Did I screw up as a DM?

[dascarletm]

Alright so I ran a session the other day, and at the end one of the players was upset about what happened. I wanted to see what ya'll think about this; I'll be objective as possible.

Background:
When I proposed this game to the group I labeled it "Kingmaker." This isn't the actual Pathfinder RPG path, but inspired by it. The world is made, and everything is set. The players are there to build a kingdom of their own.

I made the map, one copy had my notes listing where everything is, the other was mostly the terrain. The players sat down and looked over the region, and decided on a place. I looked at my notes. The warm forests in the area were the home of the Yuan-Ti. Some human barbarian tribes were subjugated by them, and hidden in the area was a hive of yuan-ti which worshiped an Anathema. The location pretty much had to be sought out, and wouldn't just be "stumbled upon" by the party. They started at level 3. (A warder, a warlord, and a summoner).

A few sessions go by, they take out a barbarian encampment. They interrogate the prisoners, and find out that there is a small group of yuan-ti located nearby. (I'm mixing pathfinder with 3.5 stuff) They want to get the secret of how to manufacture Serpentstone from them, so they head out to take over the small group. They are level 4. They know the group is lead by a Yuan-ti abomination. They fight them, and one player gets baleful polymorphed. After the fight they find a way to turn him back, and find out that the only yuan-ti with the secret of the serpentstone's production are located in their "Hive." They laugh saying their pitiful force couldn't hope to overcome it's defenses.

Last session:
They are level 5, and they send out their NPC spymasters to investigate potential sites. They find out from one that the hive has a lot of defences and hundreds of Yuan-Ti. They were also speaking about an Anathema located in their cave which they worshiped as a sort of demi-god. One NPC was captured due to bad (open) rolls.

They move to fight the Yuan-ti. They devise a plan to flood their home with lava, and it works. Outside the entrance their troops fortify up and prepare to slaughter them in the chaos. It works!

However, the Anathema exits after the army. It laughs calling them insects not worthy of its time, and to get out of its way.

Knowledge checks go out, they all fail, they learn it is basically a demi-god in their society. I describe it as towering with a weapon that radiates powerful-powerful energy.

The summoner says, we should leave while we are ahead, and moves back.

The other two ATTACK IT!

one dies from blashphemy.

The other runs. After the session the one that ran compains that I should not have put something so strong in the "starter" zone, and that it was "bad design." He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

The other two found it fair.

What do you all think?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by dascarletm
He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

You gave them the chance to make Knowledge checks, correct? And it sounds like you took every opportunity to build up the danger of the whatever-it-was ruling the yuan-ti. Not to mention the fact that it was, you know, ruling hundreds of yuan-ti.

As for the player's first point, well, characters are out there facing danger 24/7. That's the risk of being an adventurer--the knowledge that every moment you're out in the wilds, something might rip you apart. Occupational hazard.

Your player might have felt it was a little unfair to place a potential TPK that early in the campaign, but it sounds as if you gave the party plenty of warning despite the failed Knowledge checks. Certainly you can talk with your player about expectations, but I'd have to say the guy running the summoner had the right idea.

[Aegis013]

What do you all think?

Seems fine. Not having real threats in the "starter zone" is video game thinking. I might've tried to encourage (possibly by waiving it as a free action) sense motive checks to assess opponent (as described in Complete Adventurer) and then possibly having the Anathema choose to fail the opposing bluff. After all, they're not worth his time, why bother bluffing?

I might've also given them a little more dire a description than listed in the books as the result.

[Dayzgone]

(Have stuff to do so ill keep this short.)

I think you were being totally fair. This sounds like a open world campaign (to a degree) so there is already a notion that there are areas of the map that the players may not be ready for. It also sounds that the others new very well they were in over there heads, its no ones fault but there own for having provoked/ attacked.

It also says in the DMG that you should on occasion have encounters that are above the party level to keep them from doing this exact thing.

How there going to deal with a creature that powerful walking around there lands now is another problem, so im curios to know what you had planned to do with them after this.

[Gray Mage]

I'm going to say that yes, that was unfair, that wasn't a possible tpk, it was a certain one (I mean, Blasphemy, really?). Also, everything so far they were able to handle and the clues were insufficient (being big and having a magic/buffed weapon is standard past 5th level).

[unbutu]

If anyone can go anywhere and kill anything just because it's a monster, it takes away the credit for making good decisions.

On the other hand, people come from all places. It seems this player was not accustomed to your style, right ? If all he had player before is video games, and pathfinder modules made like video games, he was expecting everthing he ever meets to be within CR.

So, it's a learning experience, your world is not like that. I would be soft on re-creating a character: If there are penalties usually, might be good to waive them this time, so that it's really, just a learning experience.

-------
It's a subject (having very powerfull beings side by side with non powerfull one) on wich opinions are often discordants around tables, so no exception there.

------
In some module, wich I will not name for spoilers, there is a dragon very early. The module is made so that, when the players come close, the dragon is busy attacking a fortress, wiping dozens of soldiers with it's breath: In short: For the players with a negative INT mod, it's good to make an example (like those soldiers) if you can.

[ComaVision]

It sounds pretty appropriate to me. I think you gave fair forewarning. I have had creatures in my campaign that would have likely killed the entire group if they had engaged.

[Troacctid]

See, this is why you take the Combat Intuition feat, people.

[(Un)Inspired]

Your campaign sounds awesome!

How could it be unfair? They knew there was an Anathema in the hive and they assaulted it anyway (that cool that you let them flood it with lava).

It sounds like you gave them freedom to go wherever and do anything. You didn't force them to fight it right?

[dascarletm]

Your campaign sounds awesome!

How could it be unfair? They knew there was an Anathema in the hive and they assaulted it anyway (that cool that you let them flood it with lava).

It sounds like you gave them freedom to go wherever and do anything. You didn't force them to fight it right?

I didn't force him to fight. In fact the summoner later told me she was expecting the group to wait some time before dealing with them.

He was under the impression that since an advisor was captured I forced the fight. This however was due to poor roles.

(thanks for the encouragement though).

[yellowrocket]

They're are people who believe in different levels of plot Armor. I'm bit a big one. But when they were given that much knowledge what did they expect? Even a ton of plot Armor doesn't save you from stupidity

[Ferronach]

Knowledge checks go out, they all fail, they learn it is basically a demi-god in their society. I describe it as towering with a weapon that radiates powerful-powerful energy.

The summoner says, we should leave while we are ahead, and moves back.
one dies from blashphemy.

The other runs. After the session the one that ran compains that I should not have put something so strong in the "starter" zone, and that it was "bad design." He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

The other two found it fair.

What part of demi-god did he not understand?
Sounds to me like you tried to warn them. You offered the option of getting the heck out of there which the summoner pointed out to the other two.
The other two then split the party and didn't listen to their fellow player.
One died and found it fair.
One didn't die and complains about how unfair it is/was?

I think you were being totally fair. I have been of the giving and receiving end of this situation numerous times. Some of my characters have attacked (and died) because that is what they would do in that situation and others have fled (sometimed been dragged by party members). I have flattened players and let them flee before.

Heck this reminds me of a campaign that i ran (3.5e) where they found the sleeping terasque and the level 3 barbarian decided to try climbing it... Tarasque rolled over in its sleep effectively crushing the bbn (50/50 chance of which way it rolled after a 10% chance of it moving). Everyone, myself and the player of the now dead bbn laughed and then the party helped him make a new charcter.

[atemu1234]

I do not think you're accountable for this; though in my experience inexperienced parties tend to forget little things like "knowledge checks" and "logic" :smallbiggrin:.

[Amphetryon]

You allowed the Players the freedom to make choices and mistakes, and had those choices and mistakes carry consequences, you horrible person!

[Threadnaught]

The most unfair part?

The Save or Lose and Save or Die, those two instances are the most unfair parts. Completely fair and they made the players realize that, you weren't going to hold back to protect their characters.


Your players got in too deep, too early. The mere fact that they were able to escape, proves that you weren't out to slaughter their low level characters with overpowered threats. The game's "supposed" to be played under the assumption that the PCs can die on any given day, especially around level 3.

[Karl Aegis]

Players should realize that humanoids and monstrous humanoids fighting on their home terrain are pretty much total party kills waiting to happen. Between Tucker's Kobolds, massed Goblin Worg-Riders with slings circle-strafing the party and Heavy Cavalry Lance Formations flanking the party PCs have much to fear.

[goto124]

On the other hand, people come from all places. It seems this player was not accustomed to your style, right ? If all he had player before is video games, and pathfinder modules made like video games, he was expecting everthing he ever meets to be within CR.

So, it's a learning experience, your world is not like that. I would be soft on re-creating a character: If there are penalties usually, might be good to waive them this time, so that it's really, just a learning experience.

It's going to be a pretty steep learning curve for this particular player, trying to adjust to a new gaming style.


Your players got in too deep, too early.

And why did he do that? Because he thought he was supposed to do it. In video games, you have to go forward, there are no other directions. In TTRPGs with so many choices, not all of which are optimal, it's much easier to make bad decisions. (There's also the whole 'if you die you respawn/reload previous save file and try again and again' bit of video games, which doesn't apply to TTRPGs.)

Again, learning experience. Tell him OOCly, that's how your game runs, so he's prepared. Try not to punish him too hard, at least for the moment, until he picks up on TTRPG-style logic. You and the other 2 players can all help.

[dascarletm]

I'm going to say that yes, that was unfair, that wasn't a possible tpk, it was a certain one (I mean, Blasphemy, really?). Also, everything so far they were able to handle and the clues were insufficient (being big and having a magic/buffed weapon is standard past 5th level).

Ah, I embellished the description a bit more than that, but I imagined the demi-god part would be sufficient.

That was something I brought up to the player, to which he responded "a demi-god to the yuan-ti may not be that strong. We slaughtered them with ease, and everything is relative."

[dascarletm]

Again, learning experience. Tell him OOCly, that's how your game runs, so he's prepared. Try not to punish him too hard, at least for the moment, until he picks up on TTRPG-style logic. You and the other 2 players can all help.

The thing is he has been playing and even DMing for almost as long as myself (12+years).

Should I tone-down the world a bit until they have a grasp of the setting, or keep it as is?

[Threadnaught]

In TTRPGs with so many choices, not all of which are optimal, it's much easier to make bad decisions.

Yes, such as when told there's a demigod that these people worship as a god, you can go fight it at a super low leel without extreme optimization.

From what we were told, they were given the information about the Anathema, before travelling to the cave where they encountered it. They could have avoided the cave, or even left before the Anathema came out, but two of them chose to stay and fight the damn thing.


Should I tone-down the world a bit until they have a grasp of the setting, or keep it as is?

It'll be better for your players if you leave the game as it is, they'll be able to get a hang of the setting after a short time and maybe they'll even be able to turn the Anathema into the party pet.

[Red Rubber Band]

Keep at it.

I mean, if it was an ancient dragon that told them to sod off I'm sure they'd have ran and been thankful. If something was described as a demi-god I'd be running that little bit faster.

[Lord of Shadows]

The summoner says, we should leave while we are ahead, and moves back.

The other two ATTACK IT!

one dies from blashphemy.

The other runs. After the session the one that ran complains that I should not have put something so strong in the "starter" zone, and that it was "bad design." He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

The other two found it fair.

What do you all think?

I hereby change the [REAL] name of the player in question to: Leeroy Jenkins!!!
.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The thing is he has been playing and even DMing for almost as long as myself (12+years).

Should I tone-down the world a bit until they have a grasp of the setting, or keep it as is?

Keep it as is. Anathema was often worshiped by yuan-ti cultists (according to the Fiend Folio) so everything you did was 100% kosher. It looks like he got cocky because he got lucky and decided to take on what amounts to one nasty bruiser. And even if you hadn't used Blasphemy, there is the ever simple 6d4 Con damage instead. Yuan-ti anathema are pretty much impossible to fight without massive range or some form of flight.

[goto124]

I would've said tone it down to let them get the hang of it, but since others say they'll get it fast enough without toning down... don't tone it up I guess.

[Gray Mage]

Ah, I embellished the description a bit more than that, but I imagined the demi-god part would be sufficient.

That was something I brought up to the player, to which he responded "a demi-god to the yuan-ti may not be that strong. We slaughtered them with ease, and everything is relative."

Well, there's a diference between being an actual demi-god and something being worshipped as one, but being mortal and not quite the level of an actual demi-god. I'd say the second one is quite common, so I can see it being mistaken as that and using Blasphemy means no chance to flee after realising it's the former (this I think is the worst part). Did they know exactly what it was?

[Erik Vale]

It's going to be a pretty steep learning curve for this particular player, trying to adjust to a new gaming style.

F:NV would like to have a word with you, in the form of Deathclaws. Or maybe Cazadors.
There are plenty of games where there are things you have the option to attack but are so far beyond you when you first find them things come down to actively avoiding them. The player just needs to realise this is one of those.



Anyhow, like the majority of this thread, I see no problem here.

[(Un)Inspired]

That was something I brought up to the player, to which he responded "a demi-god to the yuan-ti may not be that strong. We slaughtered them with ease, and everything is relative."

Those are terrific last words.

[KillianHawkeye]

He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

I'm not gonna read the whole thread, but I wanted to comment on this.


I and just about everyone I've ever gamed with have the exact opposite opinion. Playing a game that lacks risk and the chance of failure and even death is, to put it bluntly, just boring. Perhaps it's a factor of maturity, but I've been playing games (both of the pen & paper and the video game variety) for a long time and I need some kind of challenge to keep things interesting.

When it comes to the fate of my D&D characters, I don't want to be saved just because the DM feels sorry for me. Nothing makes me lose immersion faster than knowing that I can't lose. I have retired characters and quit games for this very reason. It's because, to me, D&D isn't just about killing monsters and taking their stuff. It's also about playing a role and bringing a character to life, and that is something that I just can't do if the character is wearing plot armor; it's just not realistic. Real people make bad decisions and fail more often than they succeed. Real people scrape by on the slimmest of margins. Real people run away when a battle doesn't seem winnable. When things do go well, I want to feel that it's because I've made good decisions or used a good strategy, or through good planning and teamwork. I don't challenge the BBEG with a low-level character and expect to miraculously survive, I do it because there's some benefit in doing so that outweighs my character's own life--even if it's just that the rest of my party is able to escape.


I guess that's enough rambling. I suppose the point is just that I can't relate to the way your player feels. If you want my advice, I'd say to keep doing as you have been doing and tell your player to grow up. After all, isn't it true that the hard-earned victory is far sweeter than one requiring a minimal amount of effort?

[Bad Wolf]

Seems alright. I mean, you did say they worshipped it as a god.

But out of curiosity, can I see the stat block? It seems interesting.

[Pex]

There's another view to consider. It may not apply directly to the circumstances that happened, but it may explain why the player was upset.

PCs are supposed to go where it's dangerous. When the villagers say there is some big scary monster over yonder that kills everyone who approaches it, the players are not wrong in thinking their job is to go over yonder and try to kill that monster. If the monster turns out to be a Really Big Bad Nasty at least 7 over the party's CR resulting in a TPK if the party doesn't retreat, some players in their view will rightly be miffed. They didn't retreat not because of stupidity but because they thought they were meant to fight the big scary monster. It was a plot hook, not setting flavor text. Even if the DM gave warnings through important NPCs, those NPCs are just glorified villagers. The plot awaits over yonder!

Maybe in this player's view, the yuanti worshipping a demi-god just meant the demi-god was a big scary monster over yonder. NPC yuanti they just slaughtered may think it the most powerful being ever, but they're the party, the heroes who just defeated the yuanti. They need to clear this land to make their kingdom. That's the plot. Got rid of the yuanti. Now it's time to get rid of their big scary monster "demi-god". Of course it's not going to be an easy fight. It's the BBEG after all. Character death is a risk inherent to the game. Still, that's the plot. Then comes Blasphemy. What the heck? That's above our pay grade. Unfair!

[SiuiS]

He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment [...]
What do you all think?

I think you should have laughed, heartily. Possibly in his face.
http://www.electricsamurai.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

Sorry guy, but there's some things that are just ridiculous. "I don't want to worry about any stress or consequences for my actions or anything, that makes things challenging" is a terrible position to hold.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by KillianHawkeye
When it comes to the fate of my D&D characters, I don't want to be saved just because the DM feels sorry for me. Nothing makes me lose immersion faster than knowing that I can't lose.

All of Killian's comments are spot-on, but these two lines in particular mark an essential threshold in player maturity. There are players who don't meet that threshold, and who honestly expect that their third-level characters should be rolling everything they meet, because they believe the DM's job is to make them feel awesome, no matter what.

Changing those expectations can certainly be difficult, but it needs to be done if they're going to play at everyone else's level.


Originally Posted by dascarletm
Should I tone-down the world a bit until they have a grasp of the setting, or keep it as is?

I agree with earlier comments that you shouldn't soften or roll back your approach. You've shown this player the consequences of reckless action and OOC assumptions. Make sure you're consistent with those consequences--and certainly don't go easy on his new character because his last one died.


Originally Posted by KillianHawkeye
…and tell your player to grow up.

And this too.

:smalltongue:

[KillianHawkeye]

All of Killian's comments are spot-on, but these two lines in particular mark an essential threshold in player maturity. There are players who don't meet that threshold, and who honestly expect that their third-level characters should be rolling everything they meet, because they believe the DM's job is to make them feel awesome, no matter what.

Thanks. And that reminds me that I shouldn't have forgotten this important lesson:
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58581753.jpg

[Seruvius]

Seems quite fair to me really. It rules tons of yuan-ti, has a big sword of TPK and they failed their checks against it. One got away and one didn't engage, maybe they will learn their lesson and not try and fight everything straight away next time =P Though with them being Adventurers, chances are slim of that.

[goto124]

If the DM told me stuff like 'grow up'... I hope leaving the game is an option. But what if it isn't, due to complicated RL reasons? I would start taking the backseat, leaving the decisions to the other 2 players. Because what I thought was the way to go, turned out to be the exact opposite. Maybe that's already a good option, if/since I'm childish.

[dascarletm]

If the DM told me stuff like 'grow up'... I hope leaving the game is an option. But what if it isn't, due to complicated RL reasons? I would start taking the backseat, leaving the decisions to the other 2 players. Because what I thought was the way to go, turned out to be the exact opposite. Maybe that's already a good option, if/since I'm childish.

Yeah, I'm not going to do that. I like the guy and he's usually quite great. This however seems to just not be his play-style.

[Honjuden]

Well, there's a diference between being an actual demi-god and something being worshipped as one, but being mortal and not quite the level of an actual demi-god. I'd say the second one is quite common, so I can see it being mistaken as that and using Blasphemy means no chance to flee after realising it's the former (this I think is the worst part). Did they know exactly what it was?

I think the part where it laughed and told them to piss off was their chance to flee. A being that was anywhere close to being as weak as its followers wouldn't laugh off having most of them murdered then say "run along".

[goto124]

That part sounds like something that would've happened with a lot of villians, including very weak ones.

Might've been the summation of all the clues making sense though.

[zionpopsickle]

While there may have been minor screw-ups in information delivery (which we cannot actually determine unless you somehow videotaped your session) I do not think that anything you did was philosophically at odds with the general ideas of DMing that have been developed over the last 30 or so years.

Any world that is functional under verisimilitude will have the players interacting with people or creatures that can TPK them on a regular basis. The thing is that such creatures will function similar to the party in that slaughtering low level creatures is actually a waste of time and resources for them. Unfortunately for your players, they made it worthwhile for the Anathema to slay them, despite be given a chance to walk away.

[Arbane]

In some module, wich I will not name for spoilers, there is a dragon very early. The module is made so that, when the players come close, the dragon is busy attacking a fortress, wiping dozens of soldiers with it's breath: In short: For the players with a negative INT mod, it's good to make an example (like those soldiers) if you can.

If it's for 5th ed, I've played that one. According to our DM, the PCs are SUPPOSED to fight it - throw things at it until it gets annoyed enough to leave. But then he had it turn our best blaster into a cloud of charged particles with one breath. MIXED SIGNALS.

(My reaction at that point: "Oh, I get it. The next step will be rolling up the REAL heroes who will avenge our deaths, right?")

[Grommen]

"If I don't kill someone every now and again, they forget who I am."
-Blackbeard-

[Auron3991]

I don't see anything wrong in that sequence of events. You handed out enough clues to piece together that this thing was incredibly powerful, especially with that weapon. CR 5-7 may have enchanted weapons, but that didn't sound like a run of the mill magic item for their level. Remember, the PCs should encounter stronger beings than themselves as friends and adversaries. The world should feel like it existed before the them, so there will be champions greater than they are, especially when they are below level ten.

I don't know from you're description of events if you did, but make sure next time to ask them if they are absolutely sure when they decided on their course of action. That should be a thousand watt neon sign informing them that they're about to do something stupid and should mitigate complaints in the future.

[The Glyphstone]

Seems alright. I mean, you did say they worshipped it as a god.

But out of curiosity, can I see the stat block? It seems interesting.

Presumably it was a bog-standard Anathema, by the sound of it. It's on Page 193 of the Fiend Folio, and unfortunately not part of OGL.

They're CR18, though.

[Roog]

After the session the one that ran compains that I should not have put something so strong in the "starter" zone, and that it was "bad design." He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

The other two found it fair.

What do you all think?


You made one big mistake - you didn't make sure that all the players knew what style of campaign you were going to run before the game started.

Your actions may have been fair, but if the player thought that it was going to be a different campaign style, then his comments could also be fair.

[goto124]

The good news? He now knows what style it actually is.

[jaydubs]

This is less of a comment on the OP's DMing, than some of the responses. (I think you gave plenty of warning.)

But there's a huge range in between "can't die because of plot armor" and "TPK around every corner." Lots of us like to play (and DM) in it. Hard as it might be to believe, it's entirely possible to challenge, threaten, and kill parties with level appropriate encounters.

Also, the competence of 3rd level characters depends entirely on the campaign in question. In some settings (like the vast majority of fantasy media) 3rd level is already far better than most of the population. I personally DM a campaign where the level scale is:

1 - Average guard
3 - Seasoned Veteran (the PCs currently)
5 - Elite warrior
7 - Most powerful people in the nation

In which case it's entirely possible for a 3rd level party to take out the BBEG if they can get the drop on him in favorable conditions.

[Feint's End]

Ah, I embellished the description a bit more than that, but I imagined the demi-god part would be sufficient.

That was something I brought up to the player, to which he responded "a demi-god to the yuan-ti may not be that strong. We slaughtered them with ease, and everything is relative."

This argumentation ist ridiculous. He applies relativity the wrong way around (most certainly). The average Yuant Ti is stronger than a human so a human demi god, which is already a very powerful being, would be surpassed by a Yuan Ti Demigod by his relativity logic.

As for the argument of them being easy to slaugther ... consider how much easier it would have been if the enemies were level 1 humans instead (commoners mainly I guess ... with some martials in there).

[Gray Mage]

I think the part where it laughed and told them to piss off was their chance to flee. A being that was anywhere close to being as weak as its followers wouldn't laugh off having most of them murdered then say "run along".

I don't think I have ever seen a boss type enemy not do some version of this, it's sort of a staple. :smallconfused:

Also, in my view, at least, there's a difference between a possible/likely TPK and "rocks fall, you die". Blasphemy falls on the later, IMO.

[prufock]

However, the Anathema exits after the army. It laughs calling them insects not worthy of its time, and to get out of its way.

Knowledge checks go out, they all fail, they learn it is basically a demi-god in their society. I describe it as towering with a weapon that radiates powerful-powerful energy.

The summoner says, we should leave while we are ahead, and moves back.

The other two ATTACK IT!

one dies from blashphemy.

The other runs. After the session the one that ran compains that I should not have put something so strong in the "starter" zone, and that it was "bad design." He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

The other two found it fair.

What do you all think?

Level 5 party vs CR 18 anathema. I don't have a problem so much with the "unbeatable opponent" when used sparingly as a returning boss fight.

What I DO object to is the immediate use of the insta-kill. Blasphemy, at CL 20, automatically kills all nonevil PCs within 40 feet. I don't know why only one of the attackers died (maybe he was behind in initiative and didn't get close enough, or maybe he was using ranged attacks), but that seems slightly unfair. Consider that the anathema has other means to resist this party - Will DC 27 Aversion comes to mind, but also Cause Fear and Suggestion. There is a good chance they would have failed their saves at level 5. Bringing out the big guns for "insects" doesn't seem fair. Maybe bust out Blasphemy if the others didn't work. Or heck, use nonlethal damage to knock them out in melee, when they wake up they have Yuan-ti grafts and strange new sensations/urges, but I'm getting ahead of myself here.

[oxybe]

I would say you sorta screwed up but likely not the way your player is talking about.

First of all "Prayed to as a demi-god" is vague as all heck, all things considered. {scrubbed}

It doesn't take a lot be a considered demi-god. If some kid could cure light wounds via magic IRL, he'd be a prayed to a deity (or a divine servant/demigod of an existing deity) even though I could likely break his small child jaw with my meaty adult-sized fist. All it takes is someone that can do something we can't understand or replicate, yet can impact our lives greatly, to spring up.

So I can see how this player though that "prayed to as a demi-god" is not actually "this thing is a divine entity capable of smiting down mountains". Plus if he's new and not experienced with D&D's rather large body of lore, it's likely he doesn't know what the Anathema is or is capable of when it threatens them with death.

That and monsters laughing at heroes, as others have said is a staple of the genre. The villain is cocksure of his position as head honcho and monologues/bravado's over the PCs who are tired after wading through mooks and minions. I kind of get insulted when i'm rearing for a fight and a monster doesn't start gloating. It's far less fun to punch out someone who sees you as their equal then one that sees you as vermin or filth. You want to punch out Harold from HR not Chuck from the cubicle next to you.

From the opening post all I can gather is "Potentially new/inexperienced player has been at it for 2 levels (3 to 5) and while the party has been challenged, they haven't been killed. The characters all fail the knowledge check (which for the 22HD anathema is a DC32 dungeoneering check, going by the basic 3.5 rules) to gather information about this creature. They engage this creature and get floored immediately"

Noting that in D&D, the PCs being the heroes and protagonists, you're generally expected to run towards danger and engage it as well as take the adventure hooks presented to you, otherwise you might end up with the DM having to do everything on the fly because he prepare for an adventure you're refusing to participate in. On more then a few occasions I've bitten a bullet I didn't particularly care for just so we didn't stand around all night trying to convince my character to do a thing, because while no game is better then a bad game, a game where i'm neutral and hanging out with my friends is much superior to sitting around arguing for 4 hours while the DM punches a hole in the wall with his forehead.

So the player likely didn't understand what this creature is due to unfamiliarity and lack of in-game explanations, had his expectations and assumptions gained from the last two levels pulled from under him (doubly so if the "you might encounter big horrible nasty things way above your CR" was not made blatantly clear at the onset of the campaign) and was put in a situation where there was little to no "reaction time", where they can assess their situation and turn it around, well...

It is understandable why the player is frustrated with this turn of events. I don't play D&D to play fantasy world simulator since it's pretty bad at that. I play D&D because in real life I'm currently unemployed, I live in a leaky basement apartment and am a totally mundane person and not a magical, shapeshifting foxman ninja. It's 4 hours of pure escapism on a weekly basis.

Now, I won't harp on the OP for having doing something "wrong" with the encounter itself because I don't think he did anything particularly egregious on that front, just I think he hadn't made it clear to the player that this is the sort of thing that can occur. It's more an issue of styles and expectations not syncing up rather then an issue of right or wrong, though I will admit that I would have personally been a bit annoyed at the situation if something similar happened and I wasn't warned in advance that this type of situation is to be expected in the campaign.

[dascarletm]

Level 5 party vs CR 18 anathema. I don't have a problem so much with the "unbeatable opponent" when used sparingly as a returning boss fight.

What I DO object to is the immediate use of the insta-kill. Blasphemy, at CL 20, automatically kills all nonevil PCs within 40 feet. I don't know why only one of the attackers died (maybe he was behind in initiative and didn't get close enough, or maybe he was using ranged attacks), but that seems slightly unfair. Consider that the anathema has other means to resist this party - Will DC 27 Aversion comes to mind, but also Cause Fear and Suggestion. There is a good chance they would have failed their saves at level 5. Bringing out the big guns for "insects" doesn't seem fair. Maybe bust out Blasphemy if the others didn't work. Or heck, use nonlethal damage to knock them out in melee, when they wake up they have Yuan-ti grafts and strange new sensations/urges, but I'm getting ahead of myself here.

This is true, we actually sat down and went over it together (It was fairly late at the time of playing.) I said it would have made more sense that he would just roll past them protected by the aversion. We have since changed the outcome to that.

[Honjuden]

I don't think I have ever seen a boss type enemy not do some version of this, it's sort of a staple. :smallconfused:

Also, in my view, at least, there's a difference between a possible/likely TPK and "rocks fall, you die". Blasphemy falls on the later, IMO.

In my experience it has been the opposite. It might just be a roleplaying style difference, but it has always been a DM last hint at our table.

[jjcrpntr]

OP

The only way I'd say you "screwed up" is by letting them decide where to start their game off and allowing an area where they'd be outgunned like that be an option. That said if they chose it no you did nothing wrong.

I had a player, good friend of mine, but he felt like DND/Pathfinder should be like a videogame. You start out at a town and go outside to fight wolf cubs and eventually you encounter stronger stuff as you go.

In my first campaign I ran (which I admit I was a total newb dm and made a lot of mistakes) the party had heard stories of these legendary pirates. Pirates so strong that the worlds 2 most powerful naval forces avoid going after them. So my players decided it would be a good idea to take their ship, crew of 30 or so guys and go after these pirates. I had done everything possible to warn them, including having a VERY powerful NPC that had befriended them reference several times how bad ass these pirates were. They went after them anyway (I admit they really only had 2 options at that point as i said, newb dm). They tracked them down at a group of islands that the crew really fought with them against going. They ended up walking into an ambush.

All the pirates had weapons with the merciful enchantment and knocked the party out and sold them into slavery. They spent a year as slaves. I gave them a various +1 to a stat (IE inquisitor worked in the mines got a +1 str, the bard and druid had to dance for the local nobles and got a +1will for resisting the urge to puke, though fort would have made more sense). There was a lengthy roleplay session where they dealt with their individual jobs while slaves eventually getting a tip for how to escape. When the broke out the barbarian was like "ok wheres our stuff"? I said it's gone. He said well ya but.. i mean it's in a chest here somewhere for us to find right?

I said, nope this isn't a video game, it's not fable. They don't take you prisoner and keep your stuff handy. The pirates knocked you out, looted your bodies, sold you to slavery and sold your stuff.

By the end of the session they had met a guy that gave them a mission to get revenge on the guy that "bought' them and gave them stuff bringing them all back to WBL. Everyone had a great time and seemed to enjoy it, except the barbarian.

My point, I don't think if you give fair warning like "hey there's a fricking demi god down here" and they go in anyway it's on them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone
They're CR18, though.

*spittake*



I'm surprised any of the party survived. --Oh yeah, the one guy who put two and two together and booked it out of there.

Kids, this is what happens when you play with lava and demigods.

[Aegis013]

OP

The only way I'd say you "screwed up" is by letting them decide where to start their game off and allowing an area where they'd be outgunned like that be an option. That said if they chose it no you did nothing wrong.

Pretty sure if they felt outmatched they could've decided to ditch the area and explore more until they found something easier. It seemed like dascartlem was entirely prepared for that possibility.

[Alikat]

Whenever I unknowingly make a decision that will result in a near certain chance of death my DM asks me to make a wisdom check. :smallbiggrin:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Alikat
Whenever I unknowingly make a decision that will result in a near certain chance of death my DM asks me to make a wisdom check.

In my games I have an Intuition check, which is essentially the same thing. Sometimes you need to listen to that little voice tapping at the back of your cerebellum.

:smalltongue:

[Lord of Shadows]

Last session:
They are level 5, and they send out their NPC spymasters to investigate potential sites. They find out from one that the hive has a lot of defences and hundreds of Yuan-Ti. They were also speaking about an Anathema located in their cave which they worshiped as a sort of demi-god. One NPC was captured due to bad (open) rolls.

This right here is where the party (players) screwed up big time. Unless one of them knew what an Anathema was, or knew what it was capable of, (which does not seem to be the case) they should have held up a bit and done some research. I can appreciate the desire to "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," but all too often in D&D it has, as I posted earlier, the "Leeroy Jenkins" effect. Knowledge, just like a strong sword arm, is power. This bunch went into what was going to be the fight of their lives and didn't do any preparation for it? I say let the chips (and bodies) fall where they may. True, spending time with a Sage or at a Library may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it sure helps out when you know ahead of time you are going to be staring down the barrel of a fully loaded Blasphemy...
.

[Doctor Awkward]

After the session the one that ran compains that I should not have put something so strong in the "starter" zone, and that it was "bad design." He went on to say that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character being able to die at any moment, and that I didn't even give them a chance to know how strong it was.

This guy is an idiot.
Expecting you to follow the Sorting Algorithm of Evil at all times, especially in an open sandbox-y type game set in a defined and established world where the players dictate the course of the adventure is ludicrous. The type of game you wanted to run was perfectly clear to me just from your description. If the player went into that expecting table-top Diablo, then that's his fault for not asking more questions.

The only time you should never deviate from the CR system for an encounter is if every single possible avenue of resolution is guaranteed to lead to a fight.

Saying that it's not fun to play under the fear of a character dying at any moment is also stupid. Going around and killing off their characters without any prior warning (no less than at least one, "Are you sure?") is bad form for a DM, but you didn't do that.
Rule #1: There is always someone stronger than you. Always.
Rule #2: Without the chance of failure there is no point in playing the game.

[Lord of Shadows]

As a corrolary to all that has come before, please don't over-react and become a Killer DM. From what you have posted, I don't think that will happen, but it is sometimes the reaction that some DM's have to a player complaining about unfair PC death. The "I'll show them" attitude takes over and next thing you know you have an empty gaming table. Just sayin..
.

[goto124]

What I think happened:

- Player previously played in games where 1000 watt neon signs saying DANGER actually mean 'story is this way, you'd better go there to kill the enemy, no you won't get a TPK, you will succeed'.

- DM puts up 1000 watt neon signs saying DANGER.

- Due to Player's past experience, he goes to meet the BBEG.

- Player's character dies.

- DM and Player argue talk OOCly.

It's a result of the Player expecting a low lethality game, but the DM ran a high lethality one.

The next time Player comes across the 1000 watt neon signs saying DANGER, he will know to heed them, since he's adjusted his expectations to fit a high lethality game.

Just make sure the 1000 watt neon signs are still there.

[Frostthehero]

They move to fight the Yuan-ti. They devise a plan to flood their home with lava, and it works. Outside the entrance their troops fortify up and prepare to slaughter them in the chaos. It works!

However, the Anathema exits after the army. It laughs calling them insects not worthy of its time, and to get out of its way.



So, let me be clear here. They saw something survive a lava flood, and a force of soldiers, and STILL decided to attack it? Morons.

[LooseCannoneer]

What is a "starter" zone? Seriously, does this person expect Walls of Force to railroad him along as well?

[goto124]

...yes. Back to the whole video game logic thing.

[Troacctid]

Now, now, let's be fair--there are a lot of game design principles that apply equally well to both video games and tabletop games. If you throw out everything you know about other types of games when you take out the dice, your DMing will be worse for it.

Incidentally, I just noticed there's a section in the DMG that talks about this exact topic:

A tailored encounter is one in which you take into consideration that the wizard PC has a wand of invisibility and the fighter’s AC is 23. In a tailored encounter, you design things to fit the PCs and the players. In fact, you can specifically design something for each PC to do—the skeletal minotaur is a challenge for the barbarian, another skeleton with a crossbow is on a ledge that only the rogue can reach, only the monk can leap across the chasm to pull the lever to raise the portcullis in front of the treasure, and the cleric’s hide from undead spell allows her to get to the treasure the skeletons are guarding while the battle rages.

A status quo encounter forces the PCs to adapt to the encounter rather than the other way around. Bugbears live on Clover Hill, and if the PCs go there, they encounter bugbears, whether bugbears are an appropriate encounter for them or not. This kind of encounter gives the world a certain verisimilitude, and so it’s good to mix a few in with the other sorts of encounters.

If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this. Some of the encounters you place in your adventure setting will be an appropriate challenge for the PCs, but others might not be. For instance, you could decide where the dragon’s lair is long before the characters are experienced enough to survive a fight against the dragon. If players know that the setting includes status quo encounters that their characters might not be able to handle, they will be more likely to make the right decision if they come upon a tough encounter. That decision, of course, is to run away and fight again another day (when the party is better equipped to meet the challenge).

[jjcrpntr]

What I think happened:

- Player previously played in games where 1000 watt neon signs saying DANGER actually mean 'story is this way, you'd better go there to kill the enemy, no you won't get a TPK, you will succeed'.

- DM puts up 1000 watt neon signs saying DANGER.

- Due to Player's past experience, he goes to meet the BBEG.

- Player's character dies.

- DM and Player argue talk OOCly.

It's a result of the Player expecting a low lethality game, but the DM ran a high lethality one.

The next time Player comes across the 1000 watt neon signs saying DANGER, he will know to heed them, since he's adjusted his expectations to fit a high lethality game.

Just make sure the 1000 watt neon signs are still there.

I agree with this. I had a player that would argue whenever they got close to death that "I should always give them a chance to get away". This came up after they walked into a hallway that branched off 3 different ways and saw a bunch of drow. Once noticed one drow turned and yelled "get the others". The barbarian ran down the hall and drank a potion of enlarge then got pissed when the "other drow" showed up. I said if you do something stupid that's on you.

Then I played Rifts and read some of the books this guy had and everything about his playing style suddenly made a lot more sense. Now I have a player that if he goes more than a months worth of sessions without his character dying he thinks i'm going to easy on them.

[goto124]

Now I have a player that if he goes more than a months worth of sessions without his character dying he thinks i'm going to easy on them.

How many sessions per month? How long is each session? :P

[jjcrpntr]

How many sessions per month? How long is each session? :P

Weekly and we play for 6-8 hours depending on the session.

[The Insanity]

Totally fair and sounds like a great campaign.

[Yahzi]

Before I can answer that, I have to ask you question:

What level is the ruler of the PC's kingdom?

If the ruler of the kingdom/town/local castle is a 5th level aristocrat, then you screwed up. The players had every right to expect that the "leader" of the Yaun-ti would be a pansy push-over just like their own leader. Not only because an example is worth a thousand words, but because logic: why wouldn't the Anathema have steam-rollered their own town? In a world where the human rulers are low-level NPC classes, it makes no sense for the monster rulers of small tribes to be CR 18.

On the other hand, if the ruler of the PC kingdom is a 17th level Fighter with a sack full of artifacts and a handful of 9th level casters as employees, then you did not screw up. Point out the the player that he just committed genocide against a Yaun-ti community, and what made him think they were just sitting there waiting to be slaughtered? What protected them from the last band of adventurers or for that matter just a random wandering monster encounter?

As long as your monster societies mirror the example set by your human societies, the players cannot pretend to have been unwarned. They should assume that things work the same over there as they do over here. On the other hand, if things suddenly work differently in the wild, and there's no particular obvious reason why that monster hasn't simply eaten all the humans around, then your players can legitimately be confused despite whatever verbal warnings you throw out.

If your players would never dream of challenging their own king, then you did everything right and you have a fantastic campaign . Keep up the good work!

[Astralia123]

Don't take his words too seriously; he was just expressing his upset. It is totally fair that one dies of (one's own, which is important) wrong decision (it might not be purely stupity, but whatever).

Yet I doubt if it is appropriate to put such powerful creature at the starting of the campaign. Sometimes it is the hint of a flavour that I personally am not in, but if you do have a sound plan for the campaign, it is okay.


But there is more you could do; warning the players about the risk level they face in advance is never a bad idea (unless the DM actually plans to take the players on surprise).

[BeholdenCaulf]

You told them it was a demi-God and the PCs still tried to attack it at level 5?

Watson, I do believe the mystery of who was at fault for this obviously foreshadowed death has been solved!

[goto124]

Looking at the thread title, the fact that the DM considered the possibility of being wrong is worth giving him a pat on a back.

[dascarletm]

Before I can answer that, I have to ask you question:

What level is the ruler of the PC's kingdom?

If the ruler of the kingdom/town/local castle is a 5th level aristocrat, then you screwed up. The players had every right to expect that the "leader" of the Yaun-ti would be a pansy push-over just like their own leader. Not only because an example is worth a thousand words, but because logic: why wouldn't the Anathema have steam-rollered their own town? In a world where the human rulers are low-level NPC classes, it makes no sense for the monster rulers of small tribes to be CR 18.

On the other hand, if the ruler of the PC kingdom is a 17th level Fighter with a sack full of artifacts and a handful of 9th level casters as employees, then you did not screw up. Point out the the player that he just committed genocide against a Yaun-ti community, and what made him think they were just sitting there waiting to be slaughtered? What protected them from the last band of adventurers or for that matter just a random wandering monster encounter?

As long as your monster societies mirror the example set by your human societies, the players cannot pretend to have been unwarned. They should assume that things work the same over there as they do over here. On the other hand, if things suddenly work differently in the wild, and there's no particular obvious reason why that monster hasn't simply eaten all the humans around, then your players can legitimately be confused despite whatever verbal warnings you throw out.

If your players would never dream of challenging their own king, then you did everything right and you have a fantastic campaign . Keep up the good work!

They have founded their own kingdom.

There are also a lot of assumptions about random monster encounters and adventurer bands, which are not particularly applicable in the setting. I won't go into detail though.

[Threadnaught]

Before I can answer that, I have to ask you question:

What level is the ruler of the PC's kingdom?

If the ruler of the kingdom/town/local castle is a 5th level aristocrat, then you screwed up.

Ruler of the kingdom isn't always the strongest in the kingdom. Somethimes it's an accident of birth, or someone who got the position through trickery, or a politician... Wait, that's the same thing... Someone people like then.

As for the strongest person in the kingdom, again, they don't have to have the level needed to take on an Anathema, but as long as the forces in the kingdom are capable of taking out a threat like an Adult Dragon, that should be good enough.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

Ruler of the kingdom isn't always the strongest in the kingdom. Somethimes it's an accident of birth, or someone who got the position through trickery, or a politician... Wait, that's the same thing... Someone people like then.

As for the strongest person in the kingdom, again, they don't have to have the level needed to take on an Anathema, but as long as the forces in the kingdom are capable of taking out a threat like an Adult Dragon, that should be good enough.

alternatively, the Anathema could also be a recent arrival to the area, or just an inconsistent presence that maintains leadership from afar. they could have just plain not gotten around to conquering the nearby human kingdoms.

and like the OP said, they FOUNDED the place.

[Slayer Lord]

Even with the failed knowledge check, it sounds like there should have been plenty of context clues that this thing was too big for them, chief among these being the huge snake being rising up out of a flood of lava, and the fact that it was worshiped by hundreds of Yuan-ti. If they're new to tabletop gaming, you might have made it a little plainer that they would occasionally run into things where they were better off running, but other than that I see nothing wrong with your play-style.

[goto124]

OP said the player had played Tabletops for 12 years I think.

[dascarletm]

They are all veterans besides the one that ran.

I believe it is as goto124 said, with the neon lights and all. We've played a few more sessions since and it has worked out great. The player in question being one of the main supporters of getting the game together. Since then they have run from a few fights, and have been playing the game quite differently.

[georgie_leech]

They are all veterans besides the one that ran.

I believe it is as goto124 said, with the neon lights and all. We've played a few more sessions since and it has worked out great. The player in question being one of the main supporters of getting the game together. Since then they have run from a few fights, and have been playing the game quite differently.

I wonder about their previous gaming experience if the new guy is the one who had the sense to flee. :smallbiggrin:

[dascarletm]

I wonder about their previous gaming experience if the new guy is the one who had the sense to flee. :smallbiggrin:

Well they have all been playing with me for that time. The one that fled was my wife... perhaps she just knows how sadistic I am.:smallamused:

[Lord of Shadows]

Well they have all been playing with me for that time. The one that fled was my wife... perhaps she just knows how sadistic I am.:smallamused:

Ahhh.... That explains it. She knows you way better than the other players. :smallbiggrin: It would be a good idea for the others to always follow (or at least consider) her lead.
.

[Threadnaught]

like the OP said, they FOUNDED the place.

I read that part, I just couldn't let the other comment go.


They are all veterans besides the one that ran.

Words fail me, this emoticon is the only thing that can describe my feelings on this. :smallsigh:

[(Un)Inspired]

Well they have all been playing with me for that time. The one that fled was my wife... perhaps she just knows how sadistic I am.:smallamused:

Oh ho, this thread took an interesting turn.

My intuition tells me that you didn't screw up but I think the best way to determine if that's true is to define the parameters of what it means to "screw up" independently of the actions that took place in your game. Then we compare your actions to our definition of "screw up" and see if it fits.

[Solaris]

Before I can answer that, I have to ask you question:

What level is the ruler of the PC's kingdom?

If the ruler of the kingdom/town/local castle is a 5th level aristocrat, then you screwed up. The players had every right to expect that the "leader" of the Yaun-ti would be a pansy push-over just like their own leader. Not only because an example is worth a thousand words, but because logic: why wouldn't the Anathema have steam-rollered their own town? In a world where the human rulers are low-level NPC classes, it makes no sense for the monster rulers of small tribes to be CR 18.

Spend a lot of time taking over wasp nests, do you? Just because the monster can doesn't mean the monster will, and for much the same reason you wouldn't go around declaring yourself Grand High Poo-Bah of the Wasp Nest.

[BRC]

I'm a little bit torn here.

On one hand, no you did not screw up. You created the setting and let the PC's run wild in it. You provided them with opportunities to know whether or not they could handle this thing, and even with botched knowledge rolls they had more than enough context clues to tell them that this was beyond their capabilities.

From a narrative perspective, you did fine.


That said, there IS some context you did screw up: Mechanical context. The player complained that you put a powerful enemy in the "Starting Zone", which we all had a good laugh over, but he has a bit of a point.

The problem as I see it isn't that you put a powerful enemy somewhere the players could get at it, it's more that the Anathema was surrounded by things the PCs could handle.

No matter how into the story you get, there IS the idea that you are playing a game. With that idea comes the idea that the things you are "Supposed" To fight will be leveled such that they'll be challenging, but ultimately beatable. This is why the 15th level evil sorcerer will have 10th level guards, while the 8th level evil sorcerer has CR 4 Guards, so the entire Adventure, fighting through the dungeon until the climactic showdown with the villain, is all in the "Challenging but beatable" range.

As much sense as it made for there to be a superpowerful Anathema worshipped by the Yuan-Ti, it sounds like you had a pretty massive power spike, which throws players for a loop.

It sounds like they were doing okay against most of the Yuan-Ti, which sent the message "This is a challenge meant for level 4 characters". If they had ignored these Yuan-Ti and come back at an appropriate level to fight the Anathema, then all the Yuan-Ti worshippers wouldn't have been a challenge at all.

On a narrative level you were sending the message "This is not something you can fight".
On a metagame level you were sending the message "This is a boss fight, meant to be battled after you guys fought your way through its minions."

Then again, that's the problem with sandbox-style settings like the one you built. Its hard to communicate to the players what is or is not level appropriate.

[goto124]

They are all veterans besides the one that ran.

I believe it is as goto124 said, with the neon lights and all. We've played a few more sessions since and it has worked out great. The player in question being one of the main supporters of getting the game together. Since then they have run from a few fights, and have been playing the game quite differently.

Glad things turned out well :)

Looks like the problem's solved!