to me that your DM is new to this as well.
A campaign that (so far) has consisted of PCs tagging along on adventures that are too dangerous for them (and dying along the way), trying to keep up with an NPC/DMPC who has multiple immunities and some sort of retributive magic, sounds to me like your DM is trying to tell his own story (and that of his NPC), rather than have you all contribute.

[lunar2]

I think so too. And this DM has a common problem: how to keep NPC's alive? D&D makes this hard. The characters will slaughter anything they encounter and the NPC can't really get away. They can't even have a trick or an item as the rules are so restrictive. So the DM turns to ''off the wall crazy stuff'' to keep the NPC alive for a couple games.......


The problem is most players play D&D like they must kill everything they encounter that is not 110% freindly. And D&D is set up a bit that way....if someone is a foe, then you must kill them for XP.

except this was not a case of players randomly attacking an NPC for no good reason. these are low level PCs, hardly better than peasants themselves, who were escorting an NPC that the villagers wanted dead. they were being protected by a ward powered by one of the NPC's magic items, which ceased functioning when she got knocked out because she was stupid and stood too close to a guy swinging a club around after being warned to back off. The DM put the NPC in that situation with his houserule and his handling of the NPC. once the hoard of villagers came, and would probably kill the PCs along with the NPC, the PCs did the smart thing and saved their own skin by killing the NPC before the villagers got a chance, showing the angry mob that they were not actually on her side to begin with.

in other words, the PCs didn't actually do anything wrong. if they broke any laws, the only witnesses were going to break those laws themselves shortly. the NPC was going to die within a few rounds no matter what, and the PCs did what was necessary to make sure they didn't get dragged down with her.

now the players just want to make sure the DM actually plays fair and gives them the loot that he saw fit to use against them. because if you don't want PCs to have an item, don't use it against them. just like if you ban a class, feat, or spell for player use, you generally shouldn't use it for an NPC. races get a pass because some races aren't suitable for players.

[lunar2]

So get XP from killing monsters and obviously evil people, but for PCs to instinctively kill good or neutral NPCs for no reason is uncalled for.

And gaining XP is just one reason people play: gaining wealth (of which NPCs have relatively little compared to Monster Manual monsters, for example), gaining non-wealth related things like titles and glory (which you arguably need NPCs for) and, I dunno, fun? Which is a big part of the book as well?

You are correct. Gaining XP for the purposes of leveling and class advancement is definitely best if not only done by killing creatures, as there are tables for that kind of thing and mathematical differences. However, one could easily take those tables and assign a CR to a social encounter. Traps also come with a CR, as do some poisons. Why SHOULDN'T rogues gain XP for every trap they disable or lock they drop?

actually, NPCs at most levels have significantly higher treasure than monsters, and it's all in the form of usable gear. generally, you're better off fighting an NPC fighter than many double standard treasure monsters. not only will you get better loot, but it will be an easier fight, too.

[Kazudo]

In that case, why not just kill other PCs? They have WAY better loot (by default numbers) than NPCs, and it's nearly ALL usable equipment!

[TuggyNE]

D&D does not work without trust.
Trust does not exist if honestly is being enforced.

This seems to be an attitude characteristic of what D&D would call Chaotic persons; those of a more Lawful tendency would be far more likely to consider that trust can only exist if honesty is being enforced.

Neither is, perhaps, absolutely correct in all cases, but both certainly have their philosophical bases.

Other than that, though, this does seem to be largely a problem of a) weird houserules and fudging and b) OOC agreements or lack thereof.

[OldTrees1]

This seems to be an attitude characteristic of what D&D would call Chaotic persons; those of a more Lawful tendency would be far more likely to consider that trust can only exist if honesty is being enforced.

Neither is, perhaps, absolutely correct in all cases, but both certainly have their philosophical bases.

Other than that, though, this does seem to be largely a problem of a) weird houserules and fudging and b) OOC agreements or lack thereof.

I guess I should have qualified it as "trust across positions with inherent and necessary information imbalance requires trust until proven untrustworthy because trust only when proven trustworthy cannot maintain the information imbalance that the GM-PC relationship uses to create D&D".

Trust that depends on honesty being enforced ends up destroying any information imbalance as a cost of enforcement. For some RPGs that works. For other RPGs that cost destroys vital parts of the RPG.

Another way to look at it is:
The Chaotic person can trust Wills since they will not enforce the Wills only be able to make "correct" decisions.
The Lawful person can trust Results since they enforce the Wills only be able to make "correct" decisions.
Both are important but not in the same places.

[TuggyNE]

I guess I should have qualified it as "trust across positions with inherent and necessary information imbalance requires trust until proven untrustworthy because trust only when proven trustworthy cannot maintain the information imbalance that the GM-PC relationship uses to create D&D".

Even there I'm not convinced that's necessarily correct. Sometimes verification must be delayed in order to preserve secrets, yes, but there is never any case where it is impossible after the fact; further, it is often possible to adjust campaigns to make it more practical to verify sooner. Therefore, anything the DM ever does could, in theory, be double-checked after the fact.

(There are also certain non-trivial examples, such as randomly-generated hexcrawls, where the DM really keeps very few or no secrets at all.)

And, of course, in the absence of any general verification, how do you prove someone untrustworthy?

[Madeiner]

I am a DM and i do that all the time.
I don't know if your DM was in good faith, but if he was, then probably the explanation is really simple: he wanted you to have a certain kind of fight involving certain restrictions and he invented the rings. Maybe they are part of something else, maybe they are just a way he feels he needs to provide that encounter.
I don't see anything wrong with it.

Sometimes as DM, i declare that you can't fly in this area. Why? Because magic. And because i want to provide an encounter that is fought on the ground, no matter what.
Sometimes i present a monster that is completely immune to all damage unless you hit him in a weak spot that you can find. Is that outside the rules? I don't care, THIS encounter is made so that you have to find that weakness and cannot win in other ways.
It's either that, or no special things exist in the world and the same tactics work almost all the time.

[OldTrees1]

Even there I'm not convinced that's necessarily correct. Sometimes verification must be delayed in order to preserve secrets, yes, but there is never any case where it is impossible after the fact; further, it is often possible to adjust campaigns to make it more practical to verify sooner. Therefore, anything the DM ever does could, in theory, be double-checked after the fact.

(There are also certain non-trivial examples, such as randomly-generated hexcrawls, where the DM really keeps very few or no secrets at all.)

And, of course, in the absence of any general verification, how do you prove someone untrustworthy?

When verification is delayed until after the event I would contend that Chaotic trust is used in the meantime. (verification after the fact is a way to prove if someone is untrustworthy) I would think Lawful trust would be verification before the game and trust during the game while Chaotic trust is trust during the game and verification after the game. If Chaotic trust is not extended then you see during game paranoia that harms the game (like in the OP).

Randomly generated hexcrawls are a good idea for people/groups unwilling to extend Chaotic trust.

[Trebloc]

Each gaming group plays differently. There is no correct way to play as long as everyone agrees and is having fun.

That said, my group prefers to game sticking to the rules as close as possible and let the story evolve within the confines of the rules. When I DM, I do the majority of the die rolls out in the open, so that if a PC is slain by an unlucky crit, they know it was the fate of the dice, just like when they face almost certain death and I roll a '1'.

The problem I have with "storytelling" group is that I choose to spend my D&D time playing a game, not listening to a story being told to me. And I want PC actions and die rolls to matter (as well as the DMs), and not be ad-hoced or rule-zeroed away for the sake of "the story".

So you and your entire group might want to take time out and talk about things to see what all of you want. It sounds like either your DM wants a story-focused game, is new, or wasn't prepared.

[Ravens_cry]

I am a DM and i do that all the time.
I don't know if your DM was in good faith, but if he was, then probably the explanation is really simple: he wanted you to have a certain kind of fight involving certain restrictions and he invented the rings. Maybe they are part of something else, maybe they are just a way he feels he needs to provide that encounter.
I don't see anything wrong with it.

Sometimes as DM, i declare that you can't fly in this area. Why? Because magic. And because i want to provide an encounter that is fought on the ground, no matter what.
Sometimes i present a monster that is completely immune to all damage unless you hit him in a weak spot that you can find. Is that outside the rules? I don't care, THIS encounter is made so that you have to find that weakness and cannot win in other ways.
It's either that, or no special things exist in the world and the same tactics work almost all the time.
If you and players like that, sure, that's fine, but I know I would be ready to foot vote a game so arbitrary.
To me it doesn't come across so much as 'special' as 'Let's play "Guess-what-the DM-is-thinking"'.

[prufock]

If the DM said the feedback damage was "due to the rings," but the rings had already been removed, the DM made a mistake, which it seems like you guys already figured out. Everything else there can be explained. Extra Rings feat, 4 rings of protection from (alignment), your attack missed her touch AC, etc.

[Kazudo]

So knowing that mistake, it looks like a lot of the stuff that happened once the rings had been removed was some kind of property or ability of the NPC. It was important enough to warrant a quest, maybe there was a reason behind it...

[Story]

The problem is most players play D&D like they must kill everything they encounter that is not 110% freindly. And D&D is set up a bit that way....if someone is a foe, then you must kill them for XP.

In my experience, it's often the DM's fault more than anyone.

I remember in my first campaign, at one point at the end of the dungeon the DM complained that "we brought only violence to the dungeon". This was a dungeon in which every single enemy was either mindless or attacked us on sight, even the nominally good aligned creatures.

My next campaign, with a different DM, the first session started with us hiding in a warehouse about to be discovered by guards. I was already planning different ways to escape nonviolently when the DMPC won initiative, ran out, and killed a guard. Later in the campaign after we had effectively scry and died the BBEG and found what we came for, the DMPC convinced us to go back and massacre all the mooks (OOC obviously because there was a whole dungeon there that we had just bypassed but it was absurd IC).



Another problem is that lower tier characters rarely have the resources to resolve things nonviolently in the first place.

[lunar2]

In that case, why not just kill other PCs? They have WAY better loot (by default numbers) than NPCs, and it's nearly ALL usable equipment!

i wasn't trying to justify randomly attacking people. i was merely pointing out, in a meta sense, that NPC encounters tend to be "better" than monster encounters because you get better loot, the same EXP, and it's generally an easier fight (depending on the build of the NPC, of course). iirc, NPC encounters tend to fall between the averages for double and triple standard treasure encounters.

[CrazyYanmega]

In that case, why not just kill other PCs? They have WAY better loot (by default numbers) than NPCs, and it's nearly ALL usable equipment!

Some party members have already tried that. Several times. It hasn't ended well for anyone.

[Baroknik]

The second paragraph is relevant.

Eberron Campaign Setting includes the feat "Extra Rings" that allows use of up to four rings at once.